Will they fine us, imprison us, shut down our businesses?

submitted by our_team_is_winning from self.GenderCritical

PLEASE tell me some women-owned businesses will NOT allow men in women's sex-segregated spaces, even if it means being arrested. PLEASE tell me some women will stand up to this. PLEASE. What will the penalty be? Being thrown in jail with a giant AGP who will knock her teeth out?

This is the biggest violation of women's civil rights in the USA in my lifetime. I think I'd rather women couldn't vote than to have a law saying men can enter the toilet with me. I'm pretty fed up with women's voting habits just now -- "I'm a GOOD person so I vote Democrat! They CARE about people." They care about men's sexual fetishes.

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]devushka 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Maybe because things seem bleak at the moment, but I feel like this might be one of the biggest violations of women's civil rights ever. To be fair, I was born in the late eighties in the US, which was apparently the best time and place to be a girl, so maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic. At least when women were treated as little more than property everyone knew why they were women.

[–]BEB 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm much older than you and I think what's so particularly vile about this is that never in a billion years would all those brave women who fought for women's rights over the centuries ever imagine that the way women's rights would be defeated would be by men claiming that they are women too.

[–]devushka 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know, seriously. I never thought I would have to actually look up stuff to debate why males, especially convicted sex offenders, don't belong in female prisons. Or why me and Elliot Page should be part of the same biological classification and not me and say, Sarah McBride or Charlotte Clymer. 😖

[–]BEB 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Full on Alternate Universe.

[–]panorama 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Perhaps we'll go stealth. There are women friendly workarounds I can think of (though I'll not put them out in public for the "activists" to thwart) to address the bathroom issue in medium and small businesses.

(I listened to the 90 minute US House speeches on the Equality Act today - neither tequila nor ice cream helped with my distress. Sigh. Kudos to Rep McClintock,of Ca, who focused on the impact of this abominable Act on WOMEN & girls!!)

[–]BEB 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Thanks for letting us know about McClintock - I will send a thank you. Were there any other congresspeople who stood up for us?

[–]panorama 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Um, while I was taking notes, Bishop of NC did, in one sentence, question what unforeseen consequences could be in future. Mostly, Republicans I heard banged away about the First Amendment and abortion. At least Weber also mentioned intact males in girls locker rooms. (seriously, Pocan actually pulled the "it never happened" and "dozens of Ts killed last year" BS - that's what sent me out for the booze & sweets, streaming on my mobile while I shopped and my carrier failed several times). The Dems wept for the poor lesbians and gays of course, and kept transgender talk mostly to the letter, as in LGBTQ+ (eye roll)

I think you may be able to watch on CSPAN.org, still. Edit: yep, if you scroll down and expand "People in this video" you can hear comments by each individual speaker on this Act! https://www.c-span.org/video/?509209-2/house-approves-equality-act-224-206

Or transcripts. Bill was introduced 1:32:37 or so into the session, and comments began shortly after that

Edit2 *Spartz Indiana *Hartzler (MO) *Chip Roy is anti abortion but he really took it to the Dems for being sneaky! *Harshbarger (TN) shelters & sports *Gwen Moore (AL) paraphrasing: the tyranny of the minority with stats

Mention of organizations and faiths that support the Equality Act (AMA, Methodists, NAACP, National Women's Law Center, ["women's groups"], US Chamber of Commerce, etc)

Quigley (IL) says we're not real feminists but are full of hate. This guy is a raging misogynist! "So, it's about women, huh?" (the opposition argument= it)

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Thanks so much for watching this and writing it all down, so we know which congresspeople to thank and which to be pissed at! Like Quigley - what an ass!

I got so angry watching the House Judiciary Committee Equality Act hearings in 2019 that I honestly don't think I've ever recovered: Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu, that wench from Pennsylvania, and Jerry Nadler - even the thought of them make my blood boil to this day.

I'm going to have to watch to see what abortion has to do with the Equality Act....

Thanks again - I really appreciate it!

[–]panorama 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

De nada.

The Republicans seemed to tie abortion to Section 1101, 4, B, the explanation of sex re this Act:

"(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;

Edit. And the wording of, and around the word "inclusive"

Too many known and unforeseen consequences of this Act to have it ramrodded into US law!

Edit. Personally, I'm for abortion access, but what other legal traps are laid?

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm a real idiot (no, really!) because I'm still not getting what this wording has to do with abortion?

[–]panorama 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know either. Maybe a legal weasel envisioned it?

I do know when I first read HR 5, I wondered why they only made a nod to biological sex by making it medical conditions... Raised my eyebrow. Still does.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the Misogynists of the Left want women to be reduced to wombs?

[–]WildApples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They added a provision elsewhere that says religion cannot be used as a defense against discrimination. I know the defense has been used by Christian employers to avoid providing birth control coverage for its employees. Not sure how they would get involved with abortion, though. Is that usually covered by health insurance?

[–]BEB 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Whoever wrote the Equality Act is really friggin' dumb then, because by taking out all religious exemptions they are waving a red flag at the many religious Americans and institutions.

It just shows the Gender Lobby's arrogance that they want to destroy established religions that tens of millions of Americans hold dear while imposing their Church of Genderology on us by law.

[–]WildApples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

True, but I see why they are doing it. In the most high-profile cases of discrimination against gays, the defenses were religious freedom defenses. I am sure the LGBT groups pushing for this also pushed for an end to religious exceptions. If the bill passes, I foresee constitutional challenges alleging violations of constitutional guarantee to free exercise of religion.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The conservative activist I spoke with said the same about constitutional challenges.

[–]aloris342 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think the only way to address this is to let it happen and let people see what happens when you eliminate the entire concept of womanhood as a sex-based category. Then document it. The problem is that I don't think we will be allowed to document it. Instances of women being harassed in public restrooms will be treated with "what proof do you have?" Journalists will step up to cover up the original identities of criminals, so that it will be impossible to track the sex divisions of various offenses. In fifteen years, the tables of height, weight, strength, and so on, will all have been "updated" to reflect that, wow, girls can get really tall!!!111! Tall girls are much more common than we thought! Women are so much faster than we thought! etc.

But I think trying to soften the effect will be counterproductive, because then people will think the changes are not harmful. Honestly I'm not really sure what to do about this.

[–]WildApples 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We cannot let that happen. The media and tech companies are all against us, so we will not be able to create a scandal and rally people around like we would have decades ago. What few incidents we might be able to cover in mainstream media will be written off as isolated incidents.

I think we win this by showing that is not the progressive dream that people think it will be. Although our primary concern is women's rights, I think the argument that will win the day is to show that this is not good for gay rights. The public who support this bill think they are championing gay rights. They do not understand how gender ideology is chipping away at gay rights. It is a hard argument to make with non-profits against us, but if each of use can reach enough people in our own networks, we might succeed.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I've been sitting here for the last two years or so trying to figure out why even women don't seem to be outraged by men in women's spaces.

Part of it, I think, is The Big Lie, which is that TiMs are all castrated, super-feminine homosexuals who are hunted like an endangered (but FABULOUS) species by Big Bad Men, just like women are.

Which all of us know isn't true (check out the parade of lovely laydees at WomenAreHuman.com ).

I do think once the full horror that the Equality Act lets ANY man into women spaces hits there will be push back, but that might be after it passes. In the meantime, I talk about it when I'm trying to alert other women.

However, I completely agree with you that in terms of trying to get through to the Equality Act's corporate sponsors, talking about how destructive it is to gay rights would be a good path. I myself will continue to mention the threat to women's sex-based rights/safety, privacy, dignity/sports.

[–]WildApples 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What you said, but also I think it comes from being sheltered and privileged. They are past the age of having to undress in front of other students in the locker room (That used to cause me such anxiety and that was when it was only girls!) and they don't have to worry about incarceration or living in a shelter. Consequently, the biggest risk of sexual violence they will face is in bathroom or dressing room attached to a business where other people may be around to help them. They don't have to worry as much about power differentials and being unable to escape.

I knew a man once who got busted for raping a young girl in his custody. She was a juvenile offender and he was the guard who was supposed to escort her to her hearing with the judge. Before he did so, he took her to the basement and raped her, knowing that she was vulnerable and people would be less likely to believe her because of her criminal offenses. Women are not thinking about what it would be like to be that girl and how important it would be to have a female guard in that instance. They are picturing themselves in a Nordstrom dressing room with an attendant a few feet away and the ability to leave freely whenever they feel like it.

[–]BEB 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's why I always talk about feMALE TSA agents and how if you don't accept a patdown you might not fly. And also, many women will go to the hospital at some point and even more into a nursing home - will they want a male attendant to bath them?

So unbelievable we have to worry about these things in the year 2021, when I'm guessing in the year 1921 women didn't have to worry about male nurses and carers, certainly not ones dressed like exaggerated caricatures of women.

[–]SophiaLoren 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I posted yesterday some stuff I had written about the bill, but since my account is so new I think the post is still being screened. Basically, I created a document summarizing various arguments and striving to hopefully peak people. It is 11 pages long with pictures and links, so I had to upload it as a PDF to a file sharing site. You can get it at https://www.sendspace.com/file/0kf0ax.

We have an uphill battle in convincing people that criticism of the bill is not limited to conservative bigots because the topic has been censored for so long. The good news is that I think the Democrats really overreached with the bill to the point that it could hurt other minority groups besides women, which means it is possible to make a progressive argument that the bill will undermine civil rights. Basically, this bill would limit the ability of marginalized groups like LGB people, black people, Jewish people, etc. to create programs and functions for themselves. If we spread that message, we could win people over.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Muslim women. I'm just guessing based on the little I know of the religion, but I think they might not be able to comfortably leave the house for more than a few hours if the Equality Act passes.

We do have to be on guard about making opposition a religious issue though, because the Republicans already have the Fairness For All Act, which is similar to the Equality Act but carves out religious exemptions. I actually spoke with a conservative activist who said that the Fairness For All Act is also awful for women.