Trans Women are not Women

[d4m10n]

This is a very longstanding and deep-seated taboo that's being cast aside here, with essentially no debate, and in particular with one side of the debate, the one which wants to defend the status quo, being vilified and scolded and told their point of view isn't even going to get a hearing.

I remember people saying substantially this same thing back when we went through the awful trauma of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the (U.S.) armed forces.

Not sure why being either status quo or taboo counts as an argument, in any case.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not sure why being either status quo or taboo counts as an argument, in any case.

That's a fair observation. "It has always been that way" is a lousy argument. On the other hand, "It has always been that way." seems to me like a good reason to at least consider the possibility that it ought to continue being that way. At the very least it means you are messing with something that hasn't been messed with in a long time, and caution is advised.

At any rate, the long standing taboo Rolfe was talking about had to do with opposite sex nudity around strangers. As part of the transgender accommodation debate, I have frequently seen people suggest that we should totally change the way we build locker rooms or public toilets. Some say that we should eliminate gender segregation. Others say we should replace common changing rooms with individual, private, changing rooms.


The ones who say the first (eliminate segregation) are a very small minority, and that position would be far more sweeping than anything having to do with transgender issues. It's really not even a suggestion that is on the table as a serious proposal, so it's not worth discussing except as an abstract concept.


The reconfiguration of public spaces to allow individual, private, spaces is a serious proposal, and I haven't seen anyone oppose it in principle. It is simply a matter of economics. I doubt that there are very many people who would be terribly upset if they never had to take their clothes off at the health club or in the high school locker room, but whoever pays the bills to accommodate their privacy might have an objection. If anyone wants to say that that is the solution to the privacy problems of the modern world, I will not dispute it, but I think there's an obligation to address the very real costs associated with such a plan. Is it worth it? To answer that you have to have at least a crude estimate of the cost. The fact that there are zillions of private health clubs in America, and only the very expensive ones have privacy in locker rooms suggests to me that people are not willing to pay for the privacy if they are using their own money.


So, almost no one actually wants the elimination of segregated spaces for men and women, and almost no one wants to pay the cost for individual private spaces. We're back where we started. We have facilities segregated for men and women. The real debate is how to decide who goes into which facility.

 

[Arcade22]

Why is anyone who demonstrably has an SRY gene and significant androgen sensitivity taken seriously when he says feels like a woman? What makes that any different?

The same reason it's more than reasonable to conclude that a person of African descent who was born up in and grew up in Sweden, speaks perfect Swedish and is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from any Swede is in fact Swedish. To refuse to acknowledge this just because they happen to have African descent means that one is nothing short of a racist scumbag.

I don't need to measure the shape of someones skull or analyze their mitochondrial DNA to determine someones "Swedishness" because that's something that exists, for a lack of a better term, in the spirit of their being. They exhibit the qualities of someone who is "Swedish".

So what make your insistence on restricting "women" only to "biological females" any different from the racist's out there? I'm just guessing but there's probably not much difference.

 

[d4m10n]

The ones who say the first (eliminate segregation) are a very small minority, and that position would be far more sweeping than anything having to do with transgender issues. It's really not even a suggestion that is on the table as a serious proposal, so it's not worth discussing except as an abstract concept.

We were segregating by both race and sex only two generations ago here in the American South, and only a very small minority of people were willing to ask whether the status quo could be justified from first principles.

It seems to me that (as skeptics) we have to take this small minority seriously unless we can come up with an argument in favor of segregation by sex which is grounded in something more than tradition and taboo. What's yours?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a fair observation. "It has always been that way" is a lousy argument. On the other hand, "It has always been that way." seems to me like a good reason to at least consider the possibility that it ought to continue being that way. At the very least it means you are messing with something that hasn't been messed with in a long time, and caution is advised.

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

“This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”​

- G.K. Chesterton

 

[Meadmaker]

We were segregating by both race and sex only two generations ago here in the American South, and only a very small minority of people were willing to ask whether the status quo could be justified from first principles.

It seems to me that (as skeptics) we have to take this small minority seriously unless we can come up with an argument in favor of segregation by sex which is grounded in something more than tradition and taboo. What's yours?

Before I answer, I want to discuss something that came up briefly before. I'll explain the connection later. The thing I want to bring up is perverts who want to get into women's locker rooms.

Here's the thing. They aren't perverts. Guys who would like to see inside the girls' locker room are normal. We like seeing women naked.

Now, most of us have empathy, and we know that the women we would be watching don't actually want to be watched, and so out of respect for their feelings, we don't go in there and we don't peep. Sure, we would like to, but it's really a mean thing to do, and we're decent at heart, so we don't do it. For a few of us who lack that empathy, we know there are some combinations of laws and policies that could be used against us if we did go out of our way to sneak a peep. Even if there are no laws in whatever circumstances might exist, we know some of the women carry weapons, and others have boyfriends or husbands, and the consequences are enough to deter the ones where basic empathy is not enough to keep their eyes where they belong. The only ones left, the ones who would actually invade that privacy, either physically, or by peeping, or by hidden cameras, are people with no empathy and no self control, and those people are really creepy.

In other words, it's really creepy to peep, but it isn't perverted. There's a difference.


Now, back to your question. I don't have an answer or even an argument about why places we take our clothes off ought to be segregated. I can't say whether it is societally imposed, or is perfectly natural. I suspect, though, that it is natural, and it is related to an enhanced feeling of vulnerability created by the fact that people really are more vulnerable without clothes. There's also an awkwardness that occurs any time sexuality is introduced into any situation, especially if it is introduced by one party and not by the other, and that would happen more if we spent more time naked around the opposite sex. As noted above, men like to see women naked, and women know that men like to see women naked, and if we spent more time naked around each other, things would be awkward. Would we get used to it, and get over that awkwardness, and all be better off for having shed an irrational inhibition? It's possible. If ever a movement springs up to eliminate sex segregated showers, I won't be one of the protestors carrying signs against it. I think I might like the result. However, the ladies know that I might like the result, and that knowledge does not make them enthusiastic about the possibility.

So, we're kind of stuck with what we have, and it's only peripheral to the thread topic.

ETA: Also, what G. K. Chesterton said, quoted by Ziggurat.

 

[Ziggurat]

So what make your insistence on restricting "women" only to "biological females" any different from the racist's out there? I'm just guessing but there's probably not much difference.

There's a giant difference. Race and sex are not equivalent. There are major fundamental differences between sexes, differences which absolutely dwarf the differences between races. You have to be indoctrinated into ignorance to not notice this.

 

[Meadmaker]

- G.K. Chesterton​

I love G.K Chesterton. Fantastic writer. He has been dead for 80 years now (I had to look that up) but his writing is mostly still relevant.​

 

[d4m10n]

So, we're kind of stuck with what we have, and it's only peripheral to the thread topic.

We aren't stuck, though. We have segregated facilities and we have to decide whether to continue segregating them. In some cases (e.g. lockable single occupancy rooms with just one toilet) it should be obvious that sex-segregation is creating unwarranted inefficiencies. Those rooms should be immediately redesignated as just plain bathrooms for the sake of queue times if nothing else.

In other cases (e.g. communal showers) we're faced with a significantly harder problem. What do we do when a transwoman has feminine breasts and male genitals? No matter which shower she goes into, someone is going to see something they aren't used to seeing in there.

 

[The Atheist]

In other words, it's really creepy to peep, but it isn't perverted. There's a difference.

Sure, but it's definitely perverted to dress up as a woman solely to gain access to the changing rooms.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure, but it's definitely perverted to dress up as a woman solely to gain access to the changing rooms.

I'm not sure "perverted" is the right word. "Perverted" suggests some sort of abnormal sex drive. A guy who would dress as a woman in order to gain access to the changing rooms is showing an anti-social expression of a perfectly normal sex drive.

But, you might ask, what's the point?

The point is that women getting naked in the presence of men will experience a perfectly normal anxiety reaction because they will be aware that the men really are experiencing a sexual thrill by seeing them, when the women would really just rather go swimming. Remember that my discussion of men's desires was in response to a question about why we had segregated locker rooms, not specifically related to anything about transgender accommodations.

However, that perfectly normal anxiety would also be triggered by being in the presence of any male in a locker room. The fact that he is calling himself a woman would not put the ladies' minds at ease, and may indeed signal even greater danger.

 

[Rolfe]

Complete threadjack so I apologise

But the Lady Godiva riding naked thing has zero proof in historical documentation.

Just a legend that sounds nice

I actually know that. It's likely that the reference to."riding bare" in the legend refers to riding bareback, that is without a saddle. I was just invoking the cultural context.

 

[dann]

It's likely that the reference to."riding bare" in the legend refers to riding bareback, that is without a saddle.

Go ahead, ruin the story for us!
Next, you'll tell us there is no Santa Claus!

 

[dann]

In other cases (e.g. communal showers) we're faced with a significantly harder problem. What do we do when a transwoman has feminine breasts and male genitals? No matter which shower she goes into, someone is going to see something they aren't used to seeing in there.

Easily solved! There are already cubicles for the disabled, and my guess is that they're empty most of the time, so redefine them: Cubicles for whomever can't (or isn't allowed to) use the ordinary ones.

 

[dann]

In other words, it's really creepy to peep, but it isn't perverted. There's a difference.

No, there's no difference, sorry. Yes, men (at least those of us who're straight) like to watch naked women, but spying on them, be it in showers or through people's windows, is different from that:

Voyeurism is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature.
The term comes from the French voir which means "to see". A male voyeur is commonly labelled as "Peeping Tom" or a "Jags", a term which originates from the Lady Godiva legend. However, that term is usually applied to a male who observes somebody secretly and, generally, not in a public space.
Voyeurism (Wikipedia)

I don't have an answer or even an argument about why places we take our clothes off ought to be segregated. I can't say whether it is societally imposed, or is perfectly natural. I suspect, though, that it is natural, and it is related to an enhanced feeling of vulnerability created by the fact that people really are more vulnerable without clothes. There's also an awkwardness that occurs any time sexuality is introduced into any situation, especially if it is introduced by one party and not by the other, and that would happen more if we spent more time naked around the opposite sex. As noted above, men like to see women naked, and women know that men like to see women naked, and if we spent more time naked around each other, things would be awkward. Would we get used to it, and get over that awkwardness, and all be better off for having shed an irrational inhibition? It's possible.

No, there is nothing natural about it at all. An example from around here:

“To me, at least, being naked doesn’t mean anything”, Alexander says and guesses that the same is true for most Danes: “I think basically everyone has this relaxed attitude towards the body, in public rooms at least, because it serves a pragmatic purpose. We are not told to feel ashamed of our body.” Researchers have proven Alexander’s impression. When asking a group of university students from England and Denmark how they perceived their body, half of the Danes said they felt it was “just right”, but only one third of the English students answered the same. Danes seem to be more satisfied with their body image – a factor that comes with higher self-esteem.
Uncovered - Why nudity is not a taboo in Danish society (Jutland Station, March 13, 2018)

Scandinavians are unusually cool about nudity in certain well-defined situations. The Finnish sauna is a well-known example. Within Swedish families, nudity is also commonplace, while many other nations feel that allowing your kids to see you starkers is tantamount to sexual molestation.
Scandinavian Attitudes to Nudity (Science Blogs, March 14, 2017)

Even more so in Germany:

Nudism is traditionally popular in Germany, a country considered buttoned up and conservative compared with, let's say, Italy.
In Germany, nudism is known as Freikoerperkultur (FKK), Free Body Culture. When you travel there, you'll see that baring all is normal in saunas, swimming pools, the park and on the beach.
Summer in the parks of Berlin and Munich brings the chance of encountering a middle-aged, bronzed German wearing only a hat and the BILD-Zeitung, Germany's favorite tabloid.
Nudity in Germany: Here's the naked truth (CNN, March 9, 2018)

Nudity (or near-complete nudity) has traditionally been the social norm for both men and women in some hunter-gatherer cultures in warm climates and it is still common among many indigenous peoples.
History of nudity (Wikipedia)

By the way, the unnatural inhibition about nudity seems to be returning in my country among very young people.

 

[EHocking]

No, there's no difference, sorry. Yes, men (at least those of us who're straight) like to watch naked women, but spying on them, be it in showers or through people's windows, is different from that:

No, there is nothing natural about it at all. An example from around here:

Even more so in Germany:

By the way, the unnatural inhibition about nudity seems to be returning in my country among very young people.

Perhaps it is more about women body shaming each other?

Work had a new restaurant/gym complex built.
The individual shower positions in the women’s bathrooms were divided by smoked glass partitions. Very designer chic.

The women asked for them to be replaced because they could still see each other while showering.

The men’s showers had no partitions at all.
There were no complaints.

 

[Rolfe]

So what make your insistence on restricting "women" only to "biological females" any different from the racist's out there? I'm just guessing but there's probably not much difference.

Because the actual definition of "woman" is "adult biological female human being".

And yet, regarding race, if someone who is white Caucasian declares they identify as black, they don't get to access privileges reserved for people who are actually negro. As Rachael Dolezal discovered. Why not?

 

[Rolfe]

No, this has nothing to do with women bodyshaming each other, though it may be that women are somewhat more modest around other women than men are around other men, which could be a relevant point in this debate.

It's about people with an agenda unilaterally trying to change the basic definition of woman to include men, then scold and shame women who object to having their boundaries violated.

The Chesterton gate analogy is good. This is a gate that has been there millennia. In some cultures it's usually standing open, but by mutual consent. Trans (or men's) rights activists - often seems to be much the same thing - are unilaterally tearing the gate down against the protests of the group whom the gate benefits, and all their reasons are being dismissed in insulting terms while the wishes of those who will benefit from removing the gate are cherished and prioritised above all else.

Why is this?

 

[dann]

Perhaps it is more about women body shaming each other?

Maybe. Probably. Still not a natural thing.
Showers in public baths around here don't have partitions. I haven't been in the women's showers, but I've never heard it mentioned that they're any different from the men's.

 

[Belz...]

The same reason it's more than reasonable to conclude that a person of African descent who was born up in and grew up in Sweden, speaks perfect Swedish and is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from any Swede is in fact Swedish. To refuse to acknowledge this just because they happen to have African descent means that one is nothing short of a racist scumbag.

I don't need to measure the shape of someones skull or analyze their mitochondrial DNA to determine someones "Swedishness" because that's something that exists, for a lack of a better term, in the spirit of their being. They exhibit the qualities of someone who is "Swedish".

So what make your insistence on restricting "women" only to "biological females" any different from the racist's out there? I'm just guessing but there's probably not much difference.

How do you define "woman", then?