Here’s one that’s not rhetorical: is possible discomfort alone sufficient justification to exclude someone from a shared public space? I’m not talking about likelihood of assault, I’m talking about discomfort. ‘I don’t want to share space with that person because they are trans’.
“Possible discomfort”. My, how she minimizes the reality of being a woman. (Oh, I’m sorry, “THEY” minimizes the reality of being a woman). Using those words puts it in the category of people being uncomfortable around other races or disabled people or disfigured people. Such a sly construction!
The issue is not that they are trans. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the objection to males exposing themselves in the locker.
So, Laurie, what is the problem with flashers? Unsolicited dick pics? What if they were to be presented by someone who claims to be trans? How does that fix things?
Those are sincere, rather than rhetorical questions.
is possible discomfort alone sufficient justification to exclude someone from a shared public space?
If her answer is “no,” then Penny is endorsing unisex everything — not just transwomen, but all men in changing rooms, showers, women’s prisons (henceforth to be referred to as “people’s prisons”.) She’s also shame blaming women who are capable of embarrassment, self-consciousness, modesty, and distress blending into agitation when performing private or intimate acts under the male gaze. She reminds me of the perennial Chill Girl, brazening her way through life as One of the Guys and sneering at the need for feminism because she thinks she “doesn’t need it.”
It isn’t “because they are trans.”. It’s because the ones demanding entry are men, not women. There are women who are trans. They are not excluded, even though they are “trans.” It’s not about “trans” gender. It’s about sex.
Is this performative stupidity or just actual stupidity? Just as she is performatively a woman, not an actual woman.
And she used to be a contributing editor to the New Statesman, the intelligent well-informed left-wing magazine.
Only a religion could rot someone’s brain like that.
“Possible discomfort”. My, how she minimizes the reality of being a woman. (Oh, I’m sorry, “THEY” minimizes the reality of being a woman). Using those words puts it in the category of people being uncomfortable around other races or disabled people or disfigured people. Such a sly construction!
The issue is not that they are trans. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the objection to males exposing themselves in the locker.
So, Laurie, what is the problem with flashers? Unsolicited dick pics? What if they were to be presented by someone who claims to be trans? How does that fix things?
Those are sincere, rather than rhetorical questions.
If her answer is “no,” then Penny is endorsing unisex everything — not just transwomen, but all men in changing rooms, showers, women’s prisons (henceforth to be referred to as “people’s prisons”.) She’s also shame blaming women who are capable of embarrassment, self-consciousness, modesty, and distress blending into agitation when performing private or intimate acts under the male gaze. She reminds me of the perennial Chill Girl, brazening her way through life as One of the Guys and sneering at the need for feminism because she thinks she “doesn’t need it.”
Not. Feminism.
It isn’t “because they are trans.”. It’s because the ones demanding entry are men, not women. There are women who are trans. They are not excluded, even though they are “trans.” It’s not about “trans” gender. It’s about sex.