Both: Do you ever wonder if you're on the wrong side of history?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What exactly is your position?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Being trans is treatment for a medical condition and deserves to be protected to the same level.

This means among other things access to necessary facilities as well as job, housing, and access peotections similar to those cited in the ADA (which of course was drafted specifically to exclude trans people) including protection from harassment. Being required to use male facilities doesn’t mean this mark as it is both unsafe and a hostile environment. This also means transition should be included in insurance and public systems as it is necessary care.

This is distinct from being gender nonconforming but not trans which is fine and in fact laudable and also should be protected generally in the vein of Price Waterhouse but is a distinct thing from being trans.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Can I ask two questions?

1) this is out of curiousity, and maybe not relevant but- if being trans was treated as a medical condition (side question- would it be a mental or medical condition?) how then does the argument that you aren’t men make sense? Is your stance that people who have transitioned should then be considered neither men nor women? Asking for clarification, not to argue

And 2) are you advocating for a third space, exclusive for trans people and or trans and gnc people or anyone who’d feel unsafe in a sexed bathroom, or are you advocating for granting transwomen access to female spaces?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

1) mental but mental conditions are medical conditions, I think we are women but I don’t really care to be seen as neither, as long as it’s not men it’s okay by me.

2) Either. I will always use a third space when one is available and prefer them, but they generally don’t exist. If they were widely available I would always use them.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

1) I agree it’s mental but that mental is medical. I was just curious as I’ve seen a few people say that it’s a medical condition but not mental at all.

1a) I (personally) would be fine with transwomen socially/colloquially being classed as separate from men, but would need them to be legally classed as men or at least categorized/grouped with males/men when it comes to statistics, laws, and rights- only because I think females/women should have the right to be classed entirely without the male sex. Idk if that makes sense, I’m just saying that I think females and transwomen should be grouped separately entirely out fo fairness for my sex.

2) I think that transwomen should advocate for third spaces. I think they deserve them and the number of trans people doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to demand their own spaces. I still think that females should have a right to female only spaces. I know you say that there aren’t enough trans people to justify there being mandatory third spaces, but if equality is the goal then the numbers don’t matter- equality is what matters. So it shouldn’t matter if there’s only a small amount of trans people using those spaces- they still have a right to that space if that makes sense.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don’t have a problem with separating us from natal women generally but we’ve already talked about how lumping is with men from a legal standpoint leaves trans women without necessary rights and protections.

We always circle back here but the number of trans women may not stop us from asking for separate spaces but it absolutely stops us from getting them. That kind of a retrofit is extremely expensive. No one will pay it absent a legal mandate and we will never get a legal mandate, I mean that’s exactly why we were excluded from the ADA, no one will spend that kind of money on us or accept legislation that requires it. The push has to come from non trans people or it will never happen. It’s much more acceptable to the general public to alter limits on current facilities than force people to build new ones. Money is king to the us voting public.Even of all trans resources were unified 100 percent to third spaces to the level of ignoring protecting us on every other legal from it wouldn’t pass and we have jobs and housing to worry about still not to mention trenders who are full integration or die who would fight against their own interest. It has to come from a real power block or it won’t pass.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All I meant was that, even if transwomen Arent classed with men, I don’t think it’s right or makes sense to class them with women. I think that is unfair and potentially harmful to women. As for the rest, I don’t know enough about it to comment, I just don’t think the absence of trans only spaces warrants compromising female spaces

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

the ADA (which of course was drafted specifically to exclude trans people)

I had no idea about that. That's disappointing. I feel like the trans community would benefit from ADA-like provisions when it comes to matters of public accommodation. I'd support a law that required building gender-neutral restrooms and locker rooms alongside single-sex ones. We made those accommodations for disabled people. We should be able to do the same for trans people.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah it was a compromise that was part of the original passing, language was added excluding us from protections specifically along with pyromaniacs.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I read up on it just now. I know it was 1990, but it's sad to see trans people lumped in with criminals.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It happens.