The Perennial Transgender Toilet Debate
The toilet debate seems to have flared up on my twitter feed today, with much discussion taking place at Jack of Kent’s blog.
I always find this very frustrating, but I think an important point is highlighted by the way this debate is typically framed.
The “trans people in public toilets” debate is almost always framed in terms of protecting cis women from trans women
Quite often this framing is not explicit, but is implicit in the language used to frame the issue, and in terms of what is and is not said.
Let’s take Jack of Kent’s framing of this issue as an example – he asks:
Or should the law relating to, say, breaches of the peace be used to prevent transgendered people, especially male to female (MTF), intruding into the “space” reserved for a particular gender?
The emphasis is mine. Now I’m not having a go at Jack of Kent here – his framing reflects wider societal attitudes, but I do think these attitudes, as displayed in the way this question is so oft approached by cis people, are inherently transphobic, and misogynist.
Firstly, there’s the more obvious objection – the idea that trans women in a space reserved for women can ever be considered to be intruding. Since trans women are women, it’s not possible for us to intrude into women’s space, which by definition we have as much right to enter as any other woman. We can be excluded by an act of transphobia, but even asking the question of whether we should be allowed contains an assumption that trans women are not women. This is cissexist (cissexism is the statement or belief that trans people’s identified genders are less authentic or less valid than the genders of cis people)
Secondly, notice the “especially” bit in there. The issue of trans men in men’s toilets always seems to be considered less important. On the face of it this is perverse. Certainly here in the UK, typically women would not see each other in any state of undress when using a public toilet, because the actual act is done in a cubicle. In the gents, one would often expect to find urinals. Should one decide to deviate from the 1,3,5 rule, and also from the expectation that one should look straight ahead and not even glance sideways while using a urinal, one is afforded the opportunity to see someone else’s penis. That this debate is so often framed in genital essentialist terms, that it concentrates on trans women at all is really odd, given the much greater opportunity for genital exposure in a men’s loo.
This is one reason why I think this argument is misogynist. It is deemed less important that a trans man (who, it is presumed, does not have a penis – the general public tends to be quite ignorant on these matters) might see a cis man’s penis than it is that a pair of adjacent locked cubicles might contain a cis woman, with vagina, and a trans woman, with penis (those trans women who are post vaginoplasty seem to be all too often conveniently ignored by this). This is presumably because men are tough, pragmatic sorts who won’t be bothered by having someone who doesn’t have a penis seeing theirs, but women are fragile, delicate, pathetic things and must be protected from the possibility of someone pissing through a penis the other side of a wall.
Yeah, right.
Thirdly, and I think this is the most insidiously transphobic part of the whole deal, is the unstated assumption (actually, it’s not usually unstated, but in this case Jack of Kent seems to attract a better class of commenter); the “man who thinks he’s a woman” might commit sexual assault/indecent exposure in there.
Corollaray – since there’s no reason to expect trans women would be any more prone to doing this in a public toilet than anywhere else, we can add, where there won’t be a proper man to protect the women folk! Yup, we’re back to misogyny again too.
This is predicated on the idea that trans women are likely to be sex offenders. This is stigma that gay men are only just starting to emerge from – the idea that somehow being gay makes them likely to be sex offenders (if you doubt this is still an issue, take a look at how the gay adoption debate is often framed, especially in the US). With trans women, this offensive sterotype is still firmly entrenched.
The irony is enough to make one weep – I’m not aware of sexual assault ever being committed in a women’s toilet by a trans woman where a cis woman is the victim. Long time readers will, however, be familiar with the case of a trans woman who was sexually assaulted at Pride London 2008, after being made to use the men’s toilets by transphobic stewards. I’ll also state for the record that I have also been sexually assaulted in a public toilet – in this case it was a woman’s toilet and a cis woman apparently felt that grabbing my tits while I was washing my hands was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but the reality for many trans women in toilets is that we are far, far more likely to be the victim of sexual assault than the perpetrator. We are vulnerable in toilets, especially if we are read as trans – expulsion, humiliation and violence are the least of the expected consequences, but nobody ever seems to talk about how we can be protected from cis people. It’s always the other way round.
Dismayingly, the way trans people are treated by the so-called Equality Act, 2010, seems to be almost completely influenced by this idea that “normal” people must be protected from trans women (I guess those responsible for drafting this repulsive piece of legislation never attended a transgender day of remembrance), and gives barely lip service to the idea that trans people, trans women especially, are vulnerable people who are often the victims of violence and discrimination and need the protection of the law.
No, instead everything is framed in terms of protecting everyone else from the distasteful idea that they might encounter us, or that “proper” women might somehow be contaminated by proximity to us. This attitude needs to change, but we seem as far away from that as ever. In the meantime we will continue to be beaten, assaulted, ridiculed and murdered by the same society that regards us as a dangerous predators.
I am so happy to read your comments. I have long thought that the effort put forth by the US LGB community towards gay marriage is not our battle. Our’s is one, not of comfort in who we partner with and the ease with which we can pass on material goods, but of nothing less than our survival. Day in and day out survival. Jobs, housing, health insurance (dare we hope for appropriate health care), safety in our homes and on the street, these are our battle. To expend our valuable resources on anything less is to do the entire trans community a disservice. You have framed the argument more eloquently than I am able and for that I thank you. Now, if we can get the rest of the trans community to follow your lead…
Peace – Sharon
Sharon
29 Aug 10 at 1:05 pm
Well said. You do certainly raise some interesting points. I have always found cisgendered objections to all things Trans as insanely contradictory. The ‘toilet debate’ however, is surely only a proxy. The real issue has nothing to do with toilets – it’s just a great platform to exploit wider societal prejudices. Your reflections on Trans men simply underlines the point.
No, I view this whole debate as niether one of feminism, nor conservatism. As you put it, it’s really the predatory assumptions made by wider society that fuel transphobia. This is simply about fear.
All the essentialist arguments, or the one’s charging that we do nothing but reinforce the binary are window dressing.
Trans women are invading and disenfranchising cis women of that one space in which the patriarchy cannot tread – womanhood. The fundamental assertion that all us Trans women are nothing but men approximating the female experience is disturbing. I can’t quite understand why this persists – it simply panders to a patriarchal belief system – and I’d have thought modern feminism at least would have left this behind.
It’s based on a history of oppression against women, committed by men – I just wish those propogators of a transphobic agenda could see that we too are victims, arguably more so.
Why fear seems to materialise more in the toilet debate? You said it. It’s a ‘no men’ space – where the patriarchy cannot tread. Essentialism dresses up the fear that somehow ‘our being’ will violate a womam’s right to be a woman.
In reality, all it really does is violate our rights as women. And more than that, it so often asserts a standard against which a woman must qualify – ‘a list of ingredients’ if you will. And that, more than anything else, plays right in the hands of the patriarchy and undermines the wider equal rights agenda.
Argh!!!
Carrie
29 Aug 10 at 1:11 pm
Sharon – for many of us the two (trans rights and LGB marriage rights) are inextricably linked.
For example, the UK will not recognise my gender (male) at law because I am married to a woman – therefore creating a “same-sex marriage” in the eyes of the law because we both have F on our birth certificates, which of course is Not Allowed. In order to obtain recognition, I would have to divorce my wife, apply for a GRC and recontract the same marriage – since the marriage was contracted here in Canada, which has equal marriage rights.
The way that the state polices gender and the way it polices sexuality ultimately cannot be disentangled.
Jack
29 Aug 10 at 2:44 pm
I’ve simply gotten to the point where I assume cis people are going to be irrational about the toilet issue, so that I’m pleasantly surprised when common sense is actually displayed.
For example: Its not uncommon here in the US for many public spaces (coffee shops, grocery stores, etc) to have single occupancy, gender segregated restrooms. Quite often I’ll see a (cis) woman, for example, walk up to the womens room, see that its locked, and wait there for the occupant to get done, without even trying to see if the mens room is empty. There’s a weird assumption that there’s something sacred about the symbol on the front of the door. The fact that the restroom is single occupancy, has a locking door, and usually both the mens room and womens room has sit down toilets usually doesn’t enter people’s minds. Its nice to see pragmatic people simply use the restroom without being intimidated by the fucking symbol on the door.
Amanda in the South Bay
29 Aug 10 at 8:43 pm
I am currently dealing with this issue at my new job where I was asked to use a single-occupancy toilet by my manager lest I draw the ire of ciswomen coworkers. I need the job and it is an issue I am willing to compromise for. But what hurts most is the idea that transwomen need the permission of ciswomen to access “women’s spaces”.
Naomi
29 Aug 10 at 10:13 pm
And here we have yet another reason why using the terms trans, transexual, transgender, intersex before the term woman or man creates more confusion then not.
We learned long ago that people with smaller thought processes become confused and unable to properly focus on the word meant to focus on. For instance with young children we say walk, since that is what we want them to do rather then don’t run, since the two words together confuse them and they only listen to the word the y wish to hear. That being run.
It just makes more sense to begin teaching people, including professionals, when one does workshoping, to focus on who that person is rather then the medical issue they deal with. ie woman with transexuality, transexual history, transexual condition (same when using trans/intersex etc.)
The Kent person hopes to strengthen their point of view by relying on such confusion when using “MtF” or “trans” infront of person or woman. What this Kent is doing is saying that MtF or Trans or what have you is a different being or gender on it’s own. And clearly many others fall for this extremely well.
And while I understand why some people like using Cis, I find doing so equally separating rather then not.
Just my take on why so many other types of communities have reworded things to place the focus where it belongs. (people of colour instead of coloured people, people with disabilities…..)
femme
30 Aug 10 at 5:30 am
I don’t know that this follows, necessarily. Trans is not just a medical issue, but a social issue – if it were just medical, we wouldn’t have to deal with any of the crap we deal with. We have to acknowledge the fact being trans is social.
I don’t believe that using those terms before man or woman creates more confusion than using them any other way. Saying “trans woman” is no more indicative of a different gender than saying “lesbian woman” or “black woman” and the cis people who want to see trans women as a gender other than woman are going to do that whether we say trans woman, woman of transsexual experience, woman born transsexual, etc.
I disagree that cis is separating. It is no more separating than white, straight, neurotypical, or other ways to identify where power and marginalization are.
Lisa Harney
30 Aug 10 at 11:12 am
Naomi,
Yeah, that’s pretty fucking brutal to be treated that way, as if we’re the dangerous ones and cis people have to be protected from us, when it’s so much the opposite in the vast majority of cases.
And sometimes it only takes one cis woman to complain for this to happen. Every other cis woman could be perfectly fine, but one is enough to bring things down on you.
Lisa Harney
30 Aug 10 at 11:37 am
[...] Sarahlizzy’s post at Questioning Transphobia, The Perennial Transgender Toilet Debate, dissects the age-old potty panic fearmongering: “The “trans people in public toilets” [...]
Update August 30 « Dented Blue Mercedes
30 Aug 10 at 3:34 pm
And sometimes it only takes one cis woman to complain for this to happen
Sometimes all it takes is one cis woman to think someone’s going to complain. The transphobic HR Manager banned me from using the womens washrooms in our warehouse, whether they were single- or multi-occupancy, just in case someone complained. I was made to use the handicap washroom at the front of the building. I had to be let out of the security door and back in every time I had to go, and to cap it off the warehouse was large enough that it took over 5 minutes to walk to the front.
Jessica
30 Aug 10 at 8:22 pm
Sounds like she was trying to dog whistle her own complaint out of complaint status and into Schrodinger’s Transphobe. That is, it’s some other fictional person’s fault she made this completely inane decision.
Lisa Harney
30 Aug 10 at 9:14 pm
And sympathies – at one school I attended I was forbidden from using the women’s restroom and had to walk a couple of blocks to a neighboring supermarket to use their single occupancy.
Or use the men’s room in the school, which I was not going to do.
Lisa Harney
30 Aug 10 at 9:16 pm
[...] Transphobia has a great post up about trans people in public toilets and the transphobia/transmisogyny in quite a lot of [...]
Toilets « Anger is Justified.
31 Aug 10 at 3:16 am