As a biologist, I reject the idea that biological sex is a social construct. It is a scientific theoretical framework, which means that it’s subject to change just like any other idea. But it is testable one constructed around concrete evidence. We can see biological binaries throughout the entire animal kingdom. There are species which can transition from one form to another over a lifetime. But it’s not just behavior that changes. Biology changes. Organs change. Hormones change. Body morphology changes.
Race is a social construct. Nationality is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. I’ll even say that sexual orientation is a somewhat of a social construct, since it is possible we’re all latent bisexuals or pansexuals and just don’t know it due to social conventions.
But biological sex is not a social construct. The existence of intersex folks does not disprove the very realness of sex, just like the existence of cross-dominant folks doesn’t disprove the very realness of lateralism and handedness. Nature is imperfect and sloppy. That doesn’t mean obvious patterns don’t exist.
They’ve tried, in this thread. At least two of them and one posted several times. And they were insulted and belittled.
My grandmother went to her grave convinced that her personal safety was endangered because black women were allowed into same bathroom she had to use. And when she was younger she accused the anti-segregationists of lacking concern for her personal safety.
She was wrong, but her fear was very real.
It’s clear the document is designed to promote acceptance of trans people in shelters. Which is laudable. It just seems to gloss over any extant threats and even makes a claim that it’s not been an issue in San Francisco shelters. No way to know if that claim is true or not without digging for actual police reports and independent stats to confirm.
No, they weren’t. Setting the bar for “insult” and “belittling” to mean anything you personally disagree with is absurd, and a path to never discussing any difficult topic. It is unfortunate if someone feels that way, but someone finding offense does not prove offense was meant. If that’s so, why does no one care if women in this thread feel belittled by language that avoids the use of words like “women”? Why is one group’s taking offense meaningful and another’s is not?
As to your grandmother’s racist fears, here’s the thing; sometimes people fear things justifiably, and sometimes they fear things unjustifiably. The fact your grandmother had an unjustified fear rooted in bigotry does not prove @monstro is unjustified and bigoted in her fear.
So I’m gonna ask you a question I’ve already asked you, @Ann_Hedonia.
Do you think we should dismantle sex segregrated restrooms and lockerrooms? Because you bringing up your scared racist grandmother is not making me think you understand where I’m coming from. We abolished race segregated bathrooms because we realized they were an impediment to racial unity and promoted racism. If we had maintained race-segregated facilities, a whole bunch of grandmothers would still believe that black women are scary and dangerous. They would have never learned that black women are not scary and dangerous.
What your side is doing is saying we need to preserve sex segregated spaces but not care one little bit who uses those spaces. Y’all are saying we need to maintain the theater of “safe spaces for women”, but not actually enforce the safety of those spaces by keeping males out.
By supporting sex-segregated spaces while simultaneously screaming TWAW, folks are telling women that men are dangerous, but that they are stupid and hateful if they scream when a man comes into their room. Can you not see how this is a horrible schizophrenic position?
There must be more than one Alex Drummond, because when I search Google, I get both the bearded and unbearded (and very feminine looking) versions of people with that name.
This reminds me so much of a thread we had years ago. I confessed that my interpersonal style with strangers varies depending on gender. If a woman sitting next to me on the bus compliments me on my earrings, I’ll smile and return the compliment (“Thanks! I love yours too!”) But if a man said the same thing, I’d be more guarded. I probably wouldn’t smile as big and I probably wouldn’t compliment him back.
Derps started clucking their tongue at me. “That’s sexist!” they screeched. And then they brought up race. “If a white person treated a black person like that, you’d call them a RACIST!”
Race and gender do NOT operate by the same rules. Nor should they. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
I don’t think it’s hard to understand. It’s just hard for some people to accept where the analogy ends and find ways to still coexist without demonizing those who think that changing language and understanding of sex is not the best way to go about achieving the desired outcome of acceptance of the trans community.
Biological sex is not a social construct, and you’ve expressed this in a clear and compelling way. But gender roles and gender identity are entirely social constructs. Human society recognized from the beginning that there was a biological division of labor (childbirth) and built up this whole scheme of expectations for people based on that.
That was a useful innovation for primitive people, but modern society and modern technology mean that we no longer need to structure expectations of people based on their baby-making parts. We can deconstruct gender roles entirely, and still be able to perform the binary sexual responsibilities as life dictates. Or not, if we choose not to.
There’s just no reason humans with sophisticated cognition and reasoning should limit themselves to the same binaries that animals or early people do, except it threatens some mental categories that help us a lot in other ways.
It’s designed to promote acceptance of trans people in women’s shelters. It has no instruction that men and mixed-sex shelters take actions to ensure safe inclusion of transmen. The guidance mirrors the lopsidedness of the entire discourse.
Here is another aggravating bit:
A woman who has a history of sexual abuse runs up to you, hysterical, saying that there is “a man in disguise” in the women’s bathroom. She is obviously in crisis as a result of being traumatized, but when she points to the person who scared her you see that it is, in fact, a trans woman who also looks very upset. What could you do?
Separating them is probably the best way to start. The first thing to know is that this was not the trans woman’s fault. Both of these women need support. The trans woman may need support around what it felt like to be accused of being a man. She may be a survivor of abuse herself and may have had her experi- ence triggered by this accusation. It is also important not to dismiss the non-trans woman’s fears, as the experience of coping with abuse and flashbacks is very real. Sexual abuse or assault is a devastating experi- ence with profound impacts on survivors. This must be clearly acknowledged. Staff must be clear, as well, on their mandate to provide a safe space to all women. Trans women are women and require women’s ser- vices. A men’s shelter is neither safe, nor appropriate for a trans woman. Staff must validate the experience of trauma but it can never be a reason to discriminate.
My critiques:
A rape-traumatized woman is characterized as “hysterical” if she spots a person she codes as a man in a shelter that is supposed to be exclusive to women. What is the point of poising the well with “hysterical”, if it’s not to poison the well?
If the woman’s reaction is understandable given the trauma she’s recently experienced then it’s more than reasonable to have a policy that protect against this. This would make as much sense for the transwoman’s good as it is for women. The first line of the response says it all: “ Separating them is probably the best way to start.” Ok, so the most efficient way to do that is by not housing them together.
“Staff must be clear, as well, on their mandate to provide a safe space to all women.“ And yet this instruction doesn’t seem to apply to men’s shelters when it comes to transmen. Staff apparently aren’t advised they have a duty to protect transmen; this responsibility is outsourced to women’s shelters.
So the guidance is essentially saying it’s perfectly acceptable for a men’s shelter to retain single-sex status, but female humans are not entitled to the same type of facility. “Women’s shelter” is supposed to be a mixed-sex and mixed-gender space. Nothing about this is fair or defensible.
I think this fits well into the answer category of, “Oh, you’re offended? Okay. That’s how you feel. But what’s your argument?”
This is a negotiation taking place on a large social scale. A successful negotiation rarely results in one side getting everything they want. Everybody is welcome back to the table at any time. Taking your bat and ball home because you feel insulted kind of puts an end to a workable resolution.
Perhaps. But that’s probably very easy for us (i.e. straight white cis men). If my very existence had been discounted and demeaned for most of my life, that might be a bit harder to put into practice.
I agree. I’d do the same thing. But I don’t get your point because I know a LOT of people who would react differently in that situation based on the race of the person starting the conversation and it would frequently arise from a perceived safety issue. There are still a lot of white people out there that firmly believe black people are more dangerous than white people.
Some Mexican heroin dealers won’t even sell to black people as policy because they feel they can use unarmed delivery guys if the only sell to whites - and that way their runners don’t risk weapons charges. I think it’s a perfectly apt analogy.
We’ve not yet achieved an end to racial bias, never mind trans bias. So nobody should be pretending we’re just one problem away from a perfectly just society. That said, I don’t know anybody in this thread that would condone or tolerate bigotry towards trans people. We are in disagreement of a very narrow slice of social policy and convention. I see one side as unwilling to bend in an area where, IMO, there is the least to lose and the most reason to compromise because women are perhaps the most natural allies that trans people have.
The “unwilling to bend” isn’t really how I see it, but even it that’s true, I still don’t see this as trans activists vs women, or trans activists vs feminists. Rather, I see it as trans activists plus a bunch of feminists vs a different bunch of feminists. And there are extraneous assholes on both sides – some threatening internet trolls on the trans activist/ally side, and some right wing trans-hating Trumpers on the other side (among others for both).
You just said you’d do the same thing that I would do. You would treat a man differently than you would a woman.
And then you turn around and say you don’t get my point? Why don’t you get my point?! My point is super obvious. It is socially acceptable for women to be more guarded around men than they are around women, given the nature of gender and sex. The same is not true for race. I’d be a racist for demanding “black only” restrooms. I’m not a sexist for demanding “women’s only” restrooms. I say this because no one has ever accused me of being a sexist for using a women’s only restroom. I also say this because no one in this thread has said women’s only restrooms are sexist.
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question about sex-segregated facilities. Should we keep them or not?