fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3563 ]

[ SECRET POST #3563 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3563 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Notorious]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #509.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Okay, this might actually be the first solid argument I've seen here on this topic. Good for you.

"I reject the notion that forcing one group into a dangerous situation instead of another is a satisfactory solution to a problem, and I reject the notion that it's fine to base laws that target an entire group on the actions of a criminal few."

See, this is the part I'd contest, because there is literally no reason why instead of forcing female-bodied people to use the same bathrooms and locker rooms as male-bodied people (thus making some women very uncomfortable or triggered, and potentially putting others in physical danger), facilities can't have THREE rooms instead of two - one for males, one for females, and one gender neutral. This would solve so many problems, but every time I've seen someone propose this solution it gets shut down for somehow being transphobic.

NAYRT

most buildings in America have two bathrooms and don't have three

And that's something that can and should change.

with who's money?

Ideally, the rich.

I mean, ideally the rich would pay for my tuition too but that ain't happening either

ah yes, you see, after the communist revolution, there will be no more trans people

idk why this is making me laugh so much

So, this is something that you've identified as the SIMPLEST solution. And you think that the simplest solution to this issue is remodeling every public building in America so they have a third bathroom?

I never said it would be easy. But yes, that is something that should be done.

You said that it's the simplest solution to the issue. You didn't just say that it's something that should be done. You said that our ability to do it is a reason we should be okay with bills that restrict bathroom access.

"The simplest solution" is a relative term here. Obviously the reality of it is far from simple. It would take time, money, effort, and real honest to god interest in keeping everyone safe, not just some people.

But that's kind of why I'm bringing all this shit up in the first place? If we're going to have legislation that allow male-bodied people to use womens' washrooms and locker rooms, then we have to be more vigilant about not allowing abuse to happen and not handwaving it away when it does. No one wants to talk about that. The trans activist community is really, really bad at acknowledging the predators in their ranks and holding them accountable.

When Laverne Cox retracted her support for Synthia China Blast (a child molester), I saw people calling her (Laverne, not Synthia) a traitor and all sorts of other horrible things. This is not an isolated incident. I've seen it happen so, so many times, both IRL and online. It's fucked.

I don't see how the attitude of the trans activist community - even if we accept that your analysis of the trans activist community is correct, and I don't feel capable of judging that - is connected to the safest policy with regards to bathrooms. Those seem to be distinct topics. Your pivot to criticizing the trans activist communities' attitude towards abuse seems really unrelated to the bathroom question.

I get the sense that you have some really serious, sincere issues with the trans activist community. And, you know, I'm not trying to dismiss that. But I think reacting to that by rejecting anything to do with trans people is maybe not a proportionate or reasonable reaction? Just thinking out loud here really

The major issue that I have heard brought up would be that anyone going into the gender neutral bathroom would immediately be pegged by transphobes as possibly trans and a target for harassment.

If all bathrooms were gender neutral, this would not be possible. But if someone had to explicitly search for a gender neutral bathroom because they could not legally go into a male or female bathroom, this would be very obvious. In the same way that if all bathrooms were for "straights" or "other" and you had to find an "other" bathroom for yourself, everyone would know you're gay because you can't use the straight room. This would practically invite harassment from many more conservative areas.

"The major issue that I have heard brought up would be that anyone going into the gender neutral bathroom would immediately be pegged by transphobes as possibly trans and a target for harassment."

Such people can and should be prosecuted. If, as you claim, a transwoman who assaults someone in a bathroom will be prosecuted, then so will someone who assaults a trans person in a bathroom.

Look, trans people are going to be harassed no matter what bathroom they use. It's sad but true. Because our society is fucked and hates GNC people in general. If it's going to happen, shouldn't they at least have their own safe spaces? This is what I and other radical feminists advocate for; not depriving transwomen of safe spaces, but giving them their own exclusive safe spaces AND also providing exclusive safe spaces for female-bodied people. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

"In the same way that if all bathrooms were for "straights" or "other" and you had to find an "other" bathroom for yourself, everyone would know you're gay because you can't use the straight room."

This is not comparable, because there is no biological difference between a cis lesbian and cis heterosexual women. While they can potentially harm each other, they do not pose as much potential for harm as a male-bodied person would. This is why I get pissed off when people pretend biological sex isn't real, doesn't matter. It IS real and it DOES matter. Humans are a sexually dymorphic species (and before you bring up intersex people as a trump card; no the existence of intersex conditions does not make the species as a whole any less sexually dymorphic).

I don't mean harassment in the bathroom. I mean harassment outside of the bathroom. If a trans person is stealth and everyone sees him or her go into the GN bathroom 100% of the time, it's a dead giveaway that "outs" them and a signal for bigots to harass them, in the same way that a straights or other bathroom would "out" gay people.

Please read the comment with that expanded context, as it makes your argument here not apply.

Unless you have given up on the idea of reducing harassment against trans people, which I would hope not, as you appear to care for the reduction of harassment of other groups.

Unfortunately, you're rugjt. I can't think of any solution to that. But the solution can't be to compromise the safety of female-bodied people in exchange for keeping transwomen safe. It isn't right. There has to be a way to keep everyone safe, and I sincerely hope someone more creative than me comes up with it.

I replied below as well with an example of why an explicitly labeled safe space could be a dangerous thing. I wish I could give you a solution to this problem that doesn't involve any side being hurt or chosen above another, but I don't know either. All I know is neither GN bathrooms nor banning trans people from the bathrooms of their current gender identity are the solution to this.

SA

For example there is very little use in having a "gay/lesbian safe space" on a conservative campus that hates gays/lesbians. Anyone that uses it is painting a target on their back. Some people don't want to do that, but a GN bathroom would force them to by law.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3563 ]

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.