QT/Trans: Trans women say feminism and women's rights should include ALL women, and this means anyone who identifies as a woman. But 99% of women are cis. Why then do trans women not care about the history and rights of 99% of women?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (45 children)

You can quote by putting a ">" before a paragraph. Saidit uses Reddit Formatting.

Debatable, and depends on what the feminist's definition of "rights" for women are. Is it female liberation? Is it separatism? Is it gender abolition? Is it post-genderism? And what are the methods used, and to what end? For example, many 3rd wavers are supportive of the legalization and normalization of sex work. 2nd wavers would say prostitution and pornography are a stronghold of the patriarchy. There is a fundamental disagreement in ideology there, and it is impossible for them both to be right simultaneously. Only one of them is actually fighting for women's rights.

For me, "rights" mean having the same equal opportunities and equal treatment. For instance, women not being fired for being pregnant, equal pay, ending rape and sexual harassment (which happens to men also). I support abolishing gender roles (such as "girl toys" and "boy toys") and gendered language. For instance, cousin is a gender neutral term, but aunt and uncle are not. I would like to use gender neutral terms. Mother and father will exclusively refer to reproductive roles, otherwise you can use the sex-neutral term parent. There will be no more foster mothers and foster fathers, just foster parents, as they were not involved in the conception of the child. You can tell me your parent is in the hospital. I would also eliminate he and she, and replace them with gender neutral pronouns in every language. I do support decriminalizing sex work, as criminalizing sex work only hurts the sex worker. Pimping however should always be a crime.

I support ending sex shaming. Women who are promiscuous or openly sexual are called whores, sluts, told they don't respect themselves, that they didn't have a daddy to tell them they're beautiful and they don't need male attention. Men who are openly promiscuous/sexual do not experience the same value judgements. There was a thread on the old GC sub criticizing J.Lo for doing a strip tease at the super bowl. They said rich, powerful women who do this are objectifying themselves and are victimizers, unlike the vast majority of strippers who are victims. First of all, if you find this objectifying, change the channel and don't strip tease. Second, it's rude to label someone a victim without their consent when no crime has been committed against them. Those women may or may not feel victimized. I have my criticisms of the mainstream porn industry, but it feels like GC is against any and all sexual entertainment by women. If men are seeing every women as sex objects, they need to be addressed, not the women.

The problem is that before transition, trans women are treated as male and actually benefit from the pay disparity in the workplace, not suffer from it. I do wonder if there have been any studies done on transitioned/passing trans women in the workplace and what the paygap is compared to cis women, that would be interesting to see.

I have heard from trans people that they were treated differently once they transitioned.

This is vague and subject to individual interpretation. What does that concretely look like, and what material objective can be pursued to achieve it? I've had conservative women tell me they feel most "equal" when they are subservient to their traditional husbands.

What I meant by being seen as competent is being taken seriously at work. For instance, not having men mansplain you, having your ideas taken seriously, not just taken seriously when a man says the same thing afterwards. Also people not assuming you're less competent because you're a woman, which is the reason women get paid less than men.

Prosecuting rape is not just a feminist issue because it affects everyone. However, I'm glad you brought up the topic of rape, because it disproportionately affects females by male perpetrators. And by ending sex-segregated spaces, there are loopholes which will allow predators to enter those spaces unquestioned. This is already becoming an problem with female prisons.

I agree that rape is a problem, but I think the solution is private spaces, not sex segregated spaces. For instance, locker rooms should have stalls anyway, because why do you need to see a strangers genitals, same sex or not? Rape was always a problem in female prisons. Women rape and sexually harass other women. It doesn’t get as much attention, but it happens.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to "slut shaming" or something else?

Yes, slut shaming.

This is great, these are important women's issues. However, abortion access and menstrual stigma are still priority too, ESPECIALLY in countries and cultures outside of the West. I have never seen trans women step up to the plate and fight with cis women to maintain these rights. Cis women are expected to fight for trans-specific issues, but trans women don't extend the same courtesy.

To an extent I agree.

In fact, it seems when they do talk about it, it's to say "stop calling them women's issues! you're making us feel left out" and center their feelings instead.

It's mainly trans men who insist you stop calling AFAB issues women's issues. It was a trans man who fought to remove the female symbol from Always products. It is trans men who insist you say "pregnant people".

At protests and marches for reproductive rights, pussy hats and uterus signs are branded as "TERF".

No. You are branded a TERF when you say things like "trans men aren't men" or "trans women aren't women", calling transgenderism misogyny, etc.

Why are cis women not allowed to talk about issues that affect their biology and 99% of women in general? If it affects 99% of women, it's a women's issue.

You are allowed to talk about those issues. Everyday Feminism and other social justice groups that are trans-supportive speak about these issues as well.

You're right, and this is my point. Title IX allowed for the establishment of sex-segregated spaces in schools and girls to be given their own sports etc. away from boys, by prohibiting sex discrimination. Prohibiting sex discrimination is what allows for girls to participate in opportunities that are equally afforded to boys. It applies to trans people too, you're correct, because trans people also have a sex.

Title IX does not require separate restrooms and locker rooms though. If schools built gender-neutral facilities, it would not violate Title IX.

Trans activists/feminists are deliberately trying to undo "on the basis of sex" by obfuscating sex and gender identity and render it meaningless.

I don't think using the term gender necessarily renders it meaningless. For instance the New York City Department of Education has Guidelines on Gender Inclusion. It states schools may not create gender-specific dress codes. If a school allows girls to wear skirts, they must allow boys to wear skirts. Schools can't require gender-specific attire for yearbook photos and graduation or other school-sponsored activities. Schools must also allow students to wear hairstyles regardless of gender.

As I stated in my original post, if anyone can identify into any gender or sex, then there is no reason to have any segregated spaces at all based on either gender OR sex.

The only area I support sex-segregated spaces is in sports.

Why were sex-segregated fought for in the first place, why was it necessary, why was it an achievement for women's rights? It is these questions that no QT has answered me, as I said in the OP, which is why I have a fundamental problem with their reasoning.

That's because previously spaces were male only with no substantial women's equivalent. Many of us would not mind gender-neutral spaces.

[–]BiologyIsReal 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I would also eliminate he and she, and replace them with gender neutral pronouns in every language.

I'd prefer you leave us non-English speakers alone. You keep saying you care about all social issues, not only feminism. If that is the case, then why do you think it's reasonable to expect we modify our own languages just because some native English speakers find unnecssary to distinguish between the sexes? Sorry, but this sound quite colonialist to me.

Besides, what would be the purpose of this change? How would this help to eliminate sex inequalities? Using only gender neutral language means invisibilizing women and women's issues because men are viewed as the default. You'd be only making more difficult to talk about sexism and misogyny.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (19 children)

I'd prefer you leave us non-English speakers alone. You keep saying you care about all social issues, not only feminism. If that is the case, then why do you think it's reasonable to expect we modify our own languages just because some native English speakers find unnecssary to distinguish between the sexes? Sorry, but this sound quite colonialist to me.

I'm a non-English speaker myself. My parents are from another country and I speak another language. Я сетим согласна.

This of course will require changes in English as well as other languages. I find it offensive you think all non-English speakers should think the same.

Besides, what would be the purpose of this change? How would this help to eliminate sex inequalities? Using only gender neutral language means invisibilizing women and women's issues because men are viewed as the default. You'd be only making more difficult to talk about sexism and misogyny.

We don't use pronouns based on race or disability, so why use gendered pronouns.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'm a non-English speaker myself. My parents are from another country and I speak another language. Я сетим согласна.

This of course will require changes in English as well as other languages. I find it offensive you think all non-English speakers should think the same.

No, I don't think all non-English speakers should think the same, but apparently you do think so given what you have said. You're the one who want to change every language, including all the ones you don't speak to. Don't you think many non-English speakers would have a problem with this idea of getting rid of sex based words? Especially if the person proposing it neither speak their language nor live in their country?

We don't use pronouns based on race or disability, so why use gendered pronouns.

We're a sexually dismorphic species and sex matters a lot in things like health care, safeguarding, dating, making a family, sports, etcetera. That is why we have words that indicate sex and why is important to recolect data segregated by sex.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (14 children)

why do you think it's reasonable to expect we modify our own languages just because some native English speakers find unnecssary to distinguish between the sexes?

Not the poster, but because pointless distinctions between the sexes such as third person pronouns are needlessly gendered and originate from the need to exclude women from normal life. I also want all cultures to stop pointlessly separating the sexes as well, and I really don't care how much they claim that misogyny is an integral part of their life and heritage.

Don't you think many non-English speakers would have a problem with this idea of getting rid of sex based words?

People literally always make up a stink over ending sexism. Nothing to see here.

We're a sexually dismorphic species and sex matters a lot in things like health care, safeguarding, dating, making a family, sports, etcetera. That is why we have words that indicate sex and why is important to recolect data segregated by sex.

Gendered pronouns are not needed for this. Words like "man" and "woman" are. Moreover, you can tell how unnecessary gendered pronouns are from the fact that English speakers are still perfectly capable of differentiating and speaking of men and women even outside of third person.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Not the poster, but because pointless distinctions between the sexes such as third person pronouns are needlessly gendered and originate from the need to exclude women from normal life. I also want all cultures to stop pointlessly separating the sexes as well, and I really don't care how much they claim that misogyny is an integral part of their life and heritage.

People literally always make up a stink over ending sexism. Nothing to see here.

Way to completely miss my point... You make it sound like if we were talking about something like child marriage or FGM when, in fact, we were talking about sexed pronouns and words like aunt. You know, something that for most people is NOT a issue in the slightest.

This is not going to be a popular opinion, but sexism and misogyny exists in virtually every culture. Lots of people from developed countries like to see themselves as "progressive" and "more advanced" in social issues than the rest of the world. They can easily point out the sexism and misogyny of other countries, but they are oblivious about their own. It was the "enligthened" and "progressive" western countries who started with the ideas of "sex is a spectrum", "TWAW", and "sex work is work" after all. Yet many of those people have the need to act as white saviours who could solve all the social issues of foreign countries if not were for the "regressive" natives. The implicit idea is that the locals (all of them) are too stupid, incompetent, corrupt, sexist, racist, or whathever to make social progress on their own.

Gendered pronouns are not needed for this. Words like "man" and "woman" are. Moreover, you can tell how unnecessary gendered pronouns are from the fact that English speakers are still perfectly capable of differentiating and speaking of men and women even outside of third person.

Fine, you and u/Genderbender can have fun convincing the rest of English speakers of not using sexed pronouns. Meanwhile, I'll keep speaking Spanish as I always did. I'm not going to start using made-up pronouns, adjectives, nouns and articles just to please some native English speakers, who may or may not know a word in Spanish.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

we were talking about sexed pronouns and words like aunt.

Pronouns do not have sex (in fact, 5 out of 6 personal pronouns don't). "Women" and "men" do.

They can easily point out the sexism and misogyny of other countries, but they are oblivious about their own

The person was literally saying this should apply to languages in general. People constantly criticise the dehumanisation, exclusion, abuse etc. that women put up with in their own culture, and want women to enjoy equal rights everywhere, regardless of culture.

sexism and misogyny exists in virtually every culture.

And yet it was only modern Western countries that have made any real strides in regards to pushing back against it, way beyond any other culture so far. So, miss me with that "cultural relativism" patriarchy apologia. I don't give a damn what repetitive misogynistic crap some group of people has arbitrarily decided is going to be their "heritage" or "tradition", I give a damn about ending the patriarchy.

It was the "enligthened" and "progressive" western countries who started with the ideas of "sex is a spectrum", "TWAW", and "sex work is work" after all.

And according to your cultural relativism, any dumb shit is equally valid as long as a culture forms around it. Yeah, no thanks.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Pronouns do not have sex (in fact, 5 out of 6 personal pronouns don't). "Women" and "men" do.

You know exactly what I meant...

The person was literally saying this should apply to languages in general. People constantly criticise the dehumanisation, exclusion, abuse etc. that women put up with in their own culture, and want women to enjoy equal rights everywhere, regardless of culture.

And yet it was only modern Western countries that have made any real strides in regards to pushing back against it, way beyond any other culture so far. So, miss me with that "cultural relativism" patriarchy apologia. I don't give a damn what repetitive misogynistic crap some group of people has arbitrarily decided is going to be their "heritage" or "tradition", I give a damn about ending the patriarchy.

And according to your cultural relativism, any dumb shit is equally valid as long as a culture forms around it. Yeah, no thanks.

Show me exactly where the f*** I advocated for moral relativism and excused the misogyny of any country. All I say was every culture, included the developed world is guilty of sexism and misogyny. And that is was the so called western countries who came up with "sex is a spectrum" and "sex work is work" and exported it everywhere they could. And I would add its often the developed countries who used their self-perceived "progressism" to justify their many wars. Perfect way to solve all other countries problems, right? Just kill all those foreign bigots! Women and girls included, because sex equality, you know?

If you think having pronouns that indicate the sex of a person (however you want to call them) is on pair with things like FGM or child marriage we're going to agree to absolutely disagree.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

You know exactly what I meant...

Again, pronouns do not have sex. Is there something unclear about that?

Show me exactly where the f*** I advocated for moral relativism and excused the misogyny of any country.

You're whining about not wanting to change shit in Spanish because "wahwah my language, colonialist white people". I don't give a damn - misogyny is misogyny. Culture is made up bullshit that has always failed women. It gets no respect from me.

All I say was every culture, included the developed world is guilty of sexism and misogyny.

Every culture is misogynistic. The vast majority do not attempt to address this. Feminists criticising other cultures are VERY aware of sexism in their own culture. They also do not have to live in a country or speak its language to use their brains and logical thinking and recognise when misogynistic double standards are in place.

And that is was the so called western countries who came up with "sex is a spectrum" and "sex work is work" and exported it everywhere they could.

So? We are pushing back against that just as we do against any other form of misogyny.

If you think having pronouns that indicate the sex of a person (however you want to call them) is on pair with things like FGM or child marriage we're going to agree to absolutely disagree.

Very feminist to claim that anything short of FMG and child marriage simply doesn't count as misogyny.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're whining about not wanting to change shit in Spanish because "wahwah my language, colonialist white people".

I'm just a bystander in this particular exchange, but I gotta say that this jumped out at me. Where did u/BiologyIsReal say anything approaching "wahwah my language, colonialist white people"?

Also, isn't Spanish the language that originated in the home country of a whole lot of colonialist white people? Spain, after all, was the country that kicked off the invasion of the "New World," and which ended up colonizing much of the Americas.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, I know perfectly well that pronouns don't have a sex. I am not a savage idiot, you know?

And how the actual f*** having pronouns that indicate the sex of someone is sexist or misogynist?!!!!!

It's very unfortunate for me that I can't say all I'm thinking right now about you misconstructing everything I said while being a mod. So, bye.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (4 children)

I agree with this. Also, in English, an easy way to get around using sexed pronouns is simply to switch from the second to third persons. So instead of writing, A woman... she, write instead, Women...they

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

No, I don't think all non-English speakers should think the same, but apparently you do think so given what you have said. You're the one who want to change every language, including all the ones you don't speak to. Don't you think many non-English speakers would have a problem with this idea of getting rid of sex based words? Especially if the person proposing it neither speak their language nor live in their country?

You said "I'd prefer you leave us non-English speakers alone." Who is us? I am also a non-English speaker. I'm sure there are speakers of every language who want to get rid of gendered language, especially non-binary people, who are everywhere.

We're a sexually dismorphic species and sex matters a lot in things like health care, safeguarding, dating, making a family, sports, etcetera. That is why we have words that indicate sex and why is important to recolect data segregated by sex.

There are some areas where sex matters, bu

My former psychology professor told us when we meet someone the 1st thing we as is their gender, to apply stereotypes. For instance, on a parenting forum, an anonymous parent made a post about how they're an attorney and due to their busy work schedule they had no time to spend with their kid which made the kid upset. People kept asking the parent if they were the mother or the father, even though that was irrelevant to the discussion. They clearly wanted to apply stereotypes, that the mother should spend time with the child while it's OK for the father to have a busy work schedule. Same forum, parent posted how their teen didn't want to see their father and didn't like the father's new girlfriend. People kept asking for the gender of the teen, although that was irrelevant to the discussion. I support bringing up gender when it's relevant. You can say "this person at my church..." not "this woman at my church, who is 46, white with brunette hair and green eyes...". You can bring up characteristics when it's necessary.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

My former psychology professor told us when we meet someone the 1st thing we as is their gender, to apply stereotypes. For instance,

Was your psych professor speaking of when people meet IRL, on anonymously online? Whatever the answer, your professor mistakenly assumes everyone in the world is a genderist. But the fact is, lots of people don't try to scope out other people's gender when meeting for the first time - or later on - coz we don't agree with genderism and we don't go around imposing sexist sex stereotypes on everyone.

Do you and your psych professor assume everyone hurriedly tries to suss out the race, ethnicity, religious backgrounds, politics etc of others we encounter in life so that we can immediately start applying racist, ethnic, religious, political and other stereotypes to them as well?

Also, in the examples you gave, it seems like people were asking for the parent's sex in the first case, and for the child's sex in the second case. People might want to know this NOT coz "they clearly wanted to apply stereotypes" as you assume and assert, but because they might want to be able to inquire about & factor in which kind of sex stereotypes might be at play in the minds of the children in each case. Fact is, lots of parents who don't ascribe to or live according to sex stereotypes themselves, and who did not and do not fill their kids' heads with sex stereotypes at home, often still find that their children have learned many sex stereotypes from other kids, entertainment media and social media - and their kids use those sex stereotypes as the basis for forming expectations and judgments of their own parents and their parents' partners. Moreover, lots of kids with sexist ideas apply double standards to their own parents & parents' partners depending on the sex of the adults involved & of the kids too.

The sex of the parent in the first case and of the child in the second case are actually very relevant to the discussion.

Sounds like that psych prof of yours didn't teach much about psychosexual family dynamics.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You said "I'd prefer you leave us non-English speakers alone." Who is us? I am also a non-English speaker. I'm sure there are speakers of every language who want to get rid of gendered language, especially non-binary people, who are everywhere.

The us there was more to say I'm a non-native English speaker myself (and that is why I took issue with your comment) rather than to say I speak for every non-English speaker in the world. Also, although I didn't mentioned it before, I'm from and live in a non English speaking country, and that is another part why I disliked your idea of changing other languages as you'd like.

I don't doubt there are some pleople from non English speaking countries that would entertain your idea. The question is wheter are enough of them to make this change in their respectives language a reality. And my feeling is that very likely there aren't. At the end of the day, I think native speakers are the ones who should decide on any change on their languages.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why on earth should terms like aunt and uncle be gotten rid of? What is bad about having some sexed words?

Also, why should there be no sex segregated spaces when it’s been explained to you before not providing them is depriving people of privacy and dignity?

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

is depriving people of privacy and dignity?

And equality with safety if talking about female spaces.

Feminists in developing countries are fighting for sex-segregated safe spaces and public toilets, so women can have equal opportunities in social life and be more safe. And at the same time "feminists" in developed countries are fighting to remove those spaces and reduce ability of women to participate in social life (especially of low class and marginalized women).

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yup! I’d like to know if GB recognises crime stats that show transwomen maintain male criminality without any NAMALT hedging.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There was one city in the UK and few cities in the Canada which allocated money to change all sex-segregated spaces with unisex ones in the next few years. In the UK it raised a lot of protests, so it was halted temporarily, and I don't know about Canada. Not "just allow all genders in women's spaces", but to remove them completely.

It is really horrible.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s cruel, harmful, inconsiderate, and dictates that nobody matters except the tiny handful of privileged little weenies who throw tantrums over pad packeting and the symbol on their toilet door or other silly little wants.

Never mind the very real needs of others. Apparently feminism now means throwing women under the bus and punishing any desire for privacy or dignity.

[–]Juniperius 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If gender replaces sex in anti-discrimination law, companies will be able to say, "yeah we fire women for being pregnant; we fire men for being pregnant too! There's no discrimination here!" How would you stop them, without admitting that female people (the ones who may be able to get pregnant) constitute a class separate from male people (who definitely can't) and should be protected on the basis of that class?

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

I oppose replacing sex with gender in any laws for a variety of reasons. But I think the US Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 would continue to hold up where it already applies (employers with 15 or more employees) despite such a change because it prohibits discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." The language of the original law only mentions the word women once, and the word mother twice. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1978

Unless the PDA of 1978 were specifically repealed, my hunch is it would most likely continue to apply to "pregnant employees," which is already a term used in a lot of the implementation guidance and related court rulings. Remember, Title VII, which is part of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, is a broad-based [sic, LOL] statute that prohibits discrimination on a number of different grounds, such as race/color, religion & place of natural origin - not just sex. Plus, the workplace protections in US law have been expanded over the years to prohibit discrimination based on age, disability and genetic information along with pregnancy & maternity too.

Even if we were to erase the category of sex in law, and make mentioning sex taboo and illegal as one poster here wants to happen, the fact is that pregnancy and maternity will continue to be facts of life for some human beings, and workers who go through these experiences would be covered under the law. Some medical conditions related to pregnancy (such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia) are already covered under disability provisions in the ADA, as are certain sex-specific conditions or diseases, and the ADA is not a law pertaining to sex.

Significantly, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act just passed last week by the US House of Representatives says in its preamble that it's

A BILL To eliminate discrimination and promote women’s health and economic security by ensuring reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

But the actual tex that follows avoids any mention, women, mothers or sex:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act”.

SEC. 2. NONDISCRIMINATION WITH REGARD TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS RELATED TO PREGNANCY.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to—

(1) not make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity;

(2) require a qualified employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to accept an accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived at through the interactive process referred to in section 5(7);

(3) deny employment opportunities to a qualified employee if such denial is based on the need of the covered entity to make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee;

(4) require a qualified employee to take leave, whether paid or unpaid, if another reasonable accommodation can be provided to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee; or

(5) take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment against a qualified employee on account of the employee requesting or using a reasonable accommodation to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of the employee.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1065/text

[–]Juniperius 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's good to know pregnancy is specifically covered. Thanks for the information! I wouldn't be optimistic about the house bill, though. Lots of bills pass the House; it doesn't mean anything unless it passes the Senate, too, and I'm sure all the USians here know what a mess that is.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, good point about all the bills the House passes that never pass the Senate. Most of the bills the House passes are never even voted on in the Senate, in fact.

But the point I was making was about the language. It's entirely possible to write legislation and policies concerning sex-specific issues such as pregnancy without using the words women, mother, mother-to-be by using such terms as "qualified employee" or "affected individuals." And as this bill shows, that's what's customarily done nowadays.

Similarly, laws and regulations for, say, such matters as PPE in sports, workplaces & warfare can avoid the whole issue of using terms that some genderists consider too "gendered" to bear by focusing not on the sex of the persons involved, but on the body parts requiring/getting protection. Such as:

League safety regulations require that athletes with testicles and/or penises be equipped with, and always wear, cups designed to protect those organs during any sports activity that involves, or might involve contact, both in practice and competition.

Department regulations require that all police/military officers are to be fitted with, and provided, safety vests designed and sized to suit their bodies, and to take into account whether they have breasts or flat chests - and to accommodate the specific size, shape and other characteristics of officers' breasts.

All health care personnel are to be provided with uniforms, footwear and PPE designed for the specific size and shape of their bodies and which are sufficiently well-fitted to provide them with proper protection and which will not create added vulnerabillties or hazards.

This kind of language is specific to body parts - and allows for the fact that most women have smaller stature, and usually smaller, differently shaped bodies, faces, heads, hands & feet, heads and faces than men, which traditionally have been ignored when it comes to safety equipment. Yet this kind of lingo does not reduce the people involved to nothing but body parts or biological processes the way offensive terms meant to dehumanize girls & women like "uterus havers," "cervix owners" and "menstruators" do. Coz the people themselves are still called terms that recognize they are people: qualified employees... athletes .. police/military officers... health care personnel.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that rape is a problem, but I think the solution is private spaces, not sex segregated spaces. For instance, locker rooms should have stalls anyway, because why do you need to see a strangers genitals, same sex or not? Rape was always a problem in female prisons. Women rape and sexually harass other women. It doesn’t get as much attention, but it happens.

The more private, secluded spaces there are, the more opportunities and places rapists & other physically strong abusers will have to grab & shove other weaker, smaller people & rape, sexually abuse, victimize & terrorize them.

There's a reason that in grade schools, cubbies and coat hooks have become the norm and you don't find any coat closets. For the same reasons, [general-use] lockers in the higher grades in schools are always situated in the public hallways where there's lots of traffic, [and out in the open in locker rooms and change rooms in work spaces]. Moreover, lockers used in schools and workplaces are all sized so that no one can be pushed inside them. In schools, the few closets that exist - such as supply closets & janitor closets - are always under lock and key, and with rare exceptions the keys are kept in the hands of adults.

The "solutions" you propose don't sound like they've been thought through.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Title IX does not require separate restrooms and locker rooms though. If schools built gender-neutral facilities, it would not violate Title IX.

I get the impression that you are not at all acquainted with the history of Title IX, why it was necessary in the first place, or the massive amount of implementation regulations and interpretive court rulings that have been issued in the nearly 50 years since its inception. Title IX is very much up in the air at the moment, due to the executive orders rewriting it issued by the Dems starting with Obama and now repeated by Biden. Whether Title IX does uphold sex segregation in school toilets, locker rooms and sports is a matter the Supreme Court has yet to decide.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/290402-obama-bullied-schools-into-same-sex-bathrooms

You clearly also have never head of Chesterton's fence! Or safeguarding. Which is scary to me.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. You are branded a TERF when you say things like "trans men aren't men" or "trans women aren't women", calling transgenderism misogyny, etc.

Demonstrably inaccurate. Change the conditional clause to something like "when you express any fact or opinion critical of trans rights philosophy and practice" and it would be accurate.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For me, "rights" mean having the same equal opportunities and equal treatment. For instance, women not being fired for being pregnant, equal pay, ending rape and sexual harassment (which happens to men also). I support abolishing gender roles (such as "girl toys" and "boy toys") and gendered language. For instance, cousin is a gender neutral term, but aunt and uncle are not. I would like to use gender neutral terms. Mother and father will exclusively refer to reproductive roles, otherwise you can use the sex-neutral term parent. There will be no more foster mothers and foster fathers, just foster parents, as they were not involved in the conception of the child. You can tell me your parent is in the hospital. I would also eliminate he and she, and replace them with gender neutral pronouns in every language.

It's very revealing that you start out here saying you define "rights" as "having equal opportunities and equal treatment" - and then in the next breath you say you think it's your right to dictate to everyone else in the world what words we're allowed to use, and you advocate putting formal measures into place to insure that you get your way in making some words verboten. Yikes, comrade, but that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Bolsheviks, Stalin, the Stasi and the high command of the Khmer Rouge.

[–]usehername 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnrOLhx6L3c

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (9 children)

I like Everyday Feminism. One of the reason is they deal with every oppression, not just women's oppression. They promote the idea of intersectionality, the idea that oppressions are interconnected. I'll admit myself only half of their articles are great, the other half are BS. I am disabled, Jewish and female. But in spite of the sexism and anti-Semitism in this world, I was discriminated more for being disabled than I was for being Jewish and female combined. I was in a self-contained classroom FULL TIME from kindergarten until high school, all due to a learning disability. Disabled children are often placed in separate classrooms in school and segregated for the rest of the school. Disability issues are seldom talked about, even in social justice communities, especially special education. Everyday feminism wrote an article titled 4 Ways Ableism in My Elementary School Left Me Completely Traumatized. That article was written by an autistic person. I have to give them credit for discussing as subject seldom talked about.

There is a saying in the disability community "nothing about us, without us". For too long, conversations about disability tend to be dominated by able-bodied parent's and professionals, when in reality, they should be dominated by disabled people. For instance, at an IEP meeting in high school, a bunch of professionals sat around me and talked about me without including me in the conversation, even though this is my IEP. They talked about what they wanted to work on with me, without asking me first if this is something I wanted to work on. They never asked for my input in the IEP, except for the transition part because they are required to do that by law. That was just a survey on what I wanted to become in the future. Another example is when a professor gives an assignment to prospective special education teachers

There was recently a conference and live Q&A titled "Autism Explained" on teachable.com. Unlike most autism conferences, 75% of the speakers were autistic themselves. This is a perfect example of "nothing about us, without us".

Here are some other excellent articles by Everyday Feminism:

8 Ways the Media Upholds White Privilege and Demonizes People of Color

7 Strategies for White Educators to Help Foster Racial Justice

5 Ways to Avoid Common Ally Pitfalls by Learning From Your Mistakes

Here’s What Sexism in Higher Ed Looks Like – And Why It’s a Problem

Dress Codes, Double Standards, and 4 Other Subtle Ways Women Face Sexism at Work

7 Things We Need to Stop Saying to People Taking Anti-Depressants

10 Examples of Straight Privilege

15 Common Phrases That Are Way More Ableist Than You May Realize

3 Things That Must Happen with the End of Private Prisons

Don’t Call My Sister ‘Cute’ – 6 Good Reasons to Stop Infantilizing Disabled People

[–]usehername 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Did you even watch the video?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, and I don't agree with it.

[–]usehername 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

Okay well the reason that Everyday "Feminism" is bad for women is because it doesn't focus on women's issues at all, but does focus on issues of other minority groups instead. I can see why you wouldn't think that's a big deal because you're not a woman, but try to have a little empathy. I suggest you read some of Kimberlé Crenshaw's work so you can understand what the term "intersectional" really means.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

I can see why you wouldn't think that's a big deal because you're not a woman, but try to have a little empathy.

I am a cis woman.

I haven't in particular read Kimberlé Crenshaw but I know she coined the term intersectionality and I know what it means. Intersectionality means oppressions are interconnected. For instance, women get paid less than men. But WOC will get paid less than white woman. Women are more likely to get their pain dismissed by doctors. I remember a Facebook comment on an Everyday Feminism article about racism. A black woman wrote she goes to a hospital in her state of Florida for heart issues, but they don't treat her and instead test her for drugs because she's "young and urban" (code word for "black"). LGBT people experience discrimination and heteronormativity, but disabled LGBT people experience more of it and may experience discrimination within the LGBT community.

Everyday feminism has plenty of articles on sexism, street harassment, pay inequalities, etc. if you look.

Some people think intersectionality is the "oppression Olympics" or a competition to see who is most oppressed. But that's just an internet myth, not the understanding of intersectional scholars.

[–]usehername 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Some people think intersectionality is the "oppression Olympics" or a competition to see who is most oppressed. But that's just an internet myth

I think you're misunderstanding. I don't think that, nor do I know anyone who does, though I and others I know criticize "oppression olympics" because people really do attempt to compete to see who is most oppressed. I have never confused that with intersectionality, nor have I ever seen anyone else do so. The majority of articles there aren't about the intersections between womanhood and other minority classes. They're about other minority groups. For example, in the "Fem 101" section, the vast majority of articles aren't about feminism at all. There are also articles on the site about racism and disability, without mention of its intersection with woman/girlhood.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Some articles do talk about how certain oppressions intersect, like what not to say to a mixed race woman, or how racism and rape culture work in similar ways. But you're right, most articles only focus on one topic. I'll admit I don't like many of their articles, like when they say food and yoga is cultural appropriation or we need to stop hating on sociopaths. I do wish sometimes they could be more specific in what allies can do. But I have to give them credit for some things.

  1. They always use racially-diverse stock images for their articles. For instance, in an article about disability, they had a photo of a Mongolian woman using sign language. You won't find this kind of representation on most American media.

  2. They're open to criticism. They posted an article about what employers can do to help food insecure employees, such as by changing the language around food insecurity. People criticized the article and pointed out the only thing employers can do to help food insecure employees is to pay their employees better. Everyday Feminism removed the article, admitted they were wrong and apologized. There are other instances when they were open to accountability.

  3. They talk about all kinds of oppressions, which affect women too. I am a disabled woman. Ableism affects me.

  4. The staff for their site are diverse, and they also believe in paying livable wages to their staff.

So those are the positive things about them. Also, anyone who is competing to see who is the most oppressed is doing intersectionality wrong. Intersectionality does not mean people get to silence certain issues just because they're more oppressed. But that's not something I see often enough that it's worth discussing.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

For instance, women get paid less than men. But WOC will get paid less than white woman.

For the same exact job working for the same employer withe same qualifications & experience? In what country?

Sounds like you're confusing earnings inequality with wage inequality.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

For the same exact job working for the same employer withe same qualifications & experience? In what country?

Yes, for the same exact job, employer and hours. I'm talking about the US

Sounds like you're confusing earnings inequality with wage inequality.

I'm not. There was a study where they sent out fake resumes for STEM-related positions. All the resumes were identical, except half had a male name and half have a female name. Men were more likely to get a call back. Scientists were also asked to rate applicants competence, and men were rated more compete tent than women and were more likely to be offered a higher starting salary, even if they had the qualifications and identical resumes (except for the name).

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Women are 30 percent less likely to be considered for a hiring process than men - phys.org

Employers' Replies to Racial Names - National Bureau of Economic Research

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

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was really taking issue with your claim that WOC get paid less than white women. I was wondering where it is that white women and "WOC" in the same job working for the same employer get paid different wages.

The wage and earnings gap between the sexes is clear. Still, salary is not the same as a wage. And anecdotal evidence concerning starting salaries offered to job applicants in STEM or any field is not necessarily indicative of the actual salaries paid across all the employees in that field. To get a sense of the pay gap, you've got to look at much broader evidence concerning all the people actually hired - not just some (fake) prospective hires in an experiment - and over time.

Starting salaries in a field like STEM are discretionary and negotiable. One of the issues is that when applying for positions men ask for higher starting salaries than women do, and women do not put their foot down and drive a harder bargain.

But to get a picture of the sex wage/salary/earnings gap as well as the race one, STEM is a bad example, since it's a male dominated and also mainly white and Asian. To get a sense of the sex wage, salary and earning gap(s), you've got to look in fields where males and females work in more balanced numbers and in the exact same jobs. Same goes for when you're looking to compare what WOC and white women are paid/earn. Since so few women work in STEM, it's not a good source for info about wage/earnings disparities between/amongst women of different races. For that, you've got to look at areas like retail, health care, office work, hospitality, teaching - areas where women work in droves and there's a vast variety in terms of race, color and ethnicity.