John Aravosis puts on his “lawyer hat,” which is a sure sign that he’s about to say something stupid, offensive, and divisive.
PS I do find it interesting that in this case, the problem is that the woman did too good a job of not conforming with her gender, which is what gender identity is all about, or so we are told – the right to non-conform to your gender. But if gender non-conformists do such a good job of not conforming, of looking like the other gender, or something in between, then how can we blame society when someone believes their non-conformity?
Let me give you another example. Would the following, should the following, be covered under a civil rights law:
A transgender anatomically female person (i.e., born with female genitalia), dressed as a man – and looking like a man, no one would know they were transgender – enters the ladies room at some public venue. Again, the powers that be freak out because a man is prowling the woman’s bathroom. Do we really expect a security guard’s first reaction not to be to tackle the man who is in the woman’s room? And if the security guard does this, is he guilty of discrimination, and should this be covered by civli rights laws? Is it really the same thing as the security guard saying “I know she’s really a woman, but I don’t like that she looks like a man?”
The basic gist of this seems to be that Aravosis thinks any person who doesn’t conform to his — sorry, society’s — views of gender is out to “trick” and “fool” the rest of us. Save us, John Aravosis and Barney Frank, from these awful transpeople butch lesbians in our bathrooms!
Read the comments; they’re full of people saying (paraphrased) “look, John, I basically agreed with your pragmatic opinion on ENDA, but now it just seems like you’re flailing for any reason to go on the attack.” And they’re right.
Oh, by the way: Nobody should be physically assaulted by a security guard for using any restroom, whether it matches their apparent gender or not. Sorry John, your hypothetical hasn’t sold me on that one! Especially when we factor in that some transmen don’t have their IDs up to date with either their outward gender or their physical characteristics, or both.
Consider the following scenarios (which is not an exhaustive list!):
- Transman, identifies as male, has had no hormone treatments or surgery, ID says female — which bathroom to use?
- Transman, identifies as male, has had hormone treatments, has a beard, no surgery, ID says female — which bathroom to use?
- Transman, identifies as male, has had hormone treatments, has a beard, has had surgery, ID says female — which bathroom to use?
- Transman, identifies as male, has had hormone treatments, has a beard, has had surgery, ID says male — which bathroom to use?
The answer should be “whichever one he feels comfortable in using.” But Aravosis, when confronted with such a list, would no doubt throw his hands up in fainting horror, and run back to his blog to post in gasping terms about how complex and scary it all is, while asking (sic) “Is this what ENDA is really all about??”
Are we really so terrified that someone might pee in the wrong place? Isn’t it just patronizing (literally — paternal, male-centric) bullshit for Aravosis to say that this is all about protecting those poor women from getting raped in the bathrooms?
By that (non-)logic, you probably should ban gay men (and U.S. Senators) from men’s bathrooms, and lesbians from women’s bathrooms. After all, sexual assault isn’t just a male-on-female problem.
Portraying butch lesbians and transgender people as potential rapists in disguise who are just trying to fool people in order sneak into bathrooms is a grave disservice to the LGBT community, and is right out of the right-wing slander playbook. I’m surprised that former right-winger Aravosis continues to use such slurs, while still claiming to support trans rights (and lesbians).
