This is exactly why I still identify as male. I’d face not only discrimination from transphobes, who need only the slightest excuse, but from people like you who would be pissed at me for “belittling women” by wanting to be one while not having any of the societal disadvantages that a natural-born woman has. Add to this the fact that I don’t dress as a woman or any of the more obvious things people might expect of trans people, and pretty much everyone would resent/hate/fear me, or at least be very confused. The truth is, I’m not in control of my gender, society is- you say I’m male, therefore I’m male.
And maybe there’s some merit to that. It’s certainly not my desire to lessen the plight of women. I have two older sisters and a girlfriend, I’m well aware that being a woman isn’t easy, that they’re victims of violence, harassment and discrimination on a daily basis, that they make less money, that their reproductive rights are under constant attack, that they’re still not even treated as human beings in many countries. Even knowing all that, I would be a woman if it were possible, but I can see how that’s hard for people to believe or accept, and since it’s not possible anyway, I can’t blame them for basically saying “get out of my gender already”.
I am a trans woman and I want to ask: What benefits? The only ones I can think of is improved mental health and having a body that feels right and those only apply if you are actually trans. Everything else is there to balance out social injustices. Just like my disability welfare, you probably don’t want what else goes with those perceived benefits.
There have been a lot of people who found out the hard way that they weren’t trans and the grass isn’t greener on the other side. Some of them had already had surgery, unfortunately. Don’t fall into that trap, it can fuck up your life if you go too far.
I’d be curious to know whether or not that would, in fact, be true. My layman’s understanding of ‘common carrier’ related stuff is that the courts generally take a dim view of carriers unequally treating equivalent cargo; and the concept of ‘protected classes’ has probably forbidden classifying different passengers as non-equivalent cargo in absence of atypically good reason; but if the carrier, say, wants to find an insurer to underwrite the risks of litigation arising from assaults on employees by passengers, or passengers by employees; they’d seem to have a plausible argument to the effect that “If you can find an insurance company who thinks that the odds of our female passengers being assaulted by male or female employees are equal and price accordingly; then do tell us about them, and we’ll talk”.
It’s a legitimate question. Sex and race are both legally protected classes. Why would it be legal to discriminate based on sex, but not based on race?
I’m sympathetic to the idea of a safe(er) woman-only transportation service, but I’m not sure under what rationale can you could offer it but not also have to make ride services that discriminate on the basis of other protected classes such as race ethnicity or religion also legal. Or weather opening that up would be a good idea.
I’m not “pissed” you’re belitting women, I’m saying what you said comes off as belittling women, and I’m not even assuming you mean to do so. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Maybe you just weren’t clear on what you initially said?
Who said I had any control over how you identify. You, yourself have identified here as a man. If you feel your gender is more complicated, say so. I wasn’t saying you were a man, YOU said that. [quote=“Hanglyman, post:42, topic:76493”]
I would be a woman if it were possible, but I can see how that’s hard for people to believe or accept
[/quote]
I can believe you when you say. You implied there were benefits like operations such as this one. It’s not really a benefit, though.
I’m not here to police your gender, nor should anyone else. It sounds like you might be struggling, but it’s not for me to say. Either way, I hope it works out for you, and you find the safe space you’re looking for. I know there are several trans members here (such as the always awesome @the_borderer, who already replied to you). Perhaps talking to them in a PM would help? But good luck…
I’m finding the ambiguity of language a bit frustrating in this thread. I wasn’t trying to accuse you personally of those things, but rather saying society says I’m male, and fighting society is pretty much suicidal. I apologize for the way it seems to have come across to you. And thanks, I appreciate your well wishes.
Can you point out where @Hanglyman said they weren’t a man? Did I misconstrue something they said? If so, I apologize, but I didn’t think I had. Saying “I would like to be a woman to take advantage of this kind of safe space”, strikes me as identifying as a man. Am I wrong?
I suspect that the combination of these two(both individually true) statements is what drives the desire to ‘if I could flip my gender’.
Only an insufferable moron from the PUA school of “I can’t get laid, ergo women actually dominate the strategic high ground and use their power to oppress me!” nonsense would seriously even try to argue that being a woman for the perks is a good strategy; but if you are identified as male; but would prefer to identify as female for whatever not-terribly-well-understood causes that lie behind the existence of people deeply uncomfortable with their apparent gender; it’s hard to argue that you are worse off for most purposes as a biologically-substantially-male-and-recognized-as-such, who wants to identify as a woman; than you are as someone born female and recognized as such.
Even if you were able to do so perfectly, you’d still merely break even with women generally; and for every additional inconvenience imposed by rampant social hostility; technical limitations of reassignment procedures(if desired) finding clothes in even less typical fits, etc. you are doing worse.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. As already stated, there are existing services that cater exclusively to women such as Curves Gym or Women-only shelters. There are also organizations that provide services specifically to members of races that traditionally face discrimination and social disadvantages, such as the National Negro College Fund.
There’s a market for this new service because there is a real and inherent power imbalance between men and women that makes some women concerned for their comfort and safety in that kind of situation. White people don’t NEED their own rideshare service because there’s nothing about existing services that presents any threat specific to white people.
In general, discrimination by sex is legal in most states so long as it is related to the company’s core function. This is why Curves and other women-only gyms can exist.
This is considered a reasonable discrimination in most places – Even the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK expressly carves out having single-sex services, where you can show justification that joint service would not be effective.
In any case, I always get confused by the amount of what I can only call concern-trolling: people who say “Yes, yes, I agree with this thing, but I’m just saying it might not be legal.” It sounds very Trumpian: “I agree that Cruz may be eligible to be president, even though he’s a treasonous Canadian/Cuban, but I just think the courts should decide.”
If you agree with it, why not just say “Let this good thing run as long as it can, like women’s-only shelters, and if some douches want to make a lawsuit then we can see what comes of it then”?
[deleted because I’m fanning the flames of a feud that apparently has been settled without me. Now, what am I going to do with this steed and this simply fabulous shining armor?]
What I was saying (or at least trying to say) is that I’m only a man because society and biology impose it upon me. In the interest of keeping the thread on-topic and not all about me and my gender issues, I’m going to simply leave it at that.
I agree, and I suspect so does the person who invented “Honk.” Rather it’s the fact that equality rules when enforced equally can have perverse effects. When you open up the can of worms that is discrimination in ride services it can be turned on you. Which is why one might wish to question whether this is legal and if it is legal what the repercussions could be if its precedents are used to other purposes.
One example that comes to mind is the B110 public bus service in Brooklyn where women were forced to sit in the back of the bus because the service served a specific strict Jewish community. Under the “it’s okay to discriminate based on sex” precedent for public transportation then the discriminatory service would be perfectly ok. After all it is in service of trying to meet the needs of a protected class, a much opressed religious group.
