The problem is more the idea that single sex spaces would be a thing at all, and that people would be able to use 'sex' to discriminate instead of using gender (which would automatically include trans people), not that the supreme court said that sex actually does mean sex - as far as I understand it, please explain to me if I'm wrong.
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
68 points (95.9% liked)
Feminism
495 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the feminism community on Lemmy.World!
Rules:
- This is a feminist community, meant for discussing issues around equality and gender. Disagreement is acceptable but anti-feminist statements are not. Similarly, TERF-aligned comments, including anti-trans or other anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments are not allowed. This does not preclude debunking anti-feminist talking points.
- Posts must be related to feminism, gender issues, or related content. Topics can include current issues/news, historical topics, personal questions/thoughts, or discussion threads. If you are unsure if your post is on-topic, feel free to message the mods before posting.
- Memes and humor are allowed but should not be excessively posted.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Utilizing such language in your username will also result in a ban.
- Follow site-wide rules.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
It's a major problem for Trans people, because the rule effectively bars someone by their superficial appearance from using the "sex appropriate" facility and then bars them by their birth identity from using their "sex presenting" facility. It is, in effect, a full exclusion of transgender people from any gender oriented facility.
But it becomes even more nefarious when employed maliciously against any cis-person who fails to present themselves sufficient to some arbitrary standard of masculinity/femininity. The end result is anyone who can conceivably be "clocked" as transgender - from tomboys to post-menopausal women - is now a potential target for harassment, detention, and legal sanction.
We are approaching a point of public policy at which you're effectively saying "Only Barbie can use the lady's room and only Ken can use the men's room".
But this seems to be working within a system where single sex spaces exist and are used to discriminate. As a nonbinary person, I am very aware of how just the idea of having 'men's' and 'women's' rooms is already discriminatory, the court ruling didn't create that. It just said that where single sex spaces already exist, sex means sex. Presumably where single gender spaces exist, trans people would be included, and where gender neutral spaces exist, everyone is included. Gender neutral spaces should be what we're pushing for, not confusing the terms sex and gender to play into the already discriminatory system we have.
It just said that where single sex spaces already exist, sex means sex.
There's no practical way to identify an individual's sex at a glance. Which creates de facto exclusion for people who present a gender contrary (or simply ambigiously) relative to their born sex.
If you look like a dude and you walk into a women's restroom, you're not going to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Gender neutral spaces should be what we’re pushing for
Broadly speaking. But it is a higher bar, precisely because the same misogynists and reactionaries who advocate for anti-Transgender activism and policy are regularly known for serial harassment of straight cis-people whenever the opportunity presents itself.
The problem is rooted in patriarchy and ethno-social supremacist attitudes. Transgenderism is a scapegoat for the abuses of people in power who abuse their authority at every opportunity.