Originally Posted by
LeaP
Let's go back to the restroom. (Whoops - we can't both go there! Gonna have to meet right here!) I'm telling you, we don't have the same problem! That one suggested solution is based in part on superficial aspects of physical similarity and stereotypes doesn't make it so. Further, that the unified solutions suggested are all worse than my (at least) original problem. Finally, my ability and willingness to help you solve your problem has been all but obliterated. That's not going to change as long your insistence on commonality, single solutions, and overreach represents a threat (broadly construed).
LeaP - I'm not completely sure I'm understanding your point, but I think you're saying that 'one size' does not 'fit all'. You've said that different groups under the TG umbrella face different problems, and that a blanket solution is inappropriate because someone is going to lose out. You distinguish between TS and CD, and state:
Originally Posted by
LeaP
TS - Problem: Access to women's restrooms. Pre-op and/or pre-documentation change, a practical problem, a legal minefield, and rights no-woman's-land. Post-Op with documentation updated, this reduces to practicalities and passability (at least until someone passes a "birth sex" bill somewhere).
CD - Problem: Safety in the men's room. End of story.
I think we can all take it for granted that trans women should have access to women's washrooms, and that trans men should be able to tinkle in the gents'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression you're implying that CDs' concerns are somehow muddying the waters of TS bathroom rights. Leaving that aside for the moment, though, there are two physical accommodations that could be made to ease the problems faced by TS (or CD) folks:
1) Single-person genderless bathrooms,
2) Gender-nonspecific facilities.
The former are not always an option because of building codes and space concerns, etc, but should be adopted where possible. Large gender-nonspecific facilities are not going to happen in North America any time soon. This, as I see it, leaves only a couple of possibilities:
1) Permit access based on 'passing privilege',
2) Permit access based on self-identified gender,
3) Permit access based on official documentation of gender.
As you've noted, these all have their own problems. First, they all run up against the problem of failing to 'pass'. Additionally, the documentation option imposes additional burdens - it requires that you carry your papers with you, obtaining them is a lengthy process that may not be available to all (for reasons of cost, social marginalization or the actions of gatekeepers), and/or the documents may not match one's presentation at any given moment. All three options, ultimately, discriminate against non-passing trans people (because those who pass aren't challenged in the first place) and carry other burdens including a significant risk of violence, primarily (but not exclusively) in men's washrooms.
Now, the main respect in which CDs differ from TS women is that, while they present as female, they don't identify as such. They still face violence and harassment if they fail to 'pass'. If we reject the transphobic claim that male sexual predators might put on dresses to assault women in the ladies room, then it doesn't matter if the 'men' in question are CDs or are actually trans women - either should be able to use the ladies' facilities if only to avoid violence in the mens'. This gives a fourth option:
4) Permit access based on gender presentation (regardless of gender identification).
Any option will produce discomfort for some. Any GG woman who objects to the presence of a TS woman in the washroom probably isn't going to be much more put out by a CD. A CD or TS who passes isn't going to cause any problem at all. I think about the only argument one could make to exclude CDs is that most of them are 'more obviously' male, which again boils down to marginalizing those people (CDs and TS) who don't have 'passing privilege'. Saying that one person who is wearing women's clothing identifies as female while another doesn't is an argument that can be just as easily turned on its head and used against TS women, as has been done by the TERFs - why should internal identification matter if the bits (or even the DNA) indicate that someone is male and is 'invading womens spaces'?
Given that men tend to be more violent than women, and that men are responsible for more sexualized violence, and that toxic masculinity (and the policing of heterosexuality) is arguably behind a lot of homophobic and transphobic violence, option #4 seems to me to be the one that ensures the safety of the largest number of people - GG and TS women and CDs - in our current society. From a 'safety' perspective, I am in essence making the not-unreasonable assumption that the number of TS and/or CDs who will assault women in women's washrooms is substantially less than the number who will be assaulted in men's washrooms. My concern vis-a-vis CDs here is, then, to reduce the potential for violence against a minority that is stigmatized based on their gender presentation (I confess, though, that I'm not firmly wedded to this argument and am prepared to be convinced otherwise). I will say (and recognize that I'm being somewhat inconsistent) that I am generally in favour of excluding CDs from women's spaces that specifically limit admission to 'women or female-identified people' because such spaces are typically for people who experience more marginalization and in more ways.
Ultimately, dismantling the gender binary and abolishing gender stereotypes from our culture would benefit everybody because then anybody can present or identify as they like and all will be able to use the same bathrooms.
