Trans movement is patriarchy in disguise

[NadaTeTurbe]

Highlights are mine. 

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/05/16/beware-of-trans-movement-as-patriarchy-in-disguise/

Until lately, if someone had mentioned patriarchy in the developed world, I would’ve thought we were about to embark on a somewhat archaic conversation. But recent events, crystallized by Target’s decision to open its sex-differentiated bathrooms and fitting rooms to the personal narrative of its customers, have me thinking that patriarchy is alive and well.

Hear me out.

Throughout history, women have been denigrated and oppressed by men. While I don’t always agree with some feminist activists, I certainly acknowledge that I would not have had the opportunities that I have without feminist efforts to right so many wrongs.

Despite these advances, today’s “trans movement” (particularly the transwoman sector) inadvertently takes us back to a time when women were valued based on their appearance, and whether they fit someone else’s preconceived notion of femininity. In essence, all it takes to be a woman today are [fake] breasts and good hair.

As a culture, we are telling women that the feelings and sentiments of a particular group of men – in this case, men who regard themselves as women – matter more than they do. That’s patriarchy by definition, even if women happen to agree to it.

Yes, some individuals suffer from gender dysphoria, but I am very hesitant to say that their struggle gives them the right to identify with the sex of their choice. As a woman, I cannot concede that being female simply means that one wears makeup, sexy lingerie, and a hair-do.

ADVERTISEMENT

In fact, I was raised in a post-feminist environment where my femininity was not measured by my bra size and whether I could arouse a man. Rather, my female identity was confirmed by science, which demonstrates that every cell of my being is female no matter how I look or what I do.

My being a woman literally has to do with my being, not my doing. Hence, I can live out my life without fitting some ideal of a woman, whether it’s Mad Men’s or anybody else’s.

Let’s be clear here: No one cares about a woman using the men’s restroom. The Target debate has focused on men using women’s restrooms, because most people understand that women and girls are physically vulnerable in a way that men are not.

Whether we’re talking about Target, or states that have passed legislation along the same lines, the practical result now is that any man, whether he’s identifying as a woman or looking for his next victim, may use the women’s restroom because he feels like it.

So much for women’s rights.

Nevertheless, the bathroom discussion is couched in the language of civil rights and discrimination. Talk about a culture-war trap. In fact, on Monday the Justice Department filed a civil-rights suit against the state of North Carolina because it refuses to rescind a bill that requires individuals to use the bathroom correlating with their biological sex.

ADVERTISEMENT

Related

• Bishops call Obama transgender directive ‘disturbing’ 

Some forms of patriarchy include attempts to protect women from other males, but that’s really more of an excuse to protect women for a particular man or group of men. Worse types of patriarchy utterly disregard the dignity and significance of a woman.

Rather than a civil rights issue, I would argue that the bathroom wars indicate that we’re entering an entirely new phase of patriarchy which declares victory every time it destroys a safe space for women, including bathrooms, fitting rooms, locker rooms, and so on.

This new patriarchy scored a breakthrough when Bruce Jenner, in his April 2015 interview with Diane Sawyer, casually commented that he looked forward to becoming a woman so that he could paint his nails and drink wine with his girlfriends. Jenner equated being a woman with the most trivial accidentals, while mainstream media outlets, including awards from Glamour and ESPN, celebrated his courage.

Never mind that he couldn’t even stand for his Vanity Fair debut, lest we see that his male anatomy remained.

Another defeat for women came after Jenner’s transition to a new identity as Caitlyn, when he (perhaps channeling his inner Dionne Warwick) famously stated that the hardest part about being a woman was deciding what to wear each day. Patriarchy triumphed again.

Time after time, the new patriarchy reinforces that being a woman is simply about the externals, what you look like. Cue Hugh Hefner.

Again, some individuals suffer greatly from gender dysphoria, and they should be treated with respect and dignity. But their struggles cannot justify yet another era in which women are reduced to nothing more than body parts and their ability to satisfy a man, even if it’s one and the same person.

[Era Might]

I don't know what else makes a man or a woman other than externals. Yes, of course, biology, but a male corpse and a female corpse look awfully similar. It's our ways of being in the world that give us gender. A female mathematician can't think about mathematics differently from a male, so gender isn't an intellectual thing. Your ability to arouse a man isn't irrelevant...it's part of how gendered society functions, just as a man's ability to work is crucial to gendered society. But also important is our ability to reshape gender or rebel against it, as when John of Arc takes up the sword or St. Francis rejects the life his father handed down to him. But her point about trans identity being based on superficial premises holds some water, I think...though it's true of other identities as well, e.g., the identities we assume at work or even in marriage are often superficial and fake.

[Luigi]

"Nevertheless, the bathroom discussion is couched in the language of civil rights and discrimination." Indeed. The whole discussion is focused on a very few individuals (compared to the whole population of the country), and how they feel. For the vast majority of history, law has been based on actions, not feelings. This is the distinction between bias (feelings/attitudes) versus discrimination (actions). Apparently, the law now depends on how any particular citizen is feeling at the moment.

And the most patriarchal aspect of the whole process, not even mentioned in the original article, is how the laws have been promulgated - by edict of the president of the United States (or his duly selected agents). Father knows best, so he dictates to the entire nation/family.

[CatherineM]

I routinely use men's bathrooms. At catholic women's league meetings, we always take over the men's room in churches where we meet at. The one priest in attendance has to go to the rectory. Take out all the urinals and what's the problem. Everyone's behind a door. 

[Anomaly]

I think it's the inevitability of the hyper sexualization, micro-aggression, perpetually offended, eternal victim, self-absorbed, political correctness psychosis that plagues modern societies with created "crisises" that allows the outrage to be wielded as a weapon by the savvy against the gullible.   

Thanks Al Gore for this infernal WWW.   

 

 

[Luigi]

5 hours ago, CatherineM said:

I routinely use men's bathrooms. At catholic women's league meetings, we always take over the men's room in churches where we meet at. The one priest in attendance has to go to the rectory. Take out all the urinals and what's the problem. Everyone's behind a door. 

That's fine as long as everyone stays behind their own door. But there's no guarantee that they will. 99-plus% will behave themselves 99-plus% of the time. But you know it takes only one bad apple. And if there are a lot of people around - think of the ball game during seventh inning stretch - there's probably no problem. But in more deserted places, strange things can happen, because the boogeyman likes to not have witnesses. 

My grandfather used to say, "You've got a responsibility to lock your door at night, if just to prevent that one guy checking door knobs from a crime of opportunity." And one of my sisters is a big proponent that women should ALWAYS go to the bathroom in pairs, again just to foil the boogeyman. 

Here's the other problem I have with the whole question:

Those who want equal access to bathrooms say, in effect, "If you don't let us do this, then you're bigots." They want us to respect their preferences. 

Okay, but then shouldn't they also respect our preferences for single-gender restrooms? Why do/should their preferences take precedence over the preferences of the vast majority of society? Respect has to be a two-way street, not "I demand and you must concede." If that's the rule, then I demand and they must concede. I have as much right to demand as they do, don't I? The problem is theirs, and they must deal with it, rather than them making the problem ours and requiring us all to deal with their problem. 

[KnightofChrist]

15 hours ago, CatherineM said:

I routinely use men's bathrooms. At catholic women's league meetings, we always take over the men's room in churches where we meet at. The one priest in attendance has to go to the rectory. Take out all the urinals and what's the problem. Everyone's behind a door. 

Is it a men's bathroom if men do not use it while women do? The priest does what any good honorable man does put in his position. He goes to a different bathroom. And I can see it now, taking out urinals would be discriminatory against men and 'women' who stand while they pee.

But what this is really about is forcing social acceptance of a mental disorder. Destroying barriers/differences between men and women. And I would remind you it's not just about bathrooms, but locker rooms and showers. Do you want a confused man to be able to undress with women and shower with them? I don't think so.

[Socrates]

While I don't necessarily agree with the whole feminist "anti-patriarchal" spin of the OP (though it's clever), it's clear that women/girls are the losers in this absurd, monstrous, and blatantly unconstitutional dictate.  The only winners will be male perverts, and, of course, an all-powerful, dictatorial executive branch.

Expect such dictates to eventually have full force of law if Hillary becomes president and gets to nominate SCOTUS justices.

Of course, if the government still abided by the tenth amendment, and the principle of enumerated powers, such nonsense would never even be considered.  Since when was determining every school's bathroom/locker room policy the job of the federal government?

[CatherineM]

My answer was a bit tongue in cheek, but this got me thinking about one of my former foster sons. When he was in junior high, he'd hold it all day and race home because the school bathroom was a bit dodgy. He was an athlete and was afraid to go in there. At least girls are bigger than boys for a couple of years in junior high. 

Someone said having a teacher monitor the bathrooms would make it safe. Problem is when the teacher is the predator. 

[4588686]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 11:47 PM, Socrates said:

While I don't necessarily agree with the whole feminist "anti-patriarchal" spin of the OP (though it's clever), it's clear that women/girls are the losers in this absurd, monstrous, and blatantly unconstitutional dictate.  The only winners will be male perverts, and, of course, an all-powerful, dictatorial executive branch.

Expect such dictates to eventually have full force of law if Hillary becomes president and gets to nominate SCOTUS justices.

Of course, if the government still abided by the tenth amendment, and the principle of enumerated powers, such nonsense would never even be considered.  Since when was determining every school's bathroom/locker room policy the job of the federal government?

The winners are trans kids. But of course you didn't even think about them.

[Maggyie]

14 minutes ago, Hasan said:

The winners are trans kids. But of course you didn't even think about them.

But can you see the point of the article that this takes a safe space away from cis-women? 

[4588686]

7 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

But can you see the point of the article that this takes a safe space away from cis-women? 

I think imposed safe spaces are rarely actually safe and are spaces of ideological authoritarianism. But I assume you mean 'safe-space' in the literal sense of 'free of physical harm'? I don't see how this makes cis women less safe. I think transwomen deserve the considerations accorded to women and I have seen no evidence that transwomen are any more likely to assault cis women in the bathroom than other cis women. The only other argument I've seen is that cis men will use this as a pretense to go into women's bathrooms. If someone is behaving inappropriately in a bathroom than they can be removed regardless of their gender identity so I don't see how this is would be a change from what currently exists.

To be honest, this article, and a few like it that I've seen, seem to just want to use the jargon of the social justice scene to be like 'checkmate, commies'. I'm not accusing you of bad faith. I'm just talking about the article, to be clear.

Do you think there should be distinct bathrooms for heterosexual women? Should more male presenting, butch lesbians be kept out? Because I don't see any argument here that wouldn't imply this.

[Maggyie]

I definitely think trans women should use the ladies room. My issue is with codifying it, it strips cis women of one of the few areas acknowledged to be theirs.

there are privileges with being born male and they can't be entirely surrendered by trans women. Men have been inviting themselves into women's space since time began. I don't have a problem with trans women in that space but I do have a problem with officially making it "anybody is welcome in the women's bathroom depending on how they feel about it." Men have been helping themselves to our space based on how they feel, again, since time began.

A trans woman is not a female, she is a trans woman, period. Cis women don't get to escape from the patriarchy and its effects by saying "just kidding I'm not a chick!" And no matter how much a trans woman says "I reject male privilege and I don't want it!" too bad. She's still got it. 

[Winchester]

So...how many people here believe gun free zone signs work?

[Maggyie]

7 minutes ago, Winchester said:

So...how many people here believe gun free zone signs work?

I can't hear you over the sound of my bra burning.