False marketing
You have to be really careful about what ideologies you subscribe to. I could just say don’t subscribe to any, but I’m not sure that’s possible, or desirable. It can be considered an ideology to think that other people exist and have rights, and that the self doesn’t have a right to trample other people’s rights. Maybe we have to have some ideology to avoid total ruthless self-interest. But we do have to be cautious. Unlike…
What’s her problem here? That she hasn’t paused to ask herself what “rights” she’s talking about. The “right” she’s talking about isn’t in fact a genuine right at all. Men don’t have a “right” to force themselves on naked women at a spa. That’s a made-up right – more made-up than the more sturdy rights that have been around a bit longer than the shiny new “trans” ones.
So there it is – Laurie Penny is saying never mind that this one guy who forced himself on naked women and girls at a spa turns out to be not trans but just a predatory man, we still have to protect the “right” of men who say they are trans to force themselves on naked women and girls.
But we don’t. We don’t have to. That’s not a genuine right, and it shouldn’t be declared a genuine right.
It’s fair enough to say that a single incident (or a small number of incidents) doesn’t change one’s overall view of what the optimal policy should be to a given issue. We don’t accept the anti-vaxxer argument that a single death from a vaccine means that vaccines are dangerous and should not be approved or mandated. We don’t think that men should be banned from leaving their homes at night, even if it might prevent some violent crimes. The “if it saves ONE life (or avoids ONE assault, etc.) then it’s worth it” argument doesn’t hold water.
But Penny really should be re-evaluating her position here, because this isn’t just a matter of cost-benefit analysis, or a “bad apple” or two. There seems to be a fundamental contradiction between Penny’s original position (it’s perfectly fine for a male-bodied person to strut around a women’s changeroom naked as long as they say they’re a woman, and the only blame should attach to the person, adult or child, who fails to avert her eyes from the penis) and her apparent concession now that this individual was a “predator” who is a “disgrace” and committed a “crime.”
After all, what, in Penny’s eyes, did this predator do at WiSpa that was wrong? There’s no indication that the actual conduct at WiSpa is different from what was previously alleged/reported. Only the known details of the perpetrator’s background have changed. How did he go from “poor innocent person being discriminated against despicably simply for being naked in a place where she had every right to be” to “predator who committed a crime,” when the actual conduct has not apparently changed? How did the complainants at WiSpa go from “evil fucking TERFs who should stop looking at other people’s genitals and oppressing minorities” to “victims of a crime”?
It’s not a coherent position to say “it’s ok to strut around a women’s changeroom displaying your penis, provided that you don’t have a history of convictions for sexual offenses.” The impact on the other patrons is the same regardless of the penis-waver’s personal history or subjective belief, neither of which they can really ascertain. And of course, savvy sexual offenders can now confine their exhibitionism to these situations, in which case the Laurie Pennys of the world will insist that they aren’t sexual offenders at all.
What does Penny advise a woman to do in the future if she’s confronted with a situation like this? Or the staff at a spa? Check the penis-haver’s identification and run a criminal background check to determine whether it’s ok to be upset, or to take any action? Not only is that impractical, but I suspect that Penny would insist it’s a vile discriminatory practice to insist on background checks for penis-havers in the women’s changeroom — indeed, the second quoted tweet says as much.
Then why was this incident of any interest to you or other supporters? Why the elaborate conspiracy theories over the entire thing being a hoax? “They’re just trying to discredit us” makes no sense if there’s no sense in which the truth or falsehood of the allegation carries no credit.
Once again it becomes clear to me that there’s really only one debate to be had: what determines a person’s sex? Everything else involving statistics and violence and motivations and predictions is really just so much hand waving, since if transwomen are a type of woman then 90% of them could be predators, champions, and perverts and it will no more change their position than if we were talking about People of Color. A problem in which a biological basis has been ruled out will therefore be grounded in environment, socialization, and psychology.
The problem Penny has is that admitting that one single sex offender pretended to be trans (whatever that mess means) in order to gain access to women is to admit that self-ID in its entirety is wrong in every sense.
No two ways about it, she’s painted herself into an ideological corner. It’s one we’ve long expected and we’re seeing many people and once-respected publications making fools of themselves because of it.
They had a choice between accepting that allowing men to self-ID into women’s spaces is harmful to women and girls… or… defending a sexual predator of women and girls.
It’s incredibly telling that they all went for the latter. Not at all unexpected, but still remarkable.
I don’t expect it to be a game changing moment in itself, but all those micro-peaks add up.
I think girls and young women might prove to be our salvation in all of this. I’m sure that most girls would be horrified by even the thought of a man in the shower, let alone an aroused one. Isn’t avoidance of that kind of unwanted attention one of the factors leading girls to declare themselves trans or non-binary in the first place? As more and more men are found in women’s spaces, will an increasing number of girls go the other way and begin to shout about how unacceptable self-ID is? I hope so.
@Screechy – that’s very well expressed. The actual events stay the same, it’s just the background of the perp that changes just as a murderer might be “excused” on the grounds of insanity. However with murder we agree that it’s always wrong to murder people. I’d always thought exposing a penis to an unwilling onlooker was wrong, but it seems that it depends who does it.
This question cuts to the heart of the matter. Her half-formed thoughts apparently amount to something like mens rea. What the predator did that was wrong was to do what he did while being a predator. His identity as a predator makes his action predatory, not something about the action per se.
It’s such a silly position that it’s rather difficult to express without sounding silly, even about someone else. How much more difficult must it be to state on Twitter as one’s own?
[…] a comment by Screechy Monkey on False […]