[slg]

Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. One group of people gaining rights doesn't take away the rights from another group, but that is commonly used as an argument to manipulate people into opposing the expansion of rights without confronting what that opposition really means. We saw it with integration in the US often presented as an infringement on the rights of white people. We saw it with gay marriage when people argued that it was somehow an affront to traditional heterosexual marriage. And now we are seeing it with people claiming that trans people are infringing on women's rights.

>Secondly, press coverage, from news outlets across the political spectrum, of a male rapist incarcerated in a women's prison, who sexually assaulted several female prisoners there.

This is a good example of what that manipulation looks like in action. I agree that prisoners should have a right to safety despite their crimes. But what should the priority be for someone with this position? It certainly wouldn't be putting more attention on a single case of assault over some 999 other examples of a prisoner getting assaulted[1]. The focus on the one case involving a trans person shows that the motivation isn't actually prisoner safety.

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/13/revealed-alm...

[granibran]

Sometimes they aren't zero-sum. For example, trans-identifying people being protected from employment discrimination. This takes nothing away from anyone else, but makes this group's lives easier.

But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example. If a subset of males are given the right to use such spaces, they cease to be female-only spaces. By doing so, this right is taken away from women and girls.

As another example, we can see this principle very starkly in women's and girls' sports competitions. There can only be one winner. If that winner is male, or is a team that includes males, this takes this prize away from female athletes. There are also a limited number of competition spots in most sports. Any of those taken by males denies a female athlete the opportunity to compete. This is a zero-sum game.

Regarding prisons, the expectation is that penal authorities work towards the goal of no sexual violence in prisons. Policies that demonstrably make this worse are of course going to be protested. In this case, removing the most important safeguarding measure for inmate housing: segregation by sex. The motivation is actually the safety of women prisoners. It's not an isolated case either, this was the first of many.

[slg]

>But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example.

How is this different from a white person wanting a "whites only space"? Because you are seemingly arguing for a right to segregation. I think we are better off reconsidering the root desire and how that should manifest itself in a concrete right.

For example, what right do you think the children have in youth sports?

Do they have a right to win?

Do they have a right to be on a team?

Do they have a right to compete?

Do they have the right to compete against someone with equal talent?

Should it be allowed to force a younger kid to compete against older kids?

What about a short kid against tall kids?

Should a Muslim fasting for Ramadan have to compete against Christians with no dietary restrictions?

Can a white child complain about having to compete against black children?

What if only one girl wants to play a specific sport, is it legal to force her to compete on the boys team? What if all the boys are better than her?

I just don't know how you answer these questions consistently and end up in a place in which trans athletes are your only fairness concern.

[granibran]

I see you're no longer claiming that this isn't zero-sum. Instead you now seem to be advocating that every single-sex space should be mixed-sex.

Just eradicate all female-only spaces entirely, is that the suggestion? This seems to be your logic here.

We had this arrangement with prisons, by the way. Up until the end of the 19th century prisons housed both sexes in the same estate. Female prisoners were routinely and regularly sexually assaulted, raped, impregnated. By men. That's why prisons are segregated by sex in most places today.

Now some prison authorities are trying this arrangement again. Converting female prisons to mixed-sex prisons. With the same results.

And for some reason you're making a parallel of this to racial segregation? Make it make sense, please.

[slg]

I'm not conceding that rights are zero-sum. I'm trying to get to why you think people have the right to single sex spaces. What is the motivator for that belief and would that same motivator suggest that people have a right to segregation from other protected classes?

I think women have a right to safety. They have a right to privacy. They have a right to being given the same opportunities as anyone else. A girl has a right to compete in sports. She doesn't have a right to win at sports or even a guaranteed spot on the team. Those rights are not zero-sum. The rights of a cis girl are not violated when she competes against a trans girl.

[granibran]

There are many, many reasons why we have sex-separated spaces: privacy, dignity, modesty, safety, fairness, peace of mind, personal hygiene, santiation, cleanliness of facilities, lesbian and gay socialising, group bonding, therapeutic efficacy, organizing and campaigning. And probably others that don't come to mind right now. This is generally for the benefit of women, but also for men too on some of these principles.

Tearing all this up and insisting that any man who says he's a women must be permitted to impose himself on female spaces quite obviously encroaches on this.

For example you refer to girls competing in girls' sport. When a boy who says he's a girl (or "trans girl" as you put it) is allowed to compete, this violates several of the above principles for actual girls. Fairness, due to male performance advantage. Safety, when it's a contact sport. Privacy and dignity, if he's also imposing himself on the girls' locker rooms. Peace of mind, as the girls are forced to contend with all of this for no reason other than to keep the male happy.

More generally, all this does is disadvantage women and girls, solely for the pleasure of some males who, by definition, don't even belong in these spaces but decided that they want to impose themselves anyway and, to them, that's all that matters.

[slg]

>There are many, many reasons why we have sex-separated spaces: privacy, dignity, modesty, safety, fairness, peace of mind, personal hygiene, santiation, cleanliness of facilities, lesbian and gay socialising, group bonding, therapeutic efficacy, organizing and campaigning.

But that was only half of the equation. Why are these "rights" only relevant for women? How can you define these as a right if other groups do not have the same protection?

>privacy, dignity, modesty,

Can a straight man cite his right for "privacy, dignity, modesty" when kicking a gay man out of a locker room?

>safety

Do you think it would be safe for a trans woman who has surgically transitioned to be housed in a male prison?

>fairness

I dedicated almost that whole previous post trying to get you to define what a right to "fairness" really means, but you ignored all those questions.

>peace of mind

Do you think a passenger should be able to force an airline to kick a Muslim off a plane to get "peace of mind"?

>personal hygiene, santiation, cleanliness of facilities,

Are my rights violated if I walk into a public restroom and the person before me didn't flush?

>lesbian and gay socialising

If homosexuals have a right to their own segregated socializing environment, can a school host a dance for only straight people?

>organizing and campaigning

Could a campaign event for a local white politician kick someone out for simply being black?

[seethedeaduu]

I asked you before but you probably didn't see it. Why do you make a new throwaway for every single thread where you post about the topic?