We are in the early days of a culture war, one that is bigger than anything I personally have witnessed. While it’s actually been brewing for a long time—uncovered in the media and neglected in online discussions—the heat has been dialed up since JKR spoke out in June.
Anyone interested in getting a handle on the conflict should take a look at this documentary. It’s not anything like a Kevin Burns production (very low budget affair), but it covers events as recent as a month ago. It lays out which groups are on which sides of the divide and why, and it shines a light on what TRAs are actually saying, doing, and advancing.
Which is why the ERA was so hard fought for and is still of such critical value. Again, I can think of nobody here who thinks it’s acceptable to deny trans people the same opportunities as everyone else. However, society has not yet transcended the differentiation we recognize as being necessary between the sexes when it comes to very specific conventions and private spaces. Why then do we feel that granting this privilege to trans people is justified without reasonable limits required by those who would most likely be harmed by the removal of these same limits/conventions?
Of course. I size up people in all sort of ways. That’s one of the reasons I was sexually assaulted by a woman. I’m not going to say “let myself be assaulted”, because I didn’t.
But I was totally unguarded. I had been hanging out with this woman and her husband all afternoon. Then when I was crowded into a bathroom smoking weed with a bunch of people, I didn’t leave when everyone but her did. I was just doing the girl talk thing when…boom … her arms were around me and her tongue was in my mouth.
I’m a good people sizer upper (except that one time, I didn’t get a vibe at all). It’s not that I act one way around men and another way around women. I react differently to everyone based on a combination of factors, including gender, perceived socio-economic status and even race ( although I try to recognize and check those biases before they translate into action), and situational factors -I consider someone I meet at a party or convention as less of a stranger than someone I meet on the street, even if I’ve never met them before.
But then I’m good at “reading people” and complex social interactions. I know how to work the give and take of non-verbal communication. It’s kind of like dancing, if you overthink it and consciously think about every step, you can’t do it. But I don’t treat any two people the same, ever.
I know you’re frustrated, but I just don’t view things the same way you do. For example, any hesitation or discomfort I might have in undressing in front of men in a locker room does not stem from fear of assault. It stems from a discomfort with being leered at or objectified, but not assaulted. I haven’t used any locker rooms or facilities where people undress completely in front of others since college (and I had no idea so many people did) but I would be more comfortable undressing with gay men than I would with gay women.
And I have a quirk about massages. I’m ONLY comfortable with straight men because I feel they’re the only people that don’t judge my cellulite and love handles.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the first woman in American history to lie in state at the US Capitol. And folks seriously think women should just sit back quietly and watch “woman” be turned into a meaningless category so that less than 1% of the population will be happy? Why, that’s not batshit insane at all!
I cannot know the feelings of others, but I know what I wrote and how it would reasonably be interpreted. If I were to say you were belittling the people you’re writing to in this thread (I do not think that, it’s just an illustration) and you said you were not, would it be fair for me to just say “well, how can you be so certain?” and so just try to shut down what you were trying to say? Come on.
There is absolutely zero chance, none whatsoever, that you define “insulting and belittling” solely by what the listener/reader says they feel. None; you couldn’t live that way. No one could. Look at the bizarre hysterics some people go into over anyone daring to say “Happy holidays” in December. I believe some people who freak out about that actually DO feel insulted. The thing is, they are wrong, even if they legitimately feel that way. A clerk wishing you a happy holidays is not belittling you. Do you think people should stop saying “Happy holidays” because others feel insulted?
Look, if you don’t think I should be allowed to express my opinions, at least just say so. If you do think I should be allowed to express my opinions, but have done so clumsily, you’re entitled to say that too, and I’ll honestly examine what I said and change my ways. The example cited of me allegedly being belittling is ridiculous, but I remain open to valid criticism. I’ve accepted solid criticism before on the SDMB and apologized or changed my approach to something. I’m not perfect.
Discomfort contravenes safety and security. I don’t like being catcalled not because I’m afraid of being assaulted (catcallers usually do so from far away). I don’t like being catcalled because I don’t like how it makes me feel. It makes me feel like shit. And I shouldn’t have to feel like shit while I’m undressing in a space reserved for women.
Remember that this whole discourse is centered on feelings. We’re being told we should care that transwomen suffer from unpleasant feelings when they are forced to change with men. I accept that this is true for the majority of transwomen. But I want someone to care about the unpleasant feelings that women will suffer from when they are expected to change in the presence of people they perceive to be men. I want someone on your side to at least concede that a woman who feels uneasy about changing in front of a transwoman isn’t necessarily being hysterical or crazy or hateful, especially if that transwoman just looks like a man.
Incidentally, I wanted to make a point about discrimination only sort of connected to this.
Something I have long thought is that anti-discrimination rules in constitutions and laws are often written backwards. Let me give you an example from the Canadian constitution, section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
The perceptive among you will note this list of prohibited grounds for discrimination doesn’t include either sexual orientation or gender expression. (Some laws do, but this is the Constitution, the mother of all laws.) The Supreme Court has ruled it DOES include sexual orientation, through some tangled argument.
The thing is, I don’t think this list is expansive enough. I understand why it’s written this way - we have a legacy of racism, sexism and religious intolerance in the liberal Western world, so we wanted to say those things are bad. But then you find out that because you wrote this 40 years ago no one included sexual orientation. Then later maybe you find out people are being discriminated again based on, I dunno, height or what hockey team they root for or some other pointless thing. Transgender identity wasn’t even a thing in 1980; you had transsexuals but they were given even less respect than gay people. Of course gay people and transgender people and short people HAVE to have equal protection under the law, because if they don’t we aren’t a civilized country, but the plain text here sets those types of discrimination as being either nonexistent or of lesser importance.
I don’t know that writing it this way is the right approach. You cannot list every unjustifiable basis for discrimination because there is no end to the ways people can be discriminatory, and the more you list, the more the omissions seem deliberate. Nor do you want a Constitution to have to also set out exceptions like bona fide occupational requirements. Wouldn’t it be better to have something like this replaced with:
(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on any immutable fact or personal characteristic without relevance to the law.
I don’t know that I wrote that well, but you get the idea.
Of course I think you can and should express yourself. What on Earth have I posted that could possibly lead you to believe I feel otherwise? Disagreement and criticism isn’t telling you to shut down, not by any means.
I think you’ve used some language that many trans people find hurtful, and I think there are ways you could express the points you’ve been trying to make without such hurtful language. I think I’ve already specified some of the particular language fits this, IMO. But in no way at all am I trying to shut you down, and I don’t understand what I’ve said that could possibly lead you to believe this.
Because the harm is as imaginary as people who thought they’d catch diseases from sharing a water fountain with a black person.
No, race and gender are not the same phenomenon. Yes, the generic hyped-up reasons to fear the “other” are pretty much always the same. We put our emotionally convenient person-categories above the interests of actual, breathing humans.
I think your point would be valid if there was some objective meaning to “identify as a woman”, but that is not the case anymore. Now anyone can identify as a woman and it can mean anything. A few decades ago it was much clearer what transwomen meant when they said they wanted to be a woman. They took great strides to align with typical feminine traits. That’s not what is happening now. There have been many examples of transwomen posted in this thread who instead have many masculine characteristics, may even appear 100% masculine, and have no desire to change. I’m not convinced that such people would present any different level of threat to a typical gentically XY man. I don’t see the typical male aggression going away simply because they say the magic words “I identify as a woman”. If instead that person takes great strides to align with what it typically means to be a woman, then I would feel more certain that they would be less of a threat than a typical man.
It should be abundantly clear from the context of my post that the other group denied “privilege” to women only spaces are MEN.
But by all means, if there is a new official memo outlining only one use of the word “privilege” which was automatically routed to my junk email box, please do let me know? Because I’ve got a surplus of for the language police.
@monstro and I still wondering why no one seems to be advocating for the elimination of women’s and men’s rooms. Why not make everything mixed-sex and be done with it?
If sex-segregation is a backward practice akin to Jim Crow, then it’s rather insincere to argue this but then on insist on keeping “women” away from “men”. Why is gender-segregation not based on as much bigotry and backwardness as sex-segregation?
Why is it hysterical for naked females to fear assault from strange males, but apparently it’s not hysterical for “women” to want privacy and protection from “men”?
Can we make the numbers add up here? I’ve lost track of all the inconsistencies I’m seeing in this thread. In fact, I’m thinking about making a post that summarizes them all.
The implication seems to be it’s just cismen that everyone needs to worry about. Anyone who identifies as a woman is a safe person regardless of their genetics. Anyone who identifies as a man but isn’t a cisman is also safe. In summary:
Genetically XY men - Dangerous
Genetically XY women - Safe
Genetically XY other - Safe
Genetically XX women - Safe
Genetically XX men - Safe
Genetically XX other - Safe
I personally don’t feel like the risk of aggression from genetically XY people magically goes away because they simply identify as something other than a man. But I do think that the aggression and risk typical with genetically XY people can be reduced through things like medical intervention (e.g. hormone treatment) and significant lifestyle changes. A genetically XY person who is on testosterone blockers and taking steps to blend in with female norms is going to be much less likely to be aggressive towards genetically XX people. So I feel the risk is more like this:
Genetically XY men - Dangerous
Genetically XY women - Depends on what medical/lifestyle changes they’ve made
Genetically XY other - Depends on what medical/lifestyle changes they’ve made
Which is very reasonable. I mean, we’re skeptical like this for all claims based on self-identification.
Identifying as someone who believes in God is not an assurance they are more or less dangerous that someone who doesn’t.
Identifying as a “nice guy” doesn’t mean a guy is actually nice.
Identifying as antiracist doesn’t mean you are not racist. “I’m not a racist, but…” is a thing.
If the notion of safeguarding in women’s spaces is wholly premised on the idea that no one lies or is mistaken about what they actually are, then we are talking about faith. Seriously stupid faith. Dangerous faith.
…a few months ago at the start of the pandemic the government introduced a wage subsidy scheme to help employers and small businesses (like the sole trader business I run) keep people employed. They paid out 167 million dollars to 47,000 businesses.
In order to apply for the subsidy I had to answer five questions online. One of those questions was “what is your bank account number?” I didn’t have to provide my balance sheets to prove I would be under the threshold. No accounting documents. All I had to do was (digitally) sign a statutory declaration that all the information I had declared was true (and it was). The money was in my account a couple of days later, even before I received notification the subsidy had been approved.
Statutory declarations are not “irrelevant.” They are legally binding and if it were to be found that I had lied on my declaration I would have to bear the consequences. If millions of dollars can be handed out on the basis of a statutory declaration I don’t see a good reason why they should be “irrelevant” here. Self-ID with a statutory declaration is the system in Argentina, Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Norway. What risks are those countries taking? What evidence is there that people are amending their gender in those countries with fraudulent intent? What problem are you trying to solve by making the process more adversarial than this?
…I can’t answer this question. But what I can say is that the photo that monstro linked to isn’t how Danielle currently presents, that she started hormone treatment in April, that the BLM photo was taken in 2017, and all of this is easily discoverable with just a few seconds on google. I don’t know why monstro chose to link to a misleading set of images to try and make a point. But that does appear to be par-for-the-course here.
And in regards to the question: I would encourage monstro to call for help at any time they feel they are in danger regardless of circumstances. Despite all she has said here I don’t consider her “TERFY”, I don’t think she is denying human rights here and I don’t think she is “very very bad.” And if she genuinely feared she was in danger, and she called for help, why would I think otherwise?
We used to have a poster, Ban the State I think, who would sometimes go on tirades about restrooms segregated by sex. Something about them being oppressive and unnecessary. While the idea of unisex bathrooms was brought to the fore by the television show Ally McBeal, I don’t think most Americans are ready for such a thing.
