# Equality Act is drawing opposition from feminists and conservatives alike **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742 "2019-05-09T19:26:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/41 "2019-05-10T14:45:48Z")
[10 Things You Should Known About Concerned Women For America](https://www.hrc.org/resources/10-things-you-should-know-about-concerned-women-for-america) can be summed up in four words: They are fucked up ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/42 "2019-05-10T15:24:50Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Do we know that Mary Gregory broke that record because she’s a transwoman? No. Instead, you just point to a transwoman doing something significant, and act like that, in and of itself, is proof that transwomen have an advantage. But the evidence just isn’t there yet. Sure it is. Do transwomen become shorter? Do their hearts shrink? Hands? Does their pelvis change? The male pelvis is more narrow making their legs to be more vertical aiding in speed. The male pelvis is better suited for childbirth. Does muscle memory forget? That’s a real thing: > **[Does skeletal muscle have an ‘epi’‐memory? The role of epigenetics in...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933662/)** > > Skeletal muscle mass, quality and adaptability are fundamental in promoting muscle performance, maintaining metabolic function and supporting longevity and healthspan. Skeletal muscle is programmable and can ‘remember’ early‐life ... Has the IOC changed the levels of testosterone they allowed in 2015? A professor in physiology says the limit allowed in 2015 isn’t fair: > [@](#): > > In 2015, the IOC changed their regulations to include trans women in the women’s category of events if they remained under the testosterone levels of 10 nanomoles per litre (NMOL/L) a year prior to competing, as well as during competition. > > However, a CIS female (a born female) can reach nowhere near the testosterone level of 10 NMOL/L. The average female sits at 2.8 NMOL/L and the average male 23-25 NMOL/L. This means the likes of Hubbard competes at three times the amount of testosterone to other weightlifting females. > > "It hasn’t been studied, but logical science will tell you someone who has three times more testosterone has the advantage physically. We need to do more research before arguing either way. [https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/99434993/professor-of-physiology-says-trans-athlete-has-advantage-in-speed-and-power](https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/99434993/professor-of-physiology-says-trans-athlete-has-advantage-in-speed-and-power) Do hemoglobin levels become equal? If not, that would be a huge advantage. Whatever does change to equal, a complete reformatting of the body doesn’t happen. God, I’m fucking gross! > [@](#): > > If I were in a charitable mood, I would say that Gregory should have waited the IOC’s recommended 2 years on HRT to compete as a woman. But I’m not. Gregory competed with the 100% Raw Powerlifting Federation. The IOC has nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > So can you prove that the reason Gregory did so well was because she’s a transwoman? If not, stop assuming that she’s a lesser athlete without any goddamn evidence. That’s some transphobic bullshit, right there. There’s nothing transphobic about it. And it’s not about her being a lesser athlete; it’s about her being a greater one. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/43 "2019-05-10T15:34:09Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Or keep doing it the way we’ve done it for millennia, and just go by what gender people say they are and how they present themselves? I know which one I would choose. Agreed, that’s how we do it. That’s two criteria. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/44 "2019-05-10T15:40:29Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > The male pelvis is better suited for childbirth. Whoops. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/45 "2019-05-10T15:41:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Of course. And I am free to characterize those who dispute it in a hateful fashion as hateful and bigoted. If someone thinks that marriage does not include the possibility of interracial unions, or same-sex unions, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view, whether or not they see it that way. If someone doesn’t think that trans women are women, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view, regardless of how they see it. Same if someone thinks “human” doesn’t include Jews, or black people, etc. > > “Woman” and the concept of gender (as opposed to biological sex) in general are sociocultural phenomena, not objective statements. They will never be anything other than how culture sees them, any more than “computer” is what society defines as a computer. > > All of this is discussion about how society should treat and view people. Such discussions aren’t based on hard and objective facts, any more than discussions about whether gay people should be allowed to be married. So if I say I am a woman I can now compete as a woman? Just like that? What does feeling like a woman or being a woman actually mean at that point? Look, if we are going to have discriminatory realms such as sport then we need actual definitions. What’s your definition of a woman? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/46 "2019-05-10T15:43:53Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The unholy alliance of conservatives and radical feminists isn’t a novelty, by the way. You can see it in action in their common fight against pornography, prostitution and sex work, which occasionally goes beyond the coincidental. For instance both will launch attacks pornography totally independently, but they will sometimes objectively ally and even cooperate with each other for instance to pass laws. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/47 "2019-05-10T15:55:15Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Do hemoglobin levels become equal? I found the following: > [@](#): > > The hemoglobin, hematocrit, and RBC number are all seen to decrease during hormone therapy in transgender women. A previous study of 55 transgender women3 showed that hemoglobin levels decreased significantly from cis-gender male levels to be not significantly different from cis-gender female hemoglobin. With a larger patient group, we were able to confirm this previous finding of decreased hemoglobin, but transgender women’s hemoglobin levels are still significantly different from individuals with sex-assigned female at birth (Figure 2). > **[Lab Value Changes in Transgender Females](https://labmedicineblog.com/2018/12/10/lab-value-changes-in-transgender-females/)** > > For our next edition of transgender laboratory medicine, we will explore how transgender women use hormone therapy to physically transition to their affirmed female gender. While transgender men ju… Why this matters: > [@](#): > > Jamie Pringle, a physiologist who has coached many world and Olympic champions, says: “The most consistent observation about the difference is that women have lower total mass of haemoglobin in their blood, compared to men, and less blood in total. This means less capacity to transport oxygen in the blood, which, when combined with the heart’s ability to pump that blood, and the muscle’s capacity to extract the oxygen from it, is a key determinant of aerobic fitness and endurance.” > **[Cycling and gender: how and why male and female cyclists need to train...](https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/cycling-and-gender-how-and-why-male-and-female-cyclists-need-to-train-differently-344365)** > > Physiological differences mean different training programmes depending on your sex ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/48 "2019-05-10T15:56:54Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Besides, this is disingenuous. Yes, there are transgendered people who suffer as women, but there are those who don’t. Caitlyn Jenner as an example, enjoyed 50-ish years of identifying as a cis-gendered male before transitioning. She was able to partake of all of the benefits of being a white male until in her 60s when she was then able to enjoy all the benefits of being a minority spokesperson. This is nothing against Ms. Jenner, but saying that transgendered people suffer the same as biological women is misleading at best and frequently false. Go back and reread **Filbert** ’s post. Why yes, Caitlyn Jenner is a _phenomenally_ privileged person! I don’t know why that matters. She’s a massive outlier in almost every way. And for most of her life, yeah, she didn’t face misogyny. Does she face it now? Almost certainly, in the way you may expect any old rich white woman to face misogyny. > [@](#): > > The idea is that you CAN do that, while biological females CANNOT. No, they fucking can’t, any more than biological females could just transition in the other direction. (It’s a lot easier to pass for male as a transman than it is to pass for female as a transwoman.) Gender doesn’t work like that. Asking a transwoman to go back to living as a man is like asking a ciswoman to get on medication and sew their vagina shut to pass better as a man. It’s fucking gruesome, dude, and if you don’t get that, you might wanna spend a little time actually talking to trans people. > [@](#): > > If every female scholarship in the country were to magically go to trans women, would the plight of biological women be better off? Obviously not. What is the purpose of these scholarships? To help adjust for the biases in society that lead to women being underrepresented in these programs. Transwomen are women and suffer from misogyny (they fucking do, spend some time talking to literally any of them) in addition to transmisogyny. The only way to argue that this is a distinction worth making is to argue that transwomen are not women or to argue that transwomen do not face misogyny. Neither position is even remotely tenable. > [@](#): > > I think I would claim that if the benefits to being transgendered became great enough, there would be people that would fake it. I work with admissions at a large university and I know that right now racially people fake it constantly. Oh come on. It’s piss-easy to say “my grandmother was Cherokee” and costs little to nothing. Living your life as the opposite gender? Would you do that to get into college, knowing you had to keep it up, and take hormones, and face constant threats of violence from bigoted fucksticks who took this kind of argument and ran with it? :mad: …Look, I’m sorry, but this whole thing is really dumb. How about, if this ever actually becomes a problem, we address it _then_? Right now, people aren’t “pretending to be women” to get into colleges, or jobs, or sports teams, or locker rooms, or lesbians’ pants (literally a TERF talking point). Those are lies transphobes make up, not things that actually happen. Because right now, what you’re doing is perpetuating injustice and prejudice because you’re worried that maybe if we don’t, there will be injustice. And that’s fucked up. Or, to put it another way… > [@](#): > > I think that feminist groups are worried about that scenario coming into play and wish to prevent it. Man, if only there was a term for “irrational fear of trans people”. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > The problem comes with self-identification. In our company argument, the issue is not that they would be hiring transgendered people, but rather, they would be hiring men and telling them to check the transgendered box on their application. Their medical records are protected, so a company can claim that they have no idea whether the individual is transitioning or not. In a fraud case, you would have to prove that the individual(s) were not transgendered and how exactly do you do that? It becomes a route that could be used to potentially exclude women from positions of power - which is what these feminist groups are afraid of. Great! Has this ever happened? Is there any reason to believe this _could_ happen? Christ, dude, listen to yourself! This isn’t “something that could realistically happen”. This is the plot to a shitty Adam Sandler/Tyler Perry crossover that not even Netflix would fund. It’s embarrassing. But it’s only a little more far-fetched than some of the other things you and others keep bringing up. But that’s the basis of all this stuff. Transwomen _aren’t_ dominating women’s sports… But if we let them keep competing they might do okay, so we’d better ban them from sports. Transwomen _aren’t_ assaulting women in bathrooms… But if we keep letting them into women’s bathrooms they might, so we’d better ban them from bathrooms. Transwomen _aren’t_… _checks notes_… being used en masse to get around equal rights amendments (jesus christ dude what the hell)… But if we let them exist, they might do this or that or the other thing. And sure, we could address it if and when it becomes a problem, but why wait for that to happen? Trans people are icky and shouldn’t exist anyways. If you accept this kind of nonsense moon logic, there is no discrimination or bigotry against trans people you can’t justify by appealing to what might happen if you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/49 "2019-05-10T16:08:07Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > So if I say I am a woman I can now compete as a woman? Just like that? Not in my understanding. In my understanding, transitioning is a very involved process (though many parts of it can vary) and involves far more than simply saying that you are a woman. > [@](#): > > What does feeling like a woman or being a woman actually mean at that point? I certainly don’t know; I’m not a woman. > [@](#): > > Look, if we are going to have discriminatory realms such as sport then we need actual definitions. What’s your definition of a woman? I don’t see why this is necessary. There are plenty of xx, female-body-having women who can’t compete in women’s sports for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their bodies or even their abilities (they broke rules, for example) – they are still women. The question of who should be allowed to compete in women’s sports is a legitimate question, but far more complicated than “what is the definition of a woman”. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/50 "2019-05-10T16:14:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Of course. And I am free to characterize those who dispute it in a hateful fashion as hateful and bigoted. If someone thinks that marriage does not include the possibility of interracial unions, or same-sex unions, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view Not the same thing. Same-sex marriage doesn’t impact people who aren’t involved in it. Recognizing transwomen as women in all circumstances impact, or at least is alleged to impact cis women wrt to issues that are normally considered legitimate concerns for them, hence harm the many for the exclusive benefit of the few. It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there’s a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining “I don’t want men parading naked in my locker room” as meaning “I don’t want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room” or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn’t feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren’t some absurd and outrageous stances. Especially if you consider that if there’s no objective reason to feel distressed because a transwoman is present in a locker room, there’s in fact no objective reason to feel distressed because a man is present in a locker room, either. The reason why women feel they should be able to avoid such a situation are cultural and subjective, and I doubt that most would be able to clearly enunciate what the issue is exactly, or would agree with each other if they could. “I don’t trust people with a dick to enter a women locker room for genuinely innocent reasons, and I have legitimate reasons to feel this way” would be a position enthusiastically supported by yourself if it didn’t impact another category you also support. Just because you feel that the woman writing the article shouldn’t be disturbed if the dick owner exposing his parts self-identify as a woman, and that the risk that a cis man will pretend to self-identify as a woman just so that he’ll be able to enter the women locker room is close to inexistant doesn’t mean that this woman should feel the same way and analyze the risk the way you do. > [@](#): > > Same if someone thinks “human” doesn’t include Jews, or black people, etc. Not the same thing at all. “Human” can be objectively defined on the basis of purely biological factors. “Black” or “Jew” cannot be. “Woman” can’t be objectively defined in this way, or rather, if it were, you would reject this definition. > [@](#): > > All of this is discussion about how society should treat and view people. Such discussions aren’t based on hard and objective facts, any more than discussions about whether gay people should be allowed to be married. Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says “I identify as a woman” and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/51 "2019-05-10T16:24:56Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Do we know that Mary Gregory broke that record because she’s a transwoman? No. Instead, you just point to a transwoman doing something significant, and act like that, in and of itself, is proof that transwomen have an advantage. But the evidence just isn’t there yet. > [@Shodan](#): > > If transgender status doesn’t make any difference, then why aren’t there any FtM transgender athletes winning at the same level? We can also look at male and female records not including trans athletes and see if we can find how non-similar strength difference are. There’s a larger pool of records to wade through. Of course, that won’t be the _proof_ some are looking for. Here are links to some raw powerlifting records. The first for men, the second for women. If we look at the totals (squats, benches and deadlifts combined) we see that women NEVER beat the men at comparable body weight. [https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/american](https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/american) [https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-american](https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-american) We can look up specific years and women NEVER come close to beating men at totals at comparable body weight, let alone beat them. Is that evidence that Gregory had an advantage as a trans? Hell yeah it is! ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/52 "2019-05-10T16:25:50Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Not the same thing. Same-sex marriage doesn’t impact people who aren’t involved in it. Neither does the existence of trans people. > [@](#): > > Recognizing transwomen as women in all circumstances impact, or at least is alleged to impact cis women wrt to issues that are normally considered legitimate concerns for them, hence harm the many for the exclusive benefit of the few. Same sex marriage was “alleged” to impact other people, and it didn’t. Recognizing the existence of trans people does not impact others any more than SSM. > [@](#): > > It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there’s a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining “I don’t want men parading naked in my locker room” as meaning “I don’t want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room” or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn’t feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren’t some absurd and outrageous stances. People are free to go into, and leave, any locker rooms they want. They can find private locker rooms if that’s what they prefer. They can change at home. Or they can go into a stall in the locker room. If someone attacks them, or behaves lewdly around them, then that’s against the law and can be prosecuted regardless of gender identity. If someone feels distress, that’s a feeling that people sometimes have. I have little doubt that some white people felt distressed when they first had to share bathrooms and locker rooms with black people. Some probably still do. That’s part of life – sometimes you will feel distress. It’s not violating anyone’s rights. But preventing trans people from using locker rooms would be violating their rights to accommodation and services. Forcing them to use the wrong locker room would help no one – the other locker room users are just as likely to be anti-trans bigots as the first. > [@](#): > > Especially if you consider that if there’s no objective reason to feel distressed because a transwoman is present in a locker room, there’s in fact no objective reason to feel distressed because a man is present in a locker room, either. The reason why women feel they should be able to avoid such a situation are cultural and subjective, and I doubt that most would be able to clearly enunciate what the issue is exactly, or would agree with each other if they could. “I don’t trust people with a dick to enter a women locker room for genuinely innocent reasons, and I have legitimate reasons to feel this way” would be a position enthusiastically supported by yourself if it didn’t impact another category you also support. If you want to argue against segregated-gender locker rooms and bathrooms, feel free. I don’t feel strongly that they need to remain, but others might. As long as they exist, trans people should be allowed to use them just like cis people do. > [@](#): > > Just because you feel that the woman writing the article shouldn’t be disturbed if the dick owner exposing his parts self-identify as a woman, and that the risk that a cis man will pretend to self-identify as a woman just so that he’ll be able to enter the women locker room is close to inexistant doesn’t mean that this woman should feel the same way and analyze the risk the way you do. Here you go again, deliberately (and hatefully) misgendering. There’s no reason at all for it. You’re choosing to say this hateful thing, for no reason at all. > [@](#): > > Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says “I identify as a woman” and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences? Where did you get the impression that I’m king? I’m asserting my opinion. It’s okay to assert one’s opinion, even if they disagree. It’s okay to criticize other opinions. I believe lewd behavior should be sanctioned and prosecuted, and this has nothing to do with whether trans people should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/53 "2019-05-10T16:27:16Z")
Back to the OP: Can you explain why you thought these two questionable groups were representative of either the liberal or conservative movements, **Velocity**? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/54 "2019-05-10T16:33:02Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are better described as Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes. The acronym fits their general demeanor and attitude better, too. That might be true of this particular group I know nothing about, but stating that all TERFs are reactionaries bankrolled by conservative groups is utterly false. The debate about trans inclusion among feminist activists isn’t anything new, it has been around for as long as I can remember (and I’m not a spring child anymore) and even before, and didn’t wait for the alleged funding by conservative groups. Whether you sincerely believe it to be true or not, this is just baseless accusations to avoid facing the fact that genuine feminists, and in fact especially the most ardent feminists, haven’t always been supportive of transpeople rights, and still aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/55 "2019-05-10T16:33:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > In fact, if you look at the IOC, they’d say the evidence just straight-up doesn’t exist; that’s why their ruling is what it is. If I were in a charitable mood, I would say that Gregory should have waited the IOC’s recommended 2 years on HRT to compete as a woman. But I’m not. You seem to put a lot of stock in what the IOC claims, so why does it take you being charitable to think Gregory should have waited the two years? How long do you think one should wait when competing in a strength event? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/56 "2019-05-10T17:30:05Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > They’re a very vocal, very visible, long standing and pretty influential group. When they aren’t attacking trans people (and, to a lesser extent voice their sex-negativity , but this bothers few people), their stances receive uncritical support by leftist activists. Terfs have certainly been around for a while - they’re pretty strongly associated with second wave feminism - but visible or influential? I can’t speak for what its like in France, but Terfs find it very hard to find a platform in leftist circles in the US, and are almost totally excluded from queer circles. One of the shitbags mentioned in the OP’s link says this expressly: they " > [@](#): > > They’re _definitely_ not people who pretend to be feminist just to bash trans. They’re feminists at the core, and have a long history as feminists, and are only incidentally and secondarily anti-trans. Feminists don’t oppress other women. These people are not feminists. And you are wildly underestimating how strongly these women are motivated by bigotry against trans people. > [@one of the founders of WoLF](#): > > “I really believe that if we lose this fight as women, we’ve lost everything,” said WoLF founder and midwife Mary Lou Singleton. Miriam Ben-Shalom of Hands Across the Aisle, a lesbian who was discharged from the military because of her sexuality and afterward protested the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, bluntly stated that she wants the T in LGBT “to go away.” WoLF is a hate group. They exist specifically to advocate for discrimination against transwomen. And they’re almost entirely funded by the Heritage Foundation. This isn’t a genuine feminist movement. It’s astroturf. > [@](#): > > Their rejection of transsexuals being based primarily on their basic philosophy according to which there’s no mental difference altogether between men and women, all observed and/or supposed differences being social constructs and/or the result of women oppression and/or of the pressures of the patriarchal culture, a position that obviously clashes with the stance of transsexuals (being a woman in a male body, etc… which assumes a difference between male and female brain). And also based on the idea that nobody who isn’t born a woman can really be a woman, because he won’t share the experience of being raised a girl and experiencing male oppression and cultural pressures girls are subjected to since birth. > > And also, even though many social activists deny that such a thing exists, due to the presence in their midst of many men haters, who can only see transsexuals as sexually perverted males trying to steal from women the only thing they have ever been allowed to have : being a woman. When they aren’t just simply pretending for sexual gratification. They don’t hate trans per se, they hate the men they see pretending to be women, infiltrating women movements, stealing women achievements and entering women locker rooms. They don’t see trans-women, they see men. Most would deny that transsexualism is even a thing. They’re more lenient with trans-men, but they don’t really spare them, either. Basically, these are traitors, “passing” as men. I trying to figure out what part of this is A) something you think I don’t already know, and B) is remotely exculpatory? Yes, they’re bigots. You have accurately explained the nature of their bigotry. And? > [@](#): > > They definitely aren’t pretending. They have been and still are at the vanguard of all feminist movements, throwing their support at every feminist cause you are yourself supporting (and probably some you aren’t). You want to believe that because it would fit nicely in your worldview where feminist activists are nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive male patriarchy, and trans activists nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive cis male culture. And where everybody disputing either group’s claims is a hater. So, you’d rather invoke the “no true Scotsman” fallacy and assume that a feminist objecting to some or all of trans people claims isn’t a true feminist (or is as rare an an unicorn) than face the reality of the presence in both group of people who have no interest whatsoever in the plight of the other group. Trans people who don’t give a shit about the situation of non trans women and about the consequences policies they advocate for would have for them and feminists who don’t give a shit about people who aren’t born women and/or aren’t physically women and about the consequences the policies they advocate for would have for them. This is like saying, “A racist is someone who treats people like shit because of their race,” and having someone well-actually with, “Racists don’t think blacks are people at all, so your description of them is incorrect.” Feminists support women’s rights. Transwomen are women. Terfs actively work to undercut transwomen’s rights. They slander and libel them. They sometime physically attack them. They’re bigots, full stop. > [@](#): > > It’s easy to accuse cis straight white males of being haters when they argue against trans-women in women locker rooms, because your world view definitely allows for them to be haters. But it doesn’t allow for feminist women to be haters or to be deluded by extremist/fundamentalist beliefs that allow no nuance. So it becomes a problem when those feminists are arguing against the exact same thing, on the basis of longstanding views that you’re otherwise supportive of, which can only be solved by denying that such sincerely feminist women exist, or at least are in any way representative or significant. I’m sure you’d have no problem agreeing with such a feminist stating “Given how much women are victimized, it’s perfectly normal for a woman to be wary of all men and about their true intents, and to not assume honest intents on their part”. But since you also throw your support to the trans cause, and to their claim that their gender identification shouldn’t be disputed in any circumstance, you somehow have a problem when a feminist tells you “why should I assume honest intent on the part of a naked dick-waving person in my locker room just because he says “I feel I’m a woman”, exactly?” “Why should I have to face such a situation that I find threatening and abusive and can’t have a place where I feel safe, not even a place where I go to undress?” Bigotry is often couched in terms of personal safety. I don’t cut an excuse to white feminists who use personal safety as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Why should I cut cis feminists an excuse when they discriminate against trans people for the same bullshit reason? > [@](#): > > Being a feminist doesn’t mean that one follows every single one of your progressive (or not progressive for that matter) ideas. Feminists won’t necessarily stop arguing for the protection of women interests just because you feel they should in such or such circumstances for the benefit of groups they don’t belong to. They won’t necessarily feel that a situation isn’t threatening just because you say that they shouldn’t feel this way. They won’t necessarily share any of your views that isn’t directly related with feminism, and in particular your definition of “woman”. Their feminist views (that, once again, you probably wouldn’t dispute if they didn’t impact a group that you favor) might very well bring them to absolutely oppose your values. They can very well, and very logically, note that their own interests as non trans women are at odds with the interests of trans women. Treatment of transwomen is, in fact, directly related to the treatment of women. You can dismiss this as a “article of faith” if you want, but then, “women should be treated the same as men,” is also an article of faith. And let’s be clear, because you muddy the waters on this quite a bit: feminism, radical feminism, and trans-exclusionary radical feminism are not the same thing. I know lots of radical feminists. Several of them are transwomen. None of them are bigots. Radical feminist != Terf. The latter is a small subset of the former, which is itself a small subset of feminism in general. > [@](#): > > These radical feminists aren’t really rare among vocal activists (they’re quite rare in the general population, but then again, casual feminists in the general population aren’t necessarily very supportive of trans rights, either). It’s just that you probably don’t question their equally radical statements when they don’t impact trans people. Think about it for a minute : why would you assume that one couldn’t at the same time be a sincere feminist (like denouncing sexual abuses, or income differences) and being anti-trans? Is there any obvious reason you can see why being supportive of one issue would make you necessarily supportive of the other? And as I already pointed out, there are on top of this reasons why radical feminist ideology will not be accepting of the concepts generally advanced in support of transsexuals. Where did I say they were insincere about other feminist-related issues? I’m sure they’re honest when they complain about the gender pay gap. I’m sure they’re honest when they worry about rates of sexual assault. But I know they’re not being honest when they slander transwomen, impute sinister motives to them, attack them in public, and ally with the absolute worst elements in society - elements that are adamantly opposed to literally every other part of their agenda - because their hate isn’t getting any traction in mainstream liberal circles. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/57 "2019-05-10T17:38:51Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > And I’m not sure why people are attacking the recognition of biology as hate. Terfs go far, far, faaaaar beyond “recognition of biology.” “Transwomen aren’t women because chromosomes,” is a stupid argument, but that’s not where Terfs stop. Terfs routinely claim that transwomen are lying about their status for the express purpose of committing sexual assault against women. They view the transgender rights movement as a deliberate Trojan horse, engineered by men as a whole, to undermine and destroy women’s equality as a concept. They deliberately conflate support for transgender rights as hostility to the concept of feminism as a whole. They go way beyond, “We have a difference of definition,” and into actively lying about the actions and motives of a small and heavily disadvantaged minority. They’re bigots, by absolutely any measure. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/58 "2019-05-10T17:43:00Z")
The disparity between the treatment, by terfs, of transwomen and transmen is also illustrative. A transwoman is a man who is dishonestly pretending to be a woman for nefarious purposes. A transman, on the other hand, is a poor woman who has been tricked and brainwashed by the patriarchal transgender rights movement into denying her real identity and mutilating their bodies. The existence of transmen is used as more evidence of perfidy of transwomen - another example of men oppressing women. Unsurprisingly, transmen don’t have much more love for Terfs than transwomen. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/59 "2019-05-10T17:55:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Neither does the existence of trans people. > > Same sex marriage was “alleged” to impact other people, and it didn’t. Recognizing the existence of trans people does not impact others any more than SSM. Nobody is arguing here that trans people don’t exist. People are arguing that being trans doesn’t necessarily allow you to be considered a woman in all circumstances. > [@](#): > > People are free to go into, and leave, any locker rooms they want. They can find private locker rooms if that’s what they prefer. They can change at home. Or they can go into a stall in the locker room. If someone attacks them, or behaves lewdly around them, then that’s against the law and can be prosecuted regardless of gender identity. As far as I’m concerned, the problem would be nicely solved by making all locker rooms and such unisex and saying to whoever is unhappy about it to go pound sand. But society at large, including both conservatives and progressives, agrees that women have a right to and even a need for unisex locker rooms. Hence the need to decide who is a woman and who isn’t. > [@](#): > > If someone feels distress, that’s a feeling that people sometimes have. I have little doubt that some white people felt distressed when they first had to share bathrooms and locker rooms with black people. Some probably still do. That’s part of life – sometimes you will feel distress. It’s not violating anyone’s rights. But preventing trans people from using locker rooms would be violating their rights to accommodation and services. Forcing them to use the wrong locker room would help no one – the other locker room users are just as likely to be anti-trans bigots as the first. And this statement equally applies to transwomen. Feeling distressed because you’re refused access to women locker rooms is also part of life. Plenty of people are unhappy because they can’t, for any number of reasons, do something they would really want to do, like participating in a sporting event. Cis women unhappy about or feeling threatened by sharing locker rooms with preop transwomen can perfectly change at home. Transwomen unhappy about or feeling threatened by not being allowed into women locker rooms can also change at home. You have decided that the concerns of transwomen absolutely trump the generally accepted concerns of cis women, but you stating so doesn’t make it objectively true. Especially since, once again, it amounts to state that the subjective distress/fear/whatever of the few trumps the equally subjective distress/fear/whatever of the many. If you accept that the concern of women wrt men entering locker rooms is legitimate, how can you decide for them what exactly they perceive as a problem and who exactly they perceive as a man? If I enter a women locker room and begin to undress, how is this woman supposed to determine whether or not I actually feel I’m a woman? Why wouldn’t this be a valid concern? I in fact suspect that you would even reject the idea that she has any right to question my presence there, like saying “what the fuck are you doing here?” and expect an answer. At which point any man can indeed enter the women locker room and check up the undressed underage girl, as the author of the article fears. > [@](#): > > Here you go again, deliberately (and hatefully) misgendering. There’s no reason at all for it. You’re choosing to say this hateful thing, for no reason at all. So, I should use “she” even when discussing the case of a man pretending to be a woman in order to enter the women locker room? A person claiming to self-identify as a woman should still be called “she” even if the claim is false and advanced for nefarious reasons? Or is that accusation a way to distract attention and avoid to answer the question of why the woman should be disturbed only by what you feel she should be disturbed by, and accept your assessment of the risks rather than her own? > [@](#): > > I believe lewd behavior should be sanctioned and prosecuted, and this has nothing to do with whether trans people should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms. But even if we assume so, how would you even define who can be legitimately be considered a trans person? Why would you assume that anybody self-identifying as a woman would do so, not only sincerely, but for clear, real, serious, lasting reasons? Why would a somewhat genderfluid person, for instance, who feels rather womanish today be prevented from using the women locker room? What about a transvestite who wants to feel more like a woman today? What about a man who wants to have a “woman experience”? On what basis could the line be drawn? And how anybody could determine that a specific person claim falls on this side of the line or on the other? Once again, if you want women only locker rooms, you need a definition, and I don’t see how where you personally, or that transwoman in particular, want to draw the line is anymore valid than any other. I dont see why “I don’t want anyone with a dick” is anymore or any less valid than “I don’t want anyone who feels he’s a man”, especially since while the first can be determined by an observer, the second can’t. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742/60 "2019-05-10T18:02:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > They go way beyond, “We have a difference of definition,” and into actively lying about the actions and motives of a small and heavily disadvantaged minority. I don’t think they’re actively lying. I think they sincerely believe it to be true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equality-act-is-drawing-opposition-from-feminists-and-conservatives-alike/833742.md?page=4)