It’s ignorant and arrogant to equate the crusade to invade private spaces with the Civil Rights Movement

Guest post by Keely Emerine-Mix

Under no circumstances, ever, at any time, is it appropriate to compare the legitimate, factual, courageous, moral imperative that spurred the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with the attempts by transwomen to access intimate female spaces. Ever.

Do not conflate Jim Crow and the segregation of public spaces by whites against Black people with attempts to open women’s bathrooms, shelters, prisons, locker rooms, and other female-only spaces to male-born people. Don’t cry that this is “the New Civil Rights frontier!” Don’t suggest that the injury to men correctly barred from women’s private spaces is anything even remotely like the humiliation, hatred, and hurt caused to people of color during the years of legal public segregation. And whatever you do, do not suggest that the preening belligerence displayed by men who demand entry into women’s spaces is really just the same bedrock courage, dignity, passion, and righteousness of those who occupied lunch counters and public toilets to win for others basic civil rights.

It’s not simply incorrect. It’s delusional; more than that, it’s ignorant in the extreme and criminally, obscenely, arrogant.

The evil of the Jim Crow system and the racism that lay beneath it was based on white supremacy and its attendant hatred and fear of Black people. And while skin color is based on simple biology, the irrelevance of skin color to character, intelligence, worth, and decency is the evil behind racism — it elevates skin color, as an indicator of the social structure called “race,” as a legitimate separator of human beings, always in favor of white skin and white people over others. Racial segregation is, was, and always will be a grand and grotesque human evil, and there is not honor great enough for, nor words sufficient to describe, the prophetic righteousness of those who directly confronted and dismantled segregation.

But biological sex — what makes human beings female and male — is a legitimate basis by which to separate women and men in certain personal areas that are found in public venues. A radical analysis of sex and how sexual differences are demonstrated within and among people groups — a class analysis of the sexual interactions between people — makes clear two points.

First, biological sex is a reality; further, it’s a reality rooted in the unchanging, objective realm of biology. There literally is no way that a male person can “become,” “transition to,” or simply “identify as” a female, regardless of his subjective feelings. White people cannot become, transition to, or define as people of color AND BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY simply because the obviousness of immutable skin color and the social construct of invented categories of “race,” which exist to establish and enforce hierarchical positions of white people over people of color, is inescapable. As utterly insignificant as skin’s melanin content is, morally and scientifically, whites have seized upon it as the identifier of who they believe can be, must be, subordinated to them in their establishment of white superiority — solely for their benefit as the social class that, by oppressing the class of “people of color,” assures the continuation of white supremacy. Skin color is a significant basis for assigning social status and access to public facilities only because white people have decided it is, illustrating the sinful arbitrariness of socially constructed “race.”

Second, it is indisputably true that, as a class, males oppress and commit systemic violence on females as a class. The individual and anecdotal truths of this are no less true or valid to the oppressed, but are simply confirmation of the concrete body of historical, demonstrable, verifiable truths that inform the truth of a class analysis — an analysis whose conclusion is that males oppress and do violence to females, justifying their legally-sanctioned separation in toilets, prisons, and locker rooms. That people argue against this is shocking, but contemporary liberalism has most often shocked not by reaching heights of strategic political righteousness in dismantling evil, but by capitulating to it under the guise of being “tolerant.” This misguided post-modern “tolerance” of the politics of personal identity — someone can “identify” as a loving, BDSM-exploring furry-friend demigod Christian Wiccan exploring their gender identity by engaging in sex with 365 boi-kin a year, and must then be accommodated by society in whatever areas they demand affirmation and access — isn’t just silly, or even remarkably hostile to objective truth. It’s dangerous because it ignores verifiable biological differences that social-class analysis conclude are reasonably — rightly — separated in certain intimate public areas AS SOON AS THAT DETERMINATION CAN BE DEMONSTRATED AS ‘BIGOTED’ AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL’S SELF-IDENTITY. And when the aggrieved male’s subjective, wistful, even absurd identification as a woman is taken as superior to established fact (he is male, unchangeably) and is seen as a legitimate grievance (he feels like a woman, so women must accommodate him. REGARDLESS), patriarchy’s chokehold on every sphere of human life requires that he be indulged — at the detriment in every way of women.

Trans theory as an expression of contemporary liberalism ignores the obvious immutability of biological sex, disdains established, evidence-based class analysis, and embraces “gender” not as a tragic social construct that masculinists have established, embraced, and enshrined as a guarantor of their supremacy over women and children, but as a smorgasbord of personal identities that, in promising “liberation” to the individual, instead assures persecution of and danger to women. In bathrooms, prisons, shelters, and locker rooms, male biology (the penis) and patriarchy (the penis as weapon) collide and collude to put biological females at risk, always, in the grand social experiment of trans theory, which is only the newest and most audacious expression of men’s ability to cancel out truth, override reality, and milk social stupidity for all it’s worth to carry out the demands of patriarchy.

Those who do the bidding of patriarchy by supporting the trans agenda must realize that male supremacy is no less dangerous to female-born people when carried out by men wearing dresses — whether there’s a penis underneath or not — than by the most masculine-looking “manly” man. Likewise, it may well be that the most dangerous period of human society will be seen by liberals as the most laudable — that era of “tolerance” that upholds everyone’s own self-identity, regardless of how untrue it is, in favor of a world where the oppressed class is forced to open its most intimate and private doors to its oppressors. This is simply because the oppressors say they’re not only NOT oppressors, NOT members of the oppressor class, but — all truth notwithstanding, and risk to the oppressed be damned — women are intolerant, just bad people for not playing along.

The attempts by men and their liberal female accommodators threaten to drag us right back to the Boys’ Treehouse, the Club where NO Girlz Are Allow’d, peeing freely from the branches, mocking us, and planning our humiliation, continue. And if we show any hesitation, then no matter — the guys, and they are guys, just barge into, violently and with subterfuge, the very few places we still can be together just trying to survive another day in a world that hates us.

• appropriation
• biological sex not gender
• Civil Rights Movement
• feminism
• Privilege
• transgender activism
• transgender politics
• transgender theory