I didn’t say anything about discrimination- I said “You don’t show much tolerance for transgendered people either”.
I agree, but…paired with information from people in the know in this thread, as well as those I’ve talked to in real life, my half-educated opinion is that he meant to do that. That is, he went where no transman would normally go and risked great emotional distress to himself in order to get thrown out, exactly so he can bring suit and draw attention to the issue and get the law changed. More power to him. Perhaps he’ll be the Rosa Parks of the LGBT subculture section of my grandchildren’s history texts. I don’t feel the need to join the economic protest at the time, although I support his legal journey. I think this is a legal matter, not a business one.
Funny thing about that…you may think that’s because I think only a transwoman would be so gauche. No, no, not at all. It’s because I assumed only ciswomen would make a scene and complain to the manager. I didn’t think cismen would kick up a fuss with a transman in their midst in an environment where no one is supposed to take notice of anyone else. As you say, transmen tend to transition really well, and cismen tend to be better (I thought) at ignoring what the don’t want to see.
(See, a paragraph like that is where “cis-” comes in handy!)
I’ve often suspected that their “poor English” has more to do with customer service than linguistic ability. But that’s me being cynical.
No one is asking you to identify yourself by using these terms. They are used in specifically in conversations that are already about gender identity. And no, using “man” to differentiate from “trans man” doesn’t work. Trans men aren’t some decaf form of men, they are men. I understand not recognizing the term cisgendered when you first see it, but you know what it means now. Just because it’s a term that you personally won’t use with any regularity (if at all) doesn’t mean it lacks utility. There’s a fuckton of scientific or medical jargon that I’ll never use but I’m not going to throw a fit because it exists.
If it’s relevant to the conversation? Then yes. Again, no one is asking you to make these distinctions so why get so angry about it?
It seems like you’re backpedeling here from your original post about the details of the case, where you called him a drama llama.
A minor point of order, but if someone modifies their beliefs based on information and arguments they’re presented with, shouldn’t this be something we celebrate, rather than referring to it with dismissive language? It’s worth clarifying whether Whynot has changed her (?) argument, but if so, that’s a good thing in general.
I am guessing that you meant that term “backpeddling” is dismissive. The term “drama llama” is even more dismissive, especially when used in a context like this one, but if she really has changed her thought process then good for her.
Agreed on all counts.
Nitpick: backpedaling – to “peddle” is to sell things.
Your analogy isn’t relevant because nonrapists ARE still men, in every sense. There is no logical argument that male rapists should no longer be considered men, however, I have made my logical argument for why transsexuality is unrelated to transgenderism and the conflation should stop. You could look at it the same way as someone who refuses to use a misnomer. You might think it’s pedantic, but it’s accurate, and since I find the inaccuracy offensive, I make a point of not using it myself, and correcting others who do.
@ Doreen - not wanting to be conflated with someone is not lack of tolerance. I have said absolutely nothing about not tolerating transgenderism, only that I don’t want my condition to be conflated with it. That’s not intolerance. Intolerance would be saying “I don’t think crossdressing should be allowed”. There’s nothing intolerant about wanting people to recognise the difference and distance between transsexuality and transgenderism.
I think at this point everything possible has been said on the matter, so I’m going to stop reading new replies on this thread, it’s extremely frustrating, offensive and upsetting, though it’s furnished me with an idea of who some of the trans(sexual)phobes here are. Have fun.
Will anyone answer my question:
Why do we segregate locker rooms in the first place?
It’s not pedantic, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of linguistics. You’re welcome to redefine any word and use it any way you want, but if you use an idiosyncratic definition of a word and get offended when everyone else uses the widely-accepted definition, you’re setting yourself up for stress. But then, you’re 21; a lot of 21-year-olds do this kind of thing. Perhaps as you mature it’ll be easier to see yourself as one person in a linguistic community, rather than as the Correct Authority to whose definitions everyone else must conform.
The problem is that you appear to be using transgenderism to refer to transvestitism. Thing is, there’s a perfectly good word for transvestitism: it’s, get ready, transvestitism. There’s no need to redefine transgenderism.
As for noticing the transphobes in the thread, you’re displaying some transphobia yourself. Have you noticed?
Well, according to the test being bandied about upthread, he would not win.
Upthread, we were discussing a reasonable accomodation - that those transpeople who have the “wrong” genitals for their identity be allowed into the facilities that match their identity if able to demonstrate with id that they are, in fact, transpersons.
In this particular case, according to the news article, the potential plaintiff apparently has not changed state ID to reflect his actual sex. His papers still identify him as her. So if ‘producing papers when questioned’ was the test, presumably he would have not passed it.
This is an interesting take, but legally I suspect it is a non-starter. The term “sex” has a pretty solid binary meaning, and if one is allowed to segregate based on “sex” I don’t see what the fact that “gender identity” is a protected class has to do with it. Once a transman has legally transitioned and is identified as “male”, of course, he would have a better case.
That said, I do question whether a private shower stall would reasonably accomodate anyone. That would depend on the facilities in issue. It would not be “reasonable accomodation” in my gym, because many of the facilities - the whirlpool spa, the sauna, etc. - are all in the “naked area”. A person who could only use a private stall would be unable to use those facilities.
Hasn’t that already been gone into thoroughly in the past 6 pages? Poons and peeners and mama weer all krazee now.
To avoid unwanted sexual attention, primarily from men towards women, and to offer, again, primarily women, shelter from the justified concern that they are exposing themselves to unwanted sexual attention from men.
Given that we live in a society in which women in public are continuously subject to the eyes of men looking at them as sexual objects, I don’t think it’s irrational, unreasonable, or excessive to maintain separate facilities for intimate functions like toilet, shower, changing, etc.
In the same way, my gym has a closed-door room where women can go if they want to avoid being hit on in the main gym. My wife uses it, because she has been subject to unwanted attention/flirting from men while she’s working out. If the gym wants to offer that, I don’t see a problem with it.
I also don’t think that the general population of women should be obligated to learn the specific situation of every person that walks into the women’s locker room.
Leaving aside the argument of whether what you say is true or not, it’s now been revealed that this particular instance involved a trans man in the men’s locker room. Therefore, none of what you mentioned appears to have been the motivation of the management acting in this case.
True enough.
Men’s rooms being segregated is largely a follow-on effect from woman’s rooms being segregated. I doubt that many men would care nearly as much as women about maintaining segregation, or be made as uncomfortable by a woman’s presence in the change room - which is, I suspect, why if one wished a “test case” to test the laws in this area, a transman makes a better test case subject than a transwoman.
However, by the same token, if the law were to be changed, it would have to change for both the men’s and women’s side. It would make no sense - in that it would be discriminatory - to allow transmen into the men’s but not transwomen into the woman’s.
In short, to allow the OP’s case to succeed would, more or less invariably, bring these issues into play.
How about we not leave that aside. Is what I said false?
That’s the motivation for having sex-segregated facilities in the first place. Once you have that in place you do have to decide how to enforce it, which might mean determining who is allowed in the men’s locker room as well as the women’s locker room.
Well, to nitpick, you’re not the person I want an answer from.
The most popular opinion in this thread seems to be that overall binary segregation by gender is OK, but when it comes down to a person that’s hard to categorize, it’s whatever they are mentally and not physically, and if you disagree you hate civil rights.
I find those two positions (segregation by gender OK, because we separate kuna’s from buna’s; versus the spa is inexcusably wrong because they separated by kuna-buna instead of what’s upstaits) to be inconsistent and irreconcilable.
So you, Ascenray, are not the person I need the explanation from.
I need an explanation from somebody who clearly thinks the spa was wrong, but who sees the logic for separate locker rooms at all, as to why we separate the locker rooms at all.
Is that an OK segregation in your book? Why is that OK, but for a transgender or transexual or forgive-me-I-don’t-mean-offense-but-I-get-confused, why we go with what someone’s mental sexual identity is?
I’ve always gone by the labels on the doors, personally.