vocab
cisgender: another word for gender conforming, or a person whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth.
transgender: umbrella term for anyone whose gender expression or gender identity is not the same as the sex they were assigned at birth
transphobia: fear, hatred, or discomfort with people who are or appear to be transgender
trans man: a person who was assigned female sex at birth but feels more comfortable as a male
trans woman: a person who was assigned male sex at birth, but feels more comfortable as a female
genderqueer: a gender varient person whose gender identity is neither male or female, between genders, or some combination of genders
It was absolutely idiotic for Salon, a mainstream feminist-lite website, to post an article entitled 'The trans bathroom debate'. This 'debate' was manufactured by transphobic people and institutions who saw creating a panic about "men in women's bathrooms" as the best way to keep transgender people from being protected under hate crime and discrimination laws.
The fear tactic relies on the incorrect belief that trans women are men in disguise (correct belief: trans women are women) and giving trans people equal protection will allow these "men in disguise" to use women's restrooms. It often includes some lies about trans people being mentally unstable, sex offenders, or child molesters as well (the same rhetoric used to justify the persecution of gays and lesbians). Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that while trans women are not actually a risk to women, many cisgender men pose a very serious, even life threatening, risk to trans people. While I don't know any trans people who are sex offenders, I know a few guys who might punch a girl if they found out she was transgendered.
Instead of offering any sort of valuable critique or pointing out that basic rights ought not be debated, the article asks readers (most of whom are probably unfamiliar with what it means to be transgender) what they think about this issue (which impacts the transgendered people the readers probably don't know anything about). The question is framed: Are single-sex bathrooms prudish, antiquated and insensitive to trans people? Or are these spaces still necessary to protect the privacy of both genders? This is pretty stupid, considering we could just keep two bathrooms and make them inclusive and safe for trans people. Or, we could have all three- male, female, and gender neutral bathrooms. This isn't, and doesn't need to be a one-or-the-other, two genders or no genders situation. Salon fails by portraying it like this. And, Salon fails by talking about "both genders" (read: two. male and female.) in an article about issues surrounding other forms (read: could be more than two!) of gender expression.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Salon Fail.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15000
I am certainly not going to speak for every trans person out there, or even any trans person out there, but every one who I have either met or seen a movie about is very, very firm that they are men or women, not gender neutral, not gender queer, and not some third gender. Based on my experiences, I'm a little uncomfortable with confounding gender alternatives and gender re-assignment.
I vote for one bathroom for cis-men and one bathroom for everybody else.
I'm genderqueer (cissexual but not cisgender).
There, now you know someone who's neither cis(gender) nor trans.
But I have a very feminine-looking body, so I'm lucky enough not to be harassed when using the restroom.
I never said that I do not know anyone who's neither cis(gender) nor trans.
I have met many gender queer people. Like yourself, they did not identify as trans.
I have met many trans people. None of them identified as gender queer. They identify as women or as men. Since each of them has publicly stated that they identify as a woman or as a man, I am not comfortable with bringing other genders into a discussion of trans people.
I'm genderqueer and I definitely identify as trans. In my case, while I am neither male nor female, and not legally permitted to live as my actual gender, I intend to transition away from the sex I was assigned at birth.
Certainly not every gender variant person identifies as trans, but some do. You may not have encountered anybody who is both genderqueer and trans before, but you can't just assume people such as myself don't exist. I hope that now you are aware of this, you may feel a little more comfortable with the inclusion of people who don't fit your own idea of a trans person.
OK, then I don't really understand this:
but every one who I have either met or seen a movie about is very, very firm that they are men or women, not gender neutral, not gender queer
My gender identity is not "woman" but it's also not "man." I have always been identified by my society as a woman, because I'm not particularly uncomfortable with my body. But being OK with your body and being OK with the gender you've been assigned are two different things.
I vote for one bathroom for cis-men and one bathroom for everybody else.
so trans men shouldn't be allowed to use the mens bathroom? WTF?
Because I'm sure trans men would just lo-o-ove to out themselves as trans all the time when they pee. This also reinforces the idea that trans men aren't real men.
And cis men aren't the only ones who perpetrate violence against trans people. Not by a long shot.
I almost want to laugh at your suggestion, just so I don't cry.
"I vote for one bathroom for cis-men and one bathroom for everybody else"
Right, cause it's not like trans men ever pee.
And just because people you know don't identify as genderqueer does not mean that no one does.
Also, your bathroom idea implies that cis male is the norm and that there are a bunch of variations from that that we should just lump together as "not cis male."
Please see my response to ElanaFulana & @Entomology Girl below.
Please also see my response to Rachel_in_WY, above.
@ElanaFulana
@Entomology Girl
My comment was in reference to the fact cis women, trans women, and trans men, along with gender-nonconforming cis-folk, are all subject to potential gender-based violence, most of which is, in fact, perpetrated against them by cis men. Clearly, my comment fell flat. My apologies for the offense.
"My comment was in reference to the fact cis women, trans women, and trans men, along with gender-nonconforming cis-folk, are all subject to potential gender-based violence, most of which is, in fact, perpetrated against them by cis men. Clearly, my comment fell flat. My apologies for the offense."
The problem with this line of thinking, is that you're using protection from cis-men as an excuse to discriminate against trans men.
Its nice to want to protect people from harm, but its not up to you to decide what's safest for trans men.
Everyone should have the right to decide which bathroom is safest to use.
@frumiousb
good point.
when i suggested three bathrooms, male, female, and gender neutral i intended for these to be examples of labels for the doors not examples of categories for the people who choose to use each room. my hope was this would enable each person to choose to use the room they feel most comfortable in.
i don't know what my favorite solution is- i'll be happy with any solution where trans people's safety and rights are taken seriously. and i suppose, since i am not trans, i feel like it's not my job to decide what's best but to support whatever solution makes most sense to my friends who do identify as transgender or as genderqueer.
I'm not so sure that a gender neutral bathroom would ensure the safety of all gendered people who used it. A trans man who has reason to fear violence if his bio-sex is discovered in a men's room will still have reason to be uncomfortable in a gender neutral bathroom since cis men will be using it. Women both cis and trans who have reason to fear violence from men will still have reason to be uncomfortable, too. When gender based violence is no longer an issue, the bathroom thing will go away. Til then, perhaps reducing the potential for violence inside the bathroom to match the potential for violence outside the bath room is the best we can hope for on that front at this point.
One of my favorite "easter eggs" I love in public places is gender neutral bathrooms. It's like happening upon trans inclusive tolerance. Always makes my day.
The bathroom debate is just an excuse to bring forward more of the transphobic crap people love to spit out in their own confusions and ignorances. It's really a really big non-issue.
It's like all people think of is Ricky Vasquez from My So-Called Life and they freak out.
At least they let him in whatever washroom he wanted most of the time :)
Let trans people pee wherever they feel is normal and safe for them :)
Me too! I always go out of the way to use gender-neutral bathrooms in public, even though I'm cis, out of solidarity to my brother. So it's not just him being weird, it must run in the family :)
The Salon article didn't seem that bad to me. Better than I would've expected even, as it doesn't take the bathroom-scare argument seriously ("This bizarre scenario, in which dangerous sexual predators "disguise" themselves as transgendered in order to gain access to a bathroom, seems more than a bit over-the-top and paranoid."). It could've definitely been better tho, as you pointed out.
But the question of single-sex bathrooms, and whether they should be replaced or supplemented by gender-neutral ones is an important topic. Most trans people I know, including myself, favor some sort of gender-neutral bathrooms. Gender-neutral bathrooms are essential for people who don't identify as male or female, and are often safer/more comfortable for trans people in the midst of transitioning. (Along with their benefits for gender-nonconforming people, parents with other gender children, etc.) Personally I'd like to see them replace gendered bathrooms, but having them at all is a first step.
I vote for everyone using the bathroom they are most comfortable with using. I could care less what private parts they possess.
I also support the idea of what is, around here, called a 'family restroom' that is gender neutral and can be used by anyone. They are usually larger than normal so parents with kids can use them, but anyone is allowed to do so. I do when I need to go to the bathroom fast. That way if a transgender or gender queer person doesn't want to use, for whatever reason, a gendered bathroom, they can use the family bathroom without outing themselves.
Though, of course, I support a trans woman's right to use the women's restroom and a trans man's right to use the men's restroom if they desire. But the family restroom creates a gender neutral restroom naturally.
Joan
I was just going to say this. In addition to normal female & male bathrooms, one single-person bathroom could help a lot of people. They are bigger, so maybe people with disabilities would have an easier time using them. And of course, people with kids. Also, I'm sure there's those who hate using public restrooms and would love to use a single restroom; even go out of their way on another floor to use it. Then everyone could be happy.
Feministing commenters can't even handle this topic. Salon doesn't stand a chance.
I swear to god I am never coming back to this site if we get the same clusterfuck of ignorant comments in this post.
Depressing, isn't it?
These threads would be failures without you and Vexing and now Fortuna to take the misinformation to task.
I understand bathroom regulation statutes to segregate based on an individual's sex as derived from their physical anatomy. Self identified gender should be, and is probably for the purposes of these statutes, irrelevant.
My presumption is that after a sex reassignment surgery trans men and trans women can, through the state institutions, change their sex for legal purposes and subsequently use the corresponding bathrooms.
If a trans individual does not have the means or desire to undergo a sex reassignment surgery they still possess the anatomical facility relevant to their designation as a member of a particular sex.
I consider bathroom segregation useful if it substantially mitigates the vulnerability of any group to sexual assault or humiliation. The bathroom environment is unique in that it is removed from the main thoroughfare and for the sake of privacy is not under observation. Further, individuals are engaged in activities that necessarily increase their sexual vulnerability and compromise their capability for defense and preparedness. Thus, one purpose for the sex based segregation of bathrooms is to bestow a degree of safety and security on the individuals using them.
In the case of a female bathroom this end is accomplished by restricting access to men who have the capacity, simply by the nature of their physical composition, to rape. Admittedly, rape and sexual assault can occur in manners other than heterosexual engagement or through the medium of the male reproductive organ, but male-female bathroom regulations could be argued to mitigate the risk substantially.
For the purposes of these statutes physical composition becomes relevant in the capacities that necessarily emanate from them.
It is of course your prerogative to conclude which impositions of the state you find legitimate based on your conceptions of the proper role of the social order and jurisprudence. There is an inherent element of injustice that stems from the regulation of large categorical groups for the purpose of addressing problems of a significant social interest whose provenance is only a small constituent of the categorical whole. The proper balance to be struck and an identifiable threshold between legitimate and illegitimate statutes of this nature are difficult to locate.
If any of my premises are incorrect, such as the criterion used in these statutes to determine sex, please inform me.
You're new here, aren't you? Hell, I'm pretty new here and I've still witnessed the past half-dozen iterations of the bathroom debate. Go read some of the old posts on the subject if you want a clearer idea of why your premises are full of crap; in the meantime I don't really feel comfortable leaving some of these ideas up unrebutted in a public forum, and God knows our trans members are sick to death of having to explain very basic concepts to people who haven't bothered to educate themselves.
I understand bathroom regulation statutes to segregate based on an individual's sex as derived from their physical anatomy
In theory. In practice, it's based on gender presentation--unless you really want someone at the bathroom door checking everyone's genitals, including yours.
My presumption is that after a sex reassignment surgery trans men and trans women can, through the state institutions, change their sex for legal purposes and subsequently use the corresponding bathrooms.
Wrong. This varies by state, on the state and federal level, and even within various departments of the federal government. It's often very difficult to get one's sex marker legally changed, and since transition is a long process a trans person might be visually indistinguishable from a cis person without having had the surgery some states require. Don't presume trans people have it easy without looking into it, especially not as an excuse to screw them over further. And again--do you really want someone checking IDs before you go into the bathroom? Do you want a guy with a beard to have to use the women's room because he hasn't had a particular medical procedure? (Options for FtM bottom surgery suck, by the way, a lot of trans guys opt out of them entirely.)
I consider bathroom segregation useful if it substantially mitigates the vulnerability of any group to sexual assault or humiliation
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK HAPPENS TO A TRANS WOMAN WHO'S FORCED TO USE THE MEN'S ROOM
Sorry for the capslock but THIS is why it's obvious you haven't read any of the previous threads on the subject, THIS is where your ignorance and privilege are showing through the most, THIS is one of the biggest reasons trans people need to be able to choose which bathroom they use. Find me just one statistic of a trans person raping, assaulting, or murdering someone in a public bathroom. Now go look up the murder rate for trans people, consider how many murders and rapes and beatings go unreported, use your head and THINK about what happens to someone who appears to be female in the men's room, let alone someone who appears to be female and trans. What the bathroom debate boils down to is cis women's comfort vs. trans people's safety.
restricting access to men who have the capacity, simply by the nature of their physical composition, to rape
Everyone has the capacity to rape. You said it in the very next sentence, so why are you spouting this bullshit? It's not about The Penis for christ's sake. Trans women in either the men's or the women's room are more worried about being raped.
In the interests of preventing yet another derailing I'm not going to respond further than this. If you have any other questions go read some of the 892034 other posts on this subject instead of hijacking this one.
Not to stray too far off topic: i really appreciate your taking time to call out this kinda ignorance!
But i do want to say "Options for FtM bottom surgery suck" isn't really an appropriate comment. It is true that many FTM's cannot afford or do not want bottom surgery. But a fair number of of FTMs DO get these procedures, so you're talking about *real-life people's real genitals*.
By stating unilaterally "FTM bottom surgeries suck" it also essentially says "the genitals of post-lower-surgery FTMs suck" which i expect you did not wish to imply at all! Honestly, most men who have had bottom surgery are pretty happy about it. Sure, the current state of this medicine won't satisfy everyone's needs and that's a different good discussion to have, but we shouldn't discuss it in a way that perpetuates myths and negative judgments about people's bodies.
I'll definately echo your basic point: many trans folks, FTM and MTF do not have genital surgery for many very valid reasons. And in general, surgeries should not be a prerequisite for respectful access to public life!
Ouch, yeah, that was poorly worded and I'm sorry--I wasn't trying to diss anyone's genitals, just pointing out that it's quite common for FtMs to find that the range of options available for bottom surgery don't fit their needs. Not so much "the surgeries themselves (and resulting genitals) suck" as "the options are limited and there's often a trade-off between cosmetics and retaining sensation." And aren't there states that require full-on phalloplasty before you can legally change your sex? I guess the more general point would be that no, changing your legal sex is not a simple and easy thing, transition is a process and not a one-time event, and any attempts to establish a cutoff for what "fully transitioned" means are necessarily going to be arbitrary and unfair.
Your ignorance and resulting hatefulness are absolutely breathtaking.
While I assuredly can't deny my ignorance, there is absolutely no hate in my heart or intentions.
Then please please read up on trans issues. I believe you when you say you don't have bad intentions. Lately this website is full of ignorant statements/discussions about the trans community. You are welcome to participate in discussions but after you take the time to learn about what it means to be trans. Otherwise you are creating an unsafe place for members of our community.
Do not think this is a personal attack on you. Read the responses to you comment and search google and/or your local bookstore for more information.
"I understand bathroom regulation statutes to segregate based on an individual's sex as derived from their physical anatomy. Self identified gender should be, and is probably for the purposes of these statutes, irrelevant."
regardless of whatever the current statutes are (which I imagine vary from state to state anyway) they should be based on a persons identity... or ideally these statutes shouldn't exist in the first place.
Also, even when judging a persons physical sex (not gender) based on their anatomy, its not always a simple binary. There are intersex people, and trans people who are unable or choose not to have surgery.
judging a persons sex or gender based on whether or not they have a penis is both arbitrary and discriminatory.
(and no, you can't always base it on genetics either, as this also has exceptions. Androgen insensitivity syndrome, for example)
"My presumption is that after a sex reassignment surgery trans men and trans women can, through the state institutions, change their sex for legal purposes and subsequently use the corresponding bathrooms."
depends on where they live, and nowhere is it a simple process.
"If a trans individual does not have the means or desire to undergo a sex reassignment surgery they still possess the anatomical facility relevant to their designation as a member of a particular sex."
irrelevant.
"I consider bathroom segregation useful if it substantially mitigates the vulnerability of any group to sexual assault or humiliation. The bathroom environment is unique in that it is removed from the main thoroughfare and for the sake of privacy is not under observation. Further, individuals are engaged in activities that necessarily increase their sexual vulnerability and compromise their capability for defense and preparedness. Thus, one purpose for the sex based segregation of bathrooms is to bestow a degree of safety and security on the individuals using them."
and being forced to use the wrong bathroom based on the status of their genitals (which no one is even going to see) often puts trans people in danger.
"In the case of a female bathroom this end is accomplished by restricting access to men who have the capacity, simply by the nature of their physical composition, to rape. Admittedly, rape and sexual assault can occur in manners other than heterosexual engagement or through the medium of the male reproductive organ, but male-female bathroom regulations could be argued to mitigate the risk substantially."
"For the purposes of these statutes physical composition becomes relevant in the capacities that necessarily emanate from them."
presence or lack of a penis does not magically make someone capable or incapable of rape. yes, the majority or rape that happens is man against woman. but men also rape other men, women rape other women, and women can even rape men.
trans people suffer from a disproportionate amount of violence. Forcing them to use the wrong bathroom can put them in an even greater risk.
"It is of course your prerogative to conclude which impositions of the state you find legitimate based on your conceptions of the proper role of the social order and jurisprudence. There is an inherent element of injustice that stems from the regulation of large categorical groups for the purpose of addressing problems of a significant social interest whose provenance is only a small constituent of the categorical whole. The proper balance to be struck and an identifiable threshold between legitimate and illegitimate statutes of this nature are difficult to locate."
the state really has no business dictating who can use which bathrooms to begin with.
if bathrooms must remain gender segregated at all, those stick figures should be taken as guidelines, but ultimately, every individual should have the freedom to use whatever bathroom they believe is safest.
Yeah. I've seen this conversation a LOT over the years: a debate rages over trans people's access to gender-separated space and well-meaning allies start to turn the conversation into a larger one about societal attitudes about gender (and gender separation) in general. Given how common it is, i'd say there's a deeper conversation feminist communities can be having about this trend.
My uncle has this quote he says a lot: "Timing is the Essence"
I do think there are definately things we can learn about the larger workings of our society from the shit trans folks deal with. I think these lessons are even important to talk about. BUT when we talking about trans folks access to basic survival needs -- like the ability to pee in a timely manner! -- or the fate of legislation that would give us legal recourse against discrimination that is NOT the time nor the place to have these conversations. That is just the time to stand up for trans friends and neighbors and show how ridiculous and hurtful these opposition arguments are!
As a transperson, I surprisingly have a very simple view on this subject:
A little sign on a door with a stick-man or stick-woman offers you no protection whatsoever. None. Not for transwomen, not for transmen, not for cis-people, not for intersex people... not for ANYONE.
I guess having a life full or risk makes you aware of such things. Honestly, I cannot understand why even trans-people ignore this uncomfortable fact.
(Of course, there are those bathrooms that are single-occupant with a lock on the door. Those I like a lot because they actually provide a tiny amount of safety to the occupants. I don't mean those "handicapped" bathrooms, I am referring to places with two gendered bathrooms that are single-occupant.)
A little sign on a door with a stick-man or stick-woman offers you no protection whatsoever. None. Not for transwomen, not for transmen, not for cis-people, not for intersex people... not for ANYONE.
This is certainly true. But it's still generally the case that using public bathrooms is riskier for a trans person than a cis person, and you would hope that having legislation to protect (legally, anyway) the right of a trans person to use the appropriate bathroom would gradually change our cultural attitudes and beliefs about it. And as it becomes "normalized" it will hopefully become less risky.
Sometimes I really have a hard time even considering this a legitimate debate.
The only argument (besides someone being transphobic) in favour of not sharing washrooms is that "men" could be dangerous, which is insulting in its own right since it simply denies the existence of transgendered people. It also says that we are terrified of men in general, which in the context of sexual violence, is understandable. But (as previous comments have stated), a public washroom door with a gendered stick figure offers no protection.
So in the context of washrooms, it sounds more like "ew, they have cooties" than anything else to me (if you're being a wad and denying the existence of transpeople). Otherwise, it pretty much goes back to transphobia...
So if the only non-transphobic argument (which is actually transphobic in its very denial of transpeople's existence) is something that sounds like it comes out of a small (ignorant) child's mouth, why must people actually waste time "debating" this instead of just minding their own business and letting people pee in whichever washroom they choose?