Is Everyone Scared of Men?

While not incorrect, I feel it’d be a vague description of the ongoing transgender-people-and-bathrooms argument (which has seemingly reached capitol hill) if I were to place transgender people at the center. Nor do I think it’s descriptive enough to describe transgender women as the center and cause for so much debate and controversy. Truthfully, at the heart of this matter is men. At the very least, that is what those opposed to bathroom usage based on gender identity leave to be gathered. To our luck, this is one of few modern controversies not shrouded in dog whistles, double speak, or vague adjectives like “woke.” Those opposed have laid out their greatest fear and have made sure to repeat it: “Men in women’s bathrooms.”

Suiting up for this transvestigation

Someone or something must always be protected from an “other.” Though, in this case, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such a generic, catch-all “other”. We must simply protect women and girls from men and boys. It lacks the specificity of the sanctity of marriage, which had to be protected from homosexuals. It’s missing the easily defined old that is to be safeguarded from the just as easily defined new, such as segregation and white supremacy from desegregation and equality. Put simply, it’s weak.

Those against hinge their opposition on the ever present possibility of sexual assault, in many cases, making sure to specifically mention rape, should we allow transgender woman to use women’s bathrooms, spinning two tales.

1. The chivalric rapist, who, despite his intentions, recognizes that a women's bathroom is a no-go. Rather, he will wait outside the frequently unlocked door, assuming there even is one, before unleashing his assault. He respects boundaries (as long as they're not bodily).

   
   

2. A man, so sexually deranged, that he'd buy woman's clothing, spend over a thousand a year on estrogen injections, and possibly thousands more on feminization surgery, for ease of access to women for the purpose of sexual assault.

These outlandish tales aside, how funny is it that transgender women, having ceased being men, are still perceived as inherently threatening and posing ill will? A unique strain of misandry thrives in this very intersection between the two, but many who claim to care for the shortcomings of society towards men would never look here, much less accept its existence. To do so would call into question other perceptions of masculinity, and femininity by extension, that require men to be perpetually sex starved beasts.

Strangely enough, transgender men, if they even exists given how rarely they’re mentioned in regard to this debate, don’t draw nearly the same amount of ire as their counterparts. Even stranger, were the idea of bathroom usage based on sex to win out over the other, this would mean transgender men would be relegated to using the women’s bathroom. One who formerly presented as a woman, but now presents as a man and is indistinguishable from a man, would be forced to use a women’s bathroom. Perhaps the proponents of this belief haven’t considered this outcome, to do so would put a crack in it. Or, perhaps they have, privately, but to do so publicly would invite isolation from those around them. Nevertheless, it reveals an interesting dichotomy: where a man who transitions into a woman should no longer be perceived as a threat, the perception of a threatening man persists. Where a woman who transitions into a man should be a new threat, they largely go ignored. Even more, we don’t assume an ulterior motive of transgender men. There’s no tale of the sexually deranged women, so hell bent on ogling and fondling the penises of unsuspecting men and boys that she’d spend the thousands of dollars necessary to transition into a man. The very notion would be ridiculous, just as ridiculous as the suspected ulterior motives of transgender women.

Leave them at the door please

It's similar in nature to the ire reserved specifically for gay men as it concerns child adoption. They can’t adopt a boy, being homosexual, that invites the possibility of them forming a pedophilic attraction to them and the potentiality of sexual abuse. However, they could not possibly adopt a girl either, being men, they could become attracted to her also, again risking the potential of sexual abuse. It asserts that men, left to their own devices, will develop an uncontrollable urge, pushing them to commit sexual assault if it'll sate their sexual appetites. "Boys will be boys." Really, it's an idea that prime us to accept such moral failings among our male peers, while also preparing us to dismiss the potentiality of those same male peers falling victim to to those very same acts. Such a belief closes the blinds on the many stories of the presumably heterosexual male authority figures sexually assaulting those under them. Even worse, it threatens to mythologize the female authority figures who do the exact same.

Though, I’d hesitate to call this a presumption of innocence of transgender men. That implies this crowd views them in a positive light at best and a neutral light at worse, but given the slew of anti-trans legislation put forth and passed in Republican led states, I think we all know this to not be true. Rather, the vision of the docile, loving, mother-to-be, and threatless woman is so powerful it transverses (pun intended) gender. It overrides sex reassignment. Of course, those opposed to bathroom usage based on gender see transgender people as an invalid. They don’t believe one’s mind could be at odds with their body, much less that they would want to change it.

In many cases, from a glance, it can be nearly impossible to tell who’s transgender and who’s not. In the case of Representative-Elect Sarah McBride, she was openly transgender. Had she never decided to disclose that information, would the controversy surrounding her election even exist? Bringing me to my next point, how would this be enforced within the context of law? Try your hand at picking apart the differences.

One of these muscle bound men is transgender, but stripped of their names, can you tell which?

Okay, less muscles, what about these three?

And which of these two women?

Assuming you didn’t cheat or you’re not chronically online enough to know all of these people, guessing who is what isn’t that easy, isn’t it? Would we require everyone to have their genitals inspected prior to bathroom usage? Would we require one’s transition to be easily accessible information and loosen the laws protecting everyone's health information?

Many who view transgender people as illegitimate would swear on the lives of their mothers over their ability to differentiate transgender women from biological women. Really, it amounts to nothing more than an obsessive guessing game, which devolves into a depressive witch hunt of dead ends and racist undertones. Just 5 months ago during the 2024 Paris Olympics, we witnessed them put their abilities to the test with the Algerian Olympic boxer Imane Khelif.

An amateur female boxer of modest success, Khelif was rocketed into notoriety after a bout of 46 seconds with Italian competitor Angela Carini, which ended in the Italian breaking into tears and later claiming she’d never been hit so hard, saying “I’ve never felt a punch like this.” Then Imane was suddenly transgender, and the media erupted.

Notable figures like former, though now President-Elect, US President Donald Trump, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, ESPN sports analyst Pat McAfee, Logan and Jake Paul, sibling YouTubers with a combined audience of 44.5 million subscribers, all took time to comment on how men should keep out of women’s sports and the occasional offering of condolences to Angela Carini, if she was even mentioned by name. Really, she was merely a vessel through which they could express views they'd already held and had likely expressed prior through another vessel. It was never about protecting women from men, but merely finding a window, to spew bigotry, and its why they will forego research before making such claims. To do so would risk the window closing, forfeiting the chance to rile up bigots and the good natured, who’re merely uninformed, but are likely to repeat what they heard, along with the chance to milk out 5 minutes of fame. Had they done so, they would’ve known Khelif had competed prior, with no controversy, in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, only to be beat by Ireland’s Kelly Harrington in the quarterfinals.

Likewise, the disproving of such claims, as this one was, doesn’t matter because it often occurs after they’ve gotten what they want. This new information is unlikely to reach the same number of ears since most have likely already turned their attention to the next hot topic. Some who still hold this belief hinge it on an unspecified gender eligibility test administered in 2023 by the International Boxing Association, a group that’s been unrecognized by the International Olympic Committee since 2023 due to a failure to complete reforms on governance, finance, and ethical issues. This is in addition to leaked alleged medical documents a handful of news sites have reported on, but have, conveniently, yet to release copies of.

As a reminder, this wave of backlash was based solely on speculation. There weren’t nearly enough threads to form a worthwhile investigation and an eventual verdict. Though, from the two they had, being Khelif’s features and an unspecified gender test from an unrecognized organization, a story was spun of a man beating up an unsuspecting woman. When you make it that simple, only a misogynist would think to ask questions. The true lovers of women would immediately jump to her defense.

In some ways, this reminds me of a high-profile rape accusation. This is not to say that being accused of being transgender is within the same realm of being accused of rape, but that the nature of the backlash that ensues against the one being accused is similar. Though they’re carried out by different sides of the political spectrum, in our haste to prove our love of women and be branded as protectors, even if only for internet notoriety, we prime ourselves to go into attack mode. If we were to wait until a story has been fully pieced together, we’d lose our chance to display our allegiance. In recent years, this has evolved into a mindset of believing the accuser first, and letting the story develop second. This is easy to do when the accused is someone we’ve already been primed to dislike, or falls within the context of something we’ve been told to accept as truth. So what happens when the disliked is the accuser, or them merely being an accuser goes against a perceived truth? Emotionally, mentally, and at times financially, the falsely accused go ruined and the unideal victims go unheard. In the end, women are no safer, and the hand over the mouths of male victims reaffirms its grip.