You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gender’ tag.
I disagree with transgender ideology, yes, but that doesn’t mean that I hate transgender people or that I want them to be attacked, murdered at high rates, discriminated against and harassed on the street. I want all transgender people to be safe from violence and discrimination, so I definitely wouldn’t celebrate any kind of violence or discrimination towards them. Let’s take a much discussed example – the bathroom issue: I don’t think all transgender people are rapists or “degenerates” – I know that the vast, vast majority of transgender people are decent people just wanting to be accepted and allowed to express themselves and live their lives as they please. That being said, transgender women have the same crime rates as “cis” men – also when it comes to violent crime. This means that they, statistically, are just as likely to assault or rape a women as a “cisgender” male would be, and thus placing them in the same bathrooms, changing rooms and shelters as biological women would compromise the safety of the biological women using said restrooms, shelters and changing rooms. There’s no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of trans women simply want to pee without experiencing the risks and the dysphoria that going to the mens room might involve, but allowing a group which is statistically as violent and as sexually aggressive as “cis” men into women’s restrooms and changing rooms is a recipe for disaster. Just look at some the numerous cases of biological males claiming to be/dressing as women attacking and harassing biological women in women’s changing rooms and bathrooms. My worry about letting transgender women use the women’s bathrooms doesn’t come from irrational hatred of transgender women – it comes from statistics and recorded cases which prove that allowing transgender women in women’s bathrooms would pose a threat to biological women’s safety.
I share ‘Radcurious”s assessment of the situation. And it comes down to this, which is a of a higher priority – the feelings of men or the physical safety of women? And if it is ‘transphobic’ to prioritize the safety of females, so be it, because it is the right call in this situation. Women are under constant male threat and surveillance in our society and should have spaces where the panopticon of male dominance cannot reach.
That being said, I am also in full favour of having 3 washrooms available in public spaces, and that space should be taken from existing male facilities when new ones cannot be constructed to accommodate the variable gender constituency of our populations.
Sometimes terms get fuzzy or lose a bit when translated into arguments. Let’s take a look at the term ‘gender’.
I have seen so many people argue that “gender is a social construct, that means you can label yourself as anything you want” and like that is not how social constructs work.
In fact, social constructs are things which require social recognition.
Money for example is a social construct. It has value because we as a society acknowledge that it does. But if you brought some currency over from another country, nobody would know how much it was worth or be able to accept it.
Social constructs require society’s recognition.
Gender is a social construct–it means other people tell you what your gender is, not the other way around. Because gender is an oppressive force, gender is something which is done to you, not something you freely choose for yourself.
Gender is how people decide to treat you based off their perception of your biological sex.
Gender is which color blanket you are put in to after birth, whether people immediately start whispering to you how beautiful you’re going to be when you grow up or how strong you’re going to be.
Gender is the expectations society expects you to meet because of your biological sex–gender is the expectation for female people to wear make up.
Gender is the code of behavior between men and woman–gender is the expectation that women will apologize more than men, act more shy, and generally just allow the man to think he is more important.
Gender is not some fun game to anyone but those who are privileged along this axis of oppression.
Gender is something that is done to you against your will.
Gender is oppression.”
Women speaking out against the politics of individual identity and exposing the hypocrisy that lies at the base of much of the liberal objection to radical feminist class based politics.
“i’m so tired of this liberal viewpoint that you have to include everyone at all times when talking about politics or else you’re excluding and harming them. just because someone focuses on certain issues doesn’t mean they don’t care about the people not affected by those issues. if a woman wants to talk about abortion with a sign that says “no uterus, no opinion” or respond to trump with “pussy grabs back” there is nothing wrong with this. this isn’t transphobia, these messages don’t even equate the anatomy with womanhood. this isn’t white feminism, WOC are also affected by abortion and sexual assault. you say we can’t exclude anyone from feminism and then in the same breath try to exclude people that want to talk about major issues facing women today.”
We can change society in the (sociological) blink of an eye. Unfortunately, it is usually in service of making a buck. Highlights from JSTOR’s public section.
“For caffeine addicts, a morning without a pot of coffee is a no-go. But it hasn’t always been as convenient to make coffee as it is today—and as Rebecca K. Shrum writes, the dawn of coffee machines came along with a massive dose of manly marketing.
Mr. Coffee, the first electric-drip coffee machine for home use, debuted in 1972, forever changing the way Americans made coffee. Before its rise, women used percolators to brew their coffee on the stovetop or on the counter—a method that produced bitter, scorched coffee. Despite the availability of complicated, non-electric drip systems, percolators ruled American kitchens.
Mr. Coffee looked and worked differently than percolators. It also made better coffee. Since it automated the superior drip coffee technique, it gave even groggy consumers the chance for a good cup. It was also dramatically more expensive than a percolator.
In a bid to get consumers to give up their familiar percolators for this expensive new product, Mr. Coffee included something unexpected in its marketing: men. Not only was it given a masculine name, writes Shrum, but its marketing suggested that it would produce a man’s preferred brew. The company hired Joe DiMaggio to give his masculine endorsement to the product—adding an additional layer of masculine advice to a product that purported to teach women how to make a better brew.
But Mr. Coffee did more than mansplain. It played into stereotypes of men as arbiters of coffee quality, and encouraged men to get into the kitchen themselves. Since it was so easy to use, men no longer had an excuse to cede coffee-making to their wives. This corresponded with women’s increased entry into the workforce and helped men contribute more to their households.
Today, the thought of a man unwilling to brew a pot of coffee (or so upset about his coffee’s quality that he abuses his wife) seems preposterous. Mr. Coffee changed those cultural expectations, even as it played into existing stereotypes about gender and domesticity.”