Bathroom panic, it’s totally feminist
I just wanted to have a brief rant about summat, even though I’m snowed under by work.
This comment thread at Feministing? Is the kind of stupid that burns. The OP’s fine, but ffs. This is the kind of thread that reminds me of why Feministing is not a safe space for trans people.
Cis people, here is a hint. “Men in women’s bathrooms” is conservative code for trans women having the utter GALL to want to have a pee without being in fear of being arrested or assaulted. Because it happens. A lot. And a whole bunch of you good nice feminist allies appear to be under the impression that cis women can’t harm trans women. Ha. Don’t make me laugh.. bitterly. And as the Feministing thread shows clearly, the concern for trans women’s welfare–that is, the actual people being targetted by groups like Focus on the Family–is practically non-existent. An entire thread of cis women’s navel gazing about whether or not they feel comfortable with trans people in the bathroom is just bloody presumptous. Your right to comfort does not pre-empt the right of an entire community to go to the toilet. And your rights to womanhood and not to be raped or assaulted do not precede mine, not when women like me have higher rates of these things. No.
So yes, “men in women’s bathrooms” can and could be applied to some trans men and even non-normatively gendered cis women, but mostly? Trans women. We’re bloody scary you know. Buffalo Bill scary. So who knows what could happen if you let these people forget to live in fear for a second.
The people going on about seeing penises, or the mere presence of a penis–presumably magically sensed through the uterus–threatening them are just fecking pathetic. Women like me are in there doing what everybody else does. And amazingy, no-0ne sees our penises, because there’s bloody stall walls. Believe me, you wouldn’t know. Some of the time, you don’t know.
See, the thing is? We’re ALREADY in the women’s toilets, because shockingly, like other people, we occasionally need to go to the toilet. And yet, somehow, the world has not ended, and rapists have not all decided hey transitioning, there’s an ace way to get through the UNLOCKED women’s door. All trans bathroom rights do is allow us to go about our business as women like everyone else.
You know, that little figure with the dress is not a magic talisman, it will not protect you from rape…. and neither will scapegoating trans women, or premising our rights on our passability as cis.
Red herring, look it up.
h/t Lucy.
CBrachyrhynchos – BINGO!
GallingGalla
April 15, 2009 at 8:24 am
And Miriam: I respect your posts at feministing, but what’s with the “drive by commenting”? It’s not dialogue if you stop by, post an apology about good intentions, and then run off again.
Daomadan
April 15, 2009 at 9:01 am
@ Daomadan
You’re right, and I don’t have much in defense except that to say that I’ve been watching the conversation and listening.
It’s obvious that I have much to learn from this discussion.
Engaging in heated comment threads is probably my weakest skill as a blogger, and I tend to want to sit back and listen to others before posting my opinion.
So all that to say, I am paying attention to the conversation here. I’m not sure I have things to add at this point, but I would like to post something as a follow-up in acknowledgment of this dialogue and some of what’s been geneerated.
Miriam
April 15, 2009 at 9:25 am
I’m glad to hear it Miriam. You’re one of the few writers at feministing that I respect and always enjoy your posts. Glad to know you’re listening to the conversation.
Daomadan
April 15, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I would be very very guarded about handing Miriam a cookie so early.
If wite cis women have demonstrated anything, it is that they are never to be trusted.
Only through consistent action and proven ability and willingness (in that order) can they even begin to think of adequately not threatening trans women by their very existence, let alone the horrors they perpetuate against us.
Yeah, you heard that right. Any large enough group of cis women has a demonstrated ability to be potentially lethal to trans women, and any cis lady ally worth a damn will recognize this as Gospel.
One more time: The power imbalance that was displayed at the Feministing thread, and in all too many places where cis ladies congregate to “discuss” trans issues is often lethal to trans women.
Cis women, by their simple existence, partake in cis privilege enough to enable this power imbalance real and present where ever they go. A true ally will always be mindful of this, and seek ways to mitigate it.
Miriam does not yet even approach that definition.
voz
April 15, 2009 at 1:44 pm
voz: Yeah, wish I could edit my comment now in retrospect.
I’m boycotting Feministing so can’t say if anything has been done about all this (I’ve been reading the conversation at Feministe), but I doubt it. They didn’t handle the thing with nubian well, with FFF, or other things. Listening is one thing…I want to see some action to address what went wrong.
Daomadan
April 15, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Voz said:
While pointing out prejudice and privilege is an important and much needed exercise, I don’t think that making absolute statements about a group of people is.
I can’t speak to the white part of your statement since I am white, but I can certainly speak to the cis part of your statement since I’m trans. Nearly every acquaintance I have at this point in my life is cis and I trust most of them. Yes, there’s an occasional “OMG, my friend is clueless” moment, but my friends are usually understanding when I address their oversights.
As for my own oversights, privileges, and prejudices, I’m certainly not innocent. I know I have tons of learning to do when it comes to issues that concern forms of oppression that I don’t personally face: not only issues of race, but also issues surrounding class, age, nationality, able-body status, religion, autism, being deaf, education level, immigration, and so on. I’m sure people could easily add on to that list.
Is there a single person on this planet who is perfect? We’re all human. We all fuck up at times. We participate in the shitty dynamics that are present in one form of oppression or another.
Again, I’m not trying to dismiss the prejudice and privilege that have been discussed in this thread. Those things are very real and they should be forthrightly addressed. I’m simply alarmed when someone makes an absolute statement about any group of people—even those who oppress us. When one does this, one is essentially dehumanizing one’s adversary, and in the long run, dehumanization is a dangerous path to tread upon. We risk becoming like those who oppress us. That’s not a path I want to walk down.
timberwraith
April 15, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Just wanting to mention, that Miriam identifies as genderqueer and comes from a Cuban immigrant family. I know that involves some relative privileges but just wanting to point out that, at least to my understanding, “white” and “cis” aren’t adjectives that describe her very accurately.
Though I am both white and cis, so I may be out of line here.
Alison
April 16, 2009 at 12:28 am
and I feel that I should have said in my last comment, thank-you to those who wrote here and to this blog generally. I know it doesn’t exist to / the comments aren’t to educate people like me, but I’m lucky to get to read the posts here and learn from them.
Alison
April 16, 2009 at 12:43 am
[...] bathroom panic its totally feminist from Questioning Transphobia [...]
Boycott Feministe and Feministing « Raven’s Eye
April 16, 2009 at 3:27 am
Miriam Feministing has issued a statement saying that she will get around to discussing it in a few days since she is busy with more important matters.
she has also disabled comments.
Come here to read and comment:
http://voz-latina.livejournal.com/6050.html
voz
April 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I know I’m picking on a detail and take the risk of diverting a seriously interesting and worthwhile conversation by making this comment, but I can’t help it.
“Normborn” has to be one of the most patently offensive pieces of language I have heard in some time.
Marlene
April 16, 2009 at 4:03 pm
@timberwraith I think the thing is, experience has shown that Voz is right. We as trans people cannot presume that a cis person is otherwise trustworthy on trans issues. I’ve been burnt too many times to do otherwise. It’s not prejudice, or dehumanisation, it’s a knowledge produced by the lived experience of oppression.
Individual cis people (like my partner), of course I trust… because they’ve shown they can be. But as a group? Systemically? No.
queenemily
April 16, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say cis women are *never* to be trusted – some cis women clearly can be trusted, at least in my experience. Though, as queenemily said, my experience is that as a group cis people are not to be trusted without qualifications.
It’s not that they sometimes fuck up, it’s that their fuck-ups, minor as they may be from their POV, can have extremely unpleasant, if not terminal, consequences for me.
Carto
April 16, 2009 at 10:39 pm
[...] Feministing* [2]By Any Other Name: transmisogyny post with errant comment thread at Feministe [3] Bathroom panic, it’s totally feminist: Queen Emily’s response to errant comments on Feministing. [4] Very Necessary: Voz [...]
Blogaround: The Transphobia Brouhaha « Gender Goggles
April 17, 2009 at 4:05 am
[...] recent outcry really rattled me. In both good and bad ways. Their powerful voices, their deep passionate debates about rights and awareness remind me of some voices in the womyn of [...]
Stop the Navel Gazing « Raven’s Eye
April 17, 2009 at 6:06 am
Queenemily, I understand the notion of how a group in power can’t be trusted as a group. I’ve no qualms with that notion.
I take issue with absolute language. I take issue with statements that assert that cis women can never be trusted. Never. That means no exceptions.
First, it’s not true. Second, it implies that all cis people are beyond redemption: all are corrupted by power and every member of the group is a threat. That moves beyond discussing group behavior and power and into the realm of dehumanization.
Given the violence that trans people face, I suppose that this seems like splitting hairs, but it’s not, really. Not only does this kind of language burn bridges with allies but in the long run, seeing the world through this kind of lens is potentially unhealthy. It’s all too easy to turn one’s experiences with abuse into a generalized hatred for everyone in the group that abused you. It’s entirely understandable, but it’s not the best road to travel down.
We’ve seen this kind of thinking among cis women and cis feminists. There are a lot of women and feminists out there who have suffered through some amazingly shitty abuse at the hands of men. A subset of these women fear and mistrust pretty much all men. That generalized fear and mistrust touches not only men but also anyone who has ever been male: i.e. trans women. This fear and mistrust has in turn been used to demonize trans women as potential rapists and patriarchal oppressors. It’s used as a justification to exclude us from bathrooms, from women’s space, and from the struggle for women’s rights. Do we deserve that? Are we rapists? Are we less deserving of our rights than other women are? Are we permanently tainted by the fact that we were born male? No. Certainly not. However, that’s what happens when one paints with an overly large brush. Mistaken thinking ensues. Unintended consequences happen. People get hurt.
Let’s not repeat this mistake with our own struggles for our rights. Please.
timberwraith
April 18, 2009 at 7:08 am
Yes, I agree and I don’t particularly like absolute statements either. Absolutism leads to entitlement and the unfortunate acting out of oppression elsewhere.
I read Voz as saying that cis white women as a group aren’t to be trusted, not that no cis white woman individually cannot be–and not that any of this is inherent. If I read Voz wrong, well, mea culpa.
queenemily
April 18, 2009 at 7:16 am
I read Voz as saying that cis white women as a group aren’t to be trusted, not that no cis white woman individually cannot be–and not that any of this is inherent. If I read Voz wrong, well, mea culpa.
Quoted for truth. Thank you, queenemily. My cis friends who have earned my trust thank you as well.
and timberwraith, stop mischaracterizing me and what I say, it’s ugly. Just stop it, k?
voz
April 18, 2009 at 7:21 am
I read it the same as timberwraith.
“If wite cis women have demonstrated anything, it is that they are never to be trusted.
Only through consistent action and proven ability and willingness (in that order) can they even begin to think of adequately not threatening trans women by their very existence, let alone the horrors they perpetuate against us.”
This does sound like an absolutist statement. You don’t qualify it with “some”, “many” or whatever, so it’s assumed you’re saying “all”.
It’s not hair-splitting to point out that communication could easily be read as saying that by others, it’s clarification of intent.
Schala
April 18, 2009 at 7:24 am
Only through consistent action and proven ability and willingness (in that order) can they even begin to think of adequately not threatening trans women by their very existence, let alone the horrors they perpetuate against us.
This is the absolute language timberwraith is having the vapors over…she blows rt past ti to screech about absolutism, focusing on a state,ment without context, to launch into a screed about how not trusting cis women as a group is an equivalent statement to trans women = men justifying cis women’s misplaced mistrust of us.
Not. Fucking. Equivalent.
Deal
voz
April 18, 2009 at 7:27 am
and here comes Scala, tireless defender of men’s rts, and cis concerns. I am gone.
voz
April 18, 2009 at 7:29 am
The absolutist statement is mainly the first sentence to me, this one:
“If wite cis women have demonstrated anything, it is that they are never to be trusted.”
can easily be interpreted as:
“If all white cis women have demonstrated anything, it is that they are *never* to be trusted.”
If you say “all” and “never” about the same group its pretty absolutist in my world.
You know that second statement that you quote in bold, it could also be used against gay men by straight men. Gay men have to prove they are not really dangerous for children, pedophiles, or “trying to recruit” or whatever. Guess you might see why I don’t like the statement if something really alike is used to oppress others?
Schala
April 18, 2009 at 7:32 am
Woe to me to defend everyone and not just trans, intersex, able-bodied, white women and those who have Asperger Syndrome.
Cause I can’t defend any group I’m not part of. I didn’t know I was this scary voz.
Schala
April 18, 2009 at 7:35 am
schala and timberwraith, i think you are both being a bit unfair to voz here. i really don’t think voz is saying than an individual cis women can never be trusted. she is saying, and i agree, that cis people need to *do the work* to gain our trust, and that can only happen when an individual chooses to step outside their comfort zone and do so. until that happens? no i don’t trust random cis people on the street or at the workplace. it doesn’t mean that i won’t ever interact with cis people, after all – i need to work! but it does mean that i will be wary, and that i expect them to do the work b4 i trust them. it’s not a blanket statement.
this: Only through consistent action and proven ability and willingness (in that order) can they even begin to think of adequately not threatening trans women by their very existence, let alone the horrors they perpetuate against us. – what is this but “do the work, the hard work, if you want to gain my trust”?
i have been hurt and burned by too many cis people, including those who called themselves my “friend” to not protect myself by an assumption of trustworthiness without a *lot* of evidence that it is justified.
GallingGalla
April 18, 2009 at 7:49 am
Until I’m seriously hurt, for being trans, by cis people I thought I trusted, I’ll just give the benefit of the doubt. If I am seriously hurt, I might revise my judgment.
I was hurt, mainly by boys and some men, for not being normatively male, some of which I trusted (in school, certainly not at work), but those circumstances are no longer reproducible, and have no longer a reason to distrust men in the same way. Nothing has happened either.
I don’t expect to be treated any better than as a random stranger by people I don’t trust, including co-workers. Which is probably what they also expect.
I just don’t like to blame a certain class of people (even if they’re like, 99.8% of people), because to be fearful or mistrustful limits me. It limits where I can go, what I can do. If I let myself be limited this way, those who truly intend harm have won. I’m much like Dyssonance, in that I prefer to take the assholes head on, than to blame a whole group for being potential-assholes.
Schala
April 18, 2009 at 7:56 am
schala, i have no problem with how you approach the issue personally. you’ve worked out a strategy that works for you, and i am glad that it does.
what i am addressing is your assumption that the strategy that works for you is the best strategy for *everyone*. your experiences and mine are different, our strategies will therefore necessarily be different, that is all i am pointing out.
GallingGalla
April 18, 2009 at 8:21 am
I don’t assume it works for everyone, but I do see it as limiting to think everyone is tainted before I even get a chance to know them. I’ll be on my guard, but that’s not a treatment I reserve to cis people, or men, or straight people.
voz’s strategy however is also assumed to work for everyone. That somehow, we have to distrust the words of all cis women, except the ones who make it their #1 priority to be a trans ally, and even then, they can only expect a pat on the head every one year, and stern talkings the rest of the time – even if they’re not misusing their cis privilege.
I’ve seen this dynamic play out with feminist men and pro-feminist men. Having to walk on eggshells and being extremely limited in what can be discussed, even if they’re as feminist as Ampersand, on Alas, or Hugo, or Jeff Fecke. They can’t even offer an opinion, they have to echo the opinion of others or be pilloried to nothingness. It’s not a show of male privilege to seriously engage in a given discussion. It’s a show of male privilege to assume your opinion will have primacy over all others, but that’s not what I see them doing, they’re just assumed (with no reason) to be abusing privilege.
For the record, I use those men as example because I know they are recognized as feminists by mainstream feminism. I’m probably not high on their friend list and them on mine.
Schala
April 18, 2009 at 8:31 am
OK, Voz. You’ve asserted that you weren’t trying to make an absolute statement. I accept that. I apologize for singling you out.
The thing is, I’m still worried that trans people will repeat the mistakes that other groups have made while struggling for their rights. As the old saying goes, if you don’t learn from the past, you’re doomed to repeat it.
A radical politics is beginning to form among trans people. It’s powerful and it has the potential to do a lot of good. Language and ideas form two of the pillars supporting the genesis of an evolving radical politics for trans people. Action forms another pillar. The language we use shapes and guides the ideas we have and the ideas we have shape the action we engage in. So, language is important.
I used to be a radical feminist. I’m sensitive to language that has the potential to reduce our oppressors into something less than human because I once spoke that language regularly. So, all I’m trying to say is please, lets be careful. Not just one single person, but all of us.
timberwraith
April 18, 2009 at 9:42 am
Ugh, it seems that html code doesn’t paste gracefully from my copy of Word. Here’s the correction for the broken link in my last comment.
timberwraith
April 18, 2009 at 9:57 am
Very nice post you link to timberwraith. Had I been less naive, I might have become a radical feminist myself, though I was outright alienated by the first of them I saw (because I first went on MWMF that is). So that didn’t take much.
Schala
April 18, 2009 at 10:06 am
Thank you, Schala.
timberwraith
April 18, 2009 at 10:12 am
[...] you all seen this latest iteration of trans + feminist(ing) + bathroom issues? Oy, it makes me tired. Here’s what I had to say about it [...]
Peeing, Again - en|Gender
April 18, 2009 at 10:54 pm
My brother is FTM trans. When he worked at a local grocery store, he’d avoid drinking all day to avoid using the restroom.
When he used the ladies room (or god-forbid, had to try on clothes at a store), he had mothers literally pull their kids close to them as if he’d molest them. And since he’d been threatened by men who realized he wasn’t a “real” man, he was afraid to use men’s spaces.
He works in a much more trans-friendly environment now fortunately. But this goes beyond restrooms. And as much as I have to admit that I’d be uncomfortable in a mixed-sex locker room or showers at a gym, we have to ask ourselves how we’re going to give trans people safe spaces & when and how separate spaces matter.
As for the “magic” of the women’s restroom sign, I believe it’s a matter of numbers. As long as a man can’t walk in, he doesn’t know if there’s one or five women in the restroom. The fear is being caught alone and vulnerable with an untrustworthy man. I can understand that fear, even though I know that a determined individual wouldn’t be deterred by such a thing.
librarianlord
April 21, 2009 at 11:33 am
Heh, at the Buffalo Bill remark. What a total stereotype he was, otherwise Silence of the Lambs was excellent.
Jackie
April 25, 2009 at 9:23 am
Yeah, SURE trans people get raped/ assaulted more than cis women! Ooookaaaay.
As much, more or less, I’d believe.
But no, you have to engage in oppression olympics, cos of course teh nasty mean cis feminists are saying you’re monsters/ rapists – I’ve never head one say anything of the kind.
You can’t let oMG TEH MEEAAN CIS FEMINISTS have anything, can you, you want on the bandwagon. Well grow the fuck up, you’re pathetic.
ThisIsRidiculous
April 26, 2009 at 11:32 am
I was on blog-break and missed all the festivities, as usual.
But I was thinking about what z wrote:
Re the sekrit uterus harvesting facility: there’s no bath tubs. Where are we going to store the ice?
Hmm, good questions. I am thinking that those of us who do not need our uteruses now, could donate them, like the women who donate eggs for IVF. How does that sound? This could capitalize on the existing organ-donor movement, but we could add our own touches, such as cool organ-donor cards with women’s symbols on them.
Women could opt to donate a uterus after childbirth, the way women now choose tubal ligations right after childbirth. Laparoscopy would be the preferred method to extract the uterus, so there would only be a teeny scar for the cisgendered donor, although there might be a somewhat larger scar for the recipient. (We could work on this one.)
We need to think of a catchy name for the organization, maybe “Spare wombs” (a play on “spare rooms”) or maybe “Womb and board”? What do you think? “Always Womb for more!” was suggested by my intrepid co-worker.
Another question: Would post-C-section, post-menopausal uteri be acceptable? I guess this would be an individual preference.
What do you think of the idea so far? :)
daisydeadhead
April 26, 2009 at 2:28 pm
ThisIsRidiculous,
You’re derailing, and you’re trying to create a hierarchy of oppressions. There are two different concepts you’re confusing – the number of cis women who are assaulted vs. the number of trans women who are assaulted and how “at risk” any particular woman is.
Second, I have several times heard cis feminists claim that trans women need to be kept out of women-only space for cis women’s safety. Never mind those who actually make the claim that a trans women rape cis women’s bodies by actually existing.
Third, cis femininists have uncountable conversations about cis concerns on a daily basis. No one’s telling them to stop – but when a cis feminist wants to talk about trans issues, don’t use the trans issues as a stepping stone to center cis concerns again. The discussion about whether cis women would feel comfortable in a restroom with cis men is completely irrelevant to the fact that Focus on the Family constantly invokes the idea of “cross-dressing rapists hiding in women’s restrooms” as a scare tactic to get cis people to vote against trans rights in general.
If you can’t continue the discussion without complaining that trans women are oppressing cis women, then I think you would be better off finding another venue.
Lisa Harney
April 26, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@ThisIsRidiculous
It is ridiculous…by which I mean your level of reading comprehension.
I didn’t say that cis women were rapists, I said that some of them are indifferent to trans women being raped. Which would be you, well done. Gold star in drive-by fuckwadery.
But do come back, I’m sure we’ll be waiting with bated breath for your next gem of wisdom.
queenemily
April 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@Daisy haha! I think that models could be offered in a variety of styles, with additional paying features like airconditioning (for hot flushes) and an alarm (in case another trans uterus thief tries to steal it)..
queenemily
April 26, 2009 at 6:18 pm
*applauds*
Blackamazon
April 26, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“A womb without windows, a womb without doors…”
belledame222
April 27, 2009 at 1:15 am
[...] a comment » So you remember that tiny wee post I made about trans women and bathrooms? About how fearmongering about trans women using the toilet is used to deny us (all of us trans [...]
New Hampshire « Questioning Transphobia
May 1, 2009 at 12:18 am
[...] would like to like Feministing. I’ve tried to. As others have called for boycotts to draw attention to transphobia there, or organised open letters to point out the ableism, blogged about the racism, I [...]
Feministing and Unchecked Prejudice | xoros
November 5, 2009 at 6:30 am