When I wrote the article “About This Whole Transgender Rights Discussion” I thought it might stir people up a bit, topics that cross into SJW territory often do. But I am mystified by some of the comments. So, I’d like to respond to some of them and ask for further commentary. Let’s start with a few comments by Hal:
Hal said it was “blatant misandry”, the definition of which is “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men”. Afraid I don’t see how you got that idea, seriously. FWIW, I am a straight white male, somewhere between Conservative and Libertarian and far more likely to be accused of misogyny than misandry (I’m not a misogynist, but since I don’t agree with a lot of the SJW and PC agenda I probably will be accused of it at some point). So Hal, please explain how you got the idea I hate men from the first article.
He asked me to re-write the Monty Python joke from the perspective of Female-to-Male transgender. I don’t think the joke works that way. One of the funniest bits is Reg: “where is the fetus going to gestate, are you going to keep it in a box?” – the way John Cleese says it is freaking hilarious. I don’t see how to make the joke work the other way around “how are you going to inseminate a woman, in vitro fertilization hasn’t been invented yet”. And by the way, it was Monty Python who did the scene, not me. If they thought it’d be funnier Loretta wanting to be Stan they’d have done it that way.
He also asks if this line is belittling: “If I want to hang out in the ladies locker room to watch them shower and dress, all I have to do is say I identify as a woman” and I’d say no, frankly, it isn’t. The whole point of that section of my article is that if you follow the PC playbook I can say I’m a woman and go anywhere women do. If there’s a flaw in my logic please point it out. You may argue that to make life better for transgendered people we have to accept that, but to pretend it isn’t an issue is dishonest. But, to try to meet him halfway, I will say unequivocally that under the PC doctrine “If I want to hang out in the men’s locker room to watch them shower and dress, all I have to do is say I identify as a man”.
I did note that this works in both directions, but I’m pretty sure it’s a bigger issue for women than men. A F-M transgender isn’t going to dominate male sports. I lived in Tampa 20+ years ago and there was a health club named “Curves” just for women. As I understand it (from my wife) a lot of women are self-conscious and are more comfortable if there aren’t men roaming around when they’re in workout gear. I’d also note that men don’t get raped by women quite as often as the other way around, so women are uneasy about guys in their dressing rooms and bathrooms. If I entered a men’s locker room and there was a woman hanging around I’m pretty sure I’d be uneasy but my wife would be far, far more so in the reverse situation.
Someone else commented that they’d not heard of any major cases of abuse. Here in the U.S. the practice of letting people use any bathroom/dressing room/locker room they see fit is in its infancy but I have a heard of a few cases. Women and young girls upset at men in their bathrooms, some cases of men hanging about in the dressing room and a few peeping Toms. I’ve also heard of a few cases of women hospitalized or seriously injured in competition. Given the bias of the press I don’t expect these cases to be given much notice, they don’t support the narrative. And this practice is in its infancy, there aren’t a lot of places where it’s allowed. I should also note that I haven’t looked for evidence, this is just what I’ve stumbled across.
All that said, I stand by the following, quite straightforward summary of my major concern:
The PC model requires that we have to accept whatever someone tells us regarding their gender identity. Second, once they have made this known we have to treat them as if that is not just their gender identity but their biological sex.
I’ll change my next line – this won’t lead to “at least a few cases of abuse” it will certainly lead to quite a lot of it. Not to sound like a misandrist (not sure I’ve ever used that term before, but now I’m on a roll it seems) but it would only take a small percentage of the male population to figure this out and boom, it’s a thing. BTW, the SJW types claim that we live in a rape culture and the Patriarchy wants to abuse women, but nobody would take advantage of open locker rooms?
There was a very complicated effort to posit an Option 3 that I’m struggling to follow. I did notice that the author of that bit refers to places in the sex determination where things can “go wrong” – isn’t that a hate crime? Seriously though I did say there are two “primary” ways to describe the situation, I knew that people who can come up with 57 genders would be able to complicate this. But I don’t think all the details change my point and in NiV’s case the individual recognizes that their biological sex and their preferred/desired gender do not match, so they would be Option 1.
I also note that one of the responses to my original article said in effect “who cares which toilets people use” – my article didn’t mention toilets, only locker rooms, nice try to divert the issue. But FWIW, a lot of women don’t want men in their bathrooms, and yes, that comes from them, I’m not guessing.
I found some of the comments bizarre, and I’m pretty sure Twatting on Tim is channeling Dennis the peasant “come and see the violence inherent in the system”.
So, I’m interested in hearing more comments. However please be fair in any response, such as, don’t switch the emphasis from locker rooms to toilets.