GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces?

submitted by womanual from (self.GCdebatesQT)

Women need their own spaces for the own physical protection. What about men? Do they have the right to insist females not enter their spaces, like bathrooms or changing rooms or men's support groups? I feel men don't need those spaces to begin with, and I also think men's spaces should be turned into general spaces, while women's spaces should remain exclusively for natal females who want to get away from men. Other GCs disagree, usually citing dignity and privacy concerns.

all 100 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. Even if safety isn’t the issue, men still have a need for privacy I feel like.

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

Yes.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, of course.

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

Yes. Boys and men have a need for bodily privacy too. In schools, I don't think many boys would be comfortable having to pee, change and shower in the presence of female students who now have decided they are nonbinary or trans. Especially not if they have known one another for years. I suspect the boys in Gavin Grimm's HS were none too pleased with Grimms' insistence on using the boys' facilities.

Also, gay men should be able to have places where they can get together for socializing and sex without any women there.

[–]FlanJam 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, for example I've heard stories of gay men bathhouses not wanting transmen in those spaces. Those spaces are often sexual in nature so I totally get why they wouldn't want a female there.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 9 fun2 insightful - 8 fun3 insightful - 9 fun -  (7 children)

Trans men who physically transition and pass are not female.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Define female then.

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

So, does this mean that, at least, you do regard that "trans men" who don't pass ARE female?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Proof?

[–]FlanJam 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And the ones who havent transitioned and dont pass? What about them?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

A gay man will not be attracted to a pre-transition trans man.

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

But are they female?

[–]womanual[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are female, but I respect the identity and pronouns of all female people no matter how they identify. I don't do the same to those born with penises.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

As long we're talking about spaces where sex matters because of privacy, health care, sports or dating, yes. For other type of settings, I'm not willing to say are entitled to them because men likely may turn our arguments upside down to bar women from the public sphere.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I understood the question to be only to a narrow range of circumstances, and that's why I said yes. I'd add that males should be able to have separate support groups too for problems specific to males such as prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction - or for

In other types of settings, the courts in the US have been very clear that neither sex can be barred from the public sphere - and that even in the case of private clubs, sometimes excluding females constitutes illegal discrimination.

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction are something only males can have. But males have specific spaces and groups for them for issues that are not male specific. For example, "My Brother's Keeper" is a program started by Obama to pair young men of color with mentors. Why don't we have the same program for young women of color? Women experience more discrimination than men, and honestly, what do men of color need that women of color don't? I am a WOC, so I face double discrimination for being a woman and a POC. People think WOC have it easier than men of color, but it's the opposite. It would be like having a program for straight kids but not for LGB kids. You can have a program for LGB kids as LGB people are a marginalized group, but straight people are not a marginalized so straight that's why schools don't have straight clubs like they have LGB clubs. So why not just open this program to young women of color? I would be OK if this program was only available to girls, because females are marginalized thus have specific needs that males don't, not the other way around.

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

Whilst it's true only males can have prostate cancer, I imagine it won't be long before some transmen want to join erectile dysfunction support groups. Just like some of the young ones are now demanding they be included in gay male spheres like bath houses and gay men's beauty pageants, and are also saying it's their right to slag off gay men with homophobic slurs.

Also, in my comment that I forgot to finish, I meant to add I think support groups solely for boys and men are often appropriate too, especially around issues like CSA, substance addictions, sex and porn addiction, fatherhood, divorce support, and helping each other stem their tendencies toward male violence, anger, sex offending, paraphilias and so on. I know a lot of men who in first coming to terms with the CSA they had suffered only felt comfortable disclosing in the company of other males. Later, they could discuss it in mixed company, but not initially.

I get what Obama was trying to do with "My Brother's Keeper," but I agree that he was extremely sexist in setting it up/embracing it without doing something analogous for girls and women. Not cool for a POTUS to be so biased. But despite having two daughters, Obama really seemed to have no concern for girls and women and our rights more generally. Which is why he used the power of the presidency to issue executive orders single-handedly eliminating the right of girls and women's attending US schools to female-only sports and to female-only locker rooms and toilets.

As for programs for LGB kids in schools, my impression is that now most programs are for LGBTQ students, not for gay, lesbian and bi students - and of course they're filled with enbies, kids who claim to be trans as well as to have other newfangled gender identities, along with kids who think having a quirky haircut is on the same plane as being homosexual. Also, in some places it's so popular to be part of the "alphabet people" that the kids who are feeling left out and marginalized are the straights.

I think people can be marginalized and disadvantaged in a variety of different ways. Girls and women across the board are put at a disadvantage because of our sex, or rather because of male attitudes towards our sex and the way society and culture have formed around those attitudes. But just as all girls and women are not on an equal footing with one another because sex is only one axis of prejudice and discrimination, not all boys and men are on the same plane as one another either. Boys and men can be disadvantaged compared to other boys and men - and to some girls and women - due to disabilities, poverty, race, sexual orientation, lack of education, family troubles, CAEs, etc. Also, I think in these sorts of convos, current social class as well as the social class of one's family of origin going back generations - not just current household income - is a huge factor that doesn't get enough attention.

[–]womanual[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Whilst it's true only males can have prostate cancer, I imagine it won't be long before some transmen want to join erectile dysfunction support groups. Just like some of the young ones are now demanding they be included in gay male spheres like bath houses and gay men's beauty pageants, and are also saying it's their right to slag off gay men with homophobic slurs.

Transmen are socialized female, so it's unlikely they will have a big impact on men's overall well being.

Also, in my comment that I forgot to finish, I meant to add I think support groups solely for boys and men are often appropriate too, especially around issues like CSA, substance addictions, sex and porn addiction, fatherhood, divorce support, and helping each other stem their tendencies toward male violence, anger, sex offending, paraphilias and so on. I know a lot of men who in first coming to terms with the CSA they had suffered only felt comfortable disclosing in the company of other males. Later, they could discuss it in mixed company, but not initially.

Why would a man have issues with a woman hearing his story? 99% chance his abuser was another male, and it's unlikely the woman will be pornsick unlike a male listener.

I get what Obama was trying to do with "My Brother's Keeper," but I agree that he was extremely sexist in setting it up/embracing it without doing something analogous for girls and women.

My point is males do not need a program like that just for them. You might as well have a program for straight kids, or able-bodied kids, or kids who weren't victims of natural disasters.

Girls and women across the board are put at a disadvantage because of our sex, or rather because of male attitudes towards our sex and the way society and culture have formed around those attitudes.

Exactly! And their attitudes about our sex will not change just because women stop using their bathrooms.

Boys and men can be disadvantaged compared to other boys and men - and to some girls and women - due to disabilities, poverty, race, sexual orientation, lack of education, family troubles, CAEs, etc. Also, I think in these sorts of convos, current social class as well as the social class of one's family of origin going back generations - not just current household income - is a huge factor that doesn't get enough attention.

Yes, but boys are not disadvantaged due to their sex and that's the point.

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't actually know the "My Brother's Keeper" program but just by the name it sounds like it was designed to keep misguided and frustrated young men from falling into gangs. I could be wrong but I don't think that has much to do with who experiences more discrimination, but with who ends up jailed or shot. (A classic scene by the way.)

There is no shortage of organizations I know of that are specifically oriented around helping women, and black women especially, to overcome discrimination and break through into spaces where they're not commonly represented. Just 3 that I found off the cuff right now:

I know you were talking about Obama, but there's all kinds of stuff out there now. Maybe it takes a program for one group to make more programs for other groups to follow as an example. Don't look to the past, look at what's possible now.

You can have a program for LGB kids as LGB people are a marginalized group

I really wish there was a club for oddball teens who weren't really into sports and had some nerdy interests when I was growing up. I honestly believe a lot of kids calling themselves "enby" or "queer" these days are just doing it because they don't fit in anywhere else, and that's where all their friends are. There really isn't another program for the weird ones. And if these are just kids, why are programs like this specifically oriented around sexuality? (It doesn't matter to me what kind of sexuality; I just think it's a little weird to promote, it sounds like hey kids come join the school's sex club!)

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is no shortage of organizations I know of that are specifically oriented around helping women, and black women especially, to overcome discrimination and break through into spaces where they're not commonly represented.

But we don't need organizations specifically oriented around helping men, because men are already represented in almost every professional space.

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

But we don't need organizations specifically oriented around helping men

No we don't, and I'm not suggesting that either.

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

I'm not willing to say are entitled to them because men likely may turn our arguments upside down to bar women from the public sphere.

They can whine all they want, but in the end it's not the same thing.

Take the n-word for instance. The n-word has a long racist history. Many Black people reclaimed the word, and there is even a debate in the black community about whether the word should be reclaimed. But no matter what black people are doing, white people cannot say the n-word or have a say in the conversation about reclaiming the n-word. Some white people (and non-black POC) think it's not fair black people can say the n-word but they can't. But that doesn't change the fact that they can't say the n-word. The same reason why the n-word is racist but cracker isn't. The same reason we have a women's month but not a men's month. The same reason we have a LGB pride parade but not a straight pride parade. The same reason there is no such thing as "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism."

Men can cry me a river if they have a problem with it. But honestly after years of being sexualized, objectified and patronized by men I don't give two shits about what they think. You have a different opinion, and that's OK. But I hope men don't get the same legal protections women get when it comes to their spaces. Gavin Grimm should have been allowed to use boy's facilities. Men simply don't need the protections that women do. And that is the fault of men, as they are the ones raping and beating women. Women don't do these things systematically to men, and there is not a single case on the news of a woman raping an adult man.

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Yes, absolutely. You can't endorse spaces for one without the other.

Now, there are reasonable limits, and I think it depends on what the interest of the group is, and whether there is enough access available to both sexes independently. For example, if you're talking about a very niche hobby—like let's say there's a men's only model helicopter flying club—an obviously spurious thing, and so niche that there's not enough people to independently form an equivalent women's club, then I would question that.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

For example, if you're talking about a very niche hobby—like let's say there's a men's only model helicopter flying club—an obviously spurious thing, and so niche that there's not enough people to independently form an equivalent women's club, then I would question that.

I disagree. If there are coed helicopter flying clubs that women can access I don’t think it’s unfair for there to be a men’s only club. All you need is two or three women to form a women’s only club. If there just isn’t one that shouldn’t mean men who want their own club can’t have it. Those types of things (niche hobbies or clubs for niche hobbies) aren’t really rights, for us to say men can’t make their own niche clubs if women don’t have an equivalent.

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

If there are coed helicopter flying clubs that women can access

That's exactly what I am saying though. The if means something. What if there aren't any, and the only one in your area says "men only"?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Honestly? Then form a woman’s only/coed club.

It’s a club. It’s not a necessity. And you only need a few people to make the group. It’s as simple as finding other people (of either sex or your own) who like flying helicopters (or whatever the club is for) and want to do it with you.

If women make a club for just women, do transwomen/any men get to join if there isn’t a coed one or one for only men?

GC would say no, (at least most of us). So I’m keeping that same energy.

Just like I ask TW why they want to access spaces where they aren’t welcome/wanted- why would a woman force her way into a men’s only club?

Even if there is no coed/female only- it’s just a club, not the actual ability to learn and practice and fly- oh well, sucks you can’t join the boys club but you can still enjoy your hobby and could still enjoy that same hobby with friends if you brought them along (in other words- made your own club).

If you make a club, you get to decide who is in it. If you want to be in a club and there isn’t one that works for you- make one. Especially if it’s something that’s just for a hobby.

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

We tell TW all the time to advocate for themselves and their own spaces instead of invading female spaces.

It’s a bit hypocritical to make a fuss over a luxury club when GC literally tells QT to respect sex based spaces even if it puts them in potential danger or makes their lives a bit more difficult to navigate. We tell them they need to advocate for themselves instead of disrupting what someone else already established for themselves. (And I think GC is right to tell them this)

So unless you advocate for allowing people to access spaces not meant for them if there isn’t a space that is intended for them- this is an odd take. Especially over something as superficial and insignificant as a club for a hobby.

I think it’s important to respect the boundaries put up by others, if I disregard or object to their boundaries I open myself up to mine being objected to and disregarded as well.

The men’s club wouldn’t prevent women from flying, wouldn’t even prevent women from flying with other women or with a group of men and women. It only prevents a woman from being surrounded by (and flying with or talking about flying with) men who didn’t want her there.

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

I picked a ridiculous hobby like model helicopters as a stand-in for something that you're not likely to find very many people interested in: not enough for it to make sense to form 2 separate and exclusive clubs.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn’t matter what the example is- it’s still a club. Anyone can form their own club. You can substitute whatever less ridiculous hobby, what I said would still be my response.

Wanting a specific demographic and making a group for that demographic is enough reason to form however many groups as anyone wants to form. Whether or not the public approves or denounces the existence of the group is a different thing- the specific group can still exist, the people who feel some type of way can boycott (which wouldn’t matter), protest (likely wouldn’t matter), get over it, or form a club that includes them. Again, why would a woman want to force her way into a men’s club when she can invite people to her own club? There wouldn’t have been an all men’s club until some man or men made it. She can make a club herself. Again again- we tell transwomen to make their own and advocate for their own, why can’t a woman make her own club?

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

You find other women who like the same thing and you make a women-only club.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's like you missed the point of the Groucho Marx bit about not wanting to be a member of any club that would have him as a member. Why be a member of a club that doesn't want you as a member? How well with that go? Women's only knitting clubs have famously become toxic to women who take the "women's only" part seriously. This seems to be what happens when what you're saying is taken seriously.

[–]womanual[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You can't endorse spaces for one without the other.

I disagree because I think privileged groups don't need their own spaces. For the same reason I think it's OK for black people to reclaim the n-word but it's racist for white people to use that word. I also think it's OK for POC to have their own spaces but not white people. Dylann Storm Roof shot an entire black church after they let him pray for an hour. In 2015, white supremacist Gregory Bush shot 2 black elders at a Kroger's in Louisville, Kentucky. Minutes before moving to Kroger's, he tried to enter a black church but was denied. That church had safety reasons to keep white people out. If a white church had a policy of "no POC allowed" it would absolutely be racist, because white people stole this land from my people and it's white people who have formally created and enforced racist systems throughout history and still do. So you can endorse spaces for one without the other. I endorse spaces for POC but not white people. I endorse spaces for women but not men. I endorse spaces for gays but not straights.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think words like the "n" word are part of an issue that is not analogous to this, though some of the same underlying principles around group solidarity or boundaries of decency or boundaries of groups seem applicable to both this issue and that issue.

I think part of the reason people form groups that recognize each other as members should, when the need arises, meet in isolation from people who are not members of that group is so they can communicate and correct each other in ways that they understand among each other and they will be judges by their peers. You can call that racist or racism, fine but it goes both ways. That you can see the benefit, or perhaps only acknowledge some of the benefit, for one but not grant it for others you declare oppressors is on you. Luckily people can meet without your permission, just as people can meet without anyone else's permission-- or should be able to anyway. Attacks on freedom of assembly are not new, but are never right.

Do you endorse spaces for women but not transwomen? Oh, maybe you do not recognize how oppressed they are by you, the same way I do not see how the very real oppression caused by others was caused by generally poor and working class white or straight people just trying to live their lives under the same systems of oppression everyone else has tried to lived under, where the most common tactic is to divide us and conquer us along lines they and not us define. My blindness to my culpability in others oppression, something I've been assured of by others on occassion, does not give me the right to veto that group meeting without me. Your potential blindness to what another group needs or to their sense of oppression does not give you the right to veto their ability to meet in separate from outsiders.

Do you think transwomen should be allowed to meet among themselves without others? It does not matter if you, or I, would want attend such a meeting. If they can not meet along among themselves, they they would have to be allowed to meet among what ever group you or I would recognize they are not a legitimate part of. Else, they just would not be allowed to go to meetings but that violates my sense of freedom of assembly.

Maybe I take issue with the notion of a group being allowed to based only upon their shared sense of oppression. I have no idea what the Knights of Columbus are or what they do, but I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to meet even if their exclusion of non-Knights of Columbus seems arbitrary. If I'm misreading your reasoning, I apologize.

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

This question was about men & women, primarily.

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The answer to the question is women are an oppressed group while men aren't. That's why men don't need spaces just for men.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is a sense of shared oppression is the only legitimate reason a group might need to meet?

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

It's the only legitimate reason why a group can exclude certain demographics.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well there you go. I think that's a real lack of imagination. Also though, you are changing something around. I'm asking about legitimate reasons a group might need to meet. The exclusion implicit in my question is based on membership in the group in question. If non-membership counts as exclusion, then so be it.

But, are you saying a group can not meet unless it is a group organized around a shared oppression? How oppressed can that group be if they can prevent other groups from meeting among themselves? Your view seems impossible, and even irrational upon scrutiny.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also above you make this statement, which I think really goes to the heart of your position on this:

I think privileged groups don't need their own spaces.

I realize you say 'think' and not know, but how can you know that, or how can your thoughts on it be authoritative such that because you think it they should not be able to meet among themselves. It is one think to think it, but another then to take that though uncritically and just create a blanket opinion about who can not meet among themselves.

And, I'm not even going to waste time on your assumption about your universalizing the concept of privileged. I wish you success in stopping the Bilderbergers and the G7-9-15-etc from meeting, barring the the CFR from getting together and all the rest, but how do you intend do that? Or is it just straight white men that can't meet? It seems like you're arguing for tokenism or representation, if it's not just virtue signalling or sour grapes.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm wondering why this is directed at GC, or why QT is not also being asked the same question.

I think people who have raised the privacy and dignity matter, make the point very well for men being entitled to male only spaces.

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

I'm wondering why this is directed at GC, or why QT is not also being asked the same question.

I suspect that OP had a fight with some GCer who wasn' t fine with her ideas and was hoping that we were all going to back her up. I am happy to see that this was not the case.

To me it' s an all or nothing situations: boundaries need to be respected. It would be supremely hypocritical for me to make it the biggest reason why I want sex segregated spaces while at the same time being perfectly ok with not respecting other people' s. If sex is important, then it' s important for everyone, not just for us. Of course there are power imbalances, but working on that doesn' t have to be about destroying other people' s boundaries.

OP' s way of dealing with this is frankly illogical and obnoxious to me.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Well stated!

I think men should be addressing men's behavior when that behavior is bad. I think that is best done in private, or among men. I think it would lead to a more open and frank set of discussions than any other way. I don't think men generally meet to do that. I think men mentoring each other is badly needed, but I think the power problems in our society are not purely about men but about rich men and politically connected men and all the ways power is both gained and wielded in less than virtuous manners.

I think the operative scam being run by the current ruling class on the rest of us is them taking their crimes and their abuses and smearing it over huge but powerless populations. Its akin to the way unions are demonized for demanding (not even getting, just demanding) decent pay for their members while other workers might work more dangerous jobs for less pay. Unions have problems, but advocating for their members is not one of them. Union workers are not as oppressed as non-union workers, just as non-immigrant workers are not as oppressed as immigrant ones. That does not make either group the oppressor of the other, the oppressors are further up the food chain.

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

I think men should be addressing men's behavior when that behavior is bad. I think that is best done in private, or among men. I think it would lead to a more open and frank set of discussions than any other way. I don't think men generally meet to do that.

Yes, it would be great if men adressed each other's bad behaviour, but I'm not holding my breath for it. In practice, guy's talk seems to be about enabling sexism and misogyny. And while I agree that economic and political power play a role on this, I don't think your average guy needs much incentive from the ruling class to act like this.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Obviously I can't speak for all men. I agree what we're talking about, men 'schooling' each other to be better, does not happen often or in a consistent way. I can think of plenty of times where a guy who shows a pattern of misogyny will have the problem pointed out to him by someone, and if it is in a small group of confidants then it will be discussed for a bit. I've seen situations where younger men and adolescent men were taken aside by their 'elders' of either men in their 20s-30s or middle aged men, or older men, and given corrective advice or more (depending on the circumstances). I do not want to go into detail. I'd say it has more to do with the specifics of the many 'sub cultures' or cultural niches that our society is broken up into that coincide with class divisions and divisions of labor, and regional divisions which also reflect those previous divisions. Also though, I'm older at this point and I suspect such a thing even as it was limited is more a thing of the past, partly for reasons I mention below.

I think the division between men and women as we see it today, the subjugation of women historically, and the reverberations of that subjugation still felt today even where the ruling class rewards women who "buy in" or "lean in" or what ever the phrase is, are tied directly back to the rise of capitalism where women lost their place in society they had during the "dark" ages. Women had economic roles that were integral to the function of communities that allowed them some of them status and some freedom and independence. They had places in the very stratified society, but I'm not talking about the nobility but the peasants and lower working classes. I do not think the witch burnings during that time were some great stamping out of paganism or a killing of some ancient wisdom that many today romanticize it as. I see it as a breaking of local economic power that allowed these communities to operate independently from the ruling class. I think the religious overtones of it were a cover, and made men suspicious of women, and the burnings specifically terrorized young women especially but also whole communities. The days of the ruling class simply demanding of a village some amount of their produce were over, and a more complete domination of all people was required to satisfy the ruling class's greed. Making women nothing more than sex objects, as in reproductive vessels, making them something a man had to earn the right to posses instead of coexisting together in what ever way it was in the dark ages, served the purpose of the ruling class and I believe firmly that it created hardship on both men and women socially, psychologically in terms of the dynamic in the relationships between couples and within families, and economically.

We've seen the old memes about how one of the signs of the rise of fascism is the increasingly stringent demands placed by society on men and women to be more masculine or feminine. The violence related to frustration over the unrealistic nature of those demands are both easily predictable and seen in history. The attempts to escape those demands, be it retreating into fantasy worlds or just switching sides, are also both easily predictable and seen in history.

That is a long winded way of saying I think the wounds that divides men and women needs healing. I really don't think anyone with any power has any interest in that happening. I don't think anyone trying to direct or lead our culture have any interest in that. I think maybe none of us really have very much interest in that because we call carry the wounds within us and we resent the pain.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

"Men's spaces" don't exist. They are unisex. The only single-sex spaces are female-only. Men haven't needed them up until now & they will continue not needing them.

[–]womanual[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

That is exactly my point. But why do signs say "men" in front of restrooms? It should say "all", "everyone" or "general" to make it clear the space is not exclusively for men. Men don't need such spaces.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Every time a female-only anything is made then society labels the formerly unisex (but never defined) thing male. I guess, bc our culture is obsessed with "binaries" & "opposites". These retroactive changes can be seen outside of gender too, like ethnicity. "White" was never an ethnicity until after all the others were categorised as such. Labelling norms disguises them, makes them blend in with the othered. Do "white", & "man" really exist as concepts, or do they simply define a lack, or like the word "normal", only exist for practical reasons to distinguish from "abnormal" & even help emphasise abnormality?

I may be overthinking this...

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Of course the concept of man is real. The male sex is the one who produces small gametes. A man is an adult human male. A man doesn't stop being a man just because he is not a walking stereotype. Trying to dissociate the word man (and woman) from biology is exactly what gave rise to transgenderism.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

'Man' used to just mean human, but on some level it still does. If I tell you about a person I met, without mentioning whether they are male or female you will imagine a man. If I say the word 'kid', you are going to imagine a male kid, bc by imagining a gender-neutral kid you imagined a male kid. That means that male is gender neutral & gender neutral is male.

Every word is culturally-contaminated. Yes, the denotation of 'man' is still adult human male. Nature recognises two sexes, but society only made one gender: femininity. 'Masculinity' is just what our culture considers positive, neutral, as well as the extreme opposite of femininity (basically everything, except femininity). 'Masculinity' is a word for something that doesn't really exist. Creating a label for "masculinity" is like creating a label for all the colours of the rainbow put together, except pink.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I know all that already. And in my natal tonge, Spanish, there is also the generic masculine in grammar. It doesn't change the fact there are only two sexes. If we have to talk about what society expects from each sex, there is already the words feminine and masculine. I don't see the need to start questioning what is a woman or a man from a non biological perspective when that is exactly what lead to all the pro-TRA laws and policies.

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

I don't see the need to start questioning what is a woman or a man from a non biological perspective when that is exactly what lead to all the pro-TRA laws and policies

That's like saying 2nd wave feminism lead to self-ID bc a lot of it is a nature vs. nurture debate regarding femaleness vs. femininity. What lead to self-ID is the adoption of Thatcherism. Thatcher is notorious for having said "there is no such thing as society only individual men & women" – this is the guide to choice-feminism (self-ID's staunchest ally). Choice feminism believes every individual's choice is an exercise in agency. "Freedom of choice" is the right-wing answer to the nature & nurture debate, bc the right is generally scientifically illiterate. So when malestream feminists adopt this philosophy then they are no different from patriarchists.

I don't think its unsafe to examine the connotation of words, since the root cause of self-IDing as the opposite sex is in individualism. It's futile to curtail ones thoughts or words in an attempt to stop them from being twisted, bc anything you say can be & will be misinterpreted, deliberately as well as unintentionally.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is absurd to reject sexism and then define women and men by stereotypes. We should be able to talk about sexism and misogyny without doing so.

The root of current affairs around people who reject to "identify" as their sex lies in the doctors and psychologists who decades ago decided that some men were better off as "women" for not being "manly" enough. By making "sex change" surgeries a thing and using unaccurate anatomical terms to describe them, they gave legitimacy to the idea that men can become "women" somehow. This eventually evolved, among other things, to laws that allowed people to change the sex markers registered on their documents. And I'm not talking only about self-ID laws here, rather I'm also including laws that ask(ed) for meaningless requirements before a "legal sex change" like a clinical diagnostic of gender dysphoria or equivalent (you're still not the opposite sex), undergoing "sex reassigment surgery" (there is no such a thing) or living a certain amount of time as the opposite sex (what does that even mean?!). Society have enabled the lie that some men really are women, or viceversa, for far too long. Why, then, should we keep trying to dissociate the concepts of women and men from biology?

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There isn't a human whose identity hasn't been shaped by culture, likewise our culturally-saturated upbringing is gendered. Billion-dollar industries rely on demographics following behavioural trends. Men & women generally follow two respective, & distinct behavioural trends. These behaviours are not biologically determined (unless you're talking to an evolutionary biologist), they are socially determined. Men & women aren't defined by stereotypes, but social identities exist for which sex is only the catalyst, not the cause.

Cross-sex identity isn't possible. If you're born & raised American, no amount of learning Japanese culture can erase & replace that, same goes for gender. Bruce Jenner cannot be a woman without every man being a woman.

The only way a genuine cross-sex identity could be possible is if everyone was fooled from birth that you are the opposite sex, so I guess it only exists in women with androgen insensitive syndrome, since they are technically male, but have female primary & secondary sex characteristics (apart from internal, male gonads) & so receive the gendered upbringing that any girl would have received.

Even though there is a difference between gender as a social construct & gender as a biological sex, which feminists insist on referring to as "gender & sex" respectively, for some inexplicable reason (everyone else just calls both 'gender'), there is always a complimentary correlation between the two, with no mismatches. The self-ID cult have never substantiated this so-called mismatch in individuals who identify as the opposite sex.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Gender has no place in biology. The correct term has always been sex, which you could corroborate by seeing some related terms: sexual reproduction, sexual dimorphism, sex determination, sex chromosomes, sex hormones, sex-linked inheritance. None of them use the word gender.

Originally, gender belonged to grammar. For example, Spanish is a gendered language where nouns, adjectives and articles are either masculine or feminine. When not linked to sex, the gender of a word is quite arbitrary and it doesn’t tell you anything about social norms, either. For instance, all the sciences are feminine nouns in Spanish, but that doesn’t mean science is regarded as a feminine pursuit in Spanish-speaking countries.

It was later that English speakers decided to use the word gender to refer to the different stereotypes and social roles that are expected from women and men. And at some point, for some reason, some English speakers decided to replace the word sex for gender. This latter use was the one that extended it the most and, yes, it was adopted even by some scientists and health care professionals. It must be said, though, this aversion for the word sex don’t exist outside the English-speaking world (not until very recently at least). However, because of the cultural and political influence of English speaking countries, particularly the United States, all those new meanings of gender (included the meaning of "gender identity") have been exported to many non-English speaking countries. This process was facilitated by the fact there is no lack of people who are pretty eager to adopt the latest American fashion without any care if it makes any sense. So, even though in Spanish the word sex has not been removed from daily speech in the same way it was in English, the use of gender for non-grammatical purposes have been slowly creeping into our language and I hate it.

Anyway, you have said nothing about how defining women and men in non-biological terms is what now allows males to be “legally female” in many places. You said nothing either about how it makes sense to both reject sexism and define men and women by social trends.

Moreover, it’s not only evolutionary biologists who care about our sexed bodies. When you go to the hospital, your doctors won’t care about how you was socialized, but also what is your sex. For example, urinary tract infections are more common in women, because our urethras are shorter and closer to the anus. It was no male socialization what allowed Laurel Hubbard to debut at the Olympics at 43 years of age, either. It is not because of female socialization that sex selective abortions happen and now men outnumber women by a large margin in some countries. But you focus so much in socialization that you end up thinking that biology does not matter at all.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

I think it's fine for men to have strict sex-segregated spaces. I admit I do often use men's restrooms and have ever since I was a little kid, but I wouldn't use them if men had a problem with it. As it is, I've only ever had trouble in women's restrooms, not men's.

[–]womanual[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

I wouldn't worry about how men feel. There were times were men were uncomfortable with my presence in men's facilities. I just accuse them of mansplaining or being racist and then they just move about. As a woman, it's not my job to cater to men's feelings.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

This is the first time since I joined Saidit in which I wish there was a downvote button. And it' s not like I haven' t read stupid shit in this sub since its inception.

Men are mansplaining when they say that women shouldn' t be in men' s rooms and locker rooms. Got it. 👍

[–]womanual[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Accusing men of mansplaining is my way of shutting men up. Anyway, men have no real need for those spaces. Women never sexually harass men. I googled "women rapes men" and can't find a single story, even though men are significantly more likely to be taken seriously than women when they report rape. Anyway, if the man wanted me out of the locker room, all he had to do was go to the manager and tell them I'm harassing him. That would most certainly get me removed and arrested. Even though I am short and he was big he could still accuse me of rape and be taken seriously because men always back up other men.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Sex segregated spaces don' t exist just because of potential assault. They exist also because men and women have different bodies. Urinals are in the open, men might not want to show their dicks to someone who doesn' t have a dick, just like we, more often than not, do not want to clean our menstruation cup around men.

Dignity and privacy are things that everyone should have, not just women. You might not care, but by not caring and by acting like it doesn' t matter because you had it rough so you enjoy taking it out on the ones you don' t like or envy for their position, you are behaving no better than any TRA who uses the same arguments against us.

[–]womanual[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

In my experience most penis owners don't care if women are in their spaces. In fact, a great percentage get aroused by the presence of a woman, more than those who are bother by a woman's presence. If you care about what people born with penises think, including their dignity and privacy rights, fine. But I don't because my feminism doesn't cater to those who aren't born female.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You can't keep your story straight. Within the space of minutes you've claimed:

In my experience most penis owners don't care if women are in their spaces. In fact, a great percentage get aroused by the presence of a woman, more than those who are bother by a woman's presence.

And

There were times were men were uncomfortable with my presence in men's facilities. I just accuse them of mansplaining or being racist and then they just move about.

So if people are uncomfortable with you barging into a space you shouldn't be, you harass them until they leave. Tactics straight out of the TRA malignant narcissist playbook.

Also, I wonder what you do to young boys. Never occurred to me before that unaccompanied young boys using men's toilets and changing facilities might be at risk of being verbally abused by a woman in those spaces.

Your use of the term "my feminism" makes it sound like you have your individual brand of feminism, or you think you own feminism. But your uncivil, anti-social attitude and boorish behavior, which you seem to be proud of, isn't helping girls and women. How can we hope to have our boundaries respected when women like you are hellbent on trampling the boundaries of others, and you insist no human being of the male sex has a right to any boundaries and bodily privacy in the first place?

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So if people are uncomfortable with you barging into a space you shouldn't be, you harass them until they leave. Tactics straight out of the TRA malignant narcissist playbook.

A PRIVILEGED group has no need to create a space for themselves. If it was women dominating men, getting paid more than men, and repeatedly sexually harassing, raping and assaulting men, I would be against women's spaces too.

Also, I wonder what you do to young boys. Never occurred to me before that unaccompanied young boys using men's toilets and changing facilities might be at risk of being verbally abused by a woman in those spaces.

Is there a case of boys being verbally abused by grown women in men's toilets and changing facilities when the boy was obviously minding his own business? I think they are more likely to be abused by men because men tend to be more aggressive.

Your use of the term "my feminism" makes it sound like you have your individual brand of feminism, or you think you own feminism.

What I'm saying is I as a feminist do not cater to men’s wants and desires. Clearly other feminists do, but I don't because I'm a feminist and am only focused on the rights of women.

How can we hope to have our boundaries respected when women like you are hellbent on trampling the boundaries of others, and you insist no human being of the male sex has a right to any boundaries and bodily privacy in the first place?

We've given men 1,000 chances by respecting their boundaries, yet they continue to harass, assault and patronize us. I have come to the realization that men will not change just because we start respecting their boundaries. I remember at my old work male customers would sexually harass female coworkers. Female customers never sexually harassed anyone as far as I recall. I even told one co-worker who had a customer make sexual comments towards her to expect this kind of behavior because they don't know how to act. Other coworkers overheard and we had a discussion about it. Another female co-worker called me a misandrist, even though I kept reminding her which sex makes up 99% of sex offenders. I google sex offender maps and have yet to find a female sex offender. She told me the classic NAMALT. I explained to this co-worker about male privilege and ow men get taken seriously at every turn but not women. I gave up on trying to change men. Being a little Mozart minuet about their spaces is not going to change them.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What I'm saying is I as a feminist do not cater to men’s wants and desires. Clearly other feminists do, but I don't because I'm a feminist and am only focused on the rights of women.

No one is expecting that you cater to men's wants and desires. The issue is that as members of a plural society, we're all supposed to show regard for the social conventions whereby members of both sexes are afforded privacy rights when toileting and changing. Coz otherwise we end up with a free-for-all, and all the safeguards put in place to protect women, girls and others who are vulnerable get lost.

You don't have to respect men's and boys' boundaries, or men and boys for that matter. You can hate them and think they're all pieces of shit. But what is expected is that when out and about in the world, you - and all the rest of us - behave in ways that respect the boundaries themselves. Because boundaries make it possible for people to exist side by side in the world. And boundaries are often there for reasons that aren't immediately evident. Chesterton's fence.

You seem to have decided that when it comes to single sex facilities meant to afford bodily privacy from the opposite sex, you're going to do as you want with no concern about how this will affect others. In fact, you seem to go out of your way to go into men's private spaces to demonstrate how much disdain you have for boys and men, and to show your disregard for longstanding social conventions. Which is exactly what the TRAs and QTs are doing. Every time you go into a men's toilet or change room or locker room to show how much you don't care about males or any social boundaries, you are lending support to the side that says males should be able to access female spaces whenever they want.

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The issue is that as members of a plural society, we're all supposed to show regard for the social conventions whereby members of both sexes are afforded privacy rights when toileting and changing.

So are you saying we should not deviate from what mainstream society says about bodily privacy? Every single social movement that gained rights for a marginalized group had to fight mainstream social conventions. Maybe they should have accepted social conventions that black people as slaves and LGBs as deviant subhumans.

Coz otherwise we end up with a free-for-all, and all the safeguards put in place to protect women, girls and others who are vulnerable get lost.

This is exactly what I'm worried about. I think Gavin Grimm and any other female should have the right to use boy's toilets if they so desire, but I don't want the protections from girls and women removed. I view it like affirmative action. It was not meant to benefit men and white people as groups.

But what is expected is that when out and about in the world, you - and all the rest of us - behave in ways that respect the boundaries themselves. Because boundaries make it possible for people to exist side by side in the world.

Sorry, nope. Not because you say so. I also don't want men to have the same legal protections women have regarding their spaces. In my state people can use whichever restroom corresponds with their gender identity, and anyone who harasses these people in the restroom would be in jail. I think a better solution is to only apply these laws to male facilities - or even better - make male facilities for everyone and female facilities are only for women and girls who were born female who specifically want to get away from males.

[–]womanual[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

In most cases penis havers get aroused. In some cases, penis havers complain.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I got that. And you must really be something if all the men you encounter get erections the minute they set eyes on you.

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

Cool? You' re the one who started the thread asking what we thought on the matter.

a great percentage get aroused by the presence of a woman

If that' s true, why would you intentionally put yourself in that position? Why going to a place where you know that you will be stared at and probably used to get a boner? I don' t understand the logic behind it.

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

I don't care if penis owners have an erection in front of me.

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

Good for you. It' s a match made in Heaven, then. They will be happy to have someone new to get horny for, and you will be ok with that because... I am not sure what the ultimate goal is here, but I suspect you don' t either.

I thought you used men' s spaces to piss them off, but you said that it arouses them, so ultimately, you are catering to their needs and wants and making them happy.

That wil teach them how bad their sexism is!!!!

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I don't agree with that at all. If it's their space, they're entitled to have a say in who is allowed to enter.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

By that logic, cis men have the right to insist trans women not enter their spaces.

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

It's "transwomen" who don't want to use the men's toilets, though.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

There are cases where trans women have been beaten up in men's restrooms, so I guess not all men want them there.

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

It' s a sex segregated space for males, whether males who don' t call themselves trans want them there or not, the space is built for them as well. (Please, don' t waste time with your usual "BUT THEY ARE FEMALES" ridicoulousness, you know perfectly well that we use the biology-based labels and not the fantasy ones you use)

So no, males don' t have the right to insist another category of males should leave. They do, however, have the right to insist to remove females.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Not everyone regards trans women as males. I don't. Not everyone uses biology-based definitions.

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

And on what do you base your definitions? On "gender identity"? How does that work when so far you've been unable to explain to us what a "female gender identity" or a "male" one entails? Laws need to be based on verifiable concepts in order to work in the real world. How do you know who is being honest about their "gender identity" and who is taking full advantage of the new laws and rules? Or do you think that "gender identity" is the one thing that humans are absolutely unable to lie about? Do you apply this same flexibility about identity on other areas like age, race, nationality, height, etcetera? For instance, if someone claims to be literally a cat, should we be mandated by law to affirm their "identity"? If you don't, why do you regard that biological sex is the one concept that should not be named?

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

If we' re talking about sex segregated spaces, the definitions to use should be, surprisingly, sex based. And sex is a biological feature.

I know, mind blown!!!!!!

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

My point was it doesn't matter what men who don't claim a "trans identity" think about this because it's "transwomen" who are are self-excluding from the men's restrooms that they are entitled to.

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

Citations please.

Also, there are cases where trans women have beaten up men in men's restrooms. Paris Lees, now a celebrity trans woman in the UK, served time in a (male) juvenile detention facility for taking part in a gang assault of an elderly gay man who later died of his injuries. As a teen, Lees was in a crew of gay youths who hung around public loos known for "cottaging" looking for men who'd pay them for sex - and for men to rob and beat up.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I Googled Paris Lees, and she did serve prison for 8 months at the age of 18 for a robbery. At 14 she began prostituting, but later recognized she was a victim of statutory rape. She dropped out of college and ended up doing drugs. I could not find a story of Lees taking part in a gang assault of an elderly gay man so if you could link to it that would be great. However, at age 14 she went into a public toilet cubicle with an older man and had sex.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I don't think the vast majority of men care. But if these are male spaces, then all natal males have a right to go in. I doubt trans women would want to, though.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That is different than my experience. I have encountered hostility in the vast majority of male spaces, only physically attacked once but very much had it made clear I wasn’t welcome. You vastly underestimate how much men hate trans women.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Do you think the vast majority of men would say you're not entitled to use the men's restroom?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I can’t speak to percentages but certainly enough that it’s not safe for me to be there.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think almost all of them would say you're entitled to be there, but I also don't think your concern for your safety is unwarranted. That's why I support third spaces.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You can’t say they would say we are entitled to be there while attacking us. That makes no sense.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you have neutral spaces and women’s spaces, you just have men’s spaces and women’s spaces. Given the choice no sane non men would want to be isolated with men when there was an alternative. “Neutral” is illusory when there is a women’s alternative.

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm a woman and I use men's restrooms and changing rooms all the time. Depends on what is closer and what I feel like.

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

So what's convenient for you and how you personally feel at any given moment are the only factors you think matter?

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

Absolutely.

I've never supported any type of integration really, although I understand why activists wanted to end (sex-based, race-based) segregation since hetereosexual white men thought/think they were/are so superior to us all and want(ed) white boys clubs.

I think if we all (every demographic) had equal (or a "fair amount" of) resources... integration wouldn't be necessary.

I'd love female-only places in general... even general places such as grocery stores. I'd love to never touch the same shopping cart as a man, for example. I think men are extremely gross/unhygienic and want complete segregation from them.