GAG demands Vancouver Women’s Library ban books

171 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

I'd be into it too, though to close it here, I do see opposing rights protection as a misguided attack, as the library attack also was.

quizzical

i don't disagree with you smith. i disagree with gender expression rights being entrenched by way of forcing women to accept invasion of private spaces.

6079_Smith_W

And I agree with you regarding shelters having control over who they bring in.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Sadly, Vimeo (or their original contributor) seem to have removed the video of what went down at the Vancouver Women's Library.  But I seem to recall a woman saying something about a space for women, and one of the protesters,  who looked and acted pretty male, shouting back "I'M A WOMAN".

I think this whole thing comes down to whether the law supports that protester (in which case she had every right to be there) or does not (in which case the VWL staff had every right to kick him out).

It seems pretty clear to me that the attempt, by trans-women activists, to ensure that they're legally defined as 100% the same as a "cis" or "biological" woman is an attempt to make any kind of alternate accomodation moot.  If the law says that anyone who says "I'M A WOMAN" is, legally, a woman, then everything else doesn't really matter.

6079_Smith_W

it doesn't matter whether they are  women or not (cis or trans). What matters is that they crashed someone's opening and vandalized stuff.

I suppose it would be handy for some if being a woman absolved you of all crimes and allowed you freedom to trespass anywhere you wanted. But I don't think it works that way.

 

quizzical

maybe to you smith but not to biological women. the vandalism stands separate and apart.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Surely there's no special exemptions for vandalizing stuff, and I'm not suggesting that self-identifying as *anything* should absolve anyone of a crime.

But why did those protesters insist they had the same right to be there as any other woman?  That's what I'm talking about.  I'm not asking whether you agree with them.  But what do you suppose was their understanding of things?  And what might Bill C-16 have to say about their understanding of things?

Specifically, do you expect it will agree with those protesters, that as women they had as much right to be there as any other woman?  Or do you expect it will say "well, this is an exception to your womanhood"?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Thanks, Ken, I think your intentions are good, but I think we can handle Magoo in this thread. His examples are absurd, but I also think that is part of this conversation - where is the line? To what extent do we say "okay, cool" and where do we say "sorry, I just can't get behind that one"?

Fair enough.  I'm tagging out on this one.  Have a nice weekend.

6079_Smith_W

quizzical wrote:

maybe to you smith but not to biological women. the vandalism stands separate and apart.

The point I was answering is that regardless of what their identity is vandalism is still vandalism, and they don't have the right to trash that event, or tell people what they must and must not have on their library shelves.

Sounded to me like Magoo was suggesting that if they were accepted as women they would have been entitled to do everything they did . I don't see how that is true.

quizzical
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Sigh.

I have to wonder at what point inclusion means negation? I mean, women are discriminated against for our biology, which for most of us means we possess female genitalia. The word "pussy" is used as an epithet, for pity's sake!

I guess if that's just too big a barrier to feeling a part of things, then stay home. I have no other solutions - and it doesn't sound like the complainers have any alternate suggestions, either.

quizzical

the stirring behind the scenes is tiring.

i agree if some people think they're being excluded because of pussy hats then stay home.

to demand thousands of women stop wearing them is narcissistic. at best.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I have to wonder at what point inclusion means negation?

It seems to me that this model is sort of a "subtractive" rather than an "additive" model.  In other words,"inclusion" doesn't mean everyone making and wearing whatever hat they want, it means nobody making or wearing a hat that someone else might not want.

As one commenter on the article put it:

Quote:
Include your self. Wear a pink hat. Or just a hat. What does a trans hat look like? Make it and wear it.

6079_Smith_W

Saw a pic from one of the marches this weekend of a guy wearing one.

Dark complexion too - so much for the "pink" objection. Clearly not all people (trans, non-white, or whatever) object to this.

No disrespect to those who do have a problem with it, but perhaps we shouldn't read too much into it either way.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't know why we have to read the colour pink as "not a person of colour" or "white person only". It's symbolic of attitudes about femininity and masculinity. Men and boys aren't supposed to wear pink, it's a feminine colour. The hats aren't a representation of actual female genitalia. Jaysus, somebody explain what a fucking METAPHOR is!!! The literalism is killing me.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't know why we have to read the colour pink as "not a person of colour" or "white person only".

If we're going to then we might also spare a moment to consider all those blue boys, who are clearly hypoxic or something.

Not trying to make it about boys.  Just trying to make it less literal. 

Also, "pussy hats" look more like any old crocheted hat and less like... stuff.

Pondering

It's supposed to look like cat ears not "stuff".  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Ears, OK.  Any old crocheted hat with ears, then.

Do you feel like we were disagreeing on the fundamentals?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Ears, OK.  Any old crocheted hat with ears, then.

Do you feel like we were disagreeing on the fundamentals?

No. Just saying...

"The idea is both a play on pussyhat, pussycat, and also references the hot mic from the Access Hollywood video. It does reference Donald Trump and those comments, but it's also so much more," said Zweiman before the March. "It's reappropriating the word 'pussy' in a positive way. It's a pussyhat -- one word. This is a project about women supporting women."...

 "If everyone at the march wears a pink hat, the crowd will be a sea of pink, showing that we stand together, united," reads the introduction to the knitting pattern on the Pussyhat Project website.

https://www.glamour.com/story/the-story-behind-the-pussyhats-at-the-wome...

No reason for trans women to feel offended. 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No reason for trans women to feel offended.

I think our agreement is on a roll here.

International symbols for "man" and "woman" (think of washroom signs at an airport) feature a "man" with two arms and two legs (and curiously, no hands and no feet) and a woman wearing a dress.

Not every man has two legs.  Not every woman has two arms.  Not every woman wears dresses, and not every man doesn't wear a dress. 

If symbols had to literally represent everyone, literally, then we really just couldn't represent anything. 

I'll say again: it's a bit of a sticky wicket that symbols of large groups also have to be a perfect mirror of individuals or else someone has just had their very existence denied and aren't allowed to exist or something.

Pages