The Root | TheRoot.com
Skip Navigation
Cancel

Jimi Izrael

Full Post
Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:48 PM

To Pee or Not To Pee

izraelj

My work-wife (and Sapphic Sista) Jasmyne Cannick is over in BET’s shop making it happen. She’s a great writer and sistren in the struggle (such that it is), if often misguided.

 

Case in point:

 

Her latest blog on BET is about Tanya White, a butch sister who got kicked out a women’s bathroom for looking to much like a man. White was “shocked and humiliated” that, even after someone vouched for her and she showed picture identification, she was escorted from the premises. She’s suing, naturally. This, not altogether different from the story of Khadijah Farmer, who was kicked out of a restaurant bathroom in NYC’s Greenwich Village for exactly the same reason: looking too much like a man. I wrote about this on my personal blog some time ago, but in light of current events, I need to revisit this, I think.

 

There are two things happening here: women are trying to live comfortably in their skin by adapting what we crudely call “butch drag,” and then, the broader society’s visceral reaction to same. Live and let live, right? I say, if you are a woman dressed as a man, getting kicked out of a woman’s bathrooms? Drinks are on you--mission accomplished. You prop up the façade or masculinity and manhood, you wear this masque for the world, and the world believes you, treating you as if you were a biological man. No tears: You won.

 

Who has time or inclination to “check your credentials?” You thought Homeland Security was invasive--who is going to check panties to see if bathroom patrons have the requisite naughty bits? Who gets that job?  Is your stomach churning yet? I don’t want to have to think about it. My guess is neither does hotel or restaurant management, not in an era of perverted cellphone videos and women getting assaulted in bathrooms. Thank God someone is being diligent.

 

Now, there is the piece about post-Stonewall shifting of hetero-normative paradigms—but life ain’t Gay Theory class, and the world isn’t necessarily the laboratory—people are not ready yet. That said, if you want to dance, you have to pay the piper. Those aren’t my rules. My Butch Sapphic Sistas have to either pee in the men’s room, hold it or be prepared to suffer the consequences of an uninformed, paranoid society not always willing to "check the neck." Sorry. On balance, I’d say, as far as people trying to start successful movements and broaden conversations, the ladies of Lesbos are winning.  So maybe the take-home lesson here is if you are a woman living life dressed as a man, you can’t cry like a girl when you are treated like a man. You gotta take it like a man. I know, I know. You want to live in a world where you have the option of behaving like a boy or a girl to universal acceptance.

 

Well. Ok. That’s fine by me.

 
Just make sure you have a restroom in that world of yours.

 

What's the solution to this problem? 

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: CptCallamity (June 12, 2008 at 12:14 PM)

There is no solution.  

I think they are getting their just deserts.  I don't have a problem with people and their lifestyles, it's their choice.  However, I do have a problem when individuals choose lifestyles that are controversial at best and then expect society to bend because "they are just doing themselves."  I've always wondered why there are some women that choose to be the dom in a women to woman relationship and liken themselves to 17 year old boys by the way they dress.  Big breasts and all, they will change their name to a more masculine sounding one, wear men's clothes and hairstyles, but then cry inequality and discrimination when they are mistaken for or treated like the very things they emulate.  The same goes for men, but brotha's usually don't play.  You are immediately cast off if you're a man in drag.  For women, it is slightly more acceptable and becoming quite prevalent, at least where I am.

I think they should own up to it.  You look-a-like-a-man, you act-a-like-a-man, then you'll be treated as such.  Take what comes along with it or recognize you are a woman and pee sitting down.  Deception shouldn't be acceptable.


Posted By: MEKHIA81 (June 12, 2008 at 1:12 PM)

HERE'S THE CURE-----UNISEX BATHROOMS!! LOL! No seriously I work in the HIV/STD Public Health field and this happens more often than you think. There are many time where I KNOW i have shared the bathroom with a BIOLOGICAL MAN that identified as a WOMAN but let me tell you what i did: USED THE BATHROOM, WASHED MY HANDS, AND LEFT!! That is what you go to the bathroom for! OMG what is the big deal for real!! I find it funny! I have personally used the guys bathroom when the ladies room line was  TOOOOO Long. I just had to be prepared to get in and get out FAST!! ( i also had a look out ...so that helped)  GEEZ It is just a bathroom!!


Posted By: sayWord (June 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM)

ITs not just a bathroom.  It can be quite the hazardous place as Jimi points out.  All types of shady characters come and go in public restrooms.  Would you risk having some rapist in the ladies room just to avoid hurting someone's feelings?

If you think you see a man going into a woman;s bathroom, you dont think you have a responsibility to alert someone?  I would not want my wife or daughter in a bathroom with a man.

Sorry ladies, if you want to look like a man you should expect to be treated like one.  

Yeah sure, once your credentials check out and private parts are examined, feel free to use the facilities.  But it is truly in the best interest of public safety to err on the side of caution.  If you dont like it, put on some lipstick.    Or a dress.   Or maybe some panties.


Posted By: miss lauren (June 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM)

Unisex bathrooms are the solution to the problem. plain and simple, no creds to check, just go pee.


Posted By: miss lauren (June 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM)

sayWord, all types do go into public bathrooms, most people are aware of this fact, thats why mothers go to the bathrooms with their children till they learn common sense and how to punch. I wouldn't care if a guy was in the stall next to me, unless you hang out in the bathroom, then its just a bathroom, most public bathrooms are nasty anyways to the go in-pee-wash hands-leave rule should always apply who cares if theres a transgendered person next to you, you should really be worried about them washing their hands, otherwise you could get sick from opening a door! germs are way more deadly


Posted By: CptCallamity (June 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM)

Okay, I've been to clubs where there are Unisex bathrooms.  No biggie really, but the reason I don't agree is because we are then changing an existing policy because someone decided to dress as something they aren't?

Cmon now...this is another case of the double standard that comes with feminism and gender equality.  So now we must make bathroom's unisex because "Tony or Andy (Andrea)" decide to dress up in their finest mens gear?  That's almost as hilarious as the whole Women are equal to men argument, yet women have the convenience on deciding whether or not they are ladies or a man's equal during romantic affairs or relationships.  Sorry, no sympathy here...

What's next?  Unisex shower's and lockers at Gold's Gym?  


Posted By: JrzGrl (June 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM)

Ok, I don't think either of these women had a problem with being stopped - just with being escorted off the premises. Presumably the picture id would allow them to drink, so it should certainly allow them to use the gender-appropriate bathroom. What many posters seem to be saying is that if a woman doesn't wear the signifiers of femininity she should be treated as a man. I know women who look like men and aren't making an effort to do so - they are often called sir if they're wearing slacks. (One of them is simply very slender and androgynous looking - you could easily have mistaken her for a 15-year-old boy before she grew her hair out.) Are you suggesting that those friends of mine need to start wearing jewelry and makeup so they don't get treated like men?

The hostility here seems to be directed at women who like to wear men's clothes - in particularly, lesbians who do so - and I find it a bit mind boggling. Gender theory aside, men's clothes are often more comfortable - I'm a straight woman, but I wear men's boots because they don't come with the spiked heel so common in female footwear. I wear jeans most of the time because I hate pantyhose. Not hard to see why some lesbians reject the traditional female wardrobe entirely.

But basically, many posters here seem to be saying that these women deserve to be judged by their appearances so they should just suck it up and deal. Wha-at?

The women in both cases are saying that they object to the matter not ending when they presented id verifying their gender - not that they object to being stopped. The public safety issue and all other questions should have been settled with the valid id.

It's not about lifestyle choices, unisex bathrooms or public safety - it's about freedom of the individual. We are not ruled by the Taliban - people should be able to dress how they please.


Posted By: isista24 (June 12, 2008 at 5:45 PM)

I think what's also missing here is an acknowledgement of the occasionally overt racism that exists in the LGBT community and the possibility that perhaps these bathrooms, which sound like they existed in more affluent areas, had women in there who saw not just someone who looked like a man, but a, BIG, BLACK man, always stereotyped as scary under any circumstances. It's a little too simple to say, "well, she looks like a man, what did she expect?" It also seems a little insensitive of you, as someone who is trying to show off his *** friendships, to suggest that it's her fault. Are you only friends with lipstick lesbians, perhaps? Gay women come in all packages. They don't all look like Portia de Rossi or Kerry Washington in "She Hate Me."


Posted By: isista24 (June 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM)

Also, I don't know why the e-moderator bleeped out the word L.E.S.B.I.A.N but left in the lipstick ***, weird.


Posted By: ladybee21 (June 12, 2008 at 11:46 PM)

Now you are attacking lesbians.  Great.  Maybe you should try writing a blog where you don't attack a woman or a girl.  Then, I might be able to think that you are not just an angry misogynist.  Just try, or at least explain why you have such little regard for women.


Posted By: izraelj (June 13, 2008 at 4:05 AM)

LadyBee, I have high regard for women. You don't know me well enough to decide what I think, and using 65 cent post-modern epithets like "misogynist" doesn't scare me or make me wince. So keep 'em. I think my job is to pose questions and let you figure things out. I hold everyone accountable: your sensitivities are honed to your group, but I don't let anyone off easy. There is no attack here. Sorry.

If you want to be treated as an peer, then step up and stand account, like I have to, without whining. If you are content to throw barbs at men (again, deserved or no) but hold yourself and your sistren on high like you walk the earth on rose petals, you're gonna need more people. You're gonna have  to take that mess to Essence. That type of myopic unreasoned misandry doesn't fly in the marketplace of reasonable thought. But it has flown for so long, we think it's unusual--ne' "anti-woman"--for a man to say "hey, wait a minute..." You can't just want equality to a point, Virginia Slim. Seriously.

If you--not you, personally, but you reader--are so mis-programmed as to only give critical weight to that which does not require any critical introspection, or critical analysis of your worldview? Then you shouldn't eff with The Iz. You should take your dollys and go home, where everyone loves you, and affirms you, and will never criticize you, or allow you to grow.

I doubt you are familiar with the breath of my commentary work. This said at the top, I think it has become the norm to offer up criticism of black men and boys and demand some accountability. Black women do it, black men do it, and white people do it. it's sport. What's different is to have a someone pose the rhetorical thesis that, if women demand equal treatment, women step up and be accountable. They are not exempt. That isn't "misogynist," which not-so-smart people think is synonymous with sexism, but is really dangerous term used to describe anyone who brokers in the rape and killing of women. Not you, but other not-so-smart people. Sometime, my work is sexist, yes. I am a man, I have a man's perspective. I won't apologize for that. The work you read in woman's magazines taking shots at men, whether deserved or no, is sexist as well. I don't take shots, so much a I demand accountability. It's easy to sit behind a clever pseudonym and lob insults at people you don't know. Harder, to state your opinion, sign your work and let the world burn, without apology.

Now. Runteldat.


Posted By: ladybee21 (June 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM)

Oh, but I do know a little bit about you. I am so glad that you admit that you are sexist.  Thanks for the comment, that is all I needed.

Best,

Ladybee21 (since you like my pseudonym)


Posted By: TripleJJJ (June 13, 2008 at 12:41 PM)

Apearance versus reality versus perception... The obvious answer is single serving Unisex bathrooms with a lock on the door. They're quite common. But this also opens the issue of personal responsibilty for creating a perception. If you dress like the oposite gender then you will be treated like the oposite gender. If you dress like a gangster cabs may not want to pick you up. if you tatoo a swastika to your forehead you may have trouble finding employment. People make choices and they should understand that their choices have consequences. I hope the woman? loses her law suit.


Posted By: anna (June 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM)

I wanna say something about unisex bathrooms here. And for full disclose yes I am transgender. Here's the deal, unisex bathrooms have what is called a "universal application" there are times when disabled persons who cannot use the bathrooms without assistance from their differently gendered caregivers need to go in with the assistance of the caregiver, unisex facilities benefit them. There are fathers who need to take their daughters to the bathrooms and mothers who need to take thier daughters, unisex bathrooms benefit them. There is also the issue of extraordinary lines for the womens bathrooms while men breeze in and out of their facilities with relative ease, unisex bathrooms with stalls, eliminates this issue. In many states the the subject of the article would have been arrested if she attempted to go to the men's room as many have suggested here, so we need to to change these arcane laws and ordinances as well.


Posted By: JrzGrl (June 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM)

But TripleJJJ, that raises the question of why we should treat genders differently. I don't think we should. And once she showed a valid id, the issue should have been moot. Instead they chose to throw her out of the venue - either because they were offended that she didn't dress according to their definition of what's righ or because they didn't trust the id. Either way, that's wrong.


Posted By: bylinediva (June 13, 2008 at 5:12 PM)

Jimi...

I'm only familiar with your work on here, so maybe I'm missing something. But your answer to LadyBee proves you have some issues with women. I don't think I have the time to go through you entire, condescending post and point out the many thin-skinned, misogynistic things you wrote and in any case it appears that nothing that I -- the Essence reader playing with my dollies over here -- would have to say would change what is already a fixed position. I'd just like to ask if the Root is hiring, since I know many talented male writers who wouldn't have to use their voice or column to work out their problems with women. And if they did choose to do so, could do it with more respect and integrity than you've shown thus far in any of the columns I've read. And given that they are male, might in fact, actually either provide a thoughtful, informed, receptive male perspective since I think we might be able to agree that one is sorely lacking in the mainstream media and in cyberspace. Also, did you mean to say that a male perspective must necessarily mean sexist? Isn't that a little bit of a generalization? I mean, are you saying that all men are sexist? Sort of in the same way that you lumped all women into a certain group in your response to LadyBee?

By the way, in MY dictionary, which is apparently different from yours, misogyny is defined simply as  "one who hates women." Methinks you doth protest too much.


Posted By: izraelj (June 13, 2008 at 9:04 PM)

I think the discussion about misogyny vs. sexism is important. I don't know if this is the post for it. but I don't mind fleshing it out here.

Misogyny, pre-feminism, was a term most often applied to rapist and killers of women. Post-feminism, it became shorthand for men who believed women to be inferior, thus treated and talked of them badly. I never said I was a sexist, I said that I write from an unapologetically male perspective. Women with unapologetically female perspectives are expressing sexist views, except we like to call that particular kind of sexism "feminism." I think we presume pro-male to be anti-female, and we call that "sexism." Me? I don't, neccesarily. Here, and the post before this one, I bend over backwards to present the argument fairly. But I have a perspective, yes. Male, straight: Check. By definition, that perspective is sexist. Not Webster's, but more colloquially. I don't know that we have a term for the male perspective that doesn't paint that perspective as aggressive, anti-woman, or oppressive.

 

I, personally, prefer not to see my perspective as "sexist" or "misogynist," just as I do think (some) women's opinions of men make them Sapphic or feminist. They have a woman's perspective. They are women. >shrugs< And the world keeps spinning.

Telling for me that these forums polarize themselves across gender lines, suggesting that I may not be alone in my analysis, or my willingness to pose a reasoned question. Is it easier to pathologize black men as "misogynist" than give them a chance to present a reasoned argument, coupled with a query, plainly and honestly?  

I dunno.

I'm not willing to be drawn into a rhetorical argument about who you think I am. It's amusing, but it's a waste of time. I want to see if we can build a constructive forum here. I am willing to discuss some of the underlying issues raised by posters because they lend themselves to interesting dialog.

Whenever a man writes something where the primary subject (or target) is female, there is always an outcry, no matter, how good the argument. I wonder: Are we interpreting the mere criticism of women as "misogyny" or the tone? What "tone" would be better? Is my "tone"  or the tone of other men who write about this kind of stuff comparable to the way men are discussed by women (i.e. Essence magazine, the Cult of Oprah, et al)?  Is that fair? Do we think I am harsher on women that I write about than anyone else? In order to breech this subject and the subject before it (Lolita) and be intellectually honest, how should I have done it? Was there a way to pose this question without offending some?

It's gonna be hard for this not to devolve into "boys against the girls." But I'd like to ask that we refrain from name-calling and attacks. I can be attacked--that's fine--but don't attack each other.

Let's see if we can get somewhere.


Posted By: ladybee21 (June 14, 2008 at 12:11 PM)

Jimi,

I think that the problem with most of your posts and comments on women in your blog is that you seem to speak as if there is no history and no larger context.  Black women and girls are more than the sum of their parts.  Black men and women were at one time property and objects, and the residue of that history shapes the world we live in today. Black women were raped during slavery and Jim Crow with white men excusing their activity by saying that black women sought it out.  Black men were lynched for their supposed overwhelming desire to rape white women.  Our sexuality as black people today  is twisted by this legacy.  We should try to not perpetuate these ideas.

Right now, above the head of Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell is the phrase from your post "Can't trust a big butt and a smile" in reference to a child.  That child has clearly not been given the space or protection to grow up without being sexualized at a very young age. That is disturbing.  For you to quote BBD  (I liked BBD in high school, but I hope they were talking about adult women)and dismiss this child as a set of lude parts is just too much. . When I followed the link from your blog to the site where the news story was posted it was followed by hundreds of comments, the majority of which threatened this girl's life and safety over and over.  Yet your story is one of sympathy toward the grown man in his mid-twenties.  I am sorry that he can't recognize a child when he sees one.  But we all need to remember that she is a child, not some twisted Lolita fantasy, or a hoodrat--neighborhood vermin that need to be exterminated?--just a child just 8 years older than the rising kindergartener playing with blocks behind me right now. If she lacks good judgement, it is because she is just, what my grandmother would call, an ill-raised child.

My problem with these posts are not about you as a black man with some "pathology."  I don't think you are a stand in for anyone but yourself.  My life is full of heterosexual black men who are not sexist. Black men are like any other people, good and bad, funny and humorless, smart and dumb, beautiful and ugly, sometimes all in the same moment.  Living is not a competition, stop viewing black women and girls as the enemy and perhaps you will stop polarizing the readers.


Posted By: bylinediva (June 14, 2008 at 12:30 PM)

what ladybee said!!!!:-)

but let me add....you referred to yourself as a sexist and said that that was a male perspective quite clearly in your earlier post, so maybe you should re-read your own words.

I think what was truly upsetting about your column is that in it, you viewed a 13-year-old child as capable of making the decisions of a grown woman. As someone who has four teenage nieces, I can tell you with absolute certainty that that is not true. The idea of blaming a child for the seduction of an adult male is frankly sickening, although it's not an uncommon view. Any girl at that age who is acting out sexually is doing so as either a cry for help or attention or she has already been sexualized and probably in some coercive way. As someone who worked with eighth-grade girls, I can tell you that when I received essays that asked them for descriptions of their daily lives, I was stunned at the multiple stories of sexual harrassment by grown men.

If you notice I did not demonize the grown men who were jailed. The laws of the land punish statutory rape. If you want to debate that, then that's a different issue. I simply pointed out that we are doing a disservice to our sons, brothers and nephews if we have not taught them to discern a grown woman from a child. And  furthermore we have not evidently expressed that picking up strangers via MySpace is a bad idea. Where are the men in their lives that would provide them with some guidance? I realize the lack of viable male role models in our community is another topic, but this would seem to play a role here.

I think that had your tone been more receptive to the plight of both the underage girl instead of just the male "victims," it would have come across a lot less judgmental. Unfortunately, you are not the only person, male or female, who shares that view. But as you appear to be an intelligent, educated brother, the onus is on you to come to a more reasoned conclusion.


Posted By: miss lauren (June 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM)

anna and jrzgrl, thank goodness theres som reason here! She shouldn't have been kicked out of the club(?). and the unisex bathroom is a much better solution than the "family" bathroom offered for parents and caregivers because it takes away the labels, I truely agree with the mens clothing comment, I steal my fiance's sweats all the time, if I run out of pj's I'll even wear his boxers as pj shorts, is that wrong? he wears my socks if he can't find a clean pair of his own. I can always tell because mine have a pink seam (color coded I guess) at the toe. I don't see anything wrong with that, its all about comfort and neccessity


Posted By: izraelj (June 14, 2008 at 5:45 PM)

LadyBee

I really appreciate your thoughtful comments. To your point about history: I don't put too much stock in anything that absolves us of personal responsibility. So, no, I don't weigh history into my arguments or commentary. That's not my bag. I think the note about the blithe tone I took with such a serious, ugly subject is valuable (re "Lolita). As a survivor of sexual molestation (I've written about it quite a bit) I can agree that the sexual exploitation of children is not even a little funny. If my tone offended some, I can apologize for that.

This said, I take on the challenge, as a culture commentator, of trying to talk about ugly situations where there are no heroes, just losers. I wrote about Imus, the Duke Lacrosse Case, the Jena Six and other things the same exact way. It's hard,but it's fair. As a father, I'm sensitive not painting this young lady as a professional, but I think if we have no problem calling boys thugs and gangstas--and we shouldn't--then when we have to willing to call a spade a spade all day. I believe in equal rights, and that means everyone, when you are effing up, catches  a knock. I pick up on stuff where there are no clear winners or losers and try to pose questions to the readers to ask how we deal with these kinds of things. I avoid giving my answers, but I will give you my perspective. I am a man. That is my perspective. it will not change. Missy gives a woman's perspective, and the world keeps on spinning.

You guys aren't careful readers: I never said I was sexist. I said my work is sexist, as in, written from a male perspective, it may sound like I'm parcing language but that's not my intention. The dictionary is on your side "sexist" has a decided negative connotation, not unlike "racist." I think of a word like "sexist" just like the term "racist." There is nothing at all wrong with being either: nothing wrong with being proud to stand in your skin. I will be a man, whether you like it or not. My worldveiw is steeped deeply in my life as a Black Male. It is the only perspective I know for sure. But I think Webster's and most off the rest of the world sees being a sexist as synonymous with being an oppressor of the opposite sex. That, again, is not my bag.  I don't see my work that way. I'm an advocate for the honest male perspective, no more, no less. Make of that what you will. The truth? My work offends everyone at some point. >shrugs<

As to this subject, I don't see an attack here. I don't see any homophobia or judgment. I wouldn't even allow that in the comments. What I see here is an attempt to gain understanding of something I know very little about.

I encourage more feedback here.


Posted By: Fair&Balanced (June 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM)

Let me start by saying that I am a 22 year old Female (and a Rattler, Go FAM!)

Now, ladies, brace yourselves (or skip my post)- I'm about to defend Jimi (sort of).

To address the perceived 'tone' of Jimi's writings, I've read quite a few of his posts. I am the definition of an independent woman, and I have found nothing to be so incensed about in them. Jimi, you should have addressed the issue of Tanya and Khadijah being kicked out of their respective locales after they'd been properly vetted. But you didn't. Fine. But to my angry sisters, he wasn't writing a post on the unfairness of the situation. Using my best standardized-test-certified reading comprehension skills, Jimi was writing about women who work hard to be be perceived as male in a society that hasn't yet moved towards cupping restroom users by the crotch before they're allowed entrance- accordingly, if you decide to look like a man (or at least decide not to be feminine enough to pass muster in a dark restaurant), should you not be treated like a man? Yes, the restaurants took it too far. Sue for that? Sure, why not? But Jimi's post was about everything before the ladies were kicked out, namely the discomfiture of others and the credentialing that seems excessive. I cannot see how that was a misogynist observation. You dress as you want to be treated (according to my Southern grandmother), and as far as I see it, the ladies should be relieved [restroom pun!] that they so thoroughly accomplished the look they were going for.

As for the "Lolita" post, Jimi, the BBD line was tacky. That being said, he made a point that was only ugly in its truth. I hate to break it to you offended ladies (and I'm assuming that you are fine, genuine ladies who are unaware of the truth of my next point)- predatory young women and girls do exist. Should we talk about the grossness of a society that encourages this, of parents who don't monitor their children's internet usage, and of men looking to hook up with ANYONE met online? Most definitely. But again, I don't quite think that was the point of the post. The fact is, in my former school district, at my university, and pretty much anywhere else, there are girls who seek out the attention of older men. There are girls who look mature beyond their years, act with a sexual prowess you wouldn't believe, and do this all with gusto. I know of countless girls who have made false rape accusations because the alternative (being labeled promiscuous) was worse to them. As a woman, I am well-aware of the dangers of black femaledom. But as the youngest girl-cousin of 30 something young men (big family), I hate to break it to you sisters- some of us (since we are apparently identifying ourselves as a whole group, and not as individuals responsible for our own actions) are just plain conniving. That's the truth from the mouth of the sisterly-est of sisters. I dare you to call me anything else (it will only result in a bio-you don't want that).

And for the tone of Jimi's posts overall. Okay, so he sees himself as the Oprah of Black Men. Everything I've read of his is as he says- "pro-male", not so much as "anti-women". It's a stretch (but only slightly) to compare Jimi's writing tone to that of many pro-Black writers- in that being stauchly FOR a group does not by necessity make you against another group. And the only people who feel that this is the case are often people who see themselves as the polar opposite of whatever the represented group is. Since when are Black women the opposites of Black men? I always thought we were a supplementary set. The pea and the pod, if you will. Of course there are other Black male writers who could be more conciliatory, more genteel, more loving in the way that they approach this. But Jimi isn't. And just as we (Black women) have no qualms about raining disgust down upon the heads of the Black men who 'misbehave', we can't really take umbrage with a Black man doing the same to Black women in that same category. Just as the men we rail against in no way represent all of our brothers, and our disdain in no way represents a hatred of the whole lot, neither does Jimi's disdain for certain behaviors or inconsistencies in the judgment of genders definitively reflect his feelings towards all Black women. It's an ugly shoe, so if it doesn't fit....

I would apologize for the length, but the bickering really brought me down.


Posted By: cancan (June 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM)

I'm not comfortable with unisex bathrooms given the times of the month I've needed sisterly assistance and wouldn't have wanted to share my need with a man.

I do think that if you try to walk in the world like a man, you shouldn't be surprised to be treated like a man.  It's like when I wore mini-skirts back in my girlish days and was being ogled.  I had to deal with the consequences of going around half-clothed.


Posted By: 32ozredpop (June 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM)

Solution to the problem? Nothing as simple as unisex bathrooms, I'm afraid. I think the fact that these women were not allowed to use the bathroom after producing ID is discriminatory. They were being punished for refusing to dress like women, in the way that is traditionally conceptualized. I don't think that's right. And it's our society's attitude toward so-called alternative sexualities that needs to be addressed.

Unisex bathrooms would just gloss over the problem.

I'm like Jimi - I think it should be talked about.

I want to talk about it.

I think there's some conflation going on in this discussion, when posters are talking about these women and their "butch" dress. I have two *** friends who could be labeled "butch." Neither of them want to look like men per se. They want to signal to society that they are lesbians - plain and simple. The masculine dress is one of the clearest ways to convey that visually. Because as many of the commentators have noted, there are just as many straight women with short hair, that do not wear make-up or jewelry or dresses, as they are lesbians. These signals are ambiguous.

So dressing like a man as a *** doesn't necessarily equal wanting to be perceived as a man. Lesbians are women who are sexually attracted to other women. They may be but are not automatically suffering from gender identity disorder just because they want to sleep with members of their same sex. It's thoughtless heteronormativity that collapses wanting women into wanting to be a man this way. Mental laziness. Or transmutation of a behavior (not just the dressing like a man but the sleeping with same sex partners) that makes one uncomfortable into a belief that many exploit to justify discrimination against lesbians and gays.

It's not cool.

That said, these women should not have objected to being questioned when they attempted to enter a women's bathroom dressed as men. There is the matter of safety, and the other, more traditionally dressed women using these facilities should not have been put at risk to spare these women's feelings.

These women should not have had a problem showing their IDs, but then they should have been allowed to use the bathroom once authorities verified that they were women. A lot of the posters were throwing around this notion of  equal rights, but I don't think it's applicable. It's not these women's right to be identified as women while being dressed as men. Their physical gender is a biological, indisputable fact.

Kicking them out of the women's bathroom for dressing like men is tantamount to kicking a woman out of the bathroom because you don't like her dress or shoes or earrings. Authorities can't do that. So they shouldn't be allowed to do what Jimi described either.


Posted By: Aja Nicole (June 17, 2008 at 2:12 PM)

Honestly, I am amazed at how many people just say unisex bathrooms.  I don't care what you think of me I am not cool with the thought.  Beyond the thought of rapist, there are too many adults who can not handle that kind of responsibility of being in a bathroom with the opposite sex.  The reason clubs even have the unisex bathroom is because they know that creates thoughts of sex to some or most.  I don’t feel like being hit on in a bathroom, which in the unisex club bathrooms I have.  Not to mention that the bathroom would end up too perfect of a situation for too many sexually inclined trysts.  Of course not in every situation and building but honestly give me time and I can find people who have hooked up in every kind of building you can name.  I do not feel like handling that situation when I want to go to the bathroom.  Why do you think that gay men have an entire system for hooking up in public bathrooms?! Come on people.  Besides that ruins too much of sex beyond the bathroom: keep some thing private.  To the point the girls should not have been escorted out but they should get over other women freaking out if they are in the bathroom but look like a man!  Also about the racist thing I would call out a white man coming in the bathroom quicker than a black man.  They are too well known for “strange” tastes.  


Posted By: ERyd (June 17, 2008 at 3:19 PM)

Jimi,

Referring to your Lolita post, Melissa's retort, and what you have said here: "I never said I was a sexist, I said that I write from an unapologetically male perspective. Women with unapologetically female perspectives are expressing sexist views, except we like to call that particular kind of sexism "feminism." I think we presume pro-male to be anti-female, and we call that "sexism." Me? I don't, neccesarily."

The way I see it, sexism is a function of privilege and power, JUST LIKE RACISM. It is both silly and horrible when white people cry, "reverse racism," or whine, "if a white person said that about a black person it would be RACISM." Those arguments are null because the type of white people who make those arguments don't understand the definition of racism, in that it must come from a place of power.

I find it ridiculous that you consider sexism something different. Seems to me, someone who understands racism and blogs about it on a frequent basis should be able to write about sex in a similar way.

I understand you are coming from the perspective of a male, but that doesn't mean you can justify insensitivity and sexism because of it.

That being said, I find it great that you welcome debates/discussions like this and you are so willing to respond. Thank you!


Posted By: Rochelle (June 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM)

Young girls who haven't gone through puberty also have to use the bathroom, and some people, regardless of their sexual orientation, naturally look androgynous...So would you argue that these people should never use a public bathroom?


Posted By: hereincolorado (July 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM)

I am a single mom to an 8 year old boy. When he was younger I took him in the girls restroom for many reasons. One on the very top of my list was perverts. Now he insists on going to the mens room by himself. Weather we like it or not there are alot or not so nice people who use public bathrooms. It is scary enough for me to now let him go in alone. I do not want to have to worry about whom or what is in there with him.....IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE A MAN DON'T TRY TO BE ONE!!!