Open up ALL the toilets
So about that dopy Zoe Williams piece telling feminists to be more embracey…
I have written nothing on trans issues for seven years. A now-familiar row had broken out in the feminist movement back then, and I assumed that feminism would soon re-orient itself away from which body parts define a woman and whether or not the word “womxn” signified an assault on our sense of selves, and towards what I thought was obviously the more fundamental question of the movement: who has it worse? Feminism, in my life’s experience of it, takes the side of the oppressed. That is our raison d’etre.
You see what I mean by “dopy.” Of course that’s not feminism’s raison d’être – why would it be? Feminism takes the side of women (see: the “fem” bit). Yes feminism tends to be on the left, yes feminism tends to be in alliance with other movements, yes feminism should be intersectional; all of that; nevertheless feminism itself is about women, not “the oppressed” in general. Isn’t it funny that other social justice movements don’t tell themselves that they’re not about their own issue but a much broader and more general one? Isn’t it funny that it’s only women who are told to be about everyone? The universal caretakers.
Something something, Williams says. Old prejudices, pent-up hatreds, something something.
But all that prejudice did not just evaporate, and the very idea of a trans person became its great release. All this pent up feeling exploded on to this one group, who – to put it mildly – could have done without it. It was, and remains, obvious which side feminism would be expected to take in this fight: the side of compassion and fellowship. We would recognise the importance of being an ally in a battle that we had been through.
Because we are all mommy. What was feminism about again?
Seven years ago, I thought this was quite an emollient argument, having gone nowhere near definitions, biology or absolutes – a call to rejoice in everything that made the women’s movement meaningful and victorious: strength in numbers, solidarity and, ultimately, love.
Say what? How does she mean “emollient”? Why is she calling a call to rejoice an “argument”? What kind of strength in numbers and solidarity is it for an oppressed class to embrace the oppressor class? Is this political discussion or Sunday school? “Love” is all very well but it doesn’t replace rights or justice.
… there is a bizarre idea ossifying that “real” feminists are being hounded out of the discursive space by trans activists. Rather, what has occurred is the systematic enclosure of the debate, so that unless you want to go to the mats about toilets, your point of view is not relevant.
You know…that’s some strikingly bad writing there. Bizarre ideas ossify while feminists are hounded and spaces are discursive – it’s a queasy mashup of abstract and earthy that does not work. And what is “systematic enclosure of the debate” when it’s at home? And how do you go to the mats about toilets – are you scrubbing them or flushing them or peeing on them or what?
She does it in the next paragraph too – it seems to be her thing: hyper-concrete metaphors that make no sense and look absurd.
The experience of trans men, for instance, has been more or less erased, because the core issues have been whittled down to such a sharp, conflicted point
Why would a sharp point be the reason something was erased? And how do you “whittle down” issues to a “sharp, conflicted point” anyway?
Again, it is tactical and convenient to portray trans inclusion as a Trojan horse that all the young idiots allow in
No – not illuminating, not relevant, not helpful.
The terrible quality of the writing makes it hard to focus on what there is of the argument. Next paragraph – “It is astonishing that the idea of the “women-only space” is being touted as a fundamental pillar of the movement” – ugh, god, how can a space be a pillar? THINK BEFORE YOU METAPHOR.
Sorry; must concentrate. Seek tiny ghost of argument waving feebly through the forest of dreck metaphors.
Women-only space was a realm protected from our Harvey Weinsteins, where we could talk about our Harvey Weinsteins; it was not a hallowed place where we communicated through our ovaries. It was where we came together in unity against people who hated us. I can’t imagine the mindset that would exclude a trans sister from that.
Sure you can. Just pause to remember that the “trans sister” is a man. Maybe if you bumble through life thinking ideas can be pillars and issues can be whittled it’s difficult to grasp the point; get someone to help you if so. The trans sister is not a real sister, because he is a man. There is a chance he is even one of “the people who hate us.”
What are we doing, trying to consecrate the public lavatory as a place so precious to the experience of womanhood that we have to be exclusive, rather than inclusive; that we have to characterise ourselves as a set of vulnerabilities, rather than strengths?
What? Public toilets are supposed to be inclusive before anything else? Then why do they have walls at all? Why not just plunk the
down in a convenient spot and leave it at that?
She winds up with a kind of pseudo-Shakespearean ode:
Solidarity is boring to talk about, but fascinating and empowering to live. Solidarity is not exclusive or pedantic; it is compassionate and fights oppression where it finds it. That is its lifeblood. That is why trans women are women, or womxn.
It’s also why eagles are rabbits and bears are salmon and wolves are squirrels. Everybody join hands and sing.
Actually, solidarity is often exclusive. It excludes those who are oppressors that necessitate the solidarity. Labor unions don’t admit management, because of solidarity of workers. Black theatres don’t do white plays because of solidarity of the African-American community. And solidarity can be pedantic, if that is required.
So now let’s put out a demand that campers become inclusive and allow grizzly bears into their tents. If there are any campers still alive in the morning, they can enthuse and gush about their inclusivity and love. (By the way, I do not in the least deny the existence of grizzly bears, or their right to exist, but only the inclusion of them in human tents where they could clearly become a problem, even if they identify as humans.)
If toilets are so trivial, then why has the trans movement refused to give in on the topic?
Why haven’t TRAs said, “Goodness, this is silly. Why are we arguing about public toilets, of all things. We’ll let you have this one”?
Maybe it’s not as arbitrary as the writer suggests?
It’s such slop. Feminism isn’t about “love”, it’s about justice. It’s had some totally female bastards involved with it, it’s had hard nuts, toughies, furious women. It hasn’t been about holding hands and giving group hugs.
Ben, you don’t understand (I guess it’s that white colonialist feminist lens again). Our issues are trivial. Their issues are matters of life and death (yes, even pronouns), even when they are the same issues.
It’s such slop and burdened with such gut-clenchingly horrible metaphors. Bad metaphoring should be a CRIME.
I tend to think of the Bathroom Issue as a tactical and convenient Trojan horse. Even if we assume (for the sake of argument, say) that every transwoman is as harmless and unthreatening as any woman, given the increasing insistence that we not “judge” who is or isn’t transgender based on appearance or clothing, there is absolutely no way to keep out any man whatsoever. Someone might be a transgender woman and: pass; not pass; be on hormones; not be on hormones; have a dick; not have a dick; wear makeup; not wear makeup; wear women’s clothing; not wear women’s clothing — and on and on. What makes someone trans is their own self-knowledge.
Any creep can put on eyeshadow and skulk around the women’s stalls peeking through the edges. Or worse. And instant deniability if anyone dares to object: “I’m just trying to pee.”
Once transwomen are accepted into the bathroom, they’re acknowledged to be “women.” There goes everything else, and here comes every man.
I think it’s more than that. Any creep can lurk around the bathroom without even having to put on makeup or adopt any signals that he is or should be taken for a woman. A declaration is all that’s required. And, practically speaking, probably not even that. And hanging your argument on the belief that “we can trust that men won’t try to do terrible things” (especially when there would be so little cost to the men) is a bit misguided.
I see what you did there! Well played!
It works the other way too: rabbits are eagles, salmon are bears and squirrels are wolves.
There’s just the tiny little, incidental detail of the former of each pair having been eaten by the latter along the way…
Yes, they identify as eagles and bears even as they’re being chomped up and swallowed.
In fact, the bathroom policy where I work is just that – if someone is in the bathroom, assume they are in the correct one. Don’t say anything, no matter what.
They announced this four years ago. Some of the trans advocates on our campus claim we are trans unfriendly in every way, so that is far from enough ground given.
Ophelia, you put the JESUS! in exegesis.
I’m glad I wasn’t sipping coffee when I read #11. Still laughing.
lol
Thanks Papito!
Uh, has this person never seen a line for a women’s restroom?
There’s something deeper than the baseline bad writing that Ophelia’s talking about, here. The underlined phrase? It reminds me of many of Ophelia’s posts about Trump–it shows a remarkable lack of theory of mind. The writer instantly assumes that the issue of toilets is about “the experience of womanhood”, not just for transwomen, but for the GC feminists. And of course, it’s not–it’s about personal security. But Zoe can’t even picture any position not based on the whole notion of “lived experience uber alles” that’s been adopted by the TRAs.
I’ve come back to this line several times. I find it breathtaking in its obliviousness, especially given that the author of the piece is female. We are not characterizing ourselves as a set of vulnerabilities – to put it in language she might grasp, we are not identifying as vulnerable. That is a reality of the physical world, a status conferred on us by our smaller size and differential muscle mass. A woman simply is not as strong as a man, and that makes her vulnerable.
In short, she tries to put that in the same wobbly-weak category of gender identity: we identify ourselves as vulnerable. In fact, it is nothing of the sort. Unlike gender identity, it is based in the unfortunate facts of the real world as it is, no matter what we would like it to be. In short, it exists in the same realm of the real as the idea that transwomen are men. Facts matter.