LGB refutation of TQ+, Part 1: Self-defense

submitted by PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This is great! I'd be interested in hearing your second part. I think it is also important to point out that it is not bigoted or hateful to need single sex spaces. When TRAs try to draw analogies to Jim Crow laws or racial segregation, respond that ethnicity is a social construct that has zero impact on bodily safety when the two groups coexist in one space.

By contrast, male and female are not social constructs, but objective, provable biological realities, which highly influence the way individuals grow up and move about society. It's a fact that the majority of men can kill a woman with his hands (even though most men are peaceful and would never do this; the ability exists). Most women cannot kill a man with her hands. Men are capable of violating a woman with his body (again, most would not), but the capacity exists. The fact of the matter is that men pose a physical threat to women, even though I'd wager the vast majority would never desire to hurt a fly. But, and this is the big but: some men do harm and kill women. Some get off on violating their privacy, some enjoy stalking and psychologically (or physically) torturing women for fun. If someone handed you a bowl of 3 billion M&Ms, and told you 100 were poisoned, would you still blindly trust the bowl? Even if activists were screaming "not all M&Ms! That one identifies as a Skittle!" would you dive in, for the sake of inclusion? I for one fucking wouldn't.

Denying our right to single sex spaces (LGB and otherwise) is denying our right to say no to that bowl of M&Ms.

Further, specifically when it comes to denying men the "right to access" of even be "considered" by lesbians, or denying women the "right to access" gay men, or "access" to bisexuals, hold our ground and insist that we owe them no explanation. If they push and insist we "unpack our preferences", or "But I am a woman/man!" say they are not entitled to anything. If you feel like it, ask "what is a woman?" or "what is a man?" That tends to trip them up. B/c they can't explain without using the word itself, or relying on stereotypes.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And if they throw it that question back at you, you can easily define men and women without stereotypes (and hopefully these definitions takes care of gotchas like 'what if a man lost his dick in an accident, is he still a man?')

A woman is a human female who has breasts that will be able to, can or have in the past, produced milk. Their bodies have or have had a uterus, and can (or had the capacity to) produce eggs. Women are also born with sex specific genitalia, such as the vulva, clitoris and cervix, which may or may not have been removed.

A man is a human male who have chests that do not produce milk; those who do are a minority and anomaly. Their bodies have a prostate, and can (or had the capacity to) produce (viable) sperm. Men are also born with sex specific genitalia, such as the foreskin, penis, and testicles, which may or may not have been removed.

Even if certain parts of their bodies cease to function, or do not function properly, humans are regardless born with sex-specific organs and features. People with intersex conditions should not be used as examples of a third/inbetween sex, as it is not true and I believe quite damaging to public perceptions of people with intersex conditions. They are not your wildcards.

Hopefully this is the best way to describe men and women and there's nothing there that can be refuted.

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

I think the platonic idea of "forms" actually helps to differentiate male and female when dealing with trans people. There is an "ideal" male and female form, ie. men have a penis, produce sperm, upper body strength, body hair, a prostate, etc. and women have a uterus, eggs, breasts capable of lactating, less body hair, strength is focused in the lower body, etc. These combinations of traits can be altered, but no matter how far away a male gets from the "ideal" male form, he does not cease to be a male nor become a female. The same is true of women.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a really good point!

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

This is the crux of it for me. Women can't trust men in the same way they'd trust other women. That isn't to say women can never trust men, but women need to be cautious around me.

E.g. if a man came and sat down next to me on an uncrowded train that would make me nervous. I wouldn't go walking around at night without another person or my dog. If a man was hanging outside the women's loos or change rooms I probably wouldn't go in there. I wouldn't share a cab home with a guy I didn't know and trust. If I was in a mixed group with guys I didn't know well I wouldn't drink much at all. Etc.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The fact of the matter is that men pose a physical threat to women, even though I'd wager the vast majority would never desire to hurt a fly. But, and this is the big but: some men do harm and kill women. Some get off on violating their privacy, some enjoy stalking and psychologically (or physically) torturing women for fun. If someone handed you a bowl of 3 billion M&Ms, and told you 100 were poisoned, would you still blindly trust the bowl? Even if activists were screaming "not all M&Ms! That one identifies as a Skittle!" would you dive in, for the sake of inclusion? I for one fucking wouldn't.

This is a vital point, and one that's certainly meaningful to me personally. However, I've had a hard time fitting it into my T-refutation from the LGB side, you know? Since it seems so specific to women and girls. Of course, that's plenty of the B and all of the L, but it still feels like the case against the T from the sex-based, as opposed to sexual-orientation-based, POV is a somewhat different argument. Largely because of the factor that you've highlighted here (the physical threat which men pose to women).

Problem is: 1.] this really doesn't apply to GB men at all (or, for that matter, LB women where T-identified females are concerned); and 2.] it brings up the issue of gender (the reason why so many men USE their biological strength advantage to threaten women), which the "self-defense" refutation otherwise treats as irrelevant.

While the "going on the offensive" component does deal with gender's harmfulness to both same-sex-attracted people and women, I'm still unsure of how to handle the "poisoned Skittles" element in an LGB-specific manner. Any suggestions?

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

I've had a hard time fitting it into my T-refutation from the LGB side, you know? Since it seems so specific to women and girls. Of course, that's plenty of the B and all of the L, but it still feels like the case against the T from the sex-based, as opposed to sexual-orientation-based, POV is a somewhat different argument. Largely because of the factor that you've highlighted here (the physical threat which men pose to women).

It's true, my argument earlier pertains more to women and girls from a safety perspective. I guess I was trying to refute the overall idea that MtFs should be blindly trusted in women's spaces (prisons, shelters, locker rooms) b/c of their intangible, unprovable "identity". That could be extended to lesbian spaces (they still pose a physical threat there) but I'm guessing that probably won't win many people over b/c it's such a niche perspective for anyone to understand who hasn't lived it. I will try a different approach.

For defending LGB spaces (bars, support groups, charities, etc), I think the best course of action is arguing on terms of equality and boundaries. It is reasonable for trans people to want specific spaces to be around and talk to other trans people, and for bisexuals to want spaces to talk to other bisexual people, b/c it's valuable, healthy, and natural to want to find people who relate to your experiences, get advice from, give advice, share information, and relax and enjoy one of the rare moments in life when you're not a minority in the room. We need to argue this case: as homosexuals we need spaces for ourselves too. We respect the boundaries of bisexual and trans-specific spaces, as a lesbian woman I respect the boundaries of gay male spaces and recognize they might not feel like hanging out with me at all times, and vice versa. This is a natural and healthy expression of emotional, social, and physical boundaries, and helps protect bodily boundaries too (ex. straight/bi women going into gay clubs and groping the men, or straight men groping lesbians in lesbian bars). If they retort by calling you a segregationist, point out how offensive that is, and that ethnicity is not the same as sex or sexual orientation, and that free association is not the same as forced segregation. A minority group freely associating among themselves for a specific purpose is not segregationist, in fact far from it: it helps protect the minority group, and contributes to the unity and health of society. Anyone who doesn't grasp this has a very superficial and racist view of the civil rights movement (or they have very poor emotional intelligence).

The crux of my argument comes down to respecting boundaries, and recognition of when boundaries are needed. Homosexuals need and deserve spaces of our own, and lesbians and gay men can choose to associate and set up spaces for lesbians and gay men separately, as needed, or come together, when needed. The same applies for bisexuals, and trans people. We all have the fundamental right to freedom of association under the law, and banning exclusive homosexual/gay male/lesbian/bisexual spaces, for people of those sexes and orientations, is against the law.

If some TRA defends the right of transbians or gaydens to associate with lesbians and gay men, respond that their rights end where another person's rights begin. If they see a lesbian/gay men space (whether physical or virtual) that is only for actual, biological lesbians and gay men, and doesn't permit trans, it's b/c the people that set it up and the people that are there want and need their own spaces. Tell the TRA to set up spaces for transbians and gaydens instead of trying to push the boundaries of other minority groups. If they keep pushing, and saying the "only purpose is to keep out transwomen" retort that it's not about transwomen, and the fact they don't understand this, and thinks it's all about them shows that they don't understand the issue at hand, or homosexuality. Tell them how creepy it is to keep pushing boundaries after being told no, and stand firm on this, b/c we are right.

An analogy you can use is: imagine you set up a charity for people living with heart disease, either b/c you personally have/had it, or know someone who does. You advertise your charity and support group, and collect donations, people with heart disease, or with family members, show up, and you build a small but mutually-supportive community. Outside your doors, a belligerent, annoying person with blue hair appears and starts ranting about how they don't have heart disease and feel "excluded" and "hurt". They say you are excluding people who don't have it, including people with breast cancer, diabetes, anemia, lung disease, etc. They stand outside your doors and scream and cry how you are a "breast cancer/diabetes/anemia-exclusionary radical charity", and they nail a dead rat to your door while they're at it. You try and explain how you need this space, as it's specific, and they keep going, "what have you done for people with ear infections? you're denying people with coronavirus from accessing valuable community and resources!" The issue is that it's not about them! The right in question is freedom of association, and we can focus on our own damn issues for once!