cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/65235734
On August 8, police arrived on the scene of Long Branch Lagoon Water Park in Dodge City, Kansas, to the sight of three self-described “bearded, burly men” who had been in the women’s bathroom and changing area. The manager of the municipally run property allegedly screamed and rushed children out the door.
The men knew this was likely. They didn’t agitate any of the women; they didn’t remove their clothes or make crass comments. They simply used the gendered spaces that the state of Kansas requires them to use by law, because these men are transgender.
“Supporters of SB244, including Attorney General Kris Kobach and Senate Majority Leader Ty Masterson, billed it as a way to keep men out of women’s spaces; it clearly requires some men to enter women’s spaces,” a press release sent to news outlets reads. So, these men took action—using malicious compliance to prove their point.
“Segregating people by suspected genitalia does nothing to improve public safety; it does quite the opposite by opening Kansans up to sexual harassment and discrimination. At no point should anyone be asking anyone else what genitals they have in public.”
The men, dressed in yellow “Compliance Crew” shirts, were part of a small group of trans-masculine Kansans who used the women’s room at facilities across the state that day in a coordinated action. They were also spotted at a zoo, a library, a museum, and other parks. They were in Emporia, Great Bend, Garden City, and Dodge City. At the library, at least one patron complained; at other places, the men used the bathroom and received dirty looks, and simply left the space without confrontation.
But at Long Branch Lagoon, members of the Kansas Compliance Crew resorted to having to describe their genitals to police in order to resolve the matter and avoid arrest.
“The men had a discussion with the manager and police and explained the situation, including uncomfortable descriptions of their bodies,” the press release said. Furthermore, both the manager and the police reportedly said “they had never heard of SB244 nor been notified by any government entity of its passage.”
“I could easily continue using the men’s restroom under the radar,” said Ray Vieux, who participated as one of the demonstrators.
I can kind of understand why places like women’s domestic violence shelters and women’s prisons need a legal definition of “woman” in order to define who is allowed in them (and have no opinion on what it should be). Places where there is actual physical or logistical infrastructure in place to make sure men don’t enter them…
But bathrooms? Someone wanting to commit sex crimes (or similar) against women in bathrooms is just going to walk into them and do exactly that, they aren’t going to change their legal gender just to do that because that doesn’t make it either easier or harder to physically get in there.
I’ve found that a lot of these policies are a legacy of affirmative action in response to the historic gulf in wealth between women and men.
They don’t exist to keep men out. They exist to give women in abusive relationships a place to go without facing homelessness.
One might argue that gay men and trans-people can find themselves in exactly the same kind of relationships, for exactly the same reasons.
Straight cis men can also be the victim of an abusive relationship. Maybe not quite as frequently, but it happens.
Except then you end up with trans people barred from all domestic violence shelters. The trans woman will be barred from the women’s shelter because they assume she has a certain kind of anatomy and physical strength and judge her a threat accordingly. Most cis people are comically ignorant about trans people’s bodies and believe garbage stereotypes about trans women just being “men in dresses.” In reality most trans women are biologically female. When she tries to go to the men’s shelter, she will be told she’s not safe there. And really, she wouldn’t be. Meanwhile trans women face violence and abuse at rates far far higher than cis women.
Not necessarily, a legal definition of woman could include trans women too, the question is then how do you get recognized as such… fortunately I am not a politician and don’t have to have an opinion on everything…
Sure. But context matters. No one who wants cares enough about a non-existent problem to create a formal and enforced definition of “woman” is going to do so in a trans-inclusive way.
It is a problem in prisons, where lots of men are in women’s prisons because they start identifying as a woman
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/11/13/trans-prison-violence-prea-politics
Ah, I see. So the solution is to abolish prisons. Got it.