"I don't need you to believe I'm a woman"...but I still get whatever I want

[WeeBisom]

https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/i-dont-need-you-to-believe-im-a-woman

I've just read this article which was gushingly endorsed by Jesse Singal. The author is a non-passing TIM who admits that he isn't really a woman and hasn't really changed sex. And it's ok, he doesn't need us to believe he's a woman! Despite that, even though he's not a woman, and knows he's not a woman, he still claims that he has 'rights' to have access to women's spaces and services. We don't have to believe he's a woman, but we have to be fine with letting him do whatever he wants and taking all our stuff anyway.

His argument for being allowed to use women's toilets boils down to 'freedom': it's more free to not police spaces and let people do what they want, than to have boundaries in place. There is no analysis whatsoever of why toilets and spaces are segregated by sex. No analysis of safety or dignity risks to women. The thought that women might just not want to hang out in spaces with males doesn't cross his mind.

I think he's right to say that the mantra of 'trans women are women' doesn't work, and people don't believe it. But where the argument falls flat is his insistence that even though he's not really a woman, and no one has to believe it, he STILL is entitled to women's rights.

The new face of Anarchism.

Sure, 'trans women are women' is insane, and was part of what made it obvious (at least to me) we had a problem.

But dropping the insanity doesn't make the now-obvious policy problem of men taking women's stuff go away. We're not going to un-notice, or care about the problem less.

OK, "Cassie Pritchard", you're not a woman, you said so yourself. You are, in fact, a man.

Therefore if you can use women's single sex spaces, so can every other man.

That'll be a 'no' from me.

“Trans women are not women and I look really odd. Now can I use all of your single sex spaces?”

Errrrrm - no.

I failed to see that he's made an argument, just another self-absorbed, trite homily of 'why I'm so special'.

Seems to me he's admitting no one's falling for the bullshit any more, so why don't they just cut to the chase and say outright because 'I wanna'.

In summary, I think he is saying that trans people in America should move away from 'TWAW' and appeal to American dislike of government control, so healthcare and toilet use should not be regulated.

I think the situation is much more polarised in America, so it really is a criminal offence to use an opposite sex toilet in some states, which is not the case in the UK .

It's very libertarian, doesn't acknowledge that other people have rights and doesn't translate to the UK.

And some people, both in the US and here, want to abolish prisons. It's hard to understand that mindset. What do they think would happen?

'screw you guys, i do wha ah want!' (in the voice of cartman from southpark) basically.

Yeah, no mate. Women have rights as well as you. You'll be fine in the mixed sex space.

(Amazing isn't it, all the batshit pouring out this week.....)

I think its one of those things that's no thoughts, only vibes.

It's insane and I am sick of the double standards too.

A gay couple is not allowed to marry in church in England or Wales. Only the church of Scotland permit it.

A colleague now considers himself straight as his male partner has transitioned to female. Im of the view they remain a gay couple of 2 men.
They are considered a heterosexual couple and are getting married in church next year in England. Its a joke so gay people are discriminated against but if you say youre the opposite sex you get a church wedding

Well what can I say, men gonna men! Unfortunately for him he's breaking the law if he accesses women's spaces and should probably be put on some kind of register if he insists on doing so or even face charges. I won't say "if he gets caught" because there is no chance of passing for that dude.

I’m willing to be part of a coalition where many people do not believe the things I believe about transsexuality and gender. I’m not thrilled about it, and it’s often dispiriting.

Great. so am I. I’m willing to exist with billions of people who do not believe the things I believe about a great many things. It is indeed depressing and dispiriting.

But I am willing to tolerate those beliefs, even when they’re uncomfortable or painful, for the sake of obtaining our freedoms and material security.

No. You (and I) have to tolerate those beliefs not as some quid pro-quo, but just because. If your tolerance of my beliefs is in return for some thing you consider to be freedom and without which your tolerance dries up, then it’s not tolerance in the first place.

And that is the nub of why we are in this mess. There was no gay marriage and some gay men wanted to be married so one of them transitioned. They were allowed to marry before the legalisation of gay marriage.

Just think, if we had allowed gay marriage in the 1970s when they passed the act that decriminalised gay sex, we might not be in this position.

I lost the will to live about half way through this nonsensical diatribe but my impression is that his ideas will please absolutely no one. Rabid TRAs are not going to concede that transwomen are not actually women
And women are still not going to accept that "specially identifed men" should have women's rights
however much word salad he throws at us

But where the argument falls flat is his insistence that even though he's not really a woman, and no one has to believe it, he STILL is entitled to women's rights.

The reason why you think it falls flat is because rights are dependent on proportionality & not necessarily sex. It's who out of those competing for rights is going to suffer the greater of harms/disadvantages that ultimately matters & that rests on principles.

Brilliant article btw so thanks for the link.

Rights are absolute or can be qualified. But you don’t gain rights you don’t otherwise have by “need”. There’s no way to construct a “right” for a man to use a woman’s toilet no matter how much he “needs” to.

i don’t have the “right” to steal your money even if as a poor person it would be proportional for me to do so.

There's no case law yet to determine whether this is true. Ultimately this claim needs to be tested in court specifically applied to public toilets to find out.

Patience. (Although the law about workplaces is now clear)

Go for it. We're popcorn ready 🍿

We're moving into the revelation stage of trans activism I see. "It's one big fake con, we've never believed we can change sex, we just want to do whatever the hell we damn well please. We don't give a shit about boundaries and safeguarding. We are men and we go where we want." #operationletthemspeak at It's finest.

According to the article “ individual freedom and tolerance” means that we shouldn’t allow mean minded shallow wrongthinking governments to legislate against right thinking parents who wish to give their very young children “gender affirming care”. And that in addition we should allow trans identifying boys ( its always boys,we know that) to take part in sporting events against young women, because again it is their individual freedom to do so - the boys freedom to be clear, the girls seem not to be considered to have any right to freedom of choice in this issue.

I am not sure just whose tolerance is being challenged in the sports situation, I suspect it is the girls and their parents who have again missed out on their right to make choices.

Unfortunately I think I dropped my tolerance gene down the toilet and flushed. Oops.

This shows a wilfully profound misunderstanding of the piece. The author simply doesn't believe there's any utility in attempting to convince/persuade/explain gender not sex….& she's right because by virtue of being gender critical means this is an impossible task. At the heart of sex realism is the belief that gender is a social construct …a 'stereotype' not a biological inclination & as such carries no weight as a meaningful identity that deserves rights so its more pragmatic to approach this issue as done for religion.

That's all lovely that TRAs have worked out that shouting TWAW isn't going to cut the mustard. Now they just need to work on respecting our laws and not forcing their way into single sex protected spaces.

The point you are missing is the principle of liberty being undermined by enforcing a police state & politicisation of medical care. While that might suit some for an individual issue, it sets a precedent for others that might not suit like for example reproductive care restrictions ….should the prevailing political ruling party demand it.

Principles are what is ultimately on the line here so its a short sighted approach to not recognise that.