Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 56080 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #45 on: June 30, 2017, 10:01:29 pm »
What's next ?  It's sometimes called 'solutioning' which is difficult and which you are starting to do here.

As a straight, cis, male I have no say in that part of the discussion nor do I have any idea what solutions may come.

I'm not going to come at you with the ole "you're a straight white male so your opinion doesn't matter!!!" if that's what you're concerned about. I ask because I'm genuinely curious. It may be that I'm simply short-sighted and not seeing the possibilities because I'm biased.

If we look at the question "do women have a right to a space free of male physiology?" there are just 3 possible answers.

1)  Yes, all do.

2) Some do, others do not.

3) No, none do.

If your opinion was (1), we wouldn't be having this discussion.  If your answer was (3), you didn't say so when I pressed you on this earlier. If your answer is (3) I don't think we'll be able to come to any consensus here.   

I gather your view is basically (2) -- some do, others don't, based on the distinction of "traumatic" vs "aesthetics problems for the delicate" as discussed previously. You seemed to be open to the possibility that victims of male violence or religious objectors may have a legitimate claim to a safe-space free of male physiology, for example.

So if the answer is (2) -- some do, others don't...  then the question of a "gatekeeper" immediately follows. If you feel that some do and others don't, then the question of deciding which is which is unavoidable.  (feel free to correct me, if you feel I am wrong. I am trying to be as logical as I can be when I have consumed this much alcohol.)

I want to get into this "gatekeeper" issue because one of the tenets of the trans community and their allies is that any sort of "gatekeeping" is demeaning and degrading to trans people.  The expectation expressed by the trans community and their allies is that anyone demanding access to women's facilities as a trans woman should be taken at their word, and that any demand for "proof" is inherently insulting and degrading.

So now we're at the position where anyone claiming to be a trans woman must be taken at their word, while someone claiming the right to a female safe-space-- a victim of male violence or a religious objector, for example-- must meet some gatekeeper's criteria before qualifying-- which is clearly unfair.

If one proposes that some gatekeeper function be applied to biological females wanting access to a female-only safe-space, then I suggest that fairness dictate that some gatekeeper function ought also be applied to biological males demanding access to female safe spaces.

"Why don't black people just go to their own beaches ?"

I don't think that's a fair comparison, for two reasons.

First off, "the beach" is public land, while Body Blitz is a privately owned facility.

Secondly, I think everyone agrees that there's no rational basis behind a desire for a white-people-only safe-space, while I don't think we've yet agreed that there's no rational basis for a female safe-space free of male physiology.

As I said, I can't really say.  If I throw out some possibilities here, it's to show that there are some that haven't really been discussed so please don't just shoot them down as a way to say dialogue is pointless.
And as I said, I'm genuinely open to ideas that I haven't considered.

They could ask ****-bearing ladies to show discretion. 

IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".

They could discover that nobody at the club is actually traumatized by the mere sight of a ****

IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".

They could put parameters around nudity in other ways, cover up in certain areas or what have you. 

IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".

They could find out that the ones who object don't want any trans women OR men in there.  etc.

Perhaps their reasons for a safe-space free of physiologically male people is valid.

I think tagging people is at once a mental shorthand, but also a way of boxing people into a category to dismiss them.  TERFs vs SJWs.  It's party politics, but in a different arena.  The people who I personally know who are in this debate are standing up for their friends and relatives and not on any kind of path to punishing those who aren't like them.

I apologize if the description of "SJWs" was out of line.

As an outsider-- I'm not from TO, I don't "Facebook", and I'm not part of any social networks that have any opinion one way or the other on this--  there seems to be a definite appearance that some people want to "get" Body Blitz for being anti-trans. And it seems like a lot of people want to "get" Megan Murphy for going "off the reservation" in expressing a view that goes against the grain.
"Boycott her website!" etc.

 -k
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 10:11:37 pm by kimmy »
Paris - London - New York - Kim City