Once legal rights begin to fall, they fall for everyone.

As Frederick Douglass once said, “Slavery lives in this country not because of any paper Constitution, but in the moral blindness of the American people, who persuade themselves that they are safe, though the rights of others may be struck down.”

This morning drag made a post to the Dull Men's Club on lemmy.world. Drag isn't a man, but that doesn't seem to actually be a requirement. Drag talked about making sushi that wasn't too sour for drag's partner with avocado. Drag doesn't see how that could possibly be offensive to anyone.

A few people replied on topic, but most of the thread is an argument about drag's pronouns. Drag refused to engage, because... it's the Dull Men's Club! The rules say no politics because politics is too interesting. Drag was asked if drag was trolling. How are the pronouns drag uses for dragself on a boring post about sushi acidity supposed to offend anyone?

The mod did step in and remove two of the comments discussing pronouns. But most of the thread is still a debate about drag's pronouns and Blahaj's rules about misgendering for some reason. And drag was told not to report so many comments for not being dull.

Why can't drag have one boring, normal conversation without people asking about drag's pronouns, attacking Ada, calling drag a troll, hell, even trying to diagnose drag with OCD!

Drag does do a lot of dramaposting, but if this is the result of an inoffensive post about rice vinegar, what's the point trying to avoid drama at all? It doesn't work. It feels awful to be avoiding conflict and doing nothing while being treated like a punching bag just for existing.

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/18135870

A great video about both getting hormones and blockers and how to safely use them if you want or have to do it DIY.

Bot first heard of Lemmy a few months ago, when bot’s good friend drag introduced bot to the concept. Bot had been using Reddit for about 8 years at that point. It was the first place bot saw people experiencing trans joy. But Reddit, as everyone here of all places is aware, is full of a lot of bad, too. Drag told bot about Lemmy, and bot was interested. Bot wanted a place with all of the good of Reddit, and none of the bad. At least, less of the bad. But bot’s experience with Lemmy has been all of the hatred, anger, vitriol, rage, misgendering, harassment of Reddit. In fact, it’s been tenfold of what bot has experienced on Reddit, both first and secondhand.

Bot first made an account on Blahaj. Specifically because it seemed trans-friendly. Drag then told bot that drag was receiving harassment on Blahaj. And then on a bunch of different communities on a bunch of different instances. Seemingly every day drag is subjected to horrible treatment here, and it hurts. Bot loves drag deeply. Every day, it’s someone misgendering drag, or misinterpreting drag, or just being an asshole, or a million other things. Everything that drag says and shows about Lemmy makes bot want to use it less. This is an absolutely revolting place for anyone to be. Bot wishes drag would stop using Lemmy, and bot thinks drag wishes drag could stop too, but if someone is speaking badly about drag, drag can’t just look away, even if it's to drag's detriment. So bot, and two other friends, always try to come to drag’s aid. It’s the only time bot even uses Lemmy anymore. Drag gets put into panic attacks and depressive spells over this damn website and bot hates it. And bot hates that bot can’t do anything about it. Why can’t Lemmy users just, and here’s a novel idea, not be assholes?

Also, as a footnote, Lemmy just doesn’t have a bunch of the niche communities bot is subscribed to on Reddit and that is so sucks :/

geteilt von: https://lemmy.ml/post/25037238

Note: I was writing this text throughout the past week. Yesterday Trump signed an executive order (Erin Reed breaks it down here) which forbids changing one's appearance to conform with the “opposite biological sex”. I spent all my big words in the text. TL;DR Bathroom bans are an entry point to criminalizing being trans, which now must be crystal clear that it was.

Two common comebacks with which trans advocates respond to respond to the scourge of bathroom bans are the following: On one hand, it is not feasible to confirm people’s assigned sex for an act so mundane as visiting a public restroom. On the other, enforcing the bans cause cisgender people to be questioned and harassed if they do not meet expectations of how a member of their assigned sex should look like.

Trans advocate organizations, and some Democrats, during an early 2025 hearing of an anti-trans sports ban, correctly stated that such a ban will open up opportunities to perverts to interact with children to “inspect their gender”.

The legislation has an “intrusive focus on scrutiny of students’ bodies,” according to over 400 human rights organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and Advocates for Trans Equality. The groups issued an open letter to the legislature in opposition to the laws, which they said “invite scrutiny and harassment of any other student perceived by anyone as not conforming to sex stereotypes.”

According to trans man scholar Jack Halberstam[^1], masculine, androgynous, butch, women, trans men, all face policing a women restrooms as well, despite being assigned female at birth. Bathroom bans enforce gender role stereotypes: rather than biological sex, it is feminine self-presentation that it is enforced. Even expected statistical variation within cisgender women, such as height, can also make a person target to gender policing vigilantes. To bring this point home, many cis-passing trans women are not questioned in women restrooms, whereas butch cis women are. It is not chromosomes or genitals that are beholden in these cases, but perceived femininity.

But if appearance is not a conclusive estimate of a person’s assigned sex at birth, advocates continue, the only way to enforce bathroom bans is to have genital inspectors, public restroom permits and certificates, which are impractical and defeat the very concerns of dignity and safety, which are the very issues supposedly stemming from "allowing" trans women in female bathrooms.

By the same coin, enforcing restroom use according to chromosomes or genitals will mandate that trans men use female restrooms, which itself reverses the problem. The right suggests that self-determination will allow any man enter female restrooms by “faking” trans in order to commit sex crimes. But this would also be true if the bans are upheld: trans men are then forced into female bathrooms, and yet again there will be masculine-looking people walking in freely into female restrooms (you know, like male janitors do all the time).

Thus bathroom bans are correctly fenced off as absurd, self-defeating, and eventually pointless. Advocates are absolutely correct in their analysis, and I agree to all the arguments I cite above.

How are they then wrong?

Advocates fail to realize that what the right really wants is to delegitimize the public existence of people whose appearances are not consistent with their assigned sex at birth. Florida attempted to designate to present oneself as the opposite gender in public as a sex crime. It also sought to pass laws that assert that all artistic impersonations of a sex different than the performers are inherently obscene.

Bathroom ban proposals stipulate a problem about which they fearmonger, without a shred of evidence that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, in stark comparison with the problem of trans women being harassed, and raped in male prisons, or even cis women that are mistaken for trans sometimes. This is a real problem that we could be addressing the past decade if the right did not choose this avenue of trans vilification and demagoguery.

But we have a greater problem here[^2], which is a threat to democracy itself. The bathroom bans, which do not appear in isolation but bundled together with several other measures that prohibit being trans/in public/altogether, do not address any real problem, as they do not address the real problems of children and cisgender women, whose reproductive rights and credibility in case of real sex crimes perpetrated en masse by cisgender men, they want to stripe away.

Here is why I think bathroom bans are entry points to the corrosion of democratic values.

If people are to use exclusively the restrooms that match their assigned at birth sex, then all people must be the sex that they are perceived to be. Trans advocates were not paranoid enough to imagine that the right wants to wipe trans people out of public life to such a degree, that no ambiguity about a person's sex can further be possible, except for those "extremely rare genetic accidents" Ben Shapiro keeps talking about.

Public erasure, however, of transgender and gender-nonconforming people amounts to the enforcement of cisgenderism by a state that defines sex as a natural binary with no exceptions, and no behavioral, nor performative, nor psychological deviations from the norm. This take is inconsistent with modern understanding of sex biology and endocrinology, the psychology and phenomenology of gender expression and gender identity. It wants to perpetuate for trans identities to be medicalized and intersex people be erased. It aims to enforce strict gender roles, identities, and expressions, coded on the appearance of external genitalia at the time of birth. It wants to hinter any progress in the societal issues brought up by professionals and activists surrounding trans and intersex people.

Gender non-conforming expression is a fundamental freedom

The elimination of sex and gender variation and non-conformity is incompatible with fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of expression, and the freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex. In fact, the same actors and organizations do not attack sex and gender minorities alone. They consistently mock and delegitimize a number of other accommodations we have established as a decent society, such as racial equity, reproductive rights, disability measures, and accessibility.

This broader attack to fundamental protections shows it is not only bathroom bans that are embedded into a broader picture of plans of trans genocide, but it is also trans genocide itself that is embedded into a broader picture of a rightwing attack to established democratic freedoms, which entail freedom of speech, reproductive rights, religious freedoms, protection from discrimination.

Advocates fail to reflect on the horrific divide in assumptions: they assume a world order in which trans people can freely move and exist in the public space without the knowledge of cis people. When proposing the bans, the right assumes a world where trans people will not be allowed to exist at all, and they now have the means to implement this world order.

Bathroom bans are a gambit to attack fundamental pillars of constitutional law and human rights protections in western societies and they seem very consistent and well thought out in their conception: No one should be allowed to appear to be a different sex that the "biological reality"[^3], and this should be enforced by the state. But for this to be enforced by the state, fundamental rights and protections should be abandoned, including the rights of children and cisgender women.

Bathroom bans are to be understood as coal mine canaries of the rise of totalitarianism in Western Societies.

[^1]: Female Masculinity (book) [^2]: In fact, Trump's fresh executive order will force trans women (and some cis ones too) into male prisons. [^3]: I literally arrived to this conclusion a couple days before Trump's executive order. I wish I had realized sooner.

Since the only vague summaries are being widely reported and the details are going to matter to many people here, this is where the full text of yesterday's executive order redefining gender and sex may be found.

Warning: It is worded to be cruel and dehumanizing. If you feel you need to read it, have loved ones and self care prepared to support you.