Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxbond | Hacker News Reader

Kinks are impossible to pin down or fence in, people can get turned on by literally anything. https://xkcd.com/468/ This doesn't really muddy the waters; the concepts remain distinct, and people making it a kink to conflate them is kinda like how a joke isn't true but is only funny if you know the truth it refers to.

Heteronormativity conflates gender and sexuality; I'd guess (while acknowledging I don't know the content of anyone else's mind) that is what is responsible for their confusion, because they have been raised in a heteronormative society, the distinction doesn't exist in their mind.

View on HN

> Kinks are impossible to pin down or fence in, people can get turned on by literally anything.

While a true statement it's also a non-sequitur. Anglosphere society is roiled with social turmoil about trans-gender identity. One faction would like society to recognize that some people's gender does not fit their sex, and to normalize accommodating these people's gender expression without intrusive and oppressive questioning. Another faction, perhaps motivated by genuine concern, or perhaps by simple hatred of difference and change, throw a spanner into the works by asking hard questions about bathrooms and prisons and athletics and such. If the only people interested in entering women's bathrooms and prisons were genuinely only women who happened to be born in a male body, then everything would be clear and unmuddied. However, the existence of some fraction of men who would happily identify as women in order to gain easier sexual access to women does complicate the simple distinction. Is a trans woman lesbian with a penis really trans, or a predatory man with a kink? Ignoring or dismissing the muddy implications of the question will not make the second faction go away.

This narrative of predatory trans people does not bare out, trans people are not assaulting people in bathrooms, and what you're describing is really using the way our society is built to be hostile to people who do not fit into gender norms as a way to justify further hostility. It's saying, oh look, we built bathrooms and prisons in a way that reinforces these norms, well, I guess we're stuck with them.

> This narrative of predatory trans people does not bare out...

I didn't say predatory trans people. I said predatory men. Have you met men? Some men will put on a dress, call themselves trans, and fondle themselves in a women's locker room.

Again, pretending this is about trans people is disingenuous. This is about (some) men.

And, again, whether you genuinely dismiss the concern because you genuinely disbelieve that any man ever would take advantage of the situation, the faction that bring it up do genuinely believe that some men will take advantage of it. This faction will not go away. So, probably best to at least acknowledge their concerns so that trans people can get on with the business of doing their business.

I have heard some men say things about women when they weren't around that I find appalling; I've had to work on eliminating misogyny from my own thinking, and it is a work in progress; I'm well aware of men and the toxicity that often goes along with them.

The narrative you have presented is frequently weaponized, specifically by the adherents to the ideology of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism, to argue that trans women are "men in dresses" who's real goal is to infiltrate women's spaces in order to assault them (or, in the example you gave, violate their privacy and dignity). In practice this a widespread phenomenon. TERF activists use this narrative to attempt to enact legislation barring trans people from the bathroom of their gender - forcing trans women into men's bathrooms, and I'm sure that, as someone concerned about problematic men and bathrooms, that won't sound like a good prospect to you. I take you at your word this was context you weren't aware of; now that I've brought it to your attention, I hope you'll consider it and see if it alters your thinking.

> The narrative you have presented is frequently weaponized...

Indeed. This is both true, and a non-sequitur. Bad-faith arguers exist. Let us acknowledge the fact that some people will reprehensibly refer to every trans woman as a "man in a dress". Let's assume the best about each other.

If you're trying to say that everyone is a TERF who points out that some men (again, not trans women) will take advantage, or that only bad people point this out, then you're not addressing the concern, but dismissing it. Addressing and empathizing with the actual concern will get trans people into their preferred bathrooms and keep bad men out.

Anyway, you and I won't litigate this here, so if you have more to add, know that I'll read whatever you have to say but might not reply. Be well.

> [Y]ou're not addressing the concern, but dismissing it.

You're right, I should have done better there. To me, until this comment where you described this as "reprehensible", it sounded like you were employing "just asking questions" rhetoric, because you were asking all the same questions as TERFs, and to me it appeared you were only holding back the transphobic conclusions. However, that I should have done a better job assuming good faith on your part, and I apologize.

> This is both true, and a non-sequitur.

It isn't a non-sequitur though, I'm explaining to you what my issue is. If you were aware of the context around this narrative the whole time, you could addressed it instead of implying I was being disingenuous; the best-faith interpretation I could see was that you didn't understand my objection, so I added more detail. I would like to engage with you presuming the best, but can you see how saying I'm being disingenuous and that my points are non-sequitur (when it seems like you do understand what TERFs are, what bathroom bills are, and what it was I was getting at and how it relates to our discussion) made that difficult for me?

> Addressing and empathizing with the actual concern will get trans people into their preferred bathrooms and keep bad men out.

Happy to listen to what you may propose, but I don't have any thoughts. I certainly empathize with women's feeling of unsafety and the desire to create spaces without men, to the extent I can as a man. But I understand if you are done with this conversation, I myself need to log off for a few hours to attend to things, and of course you don't owe me any of your time.

All the best to you, as well.

> You're right, I should have done better there.

Most people are like me: sincerely caring, well-disposed to trans people, understand that trans rights are human rights, bear absolutely zero ill-will and will happily use preferred pronouns. Would be terribly frightened for a trans-woman to be placed in a man's prison, for instance. And, nevertheless, would simply like straight-forward policy proposals to answer those specific concerns.

So far, the only policy proposals that address those concerns have been from conservatives, which are not ideal to say the least, either. From liberals, sadly, have come answers along the lines of "Asking questions like that is TERF territory. You don't want to be a TERF, do you?" Which is clearly not an answer, and concedes the entire policy platform to conservatives.

I mean, it could be that the liberal response is, essentially "Times are changing and the exceedingly minuscule chance of creepy men in womens' locker rooms and women's prisons is a small price to pay for human rights" but that's unconvincing, to be honest. Creepy men who have a right to be in womens' locker rooms and prisons will become a problem unless it's actually addressed in advance. That's nothing to do with trans women. It is, unfortunately, a problem with men.

But no, I don't have answers, here. Before, it seemed to be "Be discreet and make good-faith efforts to pass as your preferred gender and people will generally leave you alone." The "passing" part is not ideal, but at least serves as some kind of costly social signal that this person is really trying to blend in and not make waves. Without that, not sure.

This is a meaningless concern. Any man who would put on a dress to come assault you in the bathroom could skip the dress part and just come in the bathroom and assault you. It's like saying some rapists have red hair. It's true but its not meaningful because no fruitful thing can be derived from the fact nor strategy obtained.

There are millions of trans people in the world but presumably few rapists in dresses. The spurious focus on pointless concerns suggests we ought to harm the dignity of millions for a fictional advantage.

Unfortunately, this is not an answer, and so, you are conceding public policy to people who do have answers that you will not like.

What do you propose to do about a creepy man who hears that all he has to do is self-identify as a woman and now has a right to expose his penis to women? This is not a trans woman, but a man who just will not leave his penis alone in a women's locker room. Women avert their eyes, but he shakes it around, puts tassels on it, gets excited by the turmoil. "This is not a thing that will ever happen" is an answer, sure, but when it does happen, your conservative opposition will use the exceedingly rare incident to exclude trans women from locker rooms. So, what is a better answer that actually addresses the concern?

We shouldn't make actual rules based on fictional situations. In a situation like this it would be trivial to exclude the obvious troublemaker for disruptive harassing behavior. You act as if managers,cops, and judges aren't capable of exercising basic judgement. If you did this tomorrow you would find out that this isn't true. It's a waste of my time and yours.

Sometimes they are doing exactly that

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com