Men’s Rights Redditors agree: it’s tough to be a man. Well, a cis man, in any case. And those silly trans people are making it worse.
On the Men’s Rights subreddit, one concerned fellow has discovered a possibly insurmountable obstacle standing in the way of true gender equality: A “Women’s Room” at the University of Queensland that, as a sign on its door notes, is open to “trans*, intersex and genderqueer people as well as cis-females.” The horror!
The title of his post: It’s hard to call for equality between genders when stuff like this is so openly accepted by places like Universities.
Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, his post received more than a thousand upvotes, and inspired more than 300 comments. This will give you some of the flavor of the discussion:
The lovely DavidByron2 — one of the subreddit’s most, er, colorful commenters — gets nearly 300 upvotes for suggesting that the poor beleaguered cis man who posted the picture should sue the school for sexual harassment. Naturally, this brilliant legal mind doesn’t actually know what cis means; he thinks it means “straight.”
Elsewhere in the comments, one fellow suggests that a cis man should make a point of going into the room and telling anyone who wants him to leave that they’re not allowed to discriminate against their gender identity.
Naturally, others are enthusiastic about this idea.
Yes, that’s right: the person suggesting that it might not be such a good idea to put on an elf costume and crash a room intended as a “safer space” for women, trans, intersex and genderqueer folks is the one that’s voted down — though even he thinks that invading the safer space would be just peachy.
Yet another commenter tells someone who identifies as a “gender fluid male,” that he “should go and see a doctor if your genitals are leaking fluid.” The jokester gets upvotes; the gender fluid male, who says he goes to UQ and that he “understands why [the room] exists,” gets downvoted below zero.
And Men’s Rights activists wonder why so many people think of their little movement as a hate movement.
H/T — r/againstmensrights
Is it wrong? There are more than enough people who need therapy upon leaving mainstream Christianity. Gay folks have it particularly bad, but, for anyone, going from a religion that gives you a gift-wrapped purpose in life to having to find your own meaning can be traumatic. People sometimes need therapy upon leaving Islam. If we condemn a religion based on people sometimes needing therapy upon leaving it, a lot of big religions are in trouble.
Additionally, there are hundreds or thousands of variations on Christianity. It may seem like there is a bright line here, but there isn’t. What do you do about sects that fall halfway between liberal Christianity and the Duggar version? What about those that go three-quarters of the way? Once the state begins to decide what is acceptable religious dogma and what isn’t, you open the door for some truly hideous state involvement in people’s personal lives.
Making this about religion is something of a red herring. The state generally draws the line at documented abuse, of people or of animals, regardless of whether it is done in the name of religion or not, but it has to fall within the usual areas that the state prosecutes. Saying abuse is great is not something the state cares about, and trying to make the state care about it in the case of religion, when it doesn’t care when religion is not involved, is not only hopeless, it’s a distortion of the problem.
The state is usually not interested in emotional abuse, for instance. It is unusual for the state to care about emotional abuse of even children, and the only involvement typically comes when a separating couple goes before a court to decide custody. It would be bizarre for the state to get all up in someone’s religion to determine of emotional abuse is taking place because they belong to a particular sect, and not give a rat’s ass about some other situation because the family belongs to a different sect.
It is utterly wrong if it hurts people. I know that it’s not just the religion, but the way people interpret and teach it. I know what one Protestant church says somewhere is not the same as a Protestant church says elsewhere.
Maybe instead of religion as a whole, we should evaluate how each church/mosque/temple practices? Do they preach hate speech? Do they cover up abuse? Have the followers of this church been perpetrating crimes against certain people? If so, maybe that is something to investigate.
People will likely think of it as attack on the whole religion (coffFoxNewscoff), but it’s not, just confronting the people that are abusing people through religion. Certainly that would be manageable and reasonable response, right?
Thanks for having my back. As a secular homeschooler I can’t handle these sorts of threads anymore. This one hasn’t gotten bad, but I’m out just in case.
Again you have both a moral and a Constitutional issue of singling out specific groups for enforcement and not making enforcement uniform. It’s not like these problems are limited to religions. Terrible people exist everywhere, in every group. Additionally, because religion is privileged for Constitutional protection, by singling out religion for extra scrutiny, you’re going the wrong direction from a Constitutional standpoint.
Actually facilitating abuse is not legal, but most of the prosecution against those who cover up abuse is civil in nature, not criminal. You can get the abusers themselves criminally (sometimes), but the organization that covered it up can usually only be prosecuted in civil court, not criminal court. There are evidential and procedural reasons for this.
So you’re talking about something that has practical problems, Constitutional problems, and moral problems. It’s not feasible.
…aaand THIS is why cis males ARE the only gender group we dont want in ouf safe spaces. This is why.
word press has horrible comment configuration…