Drag Story time

[LMD]

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Well, if there are no bathrooms they can safely and legally use in public, that sort of curtails them being in the public space. If the goal was just to protect women, they would include in laws about bathrooms a requirement that there be an alternative available for trans people - a single stall alternative or what not. That's not what is happening. What is happening is that a transman can't legally use the mens' room, and if they appear male they can't use the women's room  risking harrassment or even detention by the police. A trans woman can't legally use the women's room, and can't safely use the men's room. There are no options. Which again, is the goal - to make it so they just stop "being trans" or stay out of public spaces. Problem solved. 

 

And you know why this isn't happening? Because some trans activists (*not all trans people) don't want the compromise. More than a few prominent ones have crudely said they'll p*$$ on the floor rather than be 'othered' in a single stall alternative. Many say that the validation and 'experience' of the female space is the point.

Toilets is relatively easy to solve if both sides are reasonable. 

The alternative is that women *will* self exclude if female only spaces become mixed sex, for many legitimate reasons. And if every female public bathroom is potentially mixed sex then those women are now excluded from participating in public life & we have the urinary leash again.

Trans people deserve safe spaces, so do women. 

Self id sheds another layer of protection from *both* - as then any male, for any reason, can also self declare into female only spaces without raising effective concerns.

This isn't hard, I know you all understand this. Which is where Melissa's honesty post comes in. Just be clear that you understand, but think those excluded women are - at best - less important.

[Sneezyone]

29 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. your posts are confusing.

I hear everyone including you saying they don't want idealogues and politics deciding on medicine. I happen to disagree as I think in less than 10 years we'll have the government administering all medical regulation in this country to the point of socialized, nationalized care and administration. ALL treatments that anyone gets from toes to brains will be decided on by politics and big bills going through congress mapping out what public, universal healthcare will pay for for each individual. if and when that happens, it would be preferable if the idealogues weren't on the "right" as it exists today. alas, i have said to much but the hostility over quoting you and discussing stuff on a public forum with someone who quoted me quoting you is confusing and bizarre.

I feel like I should leave this alone and let your words/intentions speak for themselves.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

40 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I have to wonder how many actual drag queens are out there tearing themselves apart trying to work out how to be fair to everyone, women included. It wouldn't be non-zero, but it would have to be close. 

This whole thread is so gendered. A bunch of women trying to explain, listen, communicate, because we care about varying populations of vulnerable people, trying to parse out medical studies and laws and rights, all the whole parenting children and teens intensively. 

A whole lot of female labour. 

I would LOVE to be linked to a drag queen forum where there's a thread anything approaching the effort of this one. 

You know so many who feel comfy speaking with you? That you are honest with in return? I feel like your posts here are known only to us, not them.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

My cousin is a black, gay man who enjoys drag. My husband’s brother lived for drag and died of AIDS. My daughter and her girlfriend enjoy drag. My Grandfather enjoyed drag. I am so confused by all of this. The only label I have to explain it is bigotry. I appreciate BronzeTurtle for being honest about it.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

1 minute ago, LMD said:

Self id sheds another layer of protection from *both* - as then any male, for any reason, can also self declare into female only spaces without raising effective concerns.

This isn't hard, I know you all understand this. Which is where Melissa's honesty post comes in.

I don't agree this isn't hard at this point, though. Other than a complete redo of public facilities to provide safe, private bathrooms, I don't know a solution now that we are where we are. We have people across a wide range of gender expressions and which facility do we advocate people use? At this point, requiring transmen to use the female facilities poses similar issues as self ID, because no one knows who's who, and I think we all agree that no one agrees with any kind of genital checks for using the restroom. I remain certain that people will be just as concerned about a hairy, bearded transman with a deep voice coming in the women's room as they would a feminine-looking transwoman who doesn't quite pass as biological female. Because there's nothing that's going to tell them that's a transman and not someone there for nefarious reasons. I don't think solutions are easy.

(I refer to restrooms throughout this, but I think most people feel more uncomfortable about this with locker rooms than they do bathrooms. Privacy is more easily afforded in bathroom than a locker room.)

[BronzeTurtle]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I feel like I should leave this alone and let your words/intentions speak for themselves.

ah yes, the old, leave someone alone by quoting them and then posting a passive aggressive remark.

anyway, still no idea what you're on about but...ok? my intentions are to wait out my car being fixed at the end of a long day with all my work done and chat about something interesting. you got me.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, BronzeTurtle said:

ah yes, the old, leave someone alone by quoting them and then posting a passive aggressive remark.

anyway, still no idea what you're on about but...ok? my intentions are to wait out my car being fixed at the end of a long day with all my work done and chat about something interesting. you got me.

You’re confused. That much is clear. It’s ok. Hope your car is well.

[BronzeTurtle]

(deleted quoted post)

what does any of this have to do with me? I have no problem with people who enjoy drag. Go for it. have a blast. but please stop harassing me in this thread. I quoted you once today to disagree with a point of about universal health care and you've been weirdly hostile since. please stop.

Edited June 21, 2023 by BronzeTurtle

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, BronzeTurtle said:

what does any of this have to do with me? I have no problem with people who enjoy drag. Go for it. have a blast. but please stop harassing me in this thread. I quoted you once today to disagree with a point of about universal health care and you've been weirdly hostile since. please stop.

Are you OK?? We never had a disagreement about universal healthcare.

[BronzeTurtle]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Are you OK?? We never had a disagreement about universal healthcare.

You said "The bottom line for me is that I don’t want ideological asses of any stripe legislating healthcare decisions for me/my family."

I disagreed (mostly tongue-in-cheek since I assumed you also want universal healthcare?) and said I want the government deciding all of it, legislating all of it, ideological asses or not, as long as they agreed with me (as in agreed with government legislating all healthcare, for everyone). I am talking here about public healthcare, universal healthcare. where the ideological asses in congress will be fighting over the care you and I receive, hopefully not under a president that hates people.

This was my post to you:

"I hear everyone including you saying they don't want idealogues and politics deciding on medicine. I happen to disagree as I think in less than 10 years we'll have the government administering all medical regulation in this country to the point of socialized, nationalized care and administration. ALL treatments that anyone gets from toes to brains will be decided on by politics and big bills going through congress mapping out what public, universal healthcare will pay for for each individual. if and when that happens, it would be preferable if the idealogues weren't on the "right" as it exists today."

You have been on some kind of weird vendetta ever since and started talking about drag again and calling me a bigot.

Edited June 21, 2023 by BronzeTurtle

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, BronzeTurtle said:

You said "The bottom line for me is that I don’t want ideological asses of any stripe legislating healthcare decisions for me/my family."

I disagreed and said I want the government deciding all of it, legislating all of it, ideological asses or not, as long as they agreed with me (as in agreed with government legislating all healthcare, for everyone). I am talking here about public healthcare, universal healthcare. where the ideological asses in congress will be fighting over the care you and I receive, hopefully not under a president that hates people.

This was my post to you:

"I hear everyone including you saying they don't want idealogues and politics deciding on medicine. I happen to disagree as I think in less than 10 years we'll have the government administering all medical regulation in this country to the point of socialized, nationalized care and administration. ALL treatments that anyone gets from toes to brains will be decided on by politics and big bills going through congress mapping out what public, universal healthcare will pay for for each individual. if and when that happens, it would be preferable if the idealogues weren't on the "right" as it exists today."

You have been on some kind of weird vendetta ever since and started talking about drag again and calling me a bigot.

I’m sorry. I hope you get the care you need. 🙏🏽

[LMD]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don't agree this isn't hard at this point, though. Other than a complete redo of public facilities to provide safe, private bathrooms, I don't know a solution now that we are where we are. We have people across a wide range of gender expressions and which facility do we advocate people use? At this point, requiring transmen to use the female facilities poses similar issues as self ID, because no one knows who's who, and I think we all agree that no one agrees with any kind of genital checks for using the restroom. I remain certain that people will be just as concerned about a hairy, bearded transman with a deep voice coming in the women's room as they would a feminine-looking transwoman who doesn't quite pass as biological female. Because there's nothing that's going to tell them that's a transman and not someone there for nefarious reasons. I don't think solutions are easy.

(I refer to restrooms throughout this, but I think most people feel more uncomfortable about this with locker rooms than they do bathrooms. Privacy is more easily afforded in bathroom than a locker room.)

We never relied on genital checks and it's really hyperbolic to go to that. Humans can tell someone's sex with remarkable accuracy, but I'm not getting into passing/not passing. This is about respect and consideration, not about how well someone stealths or how we police boundaries. Social boundaries are a useful layer of protection - not 100%, but useful.

It is easy if people respect that women need single sex spaces. Have a womens, have a urinals, have a couple of single occupancy/unisex, have disabled. Really not hard to renovate. But yeah, if some males (not trans people necessarily) are intent on violating women's boundaries - and we know some are - then yes they tend to throw around absurdities like genital poilice to highlight how they believe they are entitled.

My friend, the one physically assaulted by trans activists in March, worked at a local council and tried very hard to clarify the law to provide protection & bathroom provisions for both trans people and women in her area. Do you know what happened? No one would help her. No one would talk to her. The human rights commission said 'she would never get a meeting.' The attorney General has ignored her to this day.  One side is not at all willing to be reasonable here. 

[Sneezyone]

I have three unisex bathrooms in my home. DH taught DS to sit while urinating (weird but they like it) so we don’t even have toilet seat issues. I can assure you they’re all man/boy. This needn’t be a thing.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, LMD said:

We never relied on genital checks and it's really hyperbolic to go to that. Humans can tell someone's sex with remarkable accuracy, but I'm not getting into passing/not passing.

I agree the genital check stuff is hyperbolic, but I’m sincere when I say I don’t see easy solutions right now. I want easy solutions, believe me. I’d say humans used to be able to tell someone’s sex with remarkable accuracy, but with modern medicine there are a lot of trans guys who absolutely look male. So I’m not clear if you’re saying they should use the women’s facilities regardless or they should use which ever ones are not going to raise eyebrows. I think you think I’m being argumentative, but I’m not; this is an actual issue in our life and I don’t find it easy.

[freesia]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

I have three unisex bathrooms in my home. DH taught DS to sit while urinating so we don’t even have toilet seat issues. I can assure you they’re all man/boy. This needn’t be a thing.

You are not listening to the voices of the women for whom it is an issue. You are dismissing them out of hand because they don’t match your opinion. I think that is exactly the point others have been trying to make to you. There is a very real part of the issue that is about silencing women’s voices to make room for a very small number of biological males to have their preference to use women’s spaces. Far more women will be affected by this but apparently their voices don’t matter to you at all. You are mocking the women here who have pointed that out to you by your above post. Silencing them. 

[LMD]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I have three unisex bathrooms in my home. DH taught DS to sit while urinating so we don’t even have toilet seat issues. I can assure you they’re all man/boy. This needn’t be a thing.

And do you allow any random 'all man' off the street to use your home unisex bathroom? Or is it generally just those you trust? 

Come on, this is an example of the gaslighting. Women's concerns around male sexual violence aren't a joke, your witty disregard doesn't change the material reality. Women will self exclude if female spaces become mixed sex. Just be honest and say you think that's a reasonable price.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, LMD said:

And do you allow any random 'all man' off the street to use your home unisex bathroom? Or is it generally just those you trust? 

Come on, this is an example of the gaslighting. Women's concerns around male sexual violence aren't a joke, your witty disregard doesn't change the material reality. Women will self exclude if female spaces become mixed sex. Just be honest and say you think that's a reasonable price.

Multiple tradespeople have used the facilities w/o issue and me/my kids remain unmolested. Shocking, I know, that men of lesser means can control themselves.

In all honesty, I think these are the same reasons men used, in reverse, to keep women off ships. They were wrong then and you’re wrong now.

Folks are free to speak all they want and I’m free to disagree. Ain’t I a woman? 🤷🏽‍♀️

Where there are crimes, prosecute. Live in hysterical fear? No.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Sneezyone

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Multiple tradespeople have used the facilities w/o issue and me/my kids remain unmolested. Shocking, I know, that men of lesser means can control themselves.

What the heck? She said nothing whatsoever about men of lesser means. 

[LMD]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I agree the genital check stuff is hyperbolic, but I’m sincere when I say I don’t see easy solutions right now. I want easy solutions, believe me. I’d say humans used to be able to tell someone’s sex with remarkable accuracy, but with modern medicine there are a lot of trans guys who absolutely look male. So I’m not clear if you’re saying they should use the women’s facilities regardless or they should use which ever ones are not going to raise eyebrows. I think you think I’m being argumentative, but I’m not; this is an actual issue in our life and I don’t find it easy.

Trans guys can use the single stall unisex facilities. If you're asking which they should use when the options are only male/female, well, the principle is respect for boundaries. If they believe that their appearance will cause a boundary violation then surely they don't want to do that. I would think that having grown up as female they'd understand/respect that.

 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

What the heck? She said nothing whatsoever about men of lesser means. 

The only rando guys rolling through my house on the regular are tradespeople of lesser means. YMMV.

[LMD]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Multiple tradespeople have used the facilities w/o issue and me/my kids remain unmolested. Shocking, I know, that men of lesser means can control themselves.

In all honesty, I think these are the same reasons men used, in reverse, to keep women off ships. They were wrong then and you’re wrong now.

Folks are free to speak all they want and I’m free to disagree. Ain’t I a woman? 🤷🏽‍♀️

Where there are crimes, prosecute. Live in hysterical fear? No.

Right, so is your door always unlocked and a public toilet sign on your front door?

Live in hysterical fear? Nice bit of misogynist language there.

Like I said, just be honest and say you don't believe that women have any legitimate reason for sex segregated spaces.

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The only rando guys rolling through my house on the regular are tradespeople of lesser means. YMMV.

Bold of you to assume that tradespeople are always of lesser means. 

She said: "And do you allow any random 'all man' off the street to use your home unisex bathroom? Or is it generally just those you trust?"

Off the street being key words. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, LMD said:

Right, so is your door always unlocked and a public toilet sign on your front door?

Live in hysterical fear? Nice bit of misogynist language there.

Like I said, just be honest and say you don't believe that women have any legitimate reason for sex segregated spaces.

My doors are usually unlocked, yes, I work from home and take my dog out frequently. I have lots of reasons why I think sport, in particular, should be segregated and why I think ppl should choose facilities that best match their gender expression. My ENTIRE point has been about legislation based in bigotry.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

Bold of you to assume that tradespeople are always of lesser means. 

She said: "And do you allow any random 'all man' off the street to use your home unisex bathroom? Or is it generally just those you trust?"

Off the street being key words. 

You think I know these guys who show up at my house to address issues? I don’t. They’re randos. And, yeah, they’re not owners. They’re of lesser means. That’s not a slur it’s a fact. It doesn’t bother me OR them when we chat about my garden. You know how many have thanked me for giving them respite b/c so many others won’t? TONS.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

Everyone can see how disingenuous you are being sneezy. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, LMD said:

Everyone can see how disingenuous you are being sneezy. 

Love that for you. I’m not the one barring service workers from using my toilets, lol.

[LMD]

Like I said, your disingenuousness is showing. Trying to put ridiculous words in my mouth is super helpful 👍

[Sneezyone]

Meh, I’m following y’all’s lead. Rabbit see, rabbit do. The whole thing is silly. Don’t want to see drag, don’t go. 

[LMD]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You think I know these guys who show up at my house to address issues? I don’t. They’re randos. And, yeah, they’re not owners. They’re of lesser means. That’s not a slur it’s a fact. It doesn’t bother me OR them when we chat about my garden. You know how many have thanked me for giving them respite b/c so many others won’t? TONS.

You. Invited. Them. In. 

Also, your privilege here is quite stark. Most 'service workers' who do work on my home are probably better off than we are, or at least on par socio-economically 🤷‍♀️

 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, LMD said:

You. Invited. Them. In. 

Also, your privilege here is quite stark. Most 'service workers' who do work on my home are probably better off than we are, or at least on par socio-economically 🤷‍♀️

 

They asked. I allowed. It is a privilege, yes, AND THEY'RE NOT PREDATORS by virtue of being male service workers but that’s the assumption that undermines a lot of this.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

They asked. I allowed. It is a privilege, yes, AND THEY'RE NOT PREDATORS by virtue of being male but that’s the assumption that undermines a lot of this.

It's not an assumption, it's a statistical reality. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, LMD said:

It's not an assumption, it's a statistical reality. 

Ooooohhhhkay.

[freesia]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

They asked. I allowed. It is a privilege, yes, AND THEY'RE NOT PREDATORS by virtue of being male but that’s the assumption that undermines a lot of this.

But we are not saying all men are predators. We are saying that many women have been hurt by men and it is not too much to ask that they be able to have a place to pee without fear. Their voices and preferences matter.  The fact you seem to be fine with unisex bathrooms everywhere matters too. Great. You get to go everywhere. 

[LMD]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Ooooohhhhkay.

Gaslighting.

Do you understand that males make up 99+% of sexual offenders and 90+% of violent offenders? Why is the UN fighting for female only toilets in India? Why do you think we have single sex female only spaces at all? For funsies? Cos we hate men? I have 4 sons, you don't need to 'not all men' at me ffs.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, freesia said:

But we are not saying all men are predators. We are saying that many women have been hurt by men and it is not too much to ask that they be able to have a place to pee without fear. Their voices and preferences matter.  The fact you seem to be fine with unisex bathrooms everywhere matters too. Great. You get to go everywhere. 

Forgive me but it feels very much like men are the issue/enemy here. Male-presenting people invading female spaces is the issue that sends terror into the hearts of legislators and good, Christian women/radical feminists. It seems to be recognized (correct me if I’m wrong) that the reverse puts trans women and women with more trad. Masc presentations at risk. 
 

So, help me out here. Do those masc women/girls matter? Do I matter or nah, since o disagree? Is the fear more-less driven by fact or assumption?  Can risks me mitigated or no? This all feels VERY reactionary.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

Gaslighting.

Do you understand that males make up 99+% of sexual offenders and 90+% of violent offenders? Why is the UN fighting for female only toilets in India? Why do you think we have single sex female only spaces at all? For funsies? Cos we hate men? I have 4 sons, you don't need to 'not all men' at me ffs.

India is NOT the U.S. and has a long history if female subjugation. I’m not trying to follow their lead.

[maize]

27 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The only rando guys rolling through my house on the regular are tradespeople of lesser means. YMMV.

Honestly this is...weird. Plenty of blue collar families on this board; thinking of tradespeople as "of lesser means" is weirdly presumptive. Presumptive that the persons you are discussing with think of them that way, and/or presumptive that we all know that you are above tradespeople...or something.

[LMD]

The US doesn't have a long history of female subjugation?

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, freesia said:

But we are not saying all men are predators. We are saying that many women have been hurt by men and it is not too much to ask that they be able to have a place to pee without fear. Their voices and preferences matter.  The fact you seem to be fine with unisex bathrooms everywhere matters too. Great. You get to go everywhere. 

I’ve been hurt by guns and no one is working near as hard to remove those from public spaces despite them outnumbering men. Those preferences don’t matter. The logic doesn’t hold up.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

Honestly this is...weird. Plenty of blue collar families on this board; thinking of tradespeople as "of lesser means" is weirdly presumptive. Presumptive that the persons you are discussing with think of them that way, and/or presumptive that we all know that you are above tradespeople...or something.

I’m sure the owner dude who comes over is quite comfy. His workers? Nope.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

The US doesn't have a long history of female subjugation?

Compared to India? Puh-lease. There’s layers to this as you know. Now who’s being disingenuous?

[LMD]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Forgive me but it feels very much like men are the issue/enemy here. Male-presenting people invading female spaces is the issue that sends terror into the hearts of legislators and good, Christian women/radical feminists. It seems to be recognized (correct me if I’m wrong) that the reverse puts trans women and women with more trad. Masc presentations at risk. 
 

So, help me out here. Do those masc women/girls matter? Do I matter or nah, since o disagree? Is the fear more-less driven by fact or assumption?  Can risks me mitigated or no? This all feels VERY reactionary.

Great question, can risks be mitigated? Please do elaborate. What risks? How can we identify potential risks? What mitigation strategies?

[LMD]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Compared to India? Puh-lease. There’s layers to this as you know. Now who’s being disingenuous?

Still you.

[freesia]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Forgive me but it feels very much like men are the issue/enemy here. Male-presenting people invading female spaces is the issue that sends terror into the hearts of legislators and good, Christian women/radical feminists. It seems to be recognized (correct me if I’m wrong) that the reverse puts trans women and women with more trad. Masc presentations at risk. 
 

So, help me out here. Do those masc women/girls matter? Do I matter or nah, since o disagree? Is the fear more-less driven by fact or assumption?  Can risks me mitigated or no? This all feels VERY reactionary.

You are the one who actually seems reactionary here. I said you matter. Of course you matter. I’m not trying to silence you. I do think you are being very dismissive of a large number of women—far more than the masc/women girls or even transwomen that you reference. You are absolutely prioritizing them over women. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, LMD said:

Great question, can risks be mitigated? Please do elaborate. What risks? How can we identify potential risks? What mitigation strategies?

I’m not the one prioritizing risks this way, you tell me.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Sneezyone

[freesia]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I’ve been hurt by guns and no one is working near as hard to remove those from public spaces despite them outnumbering men. Those preferences don’t matter. The logic doesn’t hold up.

They are where I live. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, freesia said:

You are the one who actually seems reactionary here. I said you matter. Of course you matter. I’m not trying to silence you. I do think you are being very dismissive of a large number of women—far more than the masc/women girls or even transwomen that you reference. You are absolutely prioritizing them over women. 

THEY/WE are women too. They’re not prioritized  OVER women; they’re being held as equal to you. Hard as that may be to absorb.

[LMD]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

I’m not the one prioritizing risks, you tell me.

Sure. Look at statistics. Provide sex segregated spaces where females are more vulnerable.

At last some unwitting honesty, you don't prioritise risk. What do you prioritise, over putting women at physical risk?

[Sneezyone]

Just now, LMD said:

Sure. Look at statistics. Provide sex segregated spaces where females are more vulnerable.

At last some unwitting honesty, you don't prioritise risk. What do you prioritise, over putting women at physical risk?

Home training.

[LMD]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

THEY/WE are women too. They’re not prioritized  OVER women; they’re being held as equal to you. Hard as that may be to absorb.

Offender rate correlates with sex not gender identity. Actually, transwomen have a worse rate than other males in some instances - but I don't think you want to go there...