Why the Water Fountain Analogy Doesn’t Work

This is basic and obvious, but apparently it needs to be said.

When white people don’t want black people at their water fountains, that’s the oppressor class withholding resources they control from the oppressed class.

When females don’t want males in their bathrooms, that’s the oppressed class seeking refuge from the oppressor class.

A better analogy would be white people demanding to speak at Black Expo.

Or Rachel Dolezal demanding access to a black scholarship.

Or white people being offended at Malcom X for being a separatist.

Or talking about “reverse racism.”

Or saying “all lives matter.”

All of these things have happened, and they were recognized as bullshit, as they should be.


10 thoughts on “Why the Water Fountain Analogy Doesn’t Work

  1. Also, rest rooms, locker rooms, showers, domestic violence shelters and homeless shelters are places where the use of the facility involves being extra vulnerable because of being partly or fully undressed in the cases of restrooms, locker rooms and showers, or unconscious, in the case of shelter beds. Not to mention the fact that rest room stalls and shower stalls are tiny, dead-ended spaces, where it would be easy to corner someone.

    The changes trans activists are demanding would allow unfettered access of people with greater bodily strength to people with far less strength, while the latter are in positions of full or partial undress and/or unconsciousness that make for even greater vulnerability.

    Liked by 5 people

    • The water fountain analogy ignores the fact that women, as a vulnerable class with fewer rights, privileges, and needed services than men were the ones who fought for equality in women’s sports, established the rape crisis centers and domestic abuse shelters for women who had nowhere to turn to get the help they needed. The new pro trans laws and directives actually roll back these protections that women fought for on behalf of their sex and the special needs of that sex based both on biology and social conditions. Many of these venues now are called upon to favor trans needs over the needs of the women for whom these venues were established. Women and girls are reviled for wanting the safety that these spaces were established in the first place, largely by other women, to give them. The number of assaults against girls and women by men, whether MtT or simply dressed as women is high enough so our concerns should be taken seriously, not just dismissed with a barrage of alternative facts, rhetoric, and invective.

      Liked by 4 people

  2. Pingback: Why the Water Fountain Analogy Doesn’t Work | fmnst
  3. The analogy also doesn’t work because the solution to race segregation was to desegregate. In comparison, the “solution” to sex segregation isn’t to desegregate, it’s to allow a select few men into women’s facilities and a select few women into men’s facilities (unless they feel “uncomfortable” in the men’s facilities, then they can use the women’s facilities). If civil rights activists reasoned like trans activists, they wouldn’t have demanded the end of race segregation, instead they would have demanded a select few black people who “identified” as white gain access to whites’ facilities.

    For the analogy not to fall apart, trans activists would have to advocate for full desegregation of all sex-segregated facilities, but they don’t, because they want sex segregation. They need sex segregation for their precious validation. They also understand that full sex desegregation is a non-starter politically on both the right and the left.

    Although even the NAACP submitted an amicus brief to SCOTUS in support of Gavin Grimm, doubling down on the fiction that letting a few men into women’s spaces is a solution to the evils of segregation.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. I agree with your post. However, I was told by a man who I mistook from 2 discussions/interactions that he was a pretty good pro-feminist, that women are oppressors of “transwomen.” I was stumped. Any suggestions on how to respond to that please, anyone?

    In agreement with your post, another way to frame it is, “So are you saying that Jim Crowe laws, segregating bathrooms, lunch counters, schools, bus seats, and water fountains, were created at the behest of people of color, by and for the safety and privacy of POC?”

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am not sure what this person meant by “oppressors”, you would have to ask him, however here are common things that are meant by such a charge: 1) women oppress transwomen by “excluding” them by talking about our periods, child birth and other female experiences that they do not share, 2) women oppress transwomen by not wanting them in private spaces such as locker rooms and domestic violence shelters. Both of these charges stem from the fact that we view people with penises as male and define female and male on mostly biological grounds instead on the basis of culture specific gender stereotypes and/or an individual’s claims to somehow “feel” as if they are a particular sex.

      Liked by 1 person

      • TY for your reply, freenampe.

        Yes, I understand this, though thank you for stating/ grouping it in an exceptionally clear way. Are you a professional writer or tech writer? 🙂

        It is a great framework, but still leaves me with needing a good, brief comeback/ argument to respond with regarding *why* women are oppressed by MtT, and not vice versa.

        He (and transactivists in general) do not share our view that MtT are socialized into and retain male privilege, or that the very fact of their claiming to be women – let alone that claim being accepted as true – is an example of their male privilege.

        How does one argue effectively that MtTs are the oppressors of women, not vice versa?

        I went into the my whole explanation of being socialized into male privilege from birth, onward, with him, to no avail, and the second person, (in a different conversation) a lesbian libfem, said, “You’re being exclusionary!” And turned on her heel before I could give my (lengthy to explain) reply about male socialization.

        My Jim Crow question is a succinct reply, but it’s really only stalling for time.

        Do you or anyone have any suggestions for pithy comebacks that nail this argument, please? The accusation of “exclusionary” came at me 3x in one week, so I think it’s gaining traction, and we need to be able to respond effectively and briefly, particularly since most trans supporters freak out and shut down conversation fast when they realize they’re talking to someone who can debunk their arguments and beliefs. Thanks again 🙂

        One device I’ve learned to use is to say, “Yes, that’s what ______group wants us to believe, isn’t it. But…”


      • I wish I could say that I have found successful replies in this situation. A little bit of rationality and sane argument can work wonders on people who are just going along with what they have heard, but have never actually thought about it. Most people know little about the trans situation and they certainly are unaware of the sterilization of children and the amputation of sex organs of children and this will just snap some people out of their complacency. However, the true believers are another story. They have a cult-like faith in every aspect of the trans narrative, no matter how incoherent. They cannot afford to concede any points because then the whole house of cards would fall down. This is especially true, I have found, of parents who have transitioned or are transitioning their children. They have a lot at stake because if they were to acknowledge that they have sterilized their child and amputated his penis based on very faulty information and that he most likely would have been just fine, how could they forgive themselves? I do point out to true believers that our differences are based on differences in ideology and disagreement about the facts. I offer to study the facts with them (for instance the suicide statistics or the many reports of trans women attacking girls and women) and also discuss why I reject a world view in which material reality plays no role. I hope to plant a seed that will maybe grow at a later time and I try always to be calm and respectful and let them to the screaming and insulting.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Superb! I never saw that aspect of it, but that is exactly it. I always think about what racial segregation was actually FOR. To harass and humiliate people, to keep them permanently economically vulnerable. But your thing is way better! 👍🏼

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s