The lack of focus on material conditions really makes every problem insurmountable. The arguments around many issues become circular, dense, jargon-filled morasses that I suspect few, if any, of the proponents can actually understand. People can't coherently argue for the ideas. The only possible victory is to bludg…
The lack of focus on material conditions really makes every problem insurmountable. The arguments around many issues become circular, dense, jargon-filled morasses that I suspect few, if any, of the proponents can actually understand. People can't coherently argue for the ideas. The only possible victory is to bludgeon your opponent into compliance or shame them into silence.
It's particularly frustrating because addressing material conditions could actually address issues, as you point out.
For instance, one could consider the gender and restrooms issue. There is an extremely straight forward material solution for this: get rid of group restrooms.
In the United States, the requirements for restrooms are the purview of the government. For businesses, OSHA dictates the number of toilets required per employee by sex. Employers can choose to meet this requirement in one of two ways: they can build gendered group toilet facilities or they can build individual bathrooms with lockable doors to be occupied by a single employee at a time. Public restrooms in restaurants, retail establishments, and the like are dictated similarly by state or local governments.
Because businesses are given the option to build group toilet facilities with cheap, ineffective partitions, doors that only sort of lock, and to install cheaper urinals instead of a portion of the required toilets for men, many businesses will take that route. If you have a chance to travel or visit many different businesses, though, you'll note: this is never the choice made for executive bathrooms. Many upscale restaurants will also opt for individually locking restrooms. The comfort, privacy, and safety of the people in those locations is too important. It's just not important for anyone else.
Every politician weighing in on the issue of bathrooms in any manner has a solution at their disposal: they could work to strike the language from regulations which allows group toilet facilities. This would make everyone safer overall and offer more comfort and privacy. It would also offer parity in wait times to use toilets, since all toilets are open to everyone.
Not to mention it's not just good for trans people, but for situations like 1. a father out with his young daughter or mother out with her young son, where the kids shouldn't be using a public group bathroom unsupervised, 2. a son out with his Alzheimer's mother, or daughter out with her Alzheimer's father (or name relation here) who, again, shouldn't be using a public group bathroom unsupervised. This would benefit a lot of people.
Plus I really hate public group bathrooms anyway because a lot of them are gross; it's easier to maintain an individual restroom. ;D
This is a great essay.
The lack of focus on material conditions really makes every problem insurmountable. The arguments around many issues become circular, dense, jargon-filled morasses that I suspect few, if any, of the proponents can actually understand. People can't coherently argue for the ideas. The only possible victory is to bludgeon your opponent into compliance or shame them into silence.
It's particularly frustrating because addressing material conditions could actually address issues, as you point out.
For instance, one could consider the gender and restrooms issue. There is an extremely straight forward material solution for this: get rid of group restrooms.
In the United States, the requirements for restrooms are the purview of the government. For businesses, OSHA dictates the number of toilets required per employee by sex. Employers can choose to meet this requirement in one of two ways: they can build gendered group toilet facilities or they can build individual bathrooms with lockable doors to be occupied by a single employee at a time. Public restrooms in restaurants, retail establishments, and the like are dictated similarly by state or local governments.
Because businesses are given the option to build group toilet facilities with cheap, ineffective partitions, doors that only sort of lock, and to install cheaper urinals instead of a portion of the required toilets for men, many businesses will take that route. If you have a chance to travel or visit many different businesses, though, you'll note: this is never the choice made for executive bathrooms. Many upscale restaurants will also opt for individually locking restrooms. The comfort, privacy, and safety of the people in those locations is too important. It's just not important for anyone else.
Every politician weighing in on the issue of bathrooms in any manner has a solution at their disposal: they could work to strike the language from regulations which allows group toilet facilities. This would make everyone safer overall and offer more comfort and privacy. It would also offer parity in wait times to use toilets, since all toilets are open to everyone.
I also prefer this solution.
Not to mention it's not just good for trans people, but for situations like 1. a father out with his young daughter or mother out with her young son, where the kids shouldn't be using a public group bathroom unsupervised, 2. a son out with his Alzheimer's mother, or daughter out with her Alzheimer's father (or name relation here) who, again, shouldn't be using a public group bathroom unsupervised. This would benefit a lot of people.
Plus I really hate public group bathrooms anyway because a lot of them are gross; it's easier to maintain an individual restroom. ;D