I'm speechless | Imamother

JoyInTheMorning ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 2:41 pm

I don't think anyone should be mocked for their biological differences. I don't think that anyone should be mocked for being born in a body that doesn't feel right to them.

But I do think the ACLU should be careful in using its resources, and that includes good will. I don't think it's wise to complain about every inequity. It's not such a big deal to carry pads and tampons with you; most pad and tampon machines in bathrooms don't work anyway; and the vast majority of users of men's rooms don't need pads or tampons.

On the other hand, the Fox News article is sensational. It's not like the ACLU is just complaining about this. There are a bunch of menstruation-equity related issues that they are advocating. The first is dropping sales tax on menstruation-related items. That seems reasonable to me, and affects half of the population at some point in their lives. In contrast, menstruating men are a tiny fraction of the population, and it's no big deal to keep a tampon in your pocket. (It just occurred to me that presumably a menstruating man wouldn't carry a handbag. Well, let them put it in their backpack.)

↑ sushilover ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 2:54 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Wait. Are you actually discussing menstruating men, like it's a real topic? Do you mean menstruating transgender men? Because there's a huge difference...

(I almost wrote a joke about if in a parallel universe men menstruated, they'd never hide their pads or tampons. They'd march around with them in plain sight, obviously. Luckily I remembered that this topic is too Serious and Complex to joke about. Whew. Dodged a bullet there.)

↑ JoyInTheMorning ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:17 pm

sushilover wrote:

I don't care what people call themselves. I don't know enough biology to understand what transgender people are going through.

If someone is far enough along the transgender road that they are using a men's room, but still for whatever reason is menstruating, and if they're comfortable with being called a menstruating man, fine. I'm not going to argue about it. I don't think it's relevant to this thread.

(My general feeling is that as a society we have so overgendered things with this crazy meshugas of all girls having to be princesses and boys having to be great in sports, etc., that we're not allowing room for people, kids especially, to be a little non-standard. I was a non-standard kid myself: I enjoyed trains and blocks much more than dolls, I liked playing with boys more than girls, and I wanted to wear pants. And then when I was a teenager, I wanted to learn Gemara (which I eventually did). But I never felt that this made me a boy. I still also loved my lace and ruffles for Shabbos and my long hair. I get the sense that in today's world, a kid like me might be labeled as a potential transgender boy. What a waste that would have been: I love being a mother more than anything and I also make the world's best chicken soup. My kids tell me that what I'm talking about is cultural gender and that's different than gender identity. I don't know. That's probably a discussion for a different thread.)

↑ freilich ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:19 pm

roses wrote:

The Torah mandates that we treat all people with dignity and respect. This includes people with hidden disabilities such as gender disorders. I don't think doing so makes the world upside down or crazy.

In terms of the widow- forgiveness is a personal, emotional choice. Which has nothing to do with justice. A person can choose to forgive while simultaneously pursuing justice. In this case, the murderers were killed and that was their justice. But how can you fault the widow for her own personal, emotional reaction to her tragedy?

You are absolutely right. We have to be kind to every individual, handicapped or not. But do you know who's fault it is that these people have become fodder for entertainment? It's the society that took a condition that some people have, and made it into a choice.

About the widow, I'm sorry. My heart goes out to her. I donated money on her behalf. However, that response comes from the warped society we live in. A society where everything goes. We are accepting, forgiving, surrendering etc. And that doesn't always lead to the right places.

Again, in no way am I here to judge that poor woman in pain. I'm just sickened at a society that has such distorted views.

Last edited by freilich on Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ shyshira ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:20 pm

sushilover wrote:

I disagree. This topic is about ACLU declaring that men who menstruate are men and men who give birth are men. This is scientifically incorrect. Do you disagree?

Quote from ACLU? Here is the statement that the FoxNews story quoted.

Quote:

Around the country and the world, people are mobilizing for menstrual equity. Central to the policy agenda: accessible and affordable period products for everyone who needs them. As legislative interventions gain traction, advocates are also readying legal arguments to challenge unfair policies. Constitutional law scholar and dean of UC Berkeley Law Erwin Chemerinsky recently co-authored a Los Angeles Times op-ed proposing that the failure of states to exempt menstrual products from sales tax — the tampon tax — amounts to denial of equal protection under the Constitution.

In forging these claims, a question emerges: How can we recognize that barriers to menstrual access are a form of relations discrimination without erasing the lived experiences of trans men and non-binary people who menstruate, as well as women who don’t? Some arguments that challenge discriminatory laws based on relations-linked characteristics have made the point that “only women” menstruate, get pregnant, or breastfeed. But that is not a full or accurate portrayal — and menstrual stigma and period poverty can hit trans and non-binary people particularly hard:

Trans people are three times as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to be living in poverty as the general population. Those who are disabled, people of color, or undocumented immigrants are especially likely to be unemployed and living in poverty.
While free menstrual products are not uniformly provided in women’s restrooms, they are almost never available in men’s restrooms, even for pay. Men’s restrooms are also less likely to have a place to dispose of these products conveniently, privately, and hygienically.
Similarly, women’s homeless shelters sometimes provide menstrual products, but men’s typically don’t. Some domestic violence shelters exclude trans and non-binary people — even though more than half have experienced intimate partner violence. Those shelters often provide a variety of types of support, including access to menstrual products for those who need them.
While access to menstrual products in women’s prisons is often inadequate, it is far worse in men’s prisons. Trans and non-binary people may be incarcerated in either.
Menstruation is not the only reason trans and non-binary people may need menstrual products. Trans women and non-binary people may also need pads and liners for months after vaginoplasty, and occasionally at other times. Some who take estrogen also experience period symptoms such as pain and nausea and may need medication to manage these symptoms. Those who experience endometriosis or adenomyosis, conditions that can cause continuous heavy bleeding, often face barriers to treatment, as well as an ongoing and often unmet need for pads and tampons.
Simply stated: because limited access to and the cost of menstrual products can hit trans and non-binary communities especially hard, as a matter of policy, a holistic agenda for menstrual equity and access must include trans people. (We have a Menstrual Equity Toolkit for those interested in how to create one

But what about in the court of law?

The constitutional argument is straightforward. Any law that targets one relations — or one race, or one religion — is inherently discriminatory. In the context of the tampon tax, for example, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky harkened to a famous remark by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. By analogy, a tax on menstrual products is a tax on women — even though not all women menstruate, and some men and non-binary people do.

Legally, the focus is on the intention behind the action. Targeting something associated with one group can show intent. This doesn’t require that allor only people from the targeted group do the activity.

Take yarmulkes again. Not all Jewish people wear yarmulkes, and some people who aren’t Jewish do wear yarmulkes (for example, if attending a Jewish religious service). Still, if a legislature decided to tax people for wearing yarmulkes, or to impose sales tax on yarmulkes but not similar items, that would be anti-Semitism, and it would violate the constitution. Similarly, imposing a sales tax on menstrual products but not similar items is sexist, and violates the constitution.

Discrimination is illegal even when it affects members of multiple groups. Feminist scholars have long pointed out that sexism can harm people other than women. For example, Paula England has pointed out the tendency to devalue labor traditionally done by women, even when it is done by men. Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously challenged a rule that denied widowed fathers benefits that widowed mothers received. The rule both discriminated against women workers, who couldn’t earn the same benefits for their families that men did, and against men who wanted the opportunity to care for their children.

We don’t need to erase trans or non-binary people to show that barriers to menstrual equity, such as the tax on menstrual products, are unconstitutional relations discrimination. This tax targets a bodily function associated with women for less favorable treatment. It relies on sexist ideas that women’s needs are frivolous and unnecessary. It is irrational, and it directly affects cis and trans women, trans men, and non-binary people. It’s unfair, unconstitutional, and illegal.

Last edited by shyshira on Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

↑ sushilover ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:29 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

I totally agree that people have a right to call themselves whatever they want. They can call themselves a princess banana hammock for all I care- I certainly wouldn't stop them. I might even call them their preferred identity when talking to them face to face. But you can be sure that when having an intellectual discussion about what makes a man a man, I will call people the correct scientific term. A woman who menstruates is a woman, even if she has a beard.

You using the unscientific and impossible term "menstruating men" is a bit shocking to me, that's all. It's like someone using the term "human cats" seriously. Are there people who feel like they are actually cats? Yes. Do they deserve compassion and respect? Yes. But I will never talk about them as actual cats because that would be an untruth.

↑ JoyInTheMorning ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:34 pm

sushilover wrote:

The reason I used the term menstruating men is that as I understand it, transgender people don't like the transgender label. They want to be called their target gender. I am just trying to be sensitive to that. We are not having a scientific discussion. The context of the discussion is transgender people who menstruate, so I think that the meaning of what I said is clear.

↑ shyshira ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:43 pm

Cookiegirl wrote:

If the person looks like a man, what would the problem be for that person to use a stall in the men's room (and be responsible for the person's own sanitary products)? Why does anyone need to know about whatever "parts" that person has? I think this would be preferable, rather than having a person who looks like a man use the Ladies' Room. [This, presumes, of course that the person who looks like a man "identifies" as a man. If the person is biologically a woman, but looks so masculine that other women in the Ladies' Room would feel threatened by her presence, I think that could be worked out...but that does not seem to be the scenario you are talking about].

(As an aside, trying to avoid gender based pronouns is quite clumsy and tiresome...another sign that I am un-woke...oh well)

I think the basic argument is that if people who use sanitary products are using men's rooms, they should have equal access to the free sanitary products provided in women's rooms.

I'm guessing that the general preference for most women who use restrooms, is that people who look like men, use men's rooms.

I disagree with the ACLU's position on this.

↑ roses ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 3:59 pm

freilich wrote:

I don't believe that the widows response is coming from a place of "everything goes".

Christianity has a very strong emphasis on forgiveness, and it is considered a good thing to forgive someone who perpetrated a crime. There seems to be a heavily religious influence to the widow and her choice to express forgiveness. Its not a new, modern invention. It's actually a very ancient tradition.

Last edited by roses on Thu, Dec 19 2019, 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ Laiya ↓

Thu, Dec 19 2019, 4:46 pm

pause wrote:
Don't worry. Urinals in the ladies' room will happen soon enough. Don't you know that there are women who have p3nises?

roses wrote:

There are many intersex congenital conditions that people are born with, with all different variations of genitals and genetics.

I don't think using this kind of mocking language and tone is appropriate. Yes, there are actually many women born with p--nises. Just like there are all kinds of congenital abnormalities of other body parts, there are congenital abnormalities of genitals as well. There is a possibility that some of these conditions exist amongst women on this board. Or amongst their children. Can we please replace the mocking language with empathy and understanding.

I didn't assume Pause was mocking. In actuality, this has been taken to a level of absurdity, such as convicted rapists who, after or before their convictions, identified as female and were incarcerated in female-only prisons. It wasn't shocking when they went on to sxually assault female inmates.

There have been headlines addressing the issue of men claiming to identify as female so as to use women only restrooms, only to then either assault women or behave inappropriately.