Democracy, Safety, and Justice Depends on Truth, Not Compelled Agreement

There is this social expectation that women and girls will accommodate, and accommodate, and accommodate. To infinity and beyond. But observe what happens when you simply ask males to stop rape, murdering, and abusing.

It amazes me that so many men from various walks of life are very comfortable with asserting that a man wants to be a woman; therefore, he is. Without a moment’s thought or concern for the personhood of female human beings and how that directly impacts us.

Women are still getting asked to do more, give more, and be more. Still can’t get that less dangerous world everyone needs, though.

This is amazing because it only works when it comes to opposing the rights and safety of women and girls. In most areas of life, a declaration alone does not establish eligibility.

You cannot simply declare yourself a licensed physician and begin practicing medicine. You cannot announce that you are a citizen of a particular tribal nation and require that nation to enroll you. You cannot claim to be 65 and automatically qualify for age-based benefits.

When I first started studying legal assisting about 25 years ago, one of the first things we learned is that we were going to learn a lot about the law, BUT IF we held ourselves out to be attorneys, we could face criminal charges. Doesn’t even matter if you have good intentions and are trying to help a “poor soul.” In fact, the American Bar Association approved school I attended didn’t refer to us as ‘paralegals’ because the public might get confused and think that we are some kind of lawyer. So, that degree is in ‘legal assisting.’ Says it right on there.

California, a politically liberal state, has one of the clearest laws restricting who may call themselves a paralegal.

Under California Business and Professions Code § 6452, a person cannot lawfully present themselves as a paralegal without meeting specified qualifications and working under appropriate attorney supervision.

I don’t think that Dr. Hill would appreciate me waking up one day and deciding that I feel like a Ph.D. and have for a long time. Life has been a lot. I’ve learned so much, though? And I distinctly remember him telling a story about an encounter that he had with Bill Cosby. Sounds like it didn’t go very well. (It’s actually a funny story when he tells it but both of them ended up offended by the other.)

As MLH tells it, during the interaction, he refers to Bill Cosby as “Dr. Cosby.” Bill Cosby refers to MLH as “Mr. Hill.”

I remember Dr. Hill saying, “And I’m a real doctor.” ….or something. I laughed; it was a humorous story. (meaning Dr. Hill earned his Ph.D. the traditional way.)

But women saying, “I’m a real woman,” is still viewed as bigotry.

There are very few places where people can make a claim about something without proof or meeting eligibility requirements.

There are exceptions, though. Religious belief, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and some aspects of personal identity often rely heavily on self-report. We generally don’t require people to prove their sincerely held beliefs.

The more difficult question arises when self-identification is used to determine eligibility for something that affects other people.

Gender identity is particularly contested in this respect because some laws and institutional policies recognize self-declared gender identity, while others use legal documentation, medical criteria, or sex-based classifications. And where women and girls are taking a lot of criticism is along a familiar fault line. “How dare we assert that something a man is doing directly impacts us? Who do we think we are, people or something?”

A person’s declaration about themselves does not automatically establish what other people must believe, what institutions must recognize, or which eligibility requirements should apply. Y’all understand that when you are talking about what impact Christian, Muslim, Catholic, or Buddhist people can have on your lives. Wars are still being fought over this premise.

So what is it about women‘s spaces, women‘s opportunities, women‘s spaces, and women’s rights that just makes everything ……open access and open door? At this point the doors have been taken off the hinges entirely, as if we don’t deserve doors.

What happens when changing the criteria affects the privacy, safety, or opportunities of people who already use a service?

If an institution ordinarily requires evidence before granting access to a protected category, what justifies waiving that requirement in a particular case, and who was consulted before the decision was made?

One of those reasons is that democracy depends on people having access to facts they can examine, question, and challenge. A democratic society cannot function on the principle that whoever makes the strongest declaration gets to determine reality for everybody else.

Think about why we have sworn testimony, public records, independent journalism, scientific standards, judicial review, and rules of evidence. Truth, facts and such….

These institutions are imperfect. Sometimes they fail terribly. But their purpose includes something essential: preventing authority, popularity, personal conviction, or political power from becoming substitutes for evidence.

And there is a connection to Survivors.

Women have spent generations fighting to have their accounts of violence taken seriously. They have been told that what they witnessed did not happen, that their memories were unreliable, or that powerful people knew better.

That history teaches us two things at once. We must not dismiss testimony simply because someone lacks power, and we must not place any person’s claims beyond reasonable examination.

Respecting someone’s dignity does not require abandoning the distinction between a personal belief, a factual claim, and an institutional rule.

There is also a distinction between protecting a person’s freedom to describe themselves and deciding how a legal category should operate. Democratic societies can protect individual expression while publicly debating eligibility standards, privacy protections, and the evidence needed for particular decisions.

Democracy does not require us to agree about everything. It requires us to preserve the freedom to ask what is true, examine the evidence, and challenge those who claim the authority to decide for everyone else.

And perhaps the harder question is this:

When an institution tells women that questioning a policy is itself “unacceptable,” is that institution inviting democratic participation, or asking for obedience?

A fair society should be able to explain its rules without demanding that the people affected surrender their judgment.

Truth is not the enemy of compassion. It is one of the things that makes justice possible. I want love for everyone. I think there needs to be so much more love in the world flowing in the direction of women and girls.

Note: I don’t endorse either of these two people, because I have never met them, I don’t follow them on social media and they don’t know me, but this was a really interesting conversation. Two smart people having a discussion about rights.

FREE COMMIT TO RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS FOR A WEEK PLR (Feel free to use for yourself, or your audience. Just rewrite and make it your own.)

~$ticles_A Week Of RAK Mini Challenge