Trans Women are not Women

[Puppycow]

You think if I declared I identify as a man I could just go for a swim in the men's pond wearing nothing but a pair of swimming trunks? (Don't think this hasn't been tried.)

Well, if the reverse is true, then yes. You might have to get a certificate first.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48380940

 

[Puppycow]

Gendered attire is sexist and patriarchal.

Pretty soon the only people wearing "women's" clothing will transwomen.

The Future of Fashion

 

[Meadmaker]

I've decided to put at least some effort toward the Serano paper, which criticizes Blanchard's work having to do with autogynephilia. I haven't gotten very far yet, and I haven't gotten into the "meat" of the criticism, so I'll just give an initial impression.

The introduction sets up the critique, and I think this paragraph sets the stage:

However, pitting autogynephilia against an overly simplistic “feminine essence narrative” ignores a more nuanced view that I will refer to here as the gender variance model, which holds that gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and physical sex are largely separable traits that may tend to correlate in the general population but do not all necessarily align in the same direction within any given individual

So, there are three models to deal with, and these are especially relevant to men who express desire to transition later in life, and who are not exclusively attracted to men.


Blanchard's theory, autogynephilia, is that these are primarily heterosexual men who are aroused at the thought of being or becoming women. These people have a very high incidence of cross gender arousal, i.e. they get turned on by things associated with the opposite gender, such as transvestitism or imagining themselves as women.


The simplistic "feminine essence narrative" is the "woman trapped in man's body" narrative. These men behave in a feminine manner. It seems to me that this story has to be adopted by the trans rights activists who insist that transwomen are really women. Their "essence" is women. According to Blanchard, though, most people who fit this pattern, of having always behaved or appeared more feminine, wished to transition early in life and, significantly, were almost always attracted to men.



The final model, which the "gender variance model" preferred by the author says that there aren't any significant connections in any given individual between sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or sexual expression. As I read the paper, I'll have to be looking for some reason to believe that this is a "model" at all. Does it have any predictive or explanatory power? Also, this model asserts that sex and gender identity are distinct, but if there is no connection between the two, I will be looking for some reason that public showers ought to be segregated by gender identity instead of sex. They are two distinctly different things, in this model. Why is gender identity the one that matters, and why isn't there a "sex identity"?


Perhaps these things will be explained later as I read further.

 

[Meadmaker]

A thought occurred to me.

I have read papers that have dealt with brain scans of transpeople. The basic story is that men's brains and women's brains tend to have different patterns of activity, that you can make a good prediction of sex based solely on brain scans. (I do not know much of the science, and I hope that "brain scans" is the right term, but if not, please correct me.) The articles I have read (I haven't read papers, just articles) have said that transgender people's brain scans more closely match their chosen gender identity than their biological sex. The implication is that there really are "male brains" and "female brains", and that transpeople's brains tend not to match their biological sex.

Does anyone know if any paper with any finding that supports the male vs. female brain theory have taken into account the age of transition or the sexual orientation of the transperson? It seems to me that Blanchard's theory would predict that one group of transsexuals, the young, homosexual ones, (i.e. young, effeminate, men who are attracted to men) would have "female brains", but the autogynephiles, mostly older men who are attracted to women, would have mostly "male brains".

Does anyone know of any research which would support or refute that hypothesis?

 

[Lithrael]

Gendered attire is sexist and patriarchal.

Pretty soon the only people wearing "women's" clothing will transwomen.

They been predicting that one for a while. Since at least 1910.

 

[Puppycow]

A thought occurred to me.

I have read papers that have dealt with brain scans of transpeople. The basic story is that men's brains and women's brains tend to have different patterns of activity, that you can make a good prediction of sex based solely on brain scans. (I do not know much of the science, and I hope that "brain scans" is the right term, but if not, please correct me.) The articles I have read (I haven't read papers, just articles) have said that transgender people's brain scans more closely match their chosen gender identity than their biological sex. The implication is that there really are "male brains" and "female brains", and that transpeople's brains tend not to match their biological sex.

Does anyone know if any paper with any finding that supports the male vs. female brain theory have taken into account the age of transition or the sexual orientation of the transperson? It seems to me that Blanchard's theory would predict that one group of transsexuals, the young, homosexual ones, (i.e. young, effeminate, men who are attracted to men) would have "female brains", but the autogynephiles, mostly older men who are attracted to women, would have mostly "male brains".

Does anyone know of any research which would support or refute that hypothesis?

One study:
Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age

And a critique of the study:
Why We Don't Need Brain Scans to Confirm Trans People Are Actually Trans

(The main point of the critique seems to be that actually, there aren't meaningful differences between "male brains" and "female brains" in the first place.)

So an essential premise of Bakker’s work on trans brains — that there are distinct groups of “male brains” and “female brains” in cis people to which we can compare the brains of trans people — is flawed. Even more important, the interpretation that Bakker’s results are a victory for trans kids actually threatens to undermine the acceptance of trans people generally. We don’t need to validate trans identities via brain matter — we need to take trans people at their word when they express their genders.

Stop trying to prove it with science and just take people at their word, IOW.

Bakker suggests that her work should further the cause of trans acceptance because it shows that adolescent trans brains are similar to the brains of their cis peers of the same gender, regardless of assigned sex. But what of the converse? If Bakker had found that adolescent trans brains were more similar to cis brains of the same assigned sex, or different from either sex, then would the results have suggested that trans identities are less legitimate? If so, researchers in this field are gambling with trans lives. They are conducting research which, according to these interpretations, very well might challenge the validity of trans identities.

IOW, it's too important to risk leaving it to scientists to figure out.

 

[caveman1917]

I was referring to Rolfe's response as I generally don't spend much time on your posts.

Your dishonesty keeps showing, Rolfe didn't respond to your post. Indeed I was the only one who responded to it, showing the nonsensical nature of your argument and source. But you're right that you ignored that refutation and simply waited a bit of time before making the exact same argument again whilst handwaving my refutation away as:

I'll not that the response it received was a hand-wave about how you can't apply Blanchard's criteria to cis women because...well because.

And I don't generally spend much time on your posts either, exactly because I once tried arguing this in good faith with you only to find you don't have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty.

 

[Belz...]

You think if I declared I identify as a man I could just go for a swim in the men's pond wearing nothing but a pair of swimming trunks? (Don't think this hasn't been tried.)

Rolfe, do you think you could address my main point, at the very least, about considering the feelings of one group but not the other? I really think your strong reaction to it was unwarranted, and that it's an important point.

 

[Meadmaker]

One study:
Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age

And a critique of the study:
Why We Don't Need Brain Scans to Confirm Trans People Are Actually Trans

(The main point of the critique seems to be that actually, there aren't meaningful differences between "male brains" and "female brains" in the first place.)


Stop trying to prove it with science and just take people at their word, IOW.



IOW, it's too important to risk leaving it to scientists to figure out.

That critique is hilarious.

Looking at the paper, and the critique, and a couple of references from it, it does appear that the significance of brain scan findings may be overstated by some publications. In other words, the scientific papers report, "Study Suggests Statistically Significant Variation in Brain Activity Between Males and Females", and the popular press rendering of that is, "Scientists Prove Men and Women Have Different Brains!"

Meanwhile, the critique is, "We like science when it agrees with us." To be as fair as one could possibly be to the critique, the sources they cite do suggest that one should approach the research with caution, because the differences aren't all that dramatic, and they are based in some cases on small samples.

The interesting finding from Bakker's work, related to my question, is that she studied adolescent adolescent transgender brains. The findings would be what is expected by Blanchard's work. Now, the question would be what would happen if they studied brains of transgender people who didn't identify as transgender until later in life. Blanchard's work would suggest that these people should have "male brains".

 

[caveman1917]

That critique is hilarious.

Looking at the paper, and the critique, and a couple of references from it, it does appear that the significance of brain scan findings may be overstated by some publications. In other words, the scientific papers report, "Study Suggests Statistically Significant Variation in Brain Activity Between Males and Females", and the popular press rendering of that is, "Scientists Prove Men and Women Have Different Brains!"

Meanwhile, the critique is, "We like science when it agrees with us." To be as fair as one could possibly be to the critique, the sources they cite do suggest that one should approach the research with caution, because the differences aren't all that dramatic, and they are based in some cases on small samples.

The interesting finding from Bakker's work, related to my question, is that she studied adolescent adolescent transgender brains. The findings would be what is expected by Blanchard's work. Now, the question would be what would happen if they studied brains of transgender people who didn't identify as transgender until later in life. Blanchard's work would suggest that these people should have "male brains".

It's been known for a long time that the brains of homosexuals in some ways resemble those of the opposite sex, see for example here. Bakker's work hasn't been published so an exact critique is impossible, but for similar studies of transgender people's brains which have been done the findings exactly replicate those of homosexual people's brains (ie the same brain regions showing the same similarities with the opposite sex for both transgender and homosexual people).

This supports Blanchard's suggestion that the other group of transgender people (ie not the autogynophilic ones) are very effeminate gay people, and the findings are consistent with that most people who present with gender dysphoria in an early age grow up to be homosexual. It all basically supports the notion that transgenderism is, at least in part, repressed homosexuality.

 

[theprestige]

That's pretty much the only place where "We can subvert the standards, but we can't have the standards" can end up.

Skin suit, demanding respect, etc.

 

[d4m10n]

Meanwhile, the City of London has cut to the chase and said that for the purposes of swimming in council-owned women-only ponds, trans women are just women.

What was the original justification for establishing sex-segregated ponds?


I've never seen anything quite like that here in the States, other than religious accommodations to patriarchal subcultures such as conservative Hasidic and conservative Islamic communities.


Are there parallels elsewhere that I’ve missed?


I’m happy to admit that sometimes sex segregation makes perfect sense (e.g. contact sports) but is the “male gaze” really so awful that we have to guard against it by segregating the sexes?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The elephant in the room is the same people going "SEE! SEE! Science says transgenders have the brains of the other gender!" would be ******** kittens if someone tried to apply the concept of of "men and women's brains" to... traditional men and women.

 

[Meadmaker]

I’m happy to admit that sometimes sex segregation makes perfect sense (e.g. contact sports) but is the “male gaze” really so awful that we have to guard against it by segregating the sexes?

I know a lot of fitness facilities offer female only spaces specifically for that reason. Regardless of whether it ought to be that way, a lot of women are willing to vote for it with their wallets.

Should they also be able to use taxpayer wallets for the same purpose? That's more complicated.

 

[DragonLady]

but is the “male gaze” really so awful that we have to guard against it by segregating the sexes?

It can be extremely uncomfortable, yes.

I don't mean any disrespect to the men of this thread, this forum, this world.

But there are times we women start to feel like we're always a sideshow attraction, and ducking into women-only spaces gives us a respite from that.

It's not "that one guy" who is always watching like we're chunks of meat (although there are plenty of them, and it's no fun for us). Rather, we know that almost every man in a crowd sees us, and we can become extremely self-conscious about it. If we're young and "hot", we know at least one man is stealing every glance he can (and likely racking his brain to figure out a way to interact with us somehow). If we're dressed a train wreck, every man will point us out to his girlfriend or wife.

A female only bathroom can feel like the only place we can just be without feeling like we've got an invisible spotlight on us every minute.

 

[8enotto]

In Mexico there are female only gyms. Opened by women whom got tired of perceived unwanted male attention.

Then there are macho gyms heavy on the male aspects of weigh lifting and wrestling or boxing. And the gamut in between with spinning and all the mixed gender classes.

The two extremes last by far the longest. Because the public supports them sometimes for decades.

But the women hold theirs sacred. I was asked to repair a light in one between classes, the dirty looks I got from the early arrivals for a class was memorable. One didn't even relax knowing I would be gone when the light worked.
I was happy to leave. That place smelled heavy of sweat.

 

[GlennB]

What was the original justification for establishing sex-segregated ponds?

I've never seen anything quite like that here in the States, other than religious accommodations to patriarchal subcultures such as conservative Hasidic and conservative Islamic communities.

Are there parallels elsewhere that I’ve missed?

I’m happy to admit that sometimes sex segregation makes perfect sense (e.g. contact sports) but is the “male gaze” really so awful that we have to guard against it by segregating the sexes?

These are the Hampstead Heath swimming ponds, which have a long history of segregation. In fact the entire zone, iirc, around the men's and women's ponds are (were) segregated.

I can see the point of the objections, especially as the ponds are far more remote than a public pool and any hassle from men would be hard to counter.

"However, the decision has sparked outrage among some who use the facility who claimed that the ruling could encourage men who are not transitioning to take advantage of the decision.

One swimmer, Margaret Roberts told the Mail Online of an incident where she asked a male who claimed to identify as a woman but “looked and dressed like a male” to leave but he refused."

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, do you think you could address my main point, at the very least, about considering the feelings of one group but not the other? I really think your strong reaction to it was unwarranted, and that it's an important point.

That really is my entire point. That throughout this debate we're constantly being told that the feelings of the marginalised oppressed transwomen must be the highest priority and women's expression of their feelings is dismissed (or worse) as bigotry and prejudice.

If transwomen are uncomfortable sharing male spaces then some arrangement should be found. This may be a third space. I'm not insisting they just toughen up and put up with it. However when you get down to their demands it's not fundamentally about being uncomfortable sharing male spaces, but wanting to share female spaces because this validates the delusion they want to sustain that they're "really no different from any [other] woman." I hope you can see that's a completely different context of "feelings".

A solution should be found, if they really do feel uncomfortable sharing male spaces (and I know that many do). However this should not be to tell women that they should just grow a thicker skin and put up with the fact that they have no single-sex spaces any more, and any man who pleases can watch them undress.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sure at some point I'll get answer as to why a woman being uncomfortable with a man watching them undress and a man being uncomfortable with a gay man watching them undress are so radically different.

 

[Belz...]

If transwomen are uncomfortable sharing male spaces then some arrangement should be found. This may be a third space. I'm not insisting they just toughen up and put up with it. However when you get down to their demands it's not fundamentally about being uncomfortable sharing male spaces, but wanting to share female spaces because this validates the delusion they want to sustain that they're "really no different from any [other] woman." I hope you can see that's a completely different context of "feelings".

I don't think that's an entirely fair characterisation. The way I understand it, the idea is that forcing them to use a different restroom violates their sense of identity or whatever, stresses them out at being among the 'wrong' gender, and also puts them at some physical risk.

Now, irrespective of whether I agree with that, it sounds very similar to what you described about women. If we're asking trans women (actual trans women, that is) to suck it up, essentially, why can't we say the same to cis-women?