I refer to myself as a gender skeptic1 because I am skeptical of extraordinary claims that must be accepted by declaration. I am skeptical that gods and goddesses exist, for example, and when an authority demands that I behave and live my life as though my submission to gods and goddesses (or a single one) is important enough for them to craft mores and rules, I resist because I just don’t see any evidence that they exist. As an atheist I don’t declare that I know that there is no God, I just don’t see any reason to believe that there is one, or are many. Anyone else can believe that they serve their god and call it freedom, but it doesn’t apply to me and no one should demand that I accept it.
I’m skeptical of any notion that relies on declaration as evidence, and while I admit that I am not a perfect skeptic in all things, I am satisfied that there is no reason to believe that any such thing as a gender identity has been realized. I certainly can’t accept that there are any that can counter the physical sex of any individual.
The social contract that has only recently been written to make spaces for private functions in public spaces is a very recent phenomenon. I had assumed until a few years back, and only because of the demands of men to have access to women’s restrooms, that public buildings had always provided separate lavatories for women. This simple presence in our public lives had to be fought for by women with as much effort as had suffrage. Women pointed out that without restrooms that afforded privacy and separation from men when at a time when they are urinating, defecating, or attending to sanitary needs while they are menstruating, they face a “urinary leash.”
In Victorian Britain, most public toilets were designed for men. Of course, this affected women’s ability to leave the home, as women who wished to travel had to plan their route to include areas where they could relieve themselves. Thus, women never travelled much further than where family and friends resided. This is often called the ‘urinary leash’, as women could only go so far as their bladders would allow them.
This lack of access to toilets impeded women’s access to public spaces as there were no women’s toilets in the work place or anywhere else in public. This led to the formation of the Ladies Sanitary Association, organised shortly after the creation of the first public flushing toilet. The Association campaigned from the 1850s onwards, through lectures and the distribution of pamphlets on the subject. They succeeded somewhat, as a few women’s toilets opened in Britain.
Then a second group emerged called the Union of Women’s Liberal and Radical Associations, which campaigned for working class women to have public toilets in Camden. In 1898 the members wrote to The Vestry in Camden for toilet access for women in the already existing men’s toilets. However, the plans for a women’s toilet were set back by several years as men opposed the women’s toilets being situated next to the men’s.
In some cases, plans for women’s toilets were deliberately sabotaged. When a model of a women’s toilet was set up on the pavement in Camden High Street, hansom cabs (driven by men) deliberately drove into the model toilet to demonstrate that it was situated in a most inconvenient position!
Men can be such entitled children, can’t we?2
Now, with Gender Identities being brought forward as more important than sex, women are being told that due to self-declarations of femininity by males, they must accept a codicil on the social contract.
“These spaces granted by the parties of the first part (men) to the parties of the second part (women) shall be kept separate from the parties of the first part insomuch as said parties identify as the parties of the first part. Those members of the parties of the first part shall be afforded access to the spaces designated for the parties of the second part upon declaration that said members make a declaration that they are in fact aligned more so by gender identity (undefined) as members of the party of the second part, this being found necessary due to the fact that the members of the party of the first part are dangerous to those who declare said gender identity.”
And what of the parties of the second part who would rather not have any unwanted members in their spaces?
Check your privilege, Karens.
Social contracts are not formal documents, but they are norms that have been agreed on long enough that they seem like they are just sort of, natural. Other examples are things like not dating your best friend’s ex right after breakup. We just don’t do that, out of respect. Another is that we don’t walk up to strangers and tell them that they have spinach stuck on their teeth, at least not in our “out-loud” voice. It’s a set of standards in behavior that we agree to in order to have a functioning society based on respect for the fact that we are not alone in the public square.
This particular social standard of separating private facilities in the public square has been helpful for women who need to have time away from men, for whatever reason and it doesn’t really matter why. That’s women’s business, to be honest. It’s also been very important for women who work in the public square. And, while I am not overly modest I don’t really want to have my naughty bits dangling in public for the public gaze, either. There are times when we are vulnerable and don’t want to be exposed to people of the opposite sex. The social contract has been mostly effective as a safeguard for women and children against predators, as violators are easily recognized for being in the wrong restroom.
Ah, but here comes this new standard of Gender Identity to modify the social contract. This new standard is being used to allow people into sexually segregated private spaces, and in women’s restrooms to accept males without challenge. What most of my fellow men don’t understand is that women need a place of refuge from men for many reasons. Women do not like to be exposed against their will to the gaze of men, to be seen in vulnerable positions or when their private body parts are exposed. We are all this way (except for people with that kind of kink,) but because men have social and physical power over women, and because men commit sexual violence against women, it is especially important for woman to have some escape from us and especially when they sense danger.
No, there is no force field that prevents men from entering women’s spaces currently. Men recognize the function of the social contract and stay out, and those men who enter women’s private spaces can easily be identified as men who have bad intent. We can intervene, or women can raise an alarm so that there is a social response to protect each other from harm. If the social contract on private spaces in public spaces is altered so that women who raise alarm are shunned or sanctioned, then it’s not an extraordinary claim to say that predatory men will take advantage of it.
In any of the laws that declare that a Gender Recognition Certificate is there a requirement that recipients identify themselves with a security badge? Is there a provision for a rainbow-colored lanyard with a card that reads “I may look like a man, but the government says I’m actually female so let me in?” No, because to ask would be considered intrusive and none of anyone’s business. Not even the people who are vulnerable to men who would take advantage.
To even ask is considered transphobic, and we all know that being accused of transphobia does to your social score. It’s 100 hitpoints at least! 3
In Port Townsend, a woman has been reviled for safeguarding children:
“I heard a man’s voice, very distinctive," Jaman said. "I saw a man in a woman’s bathing suit where two toilets are and there were two little girls standing there taking down their suits to use the toilet. I looked at him and I said, 'Do you have a penis?' and he said 'It’s none of your business.' And I said 'You need to leave now.'"
The YMCA, which operates the pool, immediately asked Jaman to leave and she has now been prohibited from using the pool after workers there said she violated the YMCA's Code of Conduct with disrespectful behavior.
Some social contracts need to be rewritten. Some social contracts regarding gender need to be rewritten, such as the restrictions that are placed on women’s roles and their hopes, dreams, and aspirations to achieve those goals that are reserved for men. We need to rewrite the contracts that women never agreed to, but were imposed on them, such as the need to cover up completely so as not to “tempt men to rape them.”
Social contracts based on the separation of the sexes should not be rewritten based on the extraordinary claim that men expressing femininity are actually women. This is an example of imposing an authoritarian belief based, not on any sort of evidence, but on declaration between Gender Identity and Sex, Gender Identifier is the superior standard of whether one is a man or a woman.
Not only is there no extraordinary evidence to back this extraordinary claim, there is no definition of the terms of the claim that can be used to develop a theory of mind necessary to back up the proposition of Gender Identity.
The extraordinary bit, to me, carries over to the unwillingness of many skeptics and self-declared feminists to accept that an amended social contract provides for the Easy Button to be pushed by predators who will simply stroll into women’s spaces with a grin that conveys “You can’t stop me.”
Call me transphobic, I don’t really care anymore. I’d rather err on the side of safeguards for women and girls, and I don’t have any need to know what they do in their private spaces. They could be playing chess in there with the kings’ and queens’ roles exchanged and I’m none the wiser.
I am an American, and this is why I spell the word with a “k.” Sceptic is too close to septic and that has connotations that just kind of gross me out.
I’m not a “self-hating male.” I’m not a white knight, either. I merely recognize absurdities in masculine behavior and point them out so that we can see how we need to improve ourselves.
I’m not minimizing the effect on people’s lives and careers of the accusation of transphobia. It generates a great deal of hatred towards the accused. An accusation has the same effect as a conviction, and it has ruined careers.