New anti-trans legislation in North Carolina

[SlowFJH]

Of course it's been driven by the religious right wing. But it does aim to achieve what many posters here appear to advocate - namely that biological males can only use men's toilets and changing rooms etc. Biological females must only use women's toilets and changing rooms. Will it gain wider support?

I probably don't have much of value to add to this thread but I am completely against unisex toilets for all.

One thing that is really pissing me off is the number of right on, oh so enlightened men saying this is a victory for vulnerable people and they've never understood why toilets are gender segregated anyway. Of course you don't fucking understand - you're not female, with all the shit that goes with it. You've never been a 12 year old girl in tears because she's just started her periods, is struggling to put in a tampon in a unisex toilet in a French McDonalds, knowing that the men in the next stalls can hear her unwrapping the tampon, trying to wipe blood off her hands before she goes out to wash them.

What are we coming to when the expansion of rights for one group means the erosion of another's?

I'm fully in favour of additional unisex toilets, not unisex toilets at the expense of what's usually regarded as safe space for women.

I agree, AgentCooper. I think unisex toilets are a good solution, but I'm imagining fully contained cubicles opening onto a public area, as you often have in cafes and restaurants. I wouldn't particularly want to use stalls type unisex toilets with an open sink area. Especially at night or in a quieter area, because you're back to the original problem of women being vulnerable. We still need male and female toilets, but with another option open to all.

Absolutely, MrsK, if each toilet is self-contained with its own sink (as on a plane, for example) then unisex doesn't bother me - it's the stalls set up that really bothers me, and the presumption that this is fine for women.

You just know that what you'll get in that sort of environment is idiotic boys with phones poking under stalls to get a look at girls.

At the university where I work there are lots of female students from the ME and N Africa who are Muslim and wear hijab. At lunchtime,molts of them use the ladies' bathrooms as somewhere to remove their hijabs, fix their hair underneath. They would just stop using the bathrooms if there were men in there. It sounds horribly cynical, especially since these women are among the smartest and loveliest people I've ever spent time with, but I wonder if big universities have really thought about what they'd do without Saudi or Kuwaiti money if female Muslim students from these areas no longer felt that there were safe spaces for them?

crappymummy language changes, JAPAB, and this archaicism you are holding on to is sexist and oppressive.

Sure it changes, but has it changed to the point where man no longer has this collective meaning? FTR I wouldn't use man or mankind myself. I would use humans or humankind. And yours or my disapproval of, or refusal to use a term with a specific meaning, does not alter whether or not it has it.

So my point remains that in some contexts the word man has and will be used have the meaning of humans, and the correctness of this point and the further point that XY-people do not (yet) have an exclusive term, is not going to be affected by yours or my approval.

It is quite telling that you then threw out two classic misogynist slurs in an attempt to minimise your misgenering

I didn't misgender anyone. That doesn't even make sense when the word man is being used to mean humans. That would be like saying you are being misgendered by the word humans. You are only being misgendered if someone attempts to ascribe a different gender to you than the one you identify as. The word man, with that usage, ascribes no gender to anyone.

Oh and I wasn't trying to minimise anything. Just make the point that knowing about terms and their meanings does not make one sexist. Your usage and approval of those terms with those meanings might, but not the knowledge.

JAPAB.

Oxford English Dictionary notes on the word 'man':

In the second half of the twentieth century the generic use of man to refer to ‘human beings in general’ (as in reptiles were here long before man appeared on the earth) became problematic; the use is now often regarded as sexist or at best old-fashioned. In some contexts, alternative terms such as the human race or humankind may be used.

HTH

Japab, could you kindly tell me what a woman is?

the fact that 'man' has been used historically to erase women does not render it any less oppressive a use of language

the idea that some people still use it in this way, or that they 'mean no harm' does not excuse it from being harmful

given that 'man' is also used to signify one gender, then yes, to include me in that group misgenders me, regardless of intent

I repeat, it is interesting that you chose gendered slurs to make your point, and not racist, homophobic or transphobic ones

Those slurs exist too, and yet I expect you would be half so confident throwing them about

Again, do you think your contempt for women is innate, or due to your socialisation?

"the word man has and will be used have the meaning of humans"

That's because women weren't actually included in humans.

Women were sub-humans, also-rans.

That's why the word man was used interchangeably with human. Because it didn't include the inferior half.

In the interests of transparency, I have reported JAPAB's posts as I feel they create a hostile environment for members of a protected category under the Equality Act.

JAPAB has misgendered me, which may be forgivable on a forum where gender is not apparent necessarily from posts, but when asked to stop, continued to do so, minimising my distress, and using gendered slurs to further aggravate the harm caused by the initial offence.

crappymummy I repeat, it is interesting that you chose gendered slurs to make your point, and not racist, homophobic or transphobic ones

Maybe because I had just been accused of being sexist, and not racist, homophobic, or transphobic. But I know what many of the slurs for these groups are and mean also, as do you. And that knowledge does not make either of us any of these things. Especially if we would not use them ourselves.

given that 'man' is also used to signify one gender, then yes, to include me in that group misgenders me, regardless of intent

Not when it isn't being used to signify the gender. Then it is no more asserting that you are a man in the gender sense than it is asserting this of me.

And once again I have not or would not use man with this meaning. I just know it exists and mentioned it only to say that as yet XY-people have no exclusive label.

the fact that 'man' has been used historically to erase women does not render it any less oppressive a use of language

the idea that some people still use it in this way, or that they 'mean no harm' does not excuse it from being harmful

It may well be oppressive, harmful and so on. That is why many people use humans and humankind instead. Maybe one day all the dictionaries will list the old meaning under "archaic", rather than some of them just having a note that this usage can be "problematic".

Japab, what is a woman?

your insistence on using a term that misgenders me, while stating that you aren't trying to misgender me, even while you do it is breathtaking

what is it about 'you are creating a hostile environment' that is unclear? I have stated it multiple times and yet you persist. You insist on your right to use slurs to exclude and offend, because, hey, many people do. And the dictionary doesn't call it archaic, so it just be ok, right?

we see you, JAPAB- your slip is showing

JAPAB has misgendered me, which may be forgivable on a forum where gender is not apparent necessarily from posts, but when asked to stop, continued to do so, minimising my distress, and using gendered slurs to further aggravate the harm caused by the initial offence.

And now doubt it will even be upheld, despite the fact that nowhere did I refer to you as a man, nor use the word with this meaning myself, or do anything other than state that the usage exists for the purposes of talking about how there has never been an exclusive term for XY-people.

In the SECOND HALF OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY it was seen as problematic, that is, between 1950-2000. I call that archaic not a current thing people have suddenly found to be out-dated.

as yet XY-people have no exclusive label.

I'm pretty sure that when you tick that you are male when you go to see a new doctor, they aren't expecting to have to clarify your biological sex on the basis that 'man' is just a general term for human or mankind.

AskBasil, Japab, what is a woman?

A working definition might be "someone who feels that characteristics typically associated with an XX-chromosomed body are natural, normal, or right for them". With man having something equivalent.

JAPAB intent isn't magical, and does not erase the harm that gendered slurs cause

'Oh, I know it has a different, more common and more offensive meaning, but I mean it in a different way!'

not good enough.

OK, JAPAB, what do you mean by "characteristics normally associated with..."

I don't wear heels, and often wear jeans and no make up. I have a senior job. I like fast expensive cars. I fancy women. I am outspoken and sweaty. None of these are "characteristics associated with xx". But I am XX and I am a woman.

So you are saying that "woman" is a feeling and comes down to performing femininity. Biology- irrelevant, it's all to do with the heels and submission. Well done, you're a misogynist.

this site is by parents, for parents

and yet, you think your right to create a hostile environment which necessarily excludes people is somehow in keeping with the ethos of the site

I want to believe that this is a place where people can discuss difficult topics without making others feel threatened or unsafe

What is it about this topic which makes you feel it is necessary to make others feel threatened and unsafe, even after you've been asked repeatedly to stop?

does it reassure you in some way? Validate something in you? I hope you take this opportunity to reflect on these urges- they are harmful, and probably damaging you.

I hope you find peace.

A working definition might be "someone who feels that characteristics typically associated with an XX-chromosomed body are natural, normal, or right for them". With man having something equivalent.

That is a pretty rubbish definition if you are a doctor trying to treat a patient.

JAPAB, in order to participate, you really need to contribute something of yourself - an opinion for example.

Saying that a word can be used this way, and when people take offence saying that you didn't use it in that way, you just said that it could be used in this way is a complete cop out.

If you're not actually going to bring anything to the discussion, why are you hear to discuss?

To use present Twitter jargon:

A mealy mouthed reply.

merrymouse, good point. I was thinking about how "man" is not yet an exclusive word in the English language, but you are probably correct that male has been.

MrsJamin, but which dictionary actually lists the "mankind" use as "archaic"? Problematic, even for 50 years, does not mean "incorrect" or "no longer has this meaning". I still think we are a way from "man" having the exclusive sex/gender meaning, as rightly or wrongly as you can argue that may be.

and please, please, please could you explain what these characteristics are that can make somebody feel like a woman, in the absence of actual biological characteristics.

good old dictionaries- unquestionable authorities on words, except of course, when they aren't.

Keep going, Humpty Dumpty- your slip is showing, and we see you