Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can You Help? I’m Confused About Transgender and Women’s Rights
As a lawyer, I try to understand the arguments for the “other side” regardless of whether I might agree with them. Being able to argue my opponent’s position sometimes reveals opportunities for agreement or settlement, and highlights weaknesses in my own position that I may need to shore up.
But I’m having trouble with recent developments in the “transgender” rights, specifically the court in Canada that is considering whether to require female employees of a grooming salon to view and to handle the private parts of a man who apparently wants to pretend he is a woman, and the US “Equality” Act that has been passed by the House of Representatives that would require women and girls to be exposed to men in women’s spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and showers.
In 2017 (just two years ago), the “Me Too” movement insisted that it is wrong for women and girls to be involuntarily exposed to men’s “private parts” or to require women and girls to expose their own “private parts” to men. The participants of the “Me Too” movement told us that such actions constituted morally wrong (and in some cases criminal) sexual harassment.
Now, the Canadian court and the US Congress are considering laws that would require women and girls to subject themselves to viewing men’s “private parts” if the man chooses to expose them in personal grooming businesses, in locker rooms, in bathrooms, and perhaps other places. In some cases (locker room, changing room, shower), the women and girls would be forced to expose their own “private parts” to this person who looks to them to be a man.
The women and girls see the same result whether it’s Harvey Weinstein or some guy who for some reason thinks he’s a woman. The women and girls do not know what is going through the man’s mind. Also, note that most demands for “transgender rights” insist that no one can question an individual’s “transgender” status or require that the person make any affirmative assertion or offer any proof about a “transgender” status.
I can’t see any interpretation other than that these transgender rights laws would require women and girls to submit to actions that have been deemed wrongful sexual harassment.
But I do not hear the “Me Too” proponents screaming “no” about the current “transgender rights” demands. That lack of outrage causes me to suspect that I’m missing some logical consistency between the demands of women to be free from exposure to men’s privates and the “transgender rights” demands that women must submit to exposure to men’s privates.
What logical thread am I missing that allows these two systems of rights to coexist? And if there is an inherent conflict, why am I not hearing more objections from the “Me Too” movement?
Published in Culture
Logic?
I think what you’re missing is that you’re looking for logic in a field that is ruled by anything but.
It’s easy. Here’s the formula:
One might note that nearly every argument against the complainant in the British Columbia case hinges on the premise that he isn’t really a trans woman. Therefore, one can conclude that if you want a court to rule against someone, you need to demonstrate that they’re a de facto male person, thereby proving that they are evil and therefore aren’t worthy of the law’s protection.
A contradiction usually indicates that a basic assumption is incorrect.
Here’s a theory: Perhaps the primary purpose of these cases is not as stated, but rather to create political upheaval, energize a movement, provide opportunities for virtue signaling, consuming media resources, denigrating the right, create opportunities to legislate from the bench, and empower selective enforcement.
Basically, various forms of political power.
If so, this would be completely consistent with observations, and the sorts of contradictions you describe would not be relevant.
Added:
The advantages of this theory are:
Added:
Oh good grief, they’re getting worse.
Okay, y’r gonna have to supply diagrams.
But what if the woman in #1 demands the accommodation that the “woman” in #2 be barred from the room while the “woman” in #2 demands the accommodation that he be allowed into the room?
Progressives do not like limitations on their power. Cultural norms and the like limit what they can do. They naturally want to knock down roadblocks that they did not design and put into place.
The revolution in gay rights was thrilling and invigorating and it gave everyone on the Progressive side a heady thrill.
Transgender rights is another way to show that Social Conservatives do not have the clout to stop the progressive juggernaut. People are on board because they see it primarily as way to muscle the Soc. Cons to the side once again.
The contradictions are there and disturbs some Liberals but they think that pales to comparisons to showing how much stronger than they are then the Soc. Cons. So Liberals that question the Transgender movement are treated like traitors on the left. Much like Never Trump conservatives are treated by Trump supporters on the Right.
The unspoken rule is that once the Transgender movement serves its purpose to destroy the Social Cons they will be abandoned by the left who will reassert Women’s rights against men that identify as women.
There is something similar going on with Gay marriage. Mark Regnerus predicts that by 2030 few Homosexual couples will bother with marriage and we will as a body politic essentially forget that same sex couples can marry.
In that case, if you’re representing the cis-woman you set out to demonstrate that the trans-woman is actually a cis-man who is therefore fundamentally evil and not worthy of the law’s protection. If you’re representing the trans-woman you set out to demonstrate that she’s a woman in fact and is therefore good and must be accommodated. If you’re the judge you keep your finger to the wind and deliver a ruling that allows you to keep your job.
Remember the former Soviet guy who explained that the purpose of Soviet propaganda was not to provide “truths” to be swallowed by the populace, but rather to make ridiculous assertions backed by the full power of the totalitarian state, and isolate and punish those who pushed back?
The point was that once you get the populace to echo without protest the absurdities being propagandized, then you have intimidated them sufficiently for totalitarian control.
Perhaps this rationale helps to explain and reconcile the logical inconsistencies you point out?
This is their thought process. I actually read something where a women explained that on a trans-woman it is a “woman’s penis” not a man’s so . . .
Anyway, it is interesting that you can use the force of government to make a woman handle a guy’s junk, but if a guy says, “you look like nice in that sweater” he can get fired from his job.
Men are inherently evil, therefore any man that asks a woman to handle his penis is a predator.
Women are inherently good, therefore any woman that asks a woman to handle her penis must be accommodated.
I don’t get why this is so confusing for y’all.
;-)
I know the people are crazy who are supporting these bizarre and immoral ideas. But those of you who think you can explain what in the world they’re saying and doing . . . you’ve got me worried, too.
I think that your fundamental error is the assumption that the opposition is rational. They are not rational. They are hysterical and irrational.
And how is the woman to discern whether she is in a situation in which the government will force her to handle the guy’s junk, or in a situation in which she can have the guy arrested for forcing his junk into her hand? Does it depend entirely on what the guy says is in his mind?
It’s entirely rational if you agree with their primary axiom, namely that men are inherently evil.
The syllogism follows thusly:
Q.E.D.
No, it depends entirely on how successfully that person persuades a critical mass of social influencers that she is de facto a woman and not de facto a man.
And no, one cannot discern that in advance with any level of certainty.
In the B.C. case, it’s still up in the air whether the complainant has been sufficiently successful persuading a critical mass of social influencers that s/he is de facto a woman. With every piece of evidence that s/he’s a terrible person, it becomes that much easier to persuade social influencers that s/he’s de facto a man, because evil equals maleness.
Only a bigot would misgender someone.
But in truth, the world has gone crazy and I’m not playing along.
Progressivism is now a cult. The cult will make adherents espouse positions that are contrary to natural law as a test of loyalty. The Soviets did this too. Any failure to put the cult over reality is a demonstration of weakness that must be punished. The belief system of the cult will evolve continually and illogically to filter out the weak.
I think I can explain in a few assertions (although I vehemently disagree):
I recall, years ago, seeing restroom signs in a bar or restaurant with dogs on them. Irish Setters and English Pointers. Seems to me we can settle on that: if you’re a setter, use the “ladies” facilities and if you’re a pointer, use the “gents.” Simple and anatomically correct. There should be no “women” standing facing the commode to urinate and no naked danglies (of the below the waist variety) in facilities made for women. If trans men want to use the facilities for women, they need to complete the trans process with surgery. End of story. I suspect the problem of women transitioning to men don’t cause the same level of discomfort in men’s locker rooms, but the same principle should apply.
Why is this so hard?
For the small number of people in the process of transition in what is already a small number of people who want to, well…tough. If you can pass for female and set, use the ladies restroom, but, no you cannot disrobe in front of girls and women. And, if you think you’re one (a woman), why would you want to expose the raw truth? There is a not-insignificant number of people in the mix who are exhibitionists out for an abusive thrill. I get the impression Mr. Wax-my-scrotum is one of them. The number of girls molested in restrooms by men claiming to be trans suggests plenty more.
Again, why is this so hard?
Thank you. This is the type of logic I have been trying to find. I’m still not convinced, but your points are closer to what I’m trying to understand than I have seen.
So, the bikini waxing technician is committing a conscious act of oppression and offense if she can’t get out of her mind that the customer’s sex organs are sex organs (imagine she is an 18 year old virgin who considers contact with the sex organs of a man to be appropriate only in marriage). It’s her fault. Demanding that people ignore thousands of years of human biology is asking a lot.
Also, the 16 year old girl who accompanies her mother to the gym (or the community swimming pool) and while showering is a declared a bigot if she becomes uncomfortable when a naked man starts showering next to her while she is naked?
Harvey Weinstein didn’t always have sexual contact with the girls. Sometimes he forced them to watch him playing with his sex organ. Some women like to play with their sex organ, so Harvey Weinstein might claim that his actions were not necessarily unwanted sexual contact by a man, and we may not be able to condemn many of Harvey Weinstein’s acts.
It’s not that she has to deny that it’s a penis. It’s that she has to accept that whether it’s a penis or vagina is irrelevant to the service she provides. Whether the customer gets inappropriate sexually is an entirely separate question, and it’s also irrelevant whether the person has a penis or a vagina.
Unfortunately for women, they’re lower in the intersectional victimhood pecking order than transsexuals.
I remember as a kid that I thought it was weird to have to shower with anyone whether they were a man or a woman.
But that’s old thinking. There is no such thing as man or woman in the new way of thinking. There are only individuals, and those individuals shouldn’t bother you unless they act inappropriately – i.e. make unwanted sexual advances or contact.
It’s not that Weinstein is a man or even that he didn’t touch anyone (although I think sometimes he did). It’s that Weinstein made inappropriate sexual advances and used his power to coerce. That is wrong however Weinstein identifies and however his victims identify. It doesn’t matter if he is a man, woman, or dual-spirit gender.
Some people watch movies. Me, I gaze into the abyss.
Do women walk around with their pants off in public washrooms? If the answer is no, then why shouldn’t a man be allowed to use either washroom? What is it that women are trying to hide?!
If a man needs to pee standing up he shall use the men’s washroom, because that act necessitates exposing his junk. However, if he’s willing to wait for the privacy of a stall then there’s no physical impediment to him using a stall in either washroom.
Men are kept out of women’s washrooms because, once again, evil equals male and women must be protected. It’s certainly not because men need to be protected from women. This is precisely why sex-segregated washrooms were invented in the first place, in the late 19th century at the urging of the Suffragettes.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
So:
Our 16 year old girl is guilty because she reacts based on 5,000 years of biological and social development more strongly than on ten (or less) years of change pronouncements; and
We are not permitted to build guardrails to keep the risk of unwanted sexual advances at a distance to protect our 16 year old girl?
I understand that you are trying to present the New Think view, probably as best it can be presented, but I keep finding these big holes in it that make it hard for me to take New Think seriously.
What bothers me the most is how all of this folds into the workplace sexual harassment laws, which include the crime or misdemeanor of creating a “hostile environment”:
In other words, we have to be very careful that we don’t use any ambiguous body language, such as grimacing, when we are dealing with the presence of transgender people in such places as the public restrooms. Parents must be careful too, lest they lose custody of their children. (Pelosi’s Equality Act has been passed by the House but not the Senate yet.)
I’m not sure where all of this is going. I think probably it will end with unisex everything from dressing rooms to bathrooms to jails and prisons. No privacy, and probably lots of agoraphobia.
I predict a lot of mental illness among young adults who were led down a transgender path by the adults in their life, only to discover that it was an emotional minefield. Of course, the people pushing this right now see it as the solution to some prevalent mental health issues rather than the cause of them. But the psychologists who discover that the transgender movement has been causing problems for young people won’t be able to speak about it for fear of being barred from practicing.
None of this is good for people.
I’m not convinced either, but I think this is the reasoning. I’m especially not convinced by #2 and #3. I think biological differences between male and female matter quite a bit and that the standby labels “man” and “woman” with any traditional modifiers are a better representation of reality than the proposed infinite variety of gender classifications. I also don’t think that bikini waxers operate under the same assumption of disinterest as doctors do.
I agree that there are gaping holes in the reasoning and that the result will be problems. More problems than we currently face anyway. As far as guardrails: teach people not to rape, teach people to respect individuals. What could go wrong?
There is also a pretty big class component to the history of sex segregation. For the lower classes, sex segregation wasn’t much of a thing prior to the 19th century. It was really only the upper classes who kept men and women apart for much of their daily lives. The Romans has sex-segregated baths, but those were for the rich. In Europe, sex segregated washrooms first became a thing a) once indoor toilets were invented (at Versailles they just pooped in the halls), and b) when upper class men and women started to attend the same public social events together, like the theatre or the opera (which had previously been men’s only kinda places). Sex-segregated washrooms didn’t really start to become a thing for the lower classes until the 20th century, when mixed-gender factories became more common.
So, if your 16 year old girl is really reacting to 5,000 years of biological and social development, that means you’re descended from a very long line of the aristocracy! Congratulations! If not, then she’s probably reacting to “only” about 300 to 400 years of biological and social development.
;-)