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.
Beginning to suspect these laws exist to criminals the existence of transgender people.
That’s the entire point. One of the goals of the heritage foundation is to criminalize trans people and this is one way they’re trying to do it.
Not just transgender – anybody who doesn’t quite conform to gender norms.
A cis man who looks too feminine or a cis woman who looks too masculine will also be a victim of these laws, because people ‘suspect’ them of being trans.
It ultimately boils down to ‘conservatives’ trying to enforce gender norms, as they always have: at the point of a gun.
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.
Yeah as a trans woman if I were in a DV situation I wouldn’t even think I could go to a shelter. To my knowledge when we flee such situations we generally rely on friends (we’re less likely to have family we can stay with).
Though tbh in the modern day we need shelters that can accommodate anyone, because anyone can be victims of financial abuse alongside DV. Additionally the problems associate with abusive men entering a shelter are still faced by women fleeing DV by a female partner.
Straight cis men can also be the victim of an abusive relationship. Maybe not quite as frequently, but it happens.
Yeah but I make more money, and am bigger/stronger/ less physically vulnerable if I was stuck in a bad place late at night
All things being equal, it still isn’t equal
Well that’s good for you, but irrelevant to the point. Unless you’re saying all men are your equal in every way. Which is philosophically nice, but realistically wrong.
I’m saying that statistically, CIS straight women are still worse off than any man.
Yes, I’m not arguing against this, but it’s irrelevant to my point, because it ignores the people who are statistically unlikely to need help, and yet still do. I understood the whole point to be “We need more shelters accepting of everyone,” because a HUGE number of shelters specify they are for women and children only. Which, simply put, is just saying, “No men above 18 allowed.”
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the reason. I’m very aware of the bear analogy. But that doesn’t make the lives of those excluded any easier
So I thought that the problem you are describing isn’t supported by the facts, but Kansas might have an incredibly different situation then Canada
https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-violence/intimate-partner-violence.html
Note the rates of reported violence.
https://womenshomelessness.ca/women-girls-homelessness-in-canada/
Honestly can’t find Kansas statistics, I’m interested in how they operate. I’ll be surprised if there is any significant IPV support for either gender, I’ll be more surprised if it’s equitable to the reported rates and needs.
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…
Given the insane amount of bureaucracy and red tape we have to go through just to get meds, it wouldn’t be too hard. The nuance is in finding a way to include those who only seek to transition socially, not medically. Honestly a therapist’s letter might suffice.
I’ve been on HRT for 12 years, and I still struggle obtaining refills sometimes
You could do it in a way similar to how name changes are. My name change wasn’t terribly expensive, but it was kinda a pain in the ass. Hell you could make it an optional part of the name change process as well.
Ideally you won’t have to publish it in a newspaper (archaic bullshit I had to do), but other than that the whole having to schedule with a judge and go on public record and under oath saying “this is what I’m doing, I’m not trying to do anything nefarious, this is just how I’d prefer to live my life”.
But yeah, the therapist (or social worker) thing also works, I know some US states allow for them to sign off gender marker changes.
And yeah, any time I move or change insurance getting hormones is a pain in the ass, even when I can just tell a Dr what dose I’ve been on since bottom surgery
I had to do a similar thing for my US name change. When I changed my name in my home country, I just had to sign an affidavit stating it’s for trans related reasons.
There’s plenty of ways to go about it, we just need legal recognition but apparently that’s too much to ask for
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
Ah, I see. So the solution is to abolish prisons. Got it.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/11/13/trans-prison-violence-prea-politics
There’s also V-coding as an explicit and intentional practice
https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/post/media-release-trans-identifying-males-over-represented-in-nz-prisons
They do, its being pushed in the UK a fair bit lately.