GC: What are "sex-based" rights?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

When we believe trans women should have the right to use women's restrooms and changing rooms, we also believe trans men should have the right to use men's restrooms and changing rooms. We are asking for trans men to be considered men.

[–]adungitit 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

we also believe trans men should have the right to use men's restrooms and changing rooms.

They already have this right, and GC doesn't care about revoking it, because women do not present a danger to men. As long as women have their spaces and their usage by women is taken for granted, the woman has the right to leave those spaces if she so chooses.

As long as you keep lying and being delusional in regards to how dangerous men are to women's well-being and how the opposite is not the case in the least, sex-based protections will not make sense to you. But that's like saying that as long as you keep insisting the Earth is flat, that astrophysics will seem like a conspiracy and giberrish.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They already have this right, and GC doesn't care about revoking it, because women do not present a danger to men. GC is worried about the enormous boom in impressionable anxious girls believing they're boys because they want to escape misogyny, but that's a different discussion from women being in men's toilets.

I'm "GC" and I do care about boys and men having a right to loos, locker rooms and changing rooms without any girls or women present. Pre-pubescent and pubescent boys and slow-developing teenage boys in particular are very self-conscious about their bodies. But so are other boys and men. Skinny men, fat men, old men, disabled men, men with beer bellies, hairy asses, scars, amputations, gynecomastia, small dicks and odd-looking dicks. Even very fit and good-looking men are often self-conscious about their bodies and do not feel comfortable being seen naked or urinating by members of the opposite sex other than their wives, GFs, very close friends or physicians.

The way I see it, respect for boundaries has to go both ways. When boys turn a certain age, it's not just inappropriate for them to continue to accompany their mums, grans, sisters and female carers into the ladies locker rooms, showers and loos for the sake of the privacy, dignity and safety of the women & girls in those spaces; it also becomes inappropriate for their own mums, grans, sisters and female carers to see and touch the boys' genitals for the sake of the boys' own privacy and dignity.

It's a big day in a young boy's life when the pediatrician at the annual checkup tells the kid to undress and at the same time turns to the mother and says, "Mom, the time has come for you leave the exam room now. Your boy is not your little boy any more." Mothers who disregard their developing sons' need for boundaries are liable to find that their sons develop disrespect for their boundaries in turn, and for the boundaries of women and girls in general.

Women are primarily the ones who teach little boys and girls about appropriate boundaries. I don't think we can expect boys to grow up into men who respect girls' and women's boundaries if we don't respect their boundaries in turn - and if we raise girls to think that boys have no bodily insecurities or right to visual privacy from girls and women when they are undressed or using the toilet.

The more that trans-identified females like Gavin Grimm and Chase Strangio barge in on male loos, locker rooms and change rooms - and het and bi trans-identified females insist that they have the right to be in places like gay male sex clubs, saunas, baths and sex parties, and to demand that gay guys date and have sex with them - the more guys in general are going to feel less and less compunction about entering female spaces like the women's area of Wi Spa and pulling out their dicks and waving them around in the faces of women & girls of all ages. And the less compunction boys and men in general will have about exposing their genitals in other places too - such as on trains, buses, subways and planes, or whilst sitting at their desks or walking around the premises at work or in school.

I believe that taking the position that boys & men have no right to bodily privacy from girls and women in restrooms and changing rooms will end up backfiring on girls & women. I also believe that saying "GC doesn't care" about the rights or boundaries of males because to some GC persons the rights and boundaries of males matter less than the rights of females do, or they matter not at all, is only going to turn potential allies away from the "GC" side.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

There really is no need for sexed spaces once you remove the patriarchy. There is no basis for them. Male and female bodies being different does not translate into needing separate spaces for them.

I also don't see men being particularly self-conscious of their bodies, aside from anxieties over penis size that is more in place because of other men anyways and its association with masculinity. Men are not saddled with the beauty standards that women have their entire personhood defined by, nor is there a history of stigmatisation of their bodies. In fact, they're very loud, proud and in-your-face with their bodies and bodily functions and tend to think the universe revolves around their penises. As usual, the worst treatment men can expect in this area comes from, you guessed it, other men.

respect for boundaries has to go both ways.

Becauuuse...? Women aren't the ones with an entire history of disrespecting men's boundaries and leering at them, to the point that they couldn't even leave the house due to constant sexual harassment and assault. No, protections do not need to go both ways because protections serve to protect the people who are actually endangered.

You proceed to talk about a person's normal right to privacy, which would apply both to their female and male family members. That is different from claiming that people must have privacy specifically from the opposite sex for really no reason.

I don't think we can expect boys to grow up into men who respect girls' and women's boundaries if we don't respect their boundaries in turn

Men don't understand boundaries because they don't experience the same traumas and dangers that women experience. Men are the ones who'll tell you it'd be awesome if they were sexually assaulted, because sex still by and large revolves around their pleasure and wants, glorifies their lack of self-control and overblown sexuality, and doesn't treat them as worthless objects for someone else's one-sided sexuality in all aspects of their life.

the more guys in general are going to feel less and less compunction about entering female spaces like the women's area of Wi Spa and pulling out their dicks and waving them around in the faces of women & girls of all ages.

What a stretch. Men already don't care about that. That's why they employ such a long list of double standards to control every aspect of a woman's life, and not once do they think of how it would be if this was applied to them. They apply entirely different rules to women to excuse their shitty treatment of them. A woman walking into their spaces isn't going to make them disregard women's spaces any more than women having to cover their chests is going to make men ashamed of being topless. They might try to whine about the double standards regarding sexed spaces and how unfair towards men it is that women are abused to such an extreme that they literally need separate spaces to lead a semblance of a normal life, but they already do that.

I also believe that saying "GC doesn't care" about the rights or boundaries of males because to some GC persons the rights and boundaries of males matter less than the rights of females do, or they matter not at all, is only going to turn potential allies away from the "GC" side.

LMAO what is this libfem attitude of shedding tears over male allies feeling "alienated"? There is no feminist movement that isn't going to alienate men. None. Even liberal feminism, for all its desperation to pander to men, is still seen as a matriarchal dictatorship by them.

GC cares a lot about not alienating and hurting the feelings of its conservative cesspool, but it fails to realise that the men who can't form a thought beyond spamming "there are only 2 genders!" and calling feminine men "trannies" aren't actually "on their side" just because they happen to turn their brainless ire on trans people. Instead of caring about alienating those patriarchal shit stains, GC should instead think about how it's alienating the women who don't want to suck up to misogynistic men just so they'd get their very limited back-stabby "support".

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

There really is no need for sexed spaces once you remove the patriarchy. There is no basis for them. Male and female bodies being different does not translate into needing separate spaces for them.

Huh? I don't get this at all. Can you explain further please? Thanks.

Also, I wasn't aware that the patriarchy had been slated for removal. Even if it does get removed one day, it's not gonna happen in my lifetime. The policies I advocate are for the real world in the here and now, not for some imaginary utopia that might happen far off in the future or the realm of fiction or science fiction.

BTW, in more than 50 years of being a feminist and many convos about what a world without male supremacy would be like, I have never heard anyone say there'd be "no need for sexed spaces" and "no basis" for them anymore.

So in the post-patriarchy utopia as you envision it, there'd be no spaces for lesbians or gay guys that exclude members of the opposite sex? Ever? Events like Michfest not allowed, and no more men getting together only with other men for hookups in bath houses and weekend orgies in places like Fire Island Pines? Really? I can see how this wouldn't go down well with a lot of people.

There really is no need for sexed spaces once you remove the patriarchy. There is no basis for them. Male and female bodies being different does not translate into needing separate spaces for them.

So a world without patriarchy would mean "no basis" for separate male and female sports? "No need? and "no basis" for corresponding sex separate locker rooms, training facilities, showers, saunas, therapeutic baths, either?

Sorry, a world in which there's only mixed-sex sports and therefore all the athletics opportunities, awards and glory go to males sounds exactly like patriarchy to me. No more sports for girls and women sounds eerily like the situation with school sports was in the US when I was growing up prior to US Title IX, in fact. Been there, done that and worked hard to change it. So to quote Sara Robles, "no thank you."

Also, no need or basis anymore for single-sex support groups for males with testicular and prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, hemophilia and male-pattern baldness - or for females dealing with menstruation, pregnancy issues, endometriosis, PCOS, childbirth injuries and trauma, breast and gynecological cancers, fibroids, menopause, pelvic organ prolapse, aging-related UTIs, incontinence and vaginal atrophy?

No separate accommodations for the two sexes in jails and prisons, hospital wards/rooms, LTCFs, dorm rooms, school and scouting trips?

In the post-patriarchy utopia you imagine, women who go to, say, a community swim pool with their teen or adult sons and male in-laws will have to share the same change rooms and showers with them? Will getting rid of patriarchy mean the vast majority of boys and men won't be heterosexual any more, and/or they won't have eyes and dicks? And that within families and households, there will be no need or basis anymore for the kinds of sex separation that customarily is put in place as children grow up and relationships change? Such as girls no longer being seen naked by their dads or brothers once they hit puberty? And pubertal boys being given bodily privacy by their mothers - and vice versa - too?

In the scenario about pumping breastmilk at work that I asked GenderBender about but she never addressed, no women in a post-patriarchal world would want, need or be permitted to pump breastmilk at work (or anywhere else) in a place where their male colleagues can't walk in and watch? Humans will have no need or desire for personal boundaries or privacy from any other members of the other sex ever?

Middle- and high-schoolers on overnight trips with school or scouts will all share sleeping arrangements, and all the tween or teen pregnancies that will inevitably result will be no big deal coz "no patriarchy" anymore? WTF? That sounds nuts.

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The policies I advocate are for the real world in the here and now

Just because you advocate a policy for a current issue does not excuse a complete lack of thought into any of its future implications and reasons for existence.

I have never heard anyone say there'd be "no need for sexed spaces" and "no basis" for them anymore.

lol what an argument. I've never heard of tau neutrinos either, but that doesn't make them stop existing.

So in the post-patriarchy utopia as you envision it, there'd be no spaces for lesbians or gay guys that exclude members of the opposite sex?

People have the right to form spaces on the basis of certain shared interests and identities. That is entirely different from legal protections for said spaces because they are necessary to lead a normal life, as is the case with women.

So a world without patriarchy would mean "no basis" for separate male and female sports?

Obviously sports require a sex-based division, as do medical issues. These divisions are based in physical differences in male and female bodies requiring different expertise and different evaluation standards. This is different from spaces that serve to protect women from the social problem of patriarchal violence and harassment. Women are still targeted specifically for their sex, but the reason why they need protection is entirely external.

No separate accommodations for the two sexes in jails and prisons, hospital wards/rooms, LTCFs, dorm rooms, school and scouting trips?

If we were ever to reach a world where men did not pose a threat to women in these environments, yes.

In the post-patriarchy utopia you imagine, women who go to, say, a community swim pool with their teen or adult sons and male in-laws will have to share the same change rooms and showers with them?

If they would get naked with their male parents, why would they not with their female parents?

Will getting rid of patriarchy mean the vast majority of boys and men won't be heterosexual any more, and/or they won't have eyes and dicks?

It's unlikely that most men would be heterosexual if we got rid of the patriarchy. Most "heterosexual" men really just have a fetish for femininity and misogyny. Moreover, you can be heterosexual and not act like a creep, just as homosexual people manage to do.

And that within families and households, there will be no need or basis anymore for the kinds of sex separation that customarily is put in place as children grow up and relationships change?

How exactly do you think gay people are able to function? Is there sexual tension between every non-straight family member?

Such as girls no longer being seen naked by their dads or brothers once they hit puberty? And pubertal boys being given bodily privacy by their mothers - and vice versa - too?

If the same things were to be normal with their same-sex family members, then yes.