Bathroom objections to transgender rights are bullshit

Thinking about the bathroom access objections to transgender rights- the idea that men would suddenly dress as women to access womens bathrooms and commit sexual assault.

One, there’s precious little evidence this happens often. I wouldn’t be shocked if it has, somewhere, but it’s clearly not remotely common.  If it was, I’d expect long lists of incidents to at least occasionally accompany said complaints.  It would be the most obvious piece of supporting evidence ever, but where is it?  No idea.

Two- If a man is such a crappy person that they would impersonate a woman for the purposes of sexual assault of actual women*… Would “You’re not allowed to use this bathroom” really stop them?  Maybe they’d spend a few more minutes on their makeup so they pass more easily, but that’s about it.  You cost them a couple bucks and five minutes of time but don’t actually protect women.  And, oh, you encourage them to work harder on passing, and I really fail to see how making rapists harder to spot could ever possibly help in stopping them**.

If the time and money you cost them is that big a deal, why don’t you, oh, I don’t know, actually prosecute rapists and send them to prison for a decent amount of time?  That actually stands a chance of helping.

Making this argument insincerely makes you a bigot.  Making it sincerely makes you a moron(and probably a bigot too).

 

*- “Actual women” should be read as inclusive of transwomen.
**- This does sound iffy to me on reading it back, that I’m sort of throwing transwomen under the bus with the hypothetical asshole impersonating a woman, that they should make it easy for others to identify them.  This is not my intent, my intent is to show the fractal wrongness of the bathroom argument by countering it from somewhat different angles, even some that start from a problematic spot.  I hope the surrounding context actually renders this footnote unnecessary, if not, I apologize.

Advertisements

GSM vs LGBT

Just ran across a new initialism. “GSM”. Not the cell phone network type- “Gender and Sexual Minorities”. Roughly equivalent to LGBT, it seems.

I think I like it more. While less specific, it also seems to be more inclusive. I’ve seen extensions of “LGBT” that attempt to improve inclusivity, but these quickly spiral out of control- an initialism that needs to be spelled out every time it’s used has little to no linguistic utility. Inclusive, maybe, but some of the ones I’ve seen get into “this hurts rather than helps communication” territory.

GSM, though, if you are trying to refer to the entire “not cisgender straight” world, is general enough to acutally include everyone without breaking language by being far too long. And it can even include people who are cisgender and straight, but do not perfectly conform to expected gender roles.

To be fair, this broadness, while useful as an umbrella term, might compromise its utility in specific discussions.  But- those sorts of discussions shouldn’t be using an umbrella term anyways.

Boy Scouts and LGBT members/leaders

I wonder how they came to this proposal?  Are the people proposing it thinking it is truly the best policy?  Do they want full inclusion, but are willing to accept this as a compromise?  Do they just want to pass the buck when local troop kicks someone out?

The way things are now, this is probably their best option.  Forced inclusion would piss off too many chartering organizations, it would cause severe problems for them as the more conservative churches pull out.  But continuing the blanket ban is just wrong.  

I do hope they are planning some options for situations where an area is so backward that there are no troops that will take a gay scout or leader.

I’m expecting this is very near to passing, with a public statement like this.  Though, it’s still technically not definite.