Racially segregated bathrooms were established to perpetuate racism. Were sex segregated bathrooms established to perpetuate sexism? Of course not. They were established to encourage the participation of women in public life by providing a sort of “safe space” for intimate processes that most women are unwilling to do around strange men.
To characterize sex segregated bathrooms as a form of bigotry is truly Orwellian.
The ad hominem attacks on Nancy Mace (“attention whore”)for standing on principle is unsurprising. Easier to question the motives of a speaker than grapple with the principles at stake: sex either exists or it doesn’t.
This is the best, smartest piece I have read on this topic. Kudos to you, Lisa, once again. To those who live in congressional districts represented by Democrats, please do write to them and let them know your views on this. Here is the text I have written to my three, if helpful to anyone—and I also recommend linking Lisa’s brilliant words here:
On the issue of the Democratic response on the Mace/McBride fracas, whatever you might think of her approach, Mace had a valid point. I am glad Speaker Johnson made the decision he did, and I also appreciate McBride’s measured response.
McBride appears to me to be a young person who has experienced difficult personal turmoil and worked hard to find inner peace. McBride is not, however, a woman, never will be, and in order to move forward constructively, we all do need to recognize that reality.
Women like Mace, particularly, who have been assaulted, deserve not only to be listened to—but also to be accorded priority—on concerns about incursions on women’s single-sex spaces. This is not a trivial issue. Men truly have no idea of the precautions women must take, always looking over their shoulders, to keep themselves safe from men with ill intent. The least we deserve is the comfort of knowing that single sex spaces on which we have long relied shall remain just that.
Helen Joyce recently noted—and I have observed similar things myself—that she has “seen a group of 8 [loos] in a pub with floor-to-ceiling doors, behind a self-closing fire door. Incredibly dangerous - all a predatory man has to do is hang around looking like he's waiting to use one, and push a woman back in when she comes out of one. Toilets are designed the way they are now for a reason - loads of thought has gone into making them as comfortable and safe as possible. Moreover, single cubicles are totally impractical in places like sports stadiums - take far too much space. Also, urinals are the most hygienic and best way to get lots of men through - cleaners really hate toilet cubicles that men use to pee. And women don't like having to sit on the seats after men have splashed all over them!”
I wish no ill will toward McBride, and I would have much preferred it if Mace had raised her voice independently of McBride’s arrival in Congress. That does not, however, mean that her concerns are not worthy. They absolutely are. I want my party to win in 2026. To do so, however, my party needs to stop its condescension toward the eminently reasonable requests of women for female privacy, dignity, and safety. If the party does not attend to this, you must not be surprised if women continue to desert the Democrats, which is the last thing any of us should want.
I strongly urge you to give your attention to this and change course. You are on the wrong track.
Susan, you know the unpaid intern isn't reading past the 2nd paragraph, right? Then, if she's keeping track at all (probably not), she adds +1 to the "pro Mace" tally.
Of course I am well aware of this--if indeed the messages are read at all. My experience suggests, actually, that of (the few) responses I've received, most may well be machine generated, so not read at all. For example, I have received responses on completely unrelated topics. When that happens, I follow-up with a call. So trust me, I cover the bases.
My key point here is not the specific text, which is offered only should anyone find it useful as a starting point, but just to encourage folks to write, call, or meet in person if they can.
You said "In a classy move, McBride has agreed to Mace’s law" - but the article linked doesn't say McBride agreed, it says McBride said we should focus on other things. Maybe it's a tacit agreement, but it's not clear. It could also be a way of saying "this isn't what's important, so I'm going to keep using the women's bathrooms".
Also, the link you provided to the article about disappearing comments for Title IX actually says the department said it was a clerical error that inflated the count, and then comments were removed. So yes, technically comments disappeared, but it sounds like it was a correction of an error (at least according to the department).
Sorry for the nitpickiness, but I feel more and more that we have to be very careful with our words.
Lisa, having been to the last CEC2 meeting at which Maud Maron and a few other brave board members sit, I can tell you that most of the people there - the 4 extremist Board members who consider resolution 248 to be "bigoted" but who cannot explain why, as well as the 80 or 90 trans activists (many of whom are trans, many of whom are parents of "trans kids," and many of whom are allies) - do not listen to reason. They are hellbent on simply getting the world to "admit" that "trans women are women" and boys in girls sports is a beautiful thing to behold, and they will not be satisfied with anything less.
I urge you, as a NYC resident, and parent, to attend one of these meetings (the next is 12/18/24) and use your 2 minutes to explain why there is nothing wrong with putting boys with boys - whether they are "trans girls" or not - when it comes to sports. I tried my best to say that in as inoffensive a manner as possible, and was booed, but not crucified. It's a worthwhile way of getting people who are entrenched in their way of thinking to have to listen for a couple of minutes to something that makes them uncomfortable.
I truly believe we are not helping anyone - including "trans kids" (there is no such thing, but we are not helping children who have body image issues, problems accepting their sex, etc.) - by pretending they are not the sex they are, and encouraging them to hate their bodies and take chemicals and have surgeries that will make them less healthy. We are also being unfair to girls who are serious about sports and want to compete on an even playing field, and we are potentially endangering girls when to comes to contact sports - which are specifically included in the DOE policy of dividing sports by "gender identity," which will hurt the girls who are injured AND will mentally scar the boys who end up hurting them.
So, if McBride has to use the men's bathroom - given that he is a man, I don't see the problem, particularly since he is openly trans, and, therefore, does not have the issue of trying to go stealth - to show the world that nobody is denying biology, then I would think McBride would happily do so. If McBride really wants to be classy, he would agree with Mace wholeheartedly, indicating that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a transwoman using the facilities meant for male-bodied individuals.
We can have a discussion later about what happens with those going stealth, except that I think we already know the answer in that case. They will use the bathroom for the sex they appear to be, rather than the bathroom for their actual sex, and nobody will know about it. However, we should not base policy around people attempting to keep secrets about their biology.
HippieEsq: do you have a link whereby it’s possible to get advance notice of those meetings? I have to be careful about indoor spaces over the holidays, but I would definitely like to be on whatever list there is that gives notifications of these meetings.
I agree with everything except Lisa‘s long-term solution, namely to have trans-women use men’s bathrooms. Such bathrooms would become houses of horror. (If you’ve never had to deal with the reality of being a very unmuscular boy having to walk into the guys’ bathroom in elementary and high school, shielded from adult oversight, count yourself lucky.) I think the solution would be to provide reasonable access to gender-neutral, single-user bathrooms.
Well, mine is a short-term solution, to be sure, when it comes to bathrooms. The inclusion I'm talking about (and maybe I need to be clearer) is to accept trans women as a kind of men, and make peace with that. I'm all for gender-neutral facilities!
“You can no longer file accommodating them under women’s work.” This angle is so important and not stressed enough. Why is it always up to women to be so accommodating? The answer is that we are the sex that biologically takes in and holds. No more evidence is needed of the fundamental difference between men and women no matter how much estrogen a man takes or how many body parts he cuts off or pastes on. A man who wants to be a woman and thrusts himself into women’s spaces is once again expecting women to accommodate, take in, hold, pretend it feels right. Enough.
One bathroom solution is to re-construct bathrooms into individual rooms with toilet and sink in the same little space. Floor to ceiling doors, no shared sinks.
Agree with Mark. This isn’t practical. Helen Joyce made the point that, in fact, a lot of thought and care has gone into bathroom design, precisely, in part, to aid women to participate in public life. Joyce noted, for one: “single cubicles are totally impractical in places like sports stadiums - take far too much space. Also, urinals are the most hygienic and best way to get lots of men through - cleaners really hate toilet cubicles that men use to pee. And women don't like having to sit on the seats after men have splashed all over them!” (I have had this experience and, forgive me fellas, it is gross.) What is so frustrating about this bathroom discussion is that the solutions were already completely in place before bad actors decided it was time to throw everything into turmoil. BTW, Sex Matters has a great explainer on bathrooms here: https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Toilets-matter.pdf
Just fyi, Nancy Mace's "possibly performative act" occurred after I had 3 conversations with her staffers regarding the issues trans widows face, giving her the information about Behind the Looking Glass at Lime Soda films YouTube channel. Her staffers were quite interested, and especially on my observations as a retired Kindergarten teacher that Piaget's 4 stages of development (listed as settled science on the NIH website) do not accommodate "wrong body since birth" because cognition and language development do not work that way. I also mentioned the detransitioners who actually vaporize so many of the small studies, and even Ray Blanchard's "case studies" going back to the 1990s. See Call Me Sam YouTube channel for one such case study Blanchard and Cantor cited. He was Maya for 25 years and has now returned to Sam Kaye, regrets it all. Link to Behind the Looking Glass, which, why didn't you review this first ever documentary about trans widows, Lisa? We trans widows have incredible information about the corrupt practices, including insurance fraud, by "gender" practitioners. I reported Dr. Connie Christine Wheeler for exactly that fraud (she diagnosed my ex husband in 1 appt) and she is now "not certified."
Also, Andy Ngo, independent journalist, identified the dude "dressed up" on a Tik Tok threatening to kill her as Portland Antifa activist Joshua R Boyle. He's posted several threatening videos repeatedly claiming how he plans to kill her. That happens to be a felony.
Excellent article. Thank you, Lisa! Just a thought: I've been to outdoor concerts and festivals that had rows of port-a-potties, all unisex IIRC, that were able to handle the large crowds. There may still be a waiting line in any arrangement, as it might not be possible to provide enough toilets to every person who needs one at the same time. At these events there were handwashing facilities set up nearby. There should be baby changing facilities too, but I don't remember this being the case (I think these events were essentially for adults). Somehow I think a solution for indoor events and public buildings could be found if only it was important enough. That may be the issue, whether women's privacy is important when countered with the "needs" of men who've decided they are women. They are the ones who need to accommodate women, not the other way around. I'll end with But what else do you expect in a patriarchy? and let the chips fall where they may... 🙃
Racially segregated bathrooms were established to perpetuate racism. Were sex segregated bathrooms established to perpetuate sexism? Of course not. They were established to encourage the participation of women in public life by providing a sort of “safe space” for intimate processes that most women are unwilling to do around strange men.
To characterize sex segregated bathrooms as a form of bigotry is truly Orwellian.
The ad hominem attacks on Nancy Mace (“attention whore”)for standing on principle is unsurprising. Easier to question the motives of a speaker than grapple with the principles at stake: sex either exists or it doesn’t.
This is the best, smartest piece I have read on this topic. Kudos to you, Lisa, once again. To those who live in congressional districts represented by Democrats, please do write to them and let them know your views on this. Here is the text I have written to my three, if helpful to anyone—and I also recommend linking Lisa’s brilliant words here:
On the issue of the Democratic response on the Mace/McBride fracas, whatever you might think of her approach, Mace had a valid point. I am glad Speaker Johnson made the decision he did, and I also appreciate McBride’s measured response.
McBride appears to me to be a young person who has experienced difficult personal turmoil and worked hard to find inner peace. McBride is not, however, a woman, never will be, and in order to move forward constructively, we all do need to recognize that reality.
Women like Mace, particularly, who have been assaulted, deserve not only to be listened to—but also to be accorded priority—on concerns about incursions on women’s single-sex spaces. This is not a trivial issue. Men truly have no idea of the precautions women must take, always looking over their shoulders, to keep themselves safe from men with ill intent. The least we deserve is the comfort of knowing that single sex spaces on which we have long relied shall remain just that.
Helen Joyce recently noted—and I have observed similar things myself—that she has “seen a group of 8 [loos] in a pub with floor-to-ceiling doors, behind a self-closing fire door. Incredibly dangerous - all a predatory man has to do is hang around looking like he's waiting to use one, and push a woman back in when she comes out of one. Toilets are designed the way they are now for a reason - loads of thought has gone into making them as comfortable and safe as possible. Moreover, single cubicles are totally impractical in places like sports stadiums - take far too much space. Also, urinals are the most hygienic and best way to get lots of men through - cleaners really hate toilet cubicles that men use to pee. And women don't like having to sit on the seats after men have splashed all over them!”
I wish no ill will toward McBride, and I would have much preferred it if Mace had raised her voice independently of McBride’s arrival in Congress. That does not, however, mean that her concerns are not worthy. They absolutely are. I want my party to win in 2026. To do so, however, my party needs to stop its condescension toward the eminently reasonable requests of women for female privacy, dignity, and safety. If the party does not attend to this, you must not be surprised if women continue to desert the Democrats, which is the last thing any of us should want.
I strongly urge you to give your attention to this and change course. You are on the wrong track.
Susan, you know the unpaid intern isn't reading past the 2nd paragraph, right? Then, if she's keeping track at all (probably not), she adds +1 to the "pro Mace" tally.
Of course I am well aware of this--if indeed the messages are read at all. My experience suggests, actually, that of (the few) responses I've received, most may well be machine generated, so not read at all. For example, I have received responses on completely unrelated topics. When that happens, I follow-up with a call. So trust me, I cover the bases.
My key point here is not the specific text, which is offered only should anyone find it useful as a starting point, but just to encourage folks to write, call, or meet in person if they can.
A couple of corrections, Lisa:
You said "In a classy move, McBride has agreed to Mace’s law" - but the article linked doesn't say McBride agreed, it says McBride said we should focus on other things. Maybe it's a tacit agreement, but it's not clear. It could also be a way of saying "this isn't what's important, so I'm going to keep using the women's bathrooms".
Also, the link you provided to the article about disappearing comments for Title IX actually says the department said it was a clerical error that inflated the count, and then comments were removed. So yes, technically comments disappeared, but it sounds like it was a correction of an error (at least according to the department).
Sorry for the nitpickiness, but I feel more and more that we have to be very careful with our words.
I welcome corrections—these are not nitpicks. Will fix shortly!
Lisa, having been to the last CEC2 meeting at which Maud Maron and a few other brave board members sit, I can tell you that most of the people there - the 4 extremist Board members who consider resolution 248 to be "bigoted" but who cannot explain why, as well as the 80 or 90 trans activists (many of whom are trans, many of whom are parents of "trans kids," and many of whom are allies) - do not listen to reason. They are hellbent on simply getting the world to "admit" that "trans women are women" and boys in girls sports is a beautiful thing to behold, and they will not be satisfied with anything less.
I urge you, as a NYC resident, and parent, to attend one of these meetings (the next is 12/18/24) and use your 2 minutes to explain why there is nothing wrong with putting boys with boys - whether they are "trans girls" or not - when it comes to sports. I tried my best to say that in as inoffensive a manner as possible, and was booed, but not crucified. It's a worthwhile way of getting people who are entrenched in their way of thinking to have to listen for a couple of minutes to something that makes them uncomfortable.
I truly believe we are not helping anyone - including "trans kids" (there is no such thing, but we are not helping children who have body image issues, problems accepting their sex, etc.) - by pretending they are not the sex they are, and encouraging them to hate their bodies and take chemicals and have surgeries that will make them less healthy. We are also being unfair to girls who are serious about sports and want to compete on an even playing field, and we are potentially endangering girls when to comes to contact sports - which are specifically included in the DOE policy of dividing sports by "gender identity," which will hurt the girls who are injured AND will mentally scar the boys who end up hurting them.
So, if McBride has to use the men's bathroom - given that he is a man, I don't see the problem, particularly since he is openly trans, and, therefore, does not have the issue of trying to go stealth - to show the world that nobody is denying biology, then I would think McBride would happily do so. If McBride really wants to be classy, he would agree with Mace wholeheartedly, indicating that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a transwoman using the facilities meant for male-bodied individuals.
We can have a discussion later about what happens with those going stealth, except that I think we already know the answer in that case. They will use the bathroom for the sex they appear to be, rather than the bathroom for their actual sex, and nobody will know about it. However, we should not base policy around people attempting to keep secrets about their biology.
HippieEsq: do you have a link whereby it’s possible to get advance notice of those meetings? I have to be careful about indoor spaces over the holidays, but I would definitely like to be on whatever list there is that gives notifications of these meetings.
I agree with everything except Lisa‘s long-term solution, namely to have trans-women use men’s bathrooms. Such bathrooms would become houses of horror. (If you’ve never had to deal with the reality of being a very unmuscular boy having to walk into the guys’ bathroom in elementary and high school, shielded from adult oversight, count yourself lucky.) I think the solution would be to provide reasonable access to gender-neutral, single-user bathrooms.
Well, mine is a short-term solution, to be sure, when it comes to bathrooms. The inclusion I'm talking about (and maybe I need to be clearer) is to accept trans women as a kind of men, and make peace with that. I'm all for gender-neutral facilities!
We need more unisex (private) bathrooms in public spaces.
“You can no longer file accommodating them under women’s work.” This angle is so important and not stressed enough. Why is it always up to women to be so accommodating? The answer is that we are the sex that biologically takes in and holds. No more evidence is needed of the fundamental difference between men and women no matter how much estrogen a man takes or how many body parts he cuts off or pastes on. A man who wants to be a woman and thrusts himself into women’s spaces is once again expecting women to accommodate, take in, hold, pretend it feels right. Enough.
One bathroom solution is to re-construct bathrooms into individual rooms with toilet and sink in the same little space. Floor to ceiling doors, no shared sinks.
Where do we get the many hundreds of billions of dollars it will take to retrofit every restroom?
Agree with Mark. This isn’t practical. Helen Joyce made the point that, in fact, a lot of thought and care has gone into bathroom design, precisely, in part, to aid women to participate in public life. Joyce noted, for one: “single cubicles are totally impractical in places like sports stadiums - take far too much space. Also, urinals are the most hygienic and best way to get lots of men through - cleaners really hate toilet cubicles that men use to pee. And women don't like having to sit on the seats after men have splashed all over them!” (I have had this experience and, forgive me fellas, it is gross.) What is so frustrating about this bathroom discussion is that the solutions were already completely in place before bad actors decided it was time to throw everything into turmoil. BTW, Sex Matters has a great explainer on bathrooms here: https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Toilets-matter.pdf
Just fyi, Nancy Mace's "possibly performative act" occurred after I had 3 conversations with her staffers regarding the issues trans widows face, giving her the information about Behind the Looking Glass at Lime Soda films YouTube channel. Her staffers were quite interested, and especially on my observations as a retired Kindergarten teacher that Piaget's 4 stages of development (listed as settled science on the NIH website) do not accommodate "wrong body since birth" because cognition and language development do not work that way. I also mentioned the detransitioners who actually vaporize so many of the small studies, and even Ray Blanchard's "case studies" going back to the 1990s. See Call Me Sam YouTube channel for one such case study Blanchard and Cantor cited. He was Maya for 25 years and has now returned to Sam Kaye, regrets it all. Link to Behind the Looking Glass, which, why didn't you review this first ever documentary about trans widows, Lisa? We trans widows have incredible information about the corrupt practices, including insurance fraud, by "gender" practitioners. I reported Dr. Connie Christine Wheeler for exactly that fraud (she diagnosed my ex husband in 1 appt) and she is now "not certified."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frffv2sB8zE&t=1187s
Also, Andy Ngo, independent journalist, identified the dude "dressed up" on a Tik Tok threatening to kill her as Portland Antifa activist Joshua R Boyle. He's posted several threatening videos repeatedly claiming how he plans to kill her. That happens to be a felony.
I couldn't help laughing at the quip about Trump's makeup. Hopefully we can all keep our sense of humor.
But all the gay male make up artists with bodies intact would object.
Your writing and intelligence is such a great pleasure.
I echo your sentiments on the simplicity of sex determination. We all had one mother and father.
There’s a oddly simple aspect to this debate:
Allowing one male in a woman’s facility allows all.
Male entry in a female area is trespass. There are many areas you cannot trespass. It’s not unusual.
Clothing cannot be used as a test for entry. The only universal traditional apparel difference is button closure, which is virtually invisible.
Bathrooms should have all-female, all-male, or disabled. Trans, due to a disabling condition can have all the privacy they need.
Great article. I love love love the ending. Well articulated and the humor at the end goes a long way!
"I’m not saying that all trans women walking around in the world should use the men’s bathroom"
Then what ARE you saying?
Please tell us your specific alternative proposal.
Great piece!
A ray of light? “Transgender Activists Question the Movement’s Confrontational Approach” — NYT — https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/26/us/politics/transgender-activists-rights.html?unlocked_article_code=1.c04.uZVs.hTW-Fv5bP2hR&smid=url-share
Excellent article. Thank you, Lisa! Just a thought: I've been to outdoor concerts and festivals that had rows of port-a-potties, all unisex IIRC, that were able to handle the large crowds. There may still be a waiting line in any arrangement, as it might not be possible to provide enough toilets to every person who needs one at the same time. At these events there were handwashing facilities set up nearby. There should be baby changing facilities too, but I don't remember this being the case (I think these events were essentially for adults). Somehow I think a solution for indoor events and public buildings could be found if only it was important enough. That may be the issue, whether women's privacy is important when countered with the "needs" of men who've decided they are women. They are the ones who need to accommodate women, not the other way around. I'll end with But what else do you expect in a patriarchy? and let the chips fall where they may... 🙃