Making ‘Gender Presentation’ the Standard Was Not a Good Idea

by on

What’s often missed is that actual transsexuals, who gender transition surgically, are the ones most hurt by the LGBTQ movements embrace of the “gender presentation” standard and demanding unfettered access to changing/locker rooms (much more of an issue than restrooms) and other traditionally separate-sex spaces on the basis of “presentation” and asserted identity. In the U.S., the presentation standard as a basis for gender nondiscrimination throughout federal law would be enshrined if the proposed “Equality Act,” as passed by the House, were to be enacted.

5 Comments for “Making ‘Gender Presentation’ the Standard Was Not a Good Idea”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    As reported by Joseph Brean in Canada’s National Post, JY seems to have sometimes used the name “Jonathan” when first making contact (an act of self-“deadnaming,” as it were), revealing only later in the conversations that the “Brazilian” in question would be performed on a client who is legally a woman, albeit a woman who has a penis and testicles.

    Took long enough for this sequence to come out… but I still have a hard time understanding it.

    But the sad thing is, Mx. Y might not even be a troll. Xe might just be a very unstable, disordered person. Well, conservative authoritarian societies create unstable people, too.

    “More recently, recordings, screenshots and other evidence have emerged that appear to show JY allegedly…”

    Yep. Definitely more than just a troll.

    In theory, none of this material is relevant to JY’s human-rights case, which is focused on the narrow question of access to waxing services.

    That’s an error. Whether or not someone’s bad reputation is actually irrelevant is something that must be determined. If it’s irrelevant, due process requires setting it aside. If it’s relevant, it should be considered as part of evaluating the accuser’s credibility.

    Here, the victim, being the complaintant, is the main witness. The victim’s credibility is a central part of the inquiry, so we should have a fairly lenient standard of examining their reputation. That means JY’s character, criminal history, and mental health can be looked at.

    And a victim-complaint’s character, criminal history, and mental health are especially important where they can be connected to the actual complaint.

    “Miss (Alleged) Rape Victim, isn’t it true you’re a slut?”
    “Haven’t you made at least 5 police reports that were false?”
    “You have a sexual addition, don’t you?”

    There is evidence JY hates immigrants. Xe has a motivation to target them.
    There is evidence JY has a sexual disorder. Xe has a motivation to target them through sexual harassment.
    There is evidence JY has a history of engaging in doxxing. There is reason to believe he is capable of retaliating against people by making malicious reports to anti-discrimination authorities.

    These are all things that can and should color any investigator reviewing the complaint, and JY’s actions before and since. Simply put, they add up to a portrait of someone who, rather than being denied a service because they were transgender, attempted to engage in predatory sexual behavior and malicious harassment.

    (Did you really just write that???)

    I sure did. Relax, it was going to happen eventually. The pro-transgender community needed a little help, but they’re policing their own.

    More broadly, we hope the case might catalyze a candid discussion among lawmakers in regard to the policy of unfettered gender self-identification that is now becoming the law of the land in Canada and other jurisdictions. Some progressive pundits have attempted to dismiss the entire JY saga as a phantasm appearing within a right-wing “transphobic fever dream.” But this is preposterous. The trans community is no different from any other community: While the vast majority of people will be sincere and well-intentioned, there always will be bad apples who exploit the law to engage in unsettling behaviour.

    If there are always bad apples who will exploit the law, what difference does it make what the law actually is? We should keep the standard of gender self-identification and train businesses to advertise their services based on genitalia. Not all dental offices offer oral surgery. Hey, sometimes you chose poorly, but a good receptionist will help set things right.

  2. posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

    When a private business — say a baker — says “no” to all gays, homocons want us to celebrate. When another private business – say facebook — elects to briefly say “no” to one lesbian, homocons want us to scream.

    Personally, we think that both types of discrimination are stupid, but we would appreciate some intellectual consistency from homocons.

    • posted by Jorge on

      When a private business — say a baker — says “no” to all gays…

      Sorry, but I cannot accept the premise of your post.

      When another private business – say facebook — elects to briefly…

      Nor this one.

      Personally, we think that both types of discrimination are stupid, but we would appreciate some intellectual consistency from homocons.

      And I personally don’t give a Rick Santorum whether homolibs are intellectually honest. As one of my old bosses once said, “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That’s a principle of chemistry.”

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    What’s often missed is that actual transsexuals, who gender transition surgically, are the ones most hurt by the LGBTQ movements embrace of the “gender presentation” standard and demanding unfettered access to changing/locker rooms (much more of an issue than restrooms) and other traditionally separate-sex spaces on the basis of “presentation” and asserted identity.

    I find it a mystery as to why “gender presentation” is harmful to transsexuals.

    If you propose to limit non-discrimination laws to post-surgical transsexuals, you are not resolving much of anything. You are certainly not addressing the issue you purport to address, other than by wishing it away.

    The transition process typically involves several years of pre-surgical hormone treatment, during which secondary sex/gender characteristics change dramatically and a transsexual person lives according to the norms of his/her actual gender.

    As an example, most transgendered men grow facial hair, bulk up and otherwise start to look undeniably male long before sex reassignment surgery. Jamie Raines, who has been posting about his transition on YouTube and Tumblr for years, is typical of what happens during the transition process.

    Do you propose that men like Jamie use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms for no other reason than that the transition process has not yet been completed by sex reassignment surgery, even though almost everyone would look at him and think “man”?

    In the U.S., the presentation standard as a basis for gender nondiscrimination throughout federal law would be enshrined if the proposed “Equality Act,” as passed by the House, were to be enacted.

    And what is the alternative you propose? How do you propose that men like Jamie Raines should be treated under the law? He is a cute young man by all appearances. Should he be forced to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms? How would that reflect the reality of his gender?

    I know Miriam Ben Shalom slightly (she is something of an icon in Milwaukee’s LGBT history) and I think highly of her, but I think that she’s wrong on this one. She seems to think (“gender presentation is paramount without gender transition”) that there is a bright line that constitutes “gender transition”. I don’t agree. Gender transition is a process, not a single moment in time or a single event, and, as Jamie Raines’ story demonstrates so well, a relatively long period of “gender presentation” is an important part.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I know Miriam Ben Shalom slightly (she is something of an icon in Milwaukee’s LGBT history) and I think highly of her, but I think that she’s wrong on this one. She seems to think (“gender presentation is paramount without gender transition”) that there is a bright line that constitutes “gender transition”. I don’t agree. Gender transition is a process, not a single moment in time or a single event, and, as Jamie Raines’ story demonstrates so well, a relatively long period of “gender presentation” is an important part.

      That is very well argued.

      I question how much it really matters whether gender transition is a set of stages or distinctions that can be recognized by law and health or a process that can be unique to the experience of the individual. It’s like, if “No animals were harmed in the making of this film,” who cares how brutally they’re slaughtered on-screen?

      As I have said before, I don’t understand why a piece of paper–toilet paper in this case–suddenly becomes the measure of whether someone is experiencing the full measure of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you can be what you perceive your destiny to be, symbolic acts and social mores mean relatively little.

      It’s relatively easy to win one’s freedom when all you need to do is convince society that sex behind the the bedroom doors is nobody’s business. The same with what’s in your underwear. Gender identity is another matter entirely. Most people (and I place myself in that category) believe social rules on sex segregation exist for a reason.

      If you set “No straight people were tortured in the making of this orthodoxy” against “No trans people were tortured in the making of this orthodoxy”, the balance of which statements are true or false will determine how the chips will fall in law and society. That balance changes in different situations. This is good news for human rights, bad news for civil rights activists.

Comments are closed.