Originally posted at Sex Not Gender
These are states in which gender identity laws have already been passed, yet protection for sex-segregation is also explicitly allowed by statute. This differs from the recent DOJ interpretations of “sex” where “gender identity” is not a separate concept, but one and same with “sex.”
The “gender identity” definition is on the right in column D. The (s)exception language protecting sex-segregation in certain spaces is in column C, middle. Compare and contrast!!
Don’t let anyone tell you there is no statutory or historical support for a female right to privacy from males in certain spaces of public accommodation.
Originally posted on YouTube by Mancheeze
Originally posted at Liberation Collective
Under no circumstances, ever, at any time, is it appropriate to compare the legitimate, factual, courageous, moral imperative that spurred the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with the attempts by transwomen to access intimate female spaces. Ever.
Do not conflate Jim Crow and the segregation of public spaces by whites against Black people with attempts to open women’s bathrooms, shelters, prisons, locker rooms, and other female-only spaces to male-born people. Don’t cry that this is “the New Civil Rights frontier!” Don’t suggest that the injury to men correctly barred from women’s private spaces is anything even remotely like the humiliation, hatred, and hurt caused to people of color during the years of legal public segregation. And whatever you do, do not suggest that the preening belligerence displayed by men who demand entry into women’s spaces is really just the same bedrock courage, dignity, passion, and righteousness of those who occupied lunch counters and public toilets to win for others basic civil rights.
It’s not simply incorrect. It’s delusional; more than that, it’s ignorant in the extreme and criminally, obscenely, arrogant.
Posted at The Politics of Gender
I read these reports, and my heart starts to race. They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters.
There are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit.
While I feel a deep sense of empathy for what must be a very difficult situation for transgender people, at the beginning and end of the day, it is nothing short of negligent to instate policies that elevate the emotional comfort of a relative few over the physical safety of a large group of vulnerable people.
Originally posted at Gender Detective
The traditional argument for transwomen’s right to female-only locker rooms, athletic clubs, fitting rooms, and, yes, bathrooms is generally We’re women too, so we deserve in. This is, of course, a completely meaningless justification, considering it begs the question against radical feminists and other gender abolitionists who would happily respond, No, you’re not. And then you’re at a standstill. So you get the backup argument We have to have access to women’s bathrooms because men will abuse us if we use theirs.
At first glance, this seems like a reasonable point. I don’t think there’s a woman alive who doubts that men can be exceptionally violent when confronted with someone they see as weak or capable of domination. It always troubles me the way members of the queer community discuss the violence they endure – always as if the women they’re addressing are not intimately aware of what it means to be a target for male aggression. And it makes sense, obviously, that transwomen would want spaces away from the group most likely to rape and murder them.
The problem arises when you go a little bit deeper and ask what the argument is really saying.
Originally posted at Sex Not Gender
I originally made this chart as a means of parsing what the ‘E’ in TERF actually means. So I have changed the title to include the term TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist). The central question is: what exactly are transwomen being excluded from (where)? And what is the purpose of that exclusion (why)? The following post is a basic analysis of various spaces from which females might reasonably desire the complete exclusion of male bodied and male socialized people. Alternatively, we might enforce conditions on the inclusion of male bodied or male socialized people. Bathrooms and locker rooms are examples of spaces where conditional inclusion is possible, such as for for fully transitioned transwomen. On the other hand, a private gathering might not make any exceptions for transwomen. It depends! There are many factors to consider. #nuance]
Women’s-only spaces serve a multitude of purposes depending on the context.
Originally posted at Culturally Bound Gender
It’s hard to estimate the actual number of men who are or will become rapists in the United States. While very large percentages of women and smaller percentages of men are rape victims, studies suggest that a large majority of rapes are committed by rapists who rape several different individuals, resulting in there being a smaller percentage of rapists than rape victims. However, the prevalence of rapists in the male population is still estimated at somewhere in the vicinity of 10 percent.
Let’s take a high school as our setting for a bathroom conflict of interests, so I can show you why it’s complicated to allow transwomen access to women’s spaces at some times, and why that doesn’t mean in any way that someone believes all trans women, most trans women, or even ANY trans women are rapists.