I think all facilities need to be open to those of the appropriate gender. Basically the 1964 Civil Rights Act amended for gender identity. With that, I also think, as I said above, that trans people with the “wrong stuff” will not get naked in a single-sex environment; they would rather die than subject themselves to such an extreme level of humiliation. I think you cannot find a more self-policing issue than this.
The gentleman in question being the exception that proves this rule, his motivation was to force a legal ruling, so he underwent the humiliation voluntarily for a cause. People don’t, as a rule, in the course of ordinary life, chain themselves to the White House fence either. But activists will do that for a cause they feel strongly about.
I am looking forward to see legal rulings establishing the civil rights of trans people to use facilities. I expect the way it will shake out is you will have to be post-op to use single-sex naked space. I believe it’s important to get that right established securely in case law, for post-op people at any rate, because right now the status of same is still unclear or undetermined. Lastly, I think that because trans people’s nudity is so heavily self-policing, that none but post-op people would go there anyway, whether you made it legal or illegal or whatever.
The self-policing aspect of it, I think, is why my earlier question about abuse by cis-male jerks is important. Given the absolutely inexcusable behavior that some men will engage in for a bit of voyeurism (I’m thinking about the multiple police reports of men who hide in the bottom sections of outhouses, for example), it seems really likely to me that some men would be willing to pretend to be transwomen in order to enter women’s locker rooms. If the law doesn’t end up requiring trans folks to have some form of documentation for their status, the self-policing of trans-folk couple with the shamelessness of some cis-male perverts makes me think that this right would be abused by the pervs more than it’d be used by the legitimate trans-folk.
Does that make sense?
That said, I’m not entirely comfortable requiring trans-folk to have documentation in order to exercise the right. That might be the best solution, but it doesn’t seem ideal.
But you do define it differently from the APA definition, which is what everyone I know goes by. This was posted on Page 5.
Thus all transsexuals are transgender, since their gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.
The language is not only plain, it’s how I’ve heard it used as long as the two terms have existed in the trans community.
Johanna, I have about 500 or so trans references on my hard drive right now, from the 1800’s to last week, and I cannot find any which seriously posit anything near unity for the ratio of transwomen/transmen. Can you provide a source for me?
In general parlance at the water cooler, sure, but not in a conversation about trans issues. Which I already said. It’s a lot less confusing in this context if you specify what kind of man you’re talking about. A conversation about trans issues is not the same as general conversation.
It’s like saying a conversation about biological studies shouldn’t use species names because it’s confusing, they should just say “cat.” What cat? A domestic one or a tiger? Yet if I referred to “cats” at the water cooler, sure, everyone would understand I most likely meant domesticated housecats.
Just for clarity, I wasn’t suggesting that my hypothetical situation involving the women’s wet spa was actual fact. But I can best relate my opinion from my own perspective. I’ve never been in the men’s-only wet spa at this place, so can’t comment on its layout (although I’d guess it’s largely the same as the women’s). Moreover, my goal was to provide a perspective on how such situations would effect me, and people like me. I can’t comment on how men feel about it, not being one of any kind. I can comment on how I’d feel, and more generally how the reality of the prevalence of sexual assault can introduce legitimate problems into any attempts to be fair. Presumably if we want to be fair, the new rules would apply to both the men’s spa and the women’s.
The news article is lacking specifics, but the manager did receive complaints from other patrons, so presumably they were uncomfortable too. Total speculation, but if they were uncomfortable because of a fear of an accusation of unwanted sexual attention, it is at the very least related to what he mentioned.
What *is *“appropriate gender” is the whole crux of the issue. We have a desire to separate people by gender here. How are we going to do that?
If the purpose of segregating is to minimize the sexuality of the situation, there’s simply no great answer when it comes to segments of the population where their equipment and their mind don’t match.
The rest of your post - where you predict that post-ops will be protected in the single-sex space, seems reasonable to me.
I wish some of the more hardline posters in this thread would address me, though - those to whom it is clear that the mental gender is the sole determinant of segregation.
Sure, you can call it backpedalling, if you like. I do think it’s a fairly dramatic way to make a point, but on the other hand, I know that such laws are only changed when someone has suffered under them, and orchestrated suffering is dramatic by nature. I consider that a fundamental flaw of our legal/legislature system.
Let’s be clear, though that interpreting events as an act of civil disobedience/political activism is itself still speculation. For all I know, the guy was not making a point and only after the fact did his best friend the lawyer suggest that they could make some political hay here.
The guy’s friend (who goes to school with my friend, which is why this is a foafoaf account) is trying to get people to boycott the place, with some apparently genuine outrage about the matter, so whether it was carefully orchestrated is still up for debate. Are they trying to raise awareness for the court case? Are they genuinely surprised that this was an issue? I dunno. I’m basing my speculation that this was orchestrated in no little part on your own testimony that this isn’t something a transperson would normally do.
bup, I don’t think I’m one of the “hardline posters,” but the reason I’m not addressing you is that I don’t have any good answers. While I don’t care who’s on my side of the spa - ciswomen, cismen, transwomen, transmen, well trained golden retrievers - I do understand why some people do care. I’d like to suggest we not segregate by gender at all, but I suspect that would tank the business, and I do support their legal right to refuse service. OTOH, I don’t like telling transmen that they aren’t men, 'cause that’s just obnoxious. So what do we do? I have no idea.
I already said that in my last post. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 amended to include gender identity. Yeah, the same gender identity that people keep peeing on and trying to shove aside as meaningless. You won’t be able to keep gender identity out of equal-rights laws forever. It’s halfway entrenched already in lots of places and it’s only a matter of time until it’s securely established along with race and religion.
Of course it would. I said I expect that’s how it will shake out. As for the other situations, there aren’t going to be any other situations, because anybody who lacks the “right stuff” is not going to show up. This gets back to my critique, early in the thread, about cis people who freak out at the thought of trans people ever showing up because they imagine unreal fantasies about trans people’s behavior and because they’re ignorant.
I just want to say this constant, relentless, incessant hammering on trans people’s most sore spot of all, to wit, that their poons & peeners don’t match those of cis people’s, is the surest way to inflict psychological pain on them. Some of you people are so fixated on the central core issue of why trans people’s existence is so painful, this fixation of yours is salting that red-hot knife and twisting it in the wound for all you’re worth. Are trans people ever going to get a fucking break from that for one day, even?
This cavalier dismissal of gender identity as “mental” is used to imply that “mental” is insubstantial, irrelevant, and undeserving of rights compared to “physical.” That’s a false dichotomy left over from Descartes’s old metaphysics. The mental is physical. It’s the brain. Don’t be hatin on my brain, yo.
Fair enough. Not like I am am having a hissy fit over it as someone else inferred upthread.
But then again, my point, in essence, is the same as yours and remains so. If a ‘noob’ on these issues such as myself tries to engage in hopes of further understanding, I don’t think it’s helpful to have so many damn definitions – I’m aware that there are all sorts of shades of grey in sexuality, but I can’t see how it’s helpful to anyone outside “the culture”…or whatever label you choose.
As I said before I am as permissive sexually as anyone I know – BDSM for over 30 years, really don’t give a shit what people do or don’t with their birth equipment – and yet my mind reels with all these categories and sub-categories.
What’s next? I mean ‘horseman’ could take on a whole new meaning 'cause someone made it up on the intarwebs: cisman equine as opposed to non-equine, gay, cross-dressing cisman – but NOT transgendered. And I most likely offended someone saying that last part! Newspeak comes to mind.
If a guy/gal feels he is is a woman/man and does whatever it takes, short of genital surgery, to act that way, how is that person not ‘simply’ a gay/lesbian dude/tte with tits/beard?
Why isn’t that that the ultimate measuring stick? (no pun intended)
ETA: obviously I speak of transsexuals who are attracted to their same sex. Genital-wise anyway
I’ve never fallen in love with ears. But if so, I’d be a straight-eared, bi-loving cisfemale, straight cismale – that much I’ve learned from this thread.
Hopefully someone realizes how fuckin’ silly that sound.
Besides, that is nonsensical as already mentioned in this thread numerous times. Between my ears I am a Lion – wouldn’t really like living with either a gay or straight one.
And, in practical terms, if he wins his suit, that is exactly what will happen, the business will tank. Nude “parts” segregated bathhouses are a niche market, not many of us American prudes are comfortable with it. Take out the “parts” segregation - which is the effect of “what is between my ears is what counts” at least to anyone not comfortable with a unisex experience, and anyone not comfortable doesn’t come. Are enough people left to support the bathhouse?
You end up with an ordinary “we wear swimsuits” spa - perhaps even with changing stalls, or with nothing at all.
So this man is not fighting for the right to use the spa he feels most identified with, he is, in all probability, gaining that right at the expense of no one having this experience in the future. Or very few people, only in markets where the “comfortable with whatever I find” quotient is pretty high.
Because the ultimate measuring stick is the brain structure. The only reason we don’t just use that is because we can’t yet identify transsexualism in the brain without cutting it apart and looking at the slices by eye, which is inconvenient if you don’t want to kill people.
And note that “anything short of surgery” means hormone treatment; changing the hormone balance alone to that of the desired sex creates a great deal of relief I’m told. Sex hormones affect the brain, and apparently having your brain steeped in the opposite gender’s hormone mix is hugely disturbing.
And also, there’s no apparent connection between sexual preference and transsexualism. A (external)male-to-female transsexual doesn’t necessarily find women attractive.
And another problem with using surgery is a definition is that’s just technology, not identity; there have been transsexuals probably as long as humans have existed. They just couldn’t do much about it but be miserable, or try things like drinking mare’s urine (it has a high estrogen content).
