Theresa Rickman Admits To Locker Room Media Stunt

Everyone who is surprised by this revelation take one step forward

Funny...

I see no movement whatsoever.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:24:35 AM CST

Oh for f*&$#'s sake

Really folks what it gets back to is de-emphasising the importance ( or "dirtiness") of toilets and the need for gender specific areas.  As an example we find it amusing and a little repressed that you call a toilet a "bathroom".  If we were in a restaurant and asked the waitstaff were the "bathroom" was they'd give us a weird look.  They are TOILETS folks.  Where people go to urinate and defaecate( and while we're at it can you stop using the childish term "using the potty" to indicate that). Lets demystify it.

We have communal toilets in many of our workplaces gyms college dorms etc and it hasn't corrupted us as of yet.  Quite frankly when I'm getting down to the business I couldn't give  damn who is in the cubicle next to me.  These repressed Christshun madams need to get over themeselves.

ALLY (ALLIE) (transitive) To connect or form a relation between by similitude, resemblance, friendship, or love.

---

by: Vicster @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:32:31 AM CST

Venusian Loo

> If we were in a restaurant and asked the waitstaff were the "bathroom" was they'd give us a weird look.

This must be a regional thing. Are you perhaps from Mars?

---

by: Gorgon Queen @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No but close,

I'm from Australia ;-)

ALLY (ALLIE) (transitive) To connect or form a relation between by similitude, resemblance, friendship, or love.

---

by: Vicster @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:24:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm Australian too

And bathroom gets used here even in regional new south wales. Toilet might be more common. Loo even moreso but still bathroom is one I've heard lots of people use.  

---

by: battybattybats @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:50:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I was in a ladies room once

and Theresa Rickman walked in.  Now I don't know why she came in because I'm pretty sure she's no lady but I do recall thinking that I should not have to live in fear of Theresa Rickman invading my personal space when I'm doing something, you know, personal.  I think we need a law to make it clear that Theresa Rickman should not be allowed in any bathroom or locker room set aside for the "genteel" sex.

---

by: ol cranky @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:46:49 AM CST

Not to be anal retentive, but words matter

To bear witness is to testify.  To bare witness is indecent exposure...

---

by: surakmn @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:20:34 AM CST

Will correct. Thx!

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 13:33:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just goes to show...

...If they outlaw discrimination against T people, then next thing you know you will have fundie men entering women's showers to ogle.

Be afraid.  

---

by: SharonB @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 15:05:37 PM CST

You guys are gonna hate me.

First of all, I heard "meant to get some media attention" too, as evidenced by my comment in Autumn's thread yesterday. I played that portion, the same portion Autumn quotes above, at least a dozen times, if not more, to ensure what I was hearing was correct.

I then took Rickman to task on it last night on the Vigilance blog. Today I saw that she was insisting that what she said was "That did get some media attention."

The ONLY reason I went back to check the audio was to see if it had been doctored, It hadn't been, but this time I was able to hear her say "that did," as opposed to "meant to."

It still easily sounds like "meant to" for the reasons I've outlined below, so I am in no way arguing that Autumn or Jim at TTF, or anyone else should have picked up on it. But I thought it prudent to be candid about what I discovered.

The point in question is at about the 12:30 mark in the audio if you want to skip right to it.

Here's what I posted this on the vigilance blog earlier today:

I went back and listened to it too, for the umpteenth time, this time even more closely, and I think Theresa's right. It may still not be audible for some, but I think now that she did say "that did get some media attention."

Essentially what that um, that was, meant to get some media attention.
Essentially what that um, that was, that did get some media attention.

1) "That did," was a non sequitur. It didn't logically follow from the words before hand, but we all do that in conversation, so it's understandable.

2) Obviously it got media attention, so why bother clarify that as the "essense" of it? Again, no big deal, just another reason, meaning-wise, to be inclined to accept hearing the words "meant to," as opposed "that did."

3) Outside of the interview, the incident was meant to get media attention. So I think it's understandable that she might have said as much and just forgot to preface it with "I believe."

4) Again, not intentional, but at the point in question, she waxed quiet, so I also think her vocal inflection when delivering those words was more conducive for the sound and meaning of the words "meant to."

But despite all that, I believe I was wrong and that Theresa and anon were right.

So I'm sorry Theresa and I apologize.

Believe me, she's one of the last people I want to go to bat for. And to be honest, I did this more, if not only out of respect for myself, as opposed to out of respect for her.

Unlike our opposition, I do value my integrity.

And P.S. If my post yesterday had anything to do with Autumn or JimK at TTF, or anyone else having picked up on it, I apologize to you guys too.  

---

by: Emproph @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 15:57:40 PM CST

People with penises should stay out of the women's room

"Really folks what it gets back to is de-emphasising the importance ( or "dirtiness") of toilets and the need for gender specific areas. "

Who are you to need for other people's needs (in a passive authoritative voice.)

I need sex specific areas. I don't want people with penises meaning men in the women's room.

Go into space intended for people with penises.

---

by: Persiphone @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 16:00:59 PM CST

I love you...

And that space for penises is right here, fellas! Line up!

Curses! My million dollar ideas foiled again: "God Bless Your Brand!" http://www.christvertising.com/

---

by: TJ McFisty @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 16:05:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

when they set up toilets...

... according to "penis" and "no penis", I *might* give you and your crusade some ernest consideration.

Until then, there are women with penises and men without, and they will still use the men's rooms and women's rooms according to their being men or women.

So let me make this simple.

Do you state that a transsexual who still has a penis -- a non-op -- is not a woman, and therefore not entitled to use the women's restroom?

I've watched you post this time and time again, and sorry, but it really deeply offends me.

Becuase, technically, I suppose one could say I still have a penis, its just inverted and repurposed. And that means you are, in a single fell swoop, invalidating the entirety of the transsexual experience.

 Which would really piss me off.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 00:06:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting, so...

If we broaden the concept of who has penises to include your definition, I would estimate that 95 per cent of the responses in these threads expounding on who has the right to enter women-only spaces - showers, locker room, toilets - are from people with penises.  Why do you think that is?

---

by: Pollyanna @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 00:40:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Privilege

;)

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:49:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There is no singular experience if you just look.

My understanding is that what you have is epithelial tissue.

From what I have read there is no singular life history reported. That's a clear myth. on my right hand, I have a little finger. It has utility but no purpose other than what I choose for it.

You have the Susan Stantons and Dana Beyers who lived as privileged men and who went through reassignment late in life. They have no history as women and functioned as men in society publicly proclaiming that they are men. They will state pretty clearly there were things that were important to them.

On the other hand, when I look at the Oprah show, I see children who clearly articulate a solid identity at age two to three. That's their identity and their way of knowing and understanding themselves. These children will have a radically different experience and do a difference than the men do. They will also have a radically different life history. It very clear there is no unitary experience and pretending there is erases lives.

---

by: Persiphone @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You said simple, not psychotic....

"So let me make this simple."

"there are women with penises and men without, and they will still use the men's rooms and women's rooms according to their being men or women."

You said simple, not psychotic....

Your condescension however did not go unnoticed. There are no women with penises. Women are penis-free. Didn't your mommy teach you boyz anything?

---

by: Persiphone @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 15:43:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Prove it.

prove there are no women with penises, please.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OK

Women are females.

People with penises are males. That's pretty simple isn't it?

---

by: Persiphone @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:08:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

wrong, too.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 22:41:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh really?

I know the schick about interesexual and XX males.

I am speaking of XY individuals with no discernable medical variations and have penises. They are males.

---

by: Persiphone @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 23:05:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, so now you change your story.

Now its xy with no discernble medical variations.

 

In other words you just are a bigot against anyone who is xy with a penis. 

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:45:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

so some are ok...

Penises, that is.  As long as they are on someone who is not xy, right?

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:46:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting point.

The woman of my aquaintance of operative hisory sent out a "Thank You" note a few months ago, to acknowledge the support and friendship of the people that she felt not only sustained but educated her
She said that she became female at surgery, but spent the next five years growing into a woman.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:18:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How do you know?

How do you know if a person has a penis or not?  Do you look through the cracks in the stalls?  Do you pull back the curtains in the places with private shower stalls?  Are you playing Gender Police?  Please don't come back saying "You can tell," or "You just know."  YOU don't know.  I have seen non-trans straight women who look more like men then crossdressers.  Do you propose installing x-ray machines that go off if a penis is detected?  What you want is irrelevant.  Too bad.

---

by: MonicaH @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:33:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not about "knowing...." It's about respecting female space

I don't really think this is a question as much as it is a diversion and it also exhibits no care about women.

This issue is about your intrusions into space reserved to females.

---

by: Persiphone @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

At the core

"This issue is about your intrusions into space reserved to females."

Respect this: Replace the word "females" with the word "whites" and then be honest with yourself about the lack of qualitative difference between the 'before' and 'after' sentences.

Kat


>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 21:53:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

reversal

No.

That analogy is in total denial. African-Americans were enslaved and oppressed by males.

Women have been oppressed and and enslaved by males. This means people by with penises. Penises are seen as 'signs' of danger and it's not imaginary. A woman is raped every four minutes by someone with a penis. We live in a rape culture where women never feel safe and that's because of people with penises. We are subjected to violence frompeople with penises. Where the differences between caucasians and blacks amount to few milligrams of mellatonin, the social significances of penises in this society and the fact that are regularly used against women is not going to be forgotten.

To intimate that women are your oppressors is sheer patriarchal reversal. Your aren't females. Respect female spaces. Women aren't going to feel safe because we aren't safe.

This is not arbirary and this is not analogous to racism.

---

by: Persiphone @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:03:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Persiphone

I am increasingly thinking you may be a troll but ok, I'll bite for now.

Who are you to need for other people's needs (in a passive authoritative voice.)

May I remind you of your quote above, when you were patronising me, as I point out another quote from you

Women aren't going to feel safe because we aren't safe.

You are speaking for my needs and feelings.  I do not fear penises.  What I fear is people with ignorant, bigoted attitudes who feel they have some sort of special priveledge over others.

ALLY (ALLIE) (transitive) To connect or form a relation between by similitude, resemblance, friendship, or love.

---

by: Vicster @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:33:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Troll?

I am increasingly thinking you may be a troll

I am inclined to agree with you. She has only been here at the Blend for less than three weeks and in that time she has posted 33 comments bashing trans people, 20 of them in her first 72 hours here and comprising 75% of her posting history.

I really don't know why she is hanging around here. She has identified as a straight woman and has not even identified as a lesbian ally, let alone an LGBT one. While she has made a few cogent contributions to a couple of Clinton threads, that is only a minority of her posts here.

So I guess she 3/4 of a troll.

---

by: Stephanie @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Call it a Fuck Stick

  I have read this crap.  BOYZ, OMG,  A woman can't be born with a penis.  Seems to me BAM BAM Barber got a hold of his.  I am sorry, I never went into a womans restroom for no other reason but I had to pee or take a dump, a shit, a crap, or any other reference that can be made.  Care to add any male names for pooping?  

 Educate me please, what other terms do women call sitting on the throan,  A royal Flush?  

 I am posting to the troll,  As I am a woman that was born with a penis, the dignity to come out of a fucked up closet, to be honest with myself and my family, and stand up to the fucktards that are proud they have have a package.  

  We who are women that have that birth defect don't go into the ladies room to OOGLE,  We go there to powder our noses!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:41:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You are a woman?

  Tell me this please?  Do you fear men or get busy with them.  Do you stand behind your man as the saying goes?

 

Behind every great man is a woman?

 I can go on with the old sayings, but I don't think I need too.

 Yeah, I have heard the most outragous crap that, ME as a transexual MtF can be.  A rapist, beating up people, child molester.  You name it, we have been called it.  Throw your chocalate against the wall and see what sticks?  OOPS, you can't think that far.  

 OH, I got it you are a woman that has been raped by a transexual!  Makes sense now, you poor victim.  Better to lock themall up to protect the majority from the "WHAT DOESN'T HAPPEN"

 I guess I am wating my time, Because it is just a dick that tells you who you are not, it is all between the legs!

 Remember, the vibrator is not supposed to chip teeth!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:03:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Smells like CWFA spirit

"That analogy is in total denial. African-Americans were enslaved and oppressed by males."

This really sounds like one of the stock comebacks that one can expect from those great male champions (hack, cough) of racial equality over at the (so-called) Concerned (rarely) Women (ROFL) for America.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:45:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

For your enlightenment

I present to you this link: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allin...

Sorry to completely destroy your penises are rape, women are the victims never the perpetrator theory.

---

by: battybattybats @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:11:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

horseshit.

Its wholly analogous.

You are, however, filled with a prejudice against what you percieve to be a symbol, and therefore extend it to all that that symbol represents for you.

At least you answered the question: according to you no transwoman is a woman.  

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:55:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do trans always make male-based arguments?

First of all, I am a lesbian.

Second of all please don't put words in my mouth.

"At least you answered the question: according to you no transwoman is a woman."

Using women as a standard, how many women do you know that call themselves "transwomen". It's made up. It's a concept to confuse tranvestites with women. Theya aren't women. That's prety simple.

I'm always amazed at how quickly people will break out woman-hating data to demonstrate just how bad women are supposed to be. These are basically male tactics and they forget something. In any of these data, what's missing is the fact that men redominate in the offenses by huge ratios which is always unstated as women are devalued.

Why does trans always use male arguments to put women down? Certainly that's a reflection of where you really stand in relation to women.

---

by: Persiphone @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:17:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Woman Hating Data?

Explain to me how a show, hosted by a woman, with contributers who are all women who do not state that women are worse than men but simply recognise that some women do commit these crimes and the specific challenges that come from trying to rehabilitate them (it is after all the psychology program on the national broadcaster) that are different from treating male sexual offenders is woman-hating data?

I guess you didn't listen to it or read the transcript then.

They specificly state that women sex offenders are in the minority.

There did not apper to be any women hating there. Just acknowledging a real problem.

Nor was I being women-hating or 'male' in bringing it up. The existence of women who do this refutes the idea that women-only-space is safe space. That women are less often offenders would make it safeer space but not safe space.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:01:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do you insist on being a bigot?

I didn't put words into your mouth. I took the sum of your posts and summarized them.

Using women as that standard, a hell of a lot. In fact, excepting a few HBS'ers, pretty much every MtF that I know. 

Including myself.

ANd I know, personally, hmmm, about 45 natal females that say the same thing.

Nor is it meant to confuse transvestites with woemn -- that's a coneciet you've created out of whole cloth.

But, note: you did say it, point blank, yourself.  So deal.

What woman hating data did I break out? Or did you forget, I am a woman?

Nor did I demonstrate how bad women are -- I demonstrated how bad *you* are, as an individual.

That's not a sexed tactic, either, its a gender tactic that only holds true in westernized and christianized societies.

Now, if you want to talk about male stuff, you'll have to do it with a male, hon. Because I'm not, and by that very nature, anything I do is a "female tactic".

You just have a prejudice in you that blinds you. 

 

 

 

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:41:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please do not use trans so broadly

Persiphone;
  Second wave feminist that I am, I have a close fiend who is a member of our group who is a woman of operative history. She is simply a woman, though with a unique history.

  I cannot imagine her exercising male priviledge(it wouldn't work anyway, she lost that on an operating table) or any showing any of the negative qualities that your statement paints all of the people who have gone through transition with.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:04:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Privilege?

"I cannot imagine her exercising male priviledge(it wouldn't work anyway, she lost that on an operating table)"

I'm not doubting your assessment of your friend, but I don't think its accurate to imply that male privilege is solely genitally based (asuming that is what you are referring too of course). I'm pretty sure that a natal man who loses his genitals through cancer or accident would not lose any of their male privilege except from some people who know of this loss (general male society being very hierachical even amongst other males etc).

I think the privilege comes with looking 'like a man', being accepted as 'being a man' and acting 'like a man'. Any non-conformity would dilute this, outright feminine behaviour, eccentricity, disregarding the pecking order of rank and countless other things will lessen that privilege in the eyes of other men. Knowing someone had lost their genitals or use of such would lessen their privilege with many but the fact would need to be known so that privilege is in the idea of the genitals rather than in the genitals themselves.

The whole cultural male notion of strict rules of masculinity and hierachical systems of social rank are both a sexist oppression of men by men (and some women who buy into and reinforce such behaviours, I have seen this unfortunatly first hand with mothers trying to get their sons to bemore 'manly') and also a source of much of the sexist behaviours by men towards women. Much of it done to gain approval from and therfore standing with other men.

A sick and perverted self-perpetuating system that needs to be undermined and dismantled.
That I think is the real source of male privilege.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:21:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Anyone who claims to be a male..

while simultaneously demanding to be treated as a woman is NOT a woman.


I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:40:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DOH!!!!

"I'm not doubting your assessment of your friend, but I don't think its accurate to imply that male privilege is solely genitally based (asuming that is what you are referring too of course)."

How astute! No one is saying that. This "misunderstanding" of yours is one of your typical tactics. You constantly introduce strawmen, argue against them and them pronounce yourself the victor of an argument that was never made. At best, you appear to be rather vacuous.

Male privilege is a social phenomenon BUT having it socially constructs the individual as a system of rewards. It is not biological but having does construct the individual.

---

by: Persiphone @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:03:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hilarious!

My goodness you outdo yourself this time. Your arguments with me are frequently straw-man arguments. You have consistently criticised me for positions I do not hold when I have re-stated my actual position on the subject so much that it has become neauseating!

I was clearly aware of two likely interpretations of the sentence and addressed one of them while underlining that this may not be the view intended to be expressed.

If this is a typical tactic of mine why don't you bring up a host of examples? I suggest to you that you mistake many of my arguments made against statements and arguments  made by you because of their inevitable logical consequences and additional resultant meanings as instead straw-man arguments because you don't understand much about logic and philosophy especially moral reasonining and ethics. Perhaps the problem might be that you do not fully understand your own arguments and their inevitable ramifications from such a deep perspective.

"Male privilege is a social phenomenon BUT having it socially constructs the individual as a system of rewards. It is not biological but having does construct the individual."

I do not agree that an individual is constructed socially, influenced profoundly by yes, powers often limited or increased by yes but constructed no. There is too much scientific evidence for distinct personality in the earliest stages of interactive development not just in humans but animals as well (even worker ants show signs of distinct personalities) to support the entire construction of the individual through social conditioning.

That said however the rest is a good point and so if male privilege is a bad thing then the deconstruction of social definitions of male and female will challenge and deconstruct that privilege. Seems like a solution to the problem.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 20:21:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh go play with

your wee-wee.

---

by: Persiphone @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 19:28:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Awww...

Is your argument so broken that is the best you can do? Really I feel very sorry for you.

Can't your viewpoint stand up to these criticisms so you have to get all childish and schoolyard? Are your opinions so indefensible in intelligent discussion? Or is it that you just don't have the skills to do your viewpoint justice?

Maybe read some philosophy, join an amatuer debating team. I'm sure can learn to have a respectful intelligent conversation if you give yourself some time to learn the required skills.

Of course there is also the possibility that you are both unable to be polite and discuss this intelligently and also completely wrong in your opinions on this.

I'm sure you feel frustrated by this, just like a white supremicist I once saw being faced down by an eloquent and highly educated Aboriginal person who was able to shred their every point. Their claims about aborigines couldn't stand up in the face of a reality that didn't fit the drunken and stupid stereotype they were basing their arguments on.

They too resorted to similar comments when they realised they couldn't win and desperatly tried to dismiss their opponent to save some face but by that point they had already lost. The white supremicist never changed their ignorant closed mind but they lost a lot of followers at that meeting.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 20:03:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

:)

I'm not arguing with you. I'm not dicussing anything with you until you consider the desires of women.

That's what counts, not the desires of tranvestites who want to be in the women's room.

You are white supremist here who things he is entitled to black spaces.

I'm not ignorant. You are.

---

by: Persiphone @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I do!

In your ignorance, perhaps by assuming I think like you do, you assume that I have not considered the desires of women because I do not concur with your desires. However you do not speak for all women.

I have currently discussed this topic fact-to-face with 6 natal women. All of basic university education or higher. Thus far they all agree with my reasoning and laugh at or are horrified by yours. 3 of them are lesbians, 3 straight. One was a complete stranger I met at a party.

I'm the white supremicist here? Pretty strange accusation coming from someone arguing for segregation. Also pretty stupid or deceptive too as I argue for individual unisex spaces with increased access for the disabled and enhanced security for all when provided for general public use, not male access to womens spaces so are you stupid or a liar? Which is it then oh empress of the straw-crossdresser-invasion argument?

You on the other hand argue against egalitarianism, against human rights... If we do not accept that all people should be treated as equal then what do you base your definitions of right and wrong on? What makes racism bad? What makes sexism bad? My philosophy, my arguments show why those things are bad, because they violate individual reciprocal freedom, equality, human rights. Without them what cogent argument do you have that explains why these things are bad and yet yours are ok?

And why should the public produce discriminatory and unsafe sex-segregated toilet spaces with dangerous communal private space? Why not keep your 'women's spaces' but keep them on private property? That way you can keep out whoever you want and have your genital based enclave.

But when the public must provide neccessary hygenic facilities for everyone then such facilities need to be safe and universally available and the best way to do that I've ever heard is single-use, 0 communal space, cctv protected, disability accessable unisex facilities. Anything else, especially the systems you defend, discriminates against, or is unsafe for, someone and is therefore wrong.

Now why don't you discuss my actual position rather than the made-up/lie one you keep going on about?

What is wrong with replacing all public sex-segregated toilet spaces with single-use, 0 communal space, cctv protected, disability accessable unisex facilities?

What argument do you have against that? Because anybody on earth could suggest the same thing and it wouldn't matter if they were a natal woman, a crossdresser, intersexed or anonymous. The suggestion would be the same so none of your ad hominem arguments have any bearing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

What is wrong with replacing all public sex-segregated toilet spaces with single-use, 0 communal space, cctv protected, disability accessable unisex facilities?

---

by: battybattybats @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:02:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Awoman!!!!!

Awoman!!!!!

---

by: Persiphone @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:04:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What you need?

No, that's what you want.
You know what happens sometimes in those sex specific areas?

People get raped in them. They get murdered in them too. Men and women and children.

Why?

Because they have communal space that is private in them. This is a place of danger not safety.

This is the problem. So what women and children and men too need is safe private space that is non-communal. And if that is the case the most efficient way to do that is to make all toilets single-use, unisex, disabilty-acess toilets.

I think I pointed this out to you before....

---

by: battybattybats @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:03:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Typical man.....

Men have always felt free to tell women what we need....

What men point out, in service to their needs, has little relevance to women. Men have always assured that....

---

by: Persiphone @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:24:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a philosophical argument

Not a male one.

There is a philosophical difference between needs and wants, between rights and desires. Why do say yours is a need and not a want? Perhaps you'll change my mind.

Safety? The fact is that space you defend isn't the safets possible so that argument has been refuted.

Now if you want to make a cultural argument for the existence of womens only spaces, even for communal women only toilets then I think you might be able to make a case!

That will however itself have to overcome the safety issue. It may also have trouble depending on whther it is justified as a private space or a public utility.

Nevertheless that might be an argument that might work better for you in this discussion.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:48:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I was quoting your lack of distinction

I am well aware of the differences between needs and wants.

You have no need, only a want.

You write about mythological dangers of women's rooms. I dismiss it and reject the idea all altering societies to fit your "wants" of "self-expression. I would far prefer to face risks than to allow penises into female space.

It is my clear intention to never change my mind.

I'm not listening to you.

---

by: Persiphone @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:43:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's interesting

Lemme explain something to you.

It's not MY want.

Because I'm legally disabled I already get access to the very single use unisex disabled access facilities I say should replace all public utilities. Provided of course I need to go to the toilet in the east end of the mall, the two main shopping centres or at the university. Of course only one of those is protected by the CCTV cameras I say should protect all toilets.

I'm calling for these toilets to replace all others not for MY convenience but for the protection of everyone. Get it everyone. Men, women, anyone in between and children of all ilk.

"You write about mythological dangers of women's rooms."

From the first page of google.com.au results with the search being 'raped in toilet':
http://www.smh.com.au/articles...
http://www.theage.com.au/artic...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto...
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.a...
http://www.manchestereveningne...

Victims of both sexes, including children. Male and female toilets.
So much for your point then. Clearly these are not safe spaces, any of them. Clearly there is a need for the safety of everyone to make them all safer.

"I dismiss it and reject the idea all altering societies to fit your "wants" of "self-expression."

Society still has an obligation to provide safe facilities for the disabled and for children, even if the transgender equation is completely removed my argument stands up still on that point alone and yours still fails.

"It is my clear intention to never change my mind."

It is your perogative of course, but that will never make you right. If you want to hold an opinion in direct opposition to logic and facts and practicality it is your right to do so, no matter how insane it might be. Like for King Canute, reality isn't likely to be very respectful of your closed mind and most cherished opinions.

"I'm not listening to you."

That won't stop me from reffuting your points, defeating your arguments and illustrating to any who read these discussions how and why your views are invalid so fine, don't listen. It will only weaken your argument to do so.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:29:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Deafeating my arguments?

You do a lot of chest beating.

You don't really have the depth to engage in things you cannot see.

---

by: Persiphone @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:34:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

For someone

Who just produced the "I'm not listening to you" and "It is my clear intention to never change my mind." lines I think it amusing you try to suggest I am lacking depth in relation to you.

I can engage in discussions of moral and ethical philosophy quite well thankyou. I have been recognised by doctors of philosophy for my self-taught understanding on the subject and was invited to lectures on the subject on that account despite never, because of my disability, finishing high-school. And if a decent treatment is discovered that degree will be the first I will attain.

I have produced a host of logical and evidential refutations of your arguments and your response is not to find better logical and evidential counter-responses that would prove your views or at the least nullify my criticisms of them but instead shut your ears and proclaim that you will forver refuse to acknowledge them or consider any different opinion.

You are the one lacking depth as those statements prove. You are the one who cannot see these subjects because you deliberatly close your eyes to evidence and alternative views to your own.

You are the one who most accuratly fits the criticisms you attempt to lay on my head.

Your arguments are a farce. Try actually engaging with the criticisms I have put forward. Try actually considering all possible viewpoints. You can't maintain any position of superiority despite your rhetorical attempts to do so  when your arguments are cretinous.

So come on then, display these depths of argument of which you speak.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 20:36:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Depth has nothing to do

with not listening to a white male egocentric crossdresser spouting the same tired old white male rhetoric.

I've heard it all before and it's

               Boring!!!!

---

by: Persiphone @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 21:23:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ad hominem again

You assume that I am white.
I have black 1st cousins, chinese 1st cousins and very, very white 1st cousins. Which am I and why does it matter if it doesn't influence my logic? (you really have trouble with this ad hominem stuff huh)

Logic and rational philosophy is not 'white'. It was practised in the Islamic world where most people were brown and black. It was practiced in Imperial China. India too.

By naming it as white you display your ignorance further.

Egocentric? On what do you base that discription? I don't need to be unable to see your point of view to disagree with you, I might see it is full of holes and is logicly, philosophicly, morally and ethicly invalid and disagree with you too.

Rhetoric?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
It is your arguments that are rhetorical arguments.

Try Reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

And Logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Both of which I was taught by natal, feminist, women!
You may find it helps you in many facets of life. It's what I've been using against your rhetoric.

Note that this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Points out that logic belongs to non-whites too!

---

by: battybattybats @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:27:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yawn

It's always interesting how frantic white men become when they learn they aren't being listened to.....

---

by: Persiphone @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:00:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not frantic

And your attempts to paint me as such displays even further how little you trust your own viewpoint. You won't defend it so I guess you feel you can't so you resort to logical fallacies and claims you aren't listening to me but you keep replying so clearly you are listening, just ignoring the refutations. What would you do if a natal woman who had a degree in philosophy was making the same arguments? The eact same words, the very same logic? Would you find another excuse to dismiss her too so you can protect your beloved yet currently condemned and undefended premise? Will you add Ad Feminem attacks to your Ad Hominem ones? (Yes, I realise the term is inaccurate use of the language but some still use it so I'll use it here)

Your arguments don't stand up to real scrutiny so you resort to the rhetoric so beloved of hate groups the world and history over.

Unsupported claims, straw-man arguments, ad hominem arguments. All falsified by even a tiny shred of intelligence. All classical logical fallacies known as self evidently false by intelligent women and men over many many centuries.

The tools you use are the very masters tools. The mysoginists arguments were based on unsupported claims, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. The racists arguments were based upon unsupported claims, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.

And so are yours. Your arguments are based upon unsupported claims, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.

I'm not frantic. I enjoy our discussions. They give me intense amusement every day. I read them aloud to my friends, transgender and cisgender, male and female and genderqueer, gay and bi and straight to see the stunned expressions on their faces and to hear their raucous laughter.

Again I remind you of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
"Many times, an opponent's use of an ad hominem attack is an indication that the opponent realizes that the argument itself is correct and cannot be refuted."

Anyone with the tiniest grounding in academic argument knows this. That is why for people with just a hint of tertiery education your posts are a farce and a laughing-stock.

Keep it up by all means.
Or alternatively follow those links and get an education like the thousands of intelligent women over thousands of years across the civilisations of the world many of whom were martyred for stealing the privilege of knowledge from men who have paved the way for you. Maybe then you could come up with a real valid argument and actually test my skills or even succeed in this discussion.

Your posts are frantic. You are resorting to insults, you are resorting to schoolyard 'nya nya nya, I'm not listening' fingers-in-the-ears style behaviour. You are the one shrinking from every counterpoint and desperatly making claim after claim to justify ignoring the evidence and logic against you rather than finding fault in the counter argument.

Your viewpoint can't stand up on it's own can it. You can't maintain an intelligent discussion on the subject. The women who taught me logic and reason and intelligent debate taught me well and you can't face that in the slightest. You couldn't remain polite and actually discuss the points and counterpoints without your argument becoming utterly indefensible. You have no rational, moral, ethical, philosophical or remotely cogent justification or foundation for your views. You have no defense aginst the refutations raised against your views.

All that remains to you is to plug your ears and pretend you are winning with a host of logical fallacies, ever more petty attempts at insults and put-downs and to become the mirror image of the oppressors.

Because I know you'll never listen to reason, you'll never acknowledge the truth no matter how clearly it is proven. You will cling to your precious falsehood no matter what, but it will not be your victory because I will continue to refute it so all sane people who read our discussions will see that you are wrong and I am right not because of who says it but because of the validity of my arguments and the invalidity of yours.

Or, I could be wrong and you could be capable of answering my counter points and forming an intelligent congruent argument. In which case I will discuss it with you politely and in good faith and if your view has more evidence, is more cogent than mine and stands up to an analyses of point and counter point better than mine then I will change my opinion and agree with you.

Care to actually try?

---

by: battybattybats @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 21:18:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another view

I spoke to another close natal female friend about this last night who definately does not agree with me but still finds your arguments nonsense.

Her view was that there is value in communal space. Citing an example where once the person in the stall next to her came to her rescue after hearing how ill she clearly was when she was dangerously ill.

She suggested that placing cctv in the communal space so that inside the stalls is the only private space would improve the safety most effectively.

She thinks that anyone in any stage of transition from full time onwards regardless of genital status deserves access to womens toilets.

She considers the existence of private communal men and womens spaces a socially and culturally valuable system where people can interact free of having to maintain gender interaction based ettiquette and self-censorship.

As for crossdressers, drag kings and queens, the genderqueer etc who fall in between the cracks of the binary system who feel they will not be made welcome in either toilet she feels thay should have access to... the 0 communal space single use disability access unisex toilets where they are available and which she agrees there should be more of.

She acknowledges that the situation is complex, that there are no easy answers and that society has an obligation to provide toilet facilities equally, safely and effectively for all citizens.

Now I don't entirely agree with my friend on a number of these but she makes good logical points. Despite no formal training of logic and having trouble finding the right terminology at points in the discussion she could still manage to put forward cogent intelligent logical argument and we had a calm, sensible, intelligent, enjoyable discussion.

So as intelligent arguments can be made on this subject that argue for sex segregated spaces that while I don't agree with are at least logical and philosophicaly congruent, as the subject can be discussed calmly intelligently and respectfully involving point and counterpoint and counter counterpoint then I guess the problem is with you Persiphone.

---

by: battybattybats @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 20:50:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]