Isn’t it fascinating that when politicians are asked “what is a woman?” they really struggle to answer the question? In some respects it’s quite entertaining watching them jump through hoops trying to avoid giving an answer. In other respects, of course, it’s a shameful state of affairs. At least one US Supreme Court judge claimed ignorance when asked this question and referred us to ‘biologists’1. A member of the highest court in the US was not able to tell us, in her own words, what a woman is. Incredible when you think about it.
In 2023 we are, apparently, unable to properly define what a woman is2.
What’s even more curious is that, despite not being able to tell you what a woman actually is, these politicians are certain that some of them have penises.
This should be a question posed to politicians whenever this issue comes up in an interview
So you can’t tell me what a woman is, but you’re 100% certain that some of them have penises?
Why are you so interested in this topic you Riggery bigot? A question I have been asked - as if to say it’s not something that directly affects me so why should I be interested in it? Female genital mutilation doesn’t directly affect me either, so perhaps I should just keep schtum about that hideous and abhorrent practice too?
I’m interested in it for a variety of reasons, not least amongst them being the fact that I have 2 daughters. Thankfully, they haven’t had their brains addled into believing they “are” men.
I’m kind of old-fashioned and believe they should be able to use the ladies facilities without having to face some bloke waving his todger about. What a fascistic right wing Nazi bigot I must be. Good heavens - I am ashamed of myself.
But how has this happened? How have we managed to work ourselves into a position where a significant number of people (still a minority, thank God) think it’s perfectly fine for men to use the ladies loos?
In most day-to-day interactions I really don’t care how you “identify”. Identify as a woman on Tuesday, a man on Wednesday, and an aardvark with athlete’s foot on a Thursday. Most of the time it’s not an issue (unless you demand I accept your ‘truth’ as THE truth). It only really becomes an issue where biological sex matters.
Why did we have single-sex spaces for women in the first place? Why were they deemed necessary?
There are issues of dignity, decency, modesty, and the relaxation of knowing you are sharing a space reserved exclusively for members of your own sex. But there’s also an issue of safety.
There is a reason why 96% of the prison population in the UK is male. Us blokes can be real shitheads. Allowing men to invade spaces exclusively reserved for women increases the risks women face. But what about allowing men who, through the miracle of self-ID, identify as women into these spaces? We shall call such men SID’s.
The question, then, is whether allowing SID’s into women’s spaces changes the risk profile for women?
Simple question. We’re probably not ‘allowed’ to ask these kinds of questions. Like asking for evidence of racism is deemed to be racist these days, then asking whether allowing SID’s into women’s spaces changes the risk profile for women would probably be deemed to be “transphobic”.
I wonder if Amazon will adapt the Jack Reacher series to tackle the issue of self-ID?
I hope you are able to see the following fact which I present as if it were a mathematical theorem3
The risk profile for women does not change when allowing SID’s into women’s spaces IF AND ONLY IF the risk profile presented by SID’s to women is precisely the same as the risk profile women present to women.
I’ve already remarked on the trend towards general shitheadedness of the males of the species - do we really believe this is entirely alleviated by the simple expedient of declaring oneself to be a woman?
Of course not.
But it’s worse than this. Much worse.
When you’re designing some system where security is a customer requirement4 you might start off with a basic design that ‘looks good’, at least initially. You’d then interrogate the shit out of it. You’d try to ‘break’ the system and exploit any flaws or loopholes. You’d repeat this process, refining the design at each stage to close off any loopholes or eliminate flaws, until you had something that was ‘secure’. What you’re really trying to do here is to force an attacker to be on the wrong side of the cost-benefit analysis. If breaking a system nets you $100,000 in profit you want to make sure that breaking the system will cost the attacker $1,000,000, say.
That’s the basic idea anyway - and there are different requirements for different systems; a defence contractor will have different (almost certainly much more stringent) security requirements than, say, a small supermarket chain.
What you really need to avoid are having too many loopholes. Ideally you’d like none, but even if that can’t be managed you want any loopholes to be really, really, difficult to exploit.
The problem with allowing SID’s into women only spaces is that you’ve just ‘engineered’ in a stonking big loophole.
Women are not in danger from the majority of men. They’re in danger from the predatory scumbags who prey upon them.
With the introduction of self-ID you’ve given these predatory scumbags an easily exploitable loophole. You’ve handed it to them on a plate.
Maybe you don’t want to upset the “genuine” SID’s - you know, be kind and all that - and even with “genuine” SID’s you’ve still altered the risk profile unfavourably for women by allowing them access to women’s spaces. However, by “being kind” you’ve just created a huge security flaw in your system - and one that will be exploited by the predatory scumbags.
This is why it’s much worse than just a case of pandering to the “genuine” SID’s.
Allowing SID’s into women’s spaces is a stupefyingly dumb idea from a security perspective.
It takes extensive training and a degree, apparently, to be able to define one of these mystical beings.
Should we tell them how to?
It’s not too difficult to prove this - but it should be obvious, and the proof would be an unnecessary distraction
You might be designing an internal messaging system for a company, or figuring out how to ensure no fraudulent votes can be cast in an election
You are, of course, correct, but I’m afraid reasonable arguments are only fully appreciated by the choir. I hope I’m wrong. My plea as a woman is emotional:
Trans people— those who intentionally medicate and dress to confound your natal sex— you are scary to women and children. Even the women who support you in theory and would be friends with you if they knew you and support your rights wholeheartedly have that instinctive, self-preserving fear reaction when they encounter you. It’s the same thing you might get when you meet a person having a serious mental health episode in public; the rational and kindly part of yourself says “that poor person is very unlikely to be dangerous” and yet your pulse rises and you begin thinking about possible escape routes. If you are comfortable with making other people feel that way— women and girls— you are a bad man and don’t belong in female spaces.
In my 25-years in law enforcement here in the US I never once arrested a woman for sexual battery. I never arrested a woman for pedophilia. I never arrested a woman for masturbating in her car while parked outside a nursery school playground. I’m not saying those things don’t happen but they are extremely rare.
If some dude pretending to be a woman comes into a locker room or women’s loo while I’m in there there will be an uncomfortable conversation. Every public area in the US now offers “family restrooms” which is set up for parents with children or elderly who need assistance. It’s for one occupant only. These confused persons are more than welcome to use this space to carry out their bathroom business.