Plenty of transwomen are not, in fact, insistent on transitioning. So where does that leave that argument?
This. This is the kind of thing I am worried about; men who avoid doing anything overt that would get them kicked out, but still make everyone around them very uncomfortable. Not the obviously criminal acts that everyone jumps to and then dismisses.
But what if she is female?
What if she is female (trans or otherwise) but she looks masculine enough that women question her presence in the women’s locker room? Should she be forced to go to the men’s locker room? How is that safe for her?
Powers &8^]
I see y’all keep bringing up trans men. Why? I don’t know what would prompt a trans man to use the women’s restroom if they are trying to pass as men.
But the same logic holds for females as it does for males. Proof upon request should be proffered when the sex-segregation rule has the appearance of being broken.
I’ve never heard of masculine-looking females being interrogated when they use women’s restrooms. Have you?
It has been my experience that the vast majority of butch women have the clear signs of femaleness. Like boobs and facial structure. Those who don’t have any signs are likely transmen and they are already peeing in men’s restrooms without raising any eyebrows. Just like the majority of transwomen who can pass as female are already peeing in women’s restrooms without raising any eyebrows.
Because if the law says people must use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex, a trans man would have no choice but to use the women’s bathroom. That’s why such a law is stupid.
Lol. That has been what the law has always been, though. Men are supposed to use the men’s space and women are supposed to use theirs. Transexual folk historically have never been slaves to following these rules, because it’s been understood that they are not enforced unless for-cause. But the rules have always been there.
But I didn’t.
I’m talking about a woman. Either cis-woman or trans-woman, doesn’t matter. But she looks masculine enough that women question her presence in the women’s locker room because they think she might be a man.
I specifically said female; why did you think I was talking about a transman?
Powers &8^]
You don’t think transmen have trouble with cismen? Look up Brandon Teena sometime.
But I would argue transwomen have it worse. What if she’s pre-op (so none of your “clear signs of femaleness”) but clearly female-presenting? You think she should go into the men’s room? How is that safe?
Powers &8^]
That’s messed up. I think if I were that woman, it would have been hard for me to resist dropping my pants and showing those cops my vajayjay, though that would have just made things worse for her if she’d done that.
I don’t know who sicced the police on her. Let’s say it was another woman. I’m curious if you understand why a woman might put in a phone call. If the victim had been a dude, do you think it have been wrong to ask for ID? Or do you think the cops should have seen their presence in that line as a no big deal situation, given the possibility that a male-presenting individual might be a transwoman or a gender nonconforming woman?
I guess what I’m asking you is how would you want this situation to play out in your ideal world, assuming in your ideal world you still have sex-segregated restrooms. I don’t think siccing four (or however many) cops on anyone who is unarmed and nonthreatening is ever a good idea. But I don’t think the cops were necessarily wrong to be suspicious.
I think if a female friend told me she called the police because she saw someone who looks like a guy standing in line to get into a women’s restroom, I’d seriously roll my eyes at her. Because while people are entitled to their feelings of fear and anxiety, there’s nothing inherently dangerous about peeing next to a dude in a crowded restroom. I just know there are situations that I would have more sympathy about.
Because trans men are female.
I can’t tell if you are being daft or what, but this kind of exchange is exactly why I’ve had my fill of gender identity stuff. Language has become needlessly muddied and loaded.
Thanks for the reference… You’re not correctly representing the context of those things, and facts aren’t denigrating. Trans women AREN’T women; it is not denigrating anyone to state fact, or to refuse to accept your position that it doesn’t matter if the word “woman” doesn’t mean anything. Rowling obviously did not mean to suggest that post menopausal women aren’t women and no one seriously thought that’s what she meant or whom she was referring to, and playing “Gotcha” with that wording in a tweet is, well, utterly absurd and just trying to play gotcha. She did not, as others have pointed out, say “trans people are dangerous to women, girls and children.” Your claim that detransition is “extremely rare” is absolutely not a proven fact and perfectly respectable individuals have done studies stating otherwise (not that I find that position proven either, especially given the amazing increase of trans-identifying kids in the last few years.) I could go on but won’t dredge an argument up for 600 posts ago but simply don’t buy Rowling was denigrating anyone.
If it’s obnoxious to say women aren’t men, “obnoxious” doesn’t mean anything anymore, either.
It sounds like everyone’s got problems with cismen. I think we should be focusing on making cismen decent human beings instead of turning the ladies’ room into a sanctuary for everyone who gets beaten, raped, and attacked by them. How about we do that and then we can talk about how women need to be more open-minded about their gender identity.
And some folks think gay marriage isn’t marriage. I find this just as convincing. Language is flexible, and if millions see trans women as women, then that word has changed to encompass a larger group than it used to. Some people don’t believe this, and some others criticize those who insist trans women aren’t women, because so many trans folks find that denigrating and gaslighting.
The rest appears to be more difference in opinion and priors as well as ignoring some of my other criticism.
I’ll agree with the main point of this post - the problem is cis men (and the broader misogyny in our patriarchal society), not trans people, and not trans rights.
I’m all for that, but it seems like kind of a big project. Where do the trans people pee until we’ve fundamentally reformed slightly less than 50% of the human species?
“Marriage” expanded to include same sex couples still has a definable meaning. That’s how they changed the law here, actually.
By your own admission, you’re proposing the word “woman” mean nothing at all.
Those are not analogous, and it is not “obnoxious” to disagree with you on this point.
That is not what I’m proposing. Trans people exist, and trans women exist, and “women” has broadened slightly (very slightly on the numbers) to include trans women. Not any asshole who claims to be a trans woman, but actual trans women (they really exist!).
Maybe you think the definition shouldn’t have changed on this, but you’re too late. Usage defines definition, and the definition of “woman” has already changed, because millions are already using it as such.
As I’ve said before, I believe trans women are women, but they are not cis women, and cis women face challenges, dangers, and obstacles that are not faced by trans women (and vice versa). I believe that it’s reasonable that some spaces be safe for cis women, considering those dangers.