Trans Women are not Women

[Ziggurat]

Would you argue that a transwoman in a society that practiced FGM or footbinding or forced marriage should undergo those things because it would reinforce her femaleness?

How is female genital mutilation supposed to work if you don't have female genitals? And transwomen who undergo transition surgery do in fact mutilate their genitals, to a much more radical extent even than FGM.

But the question itself seems premised on the acceptance of those practices for ciswomen. If one doesn't accept them for ciswomen, then one could reject them for transwomen irrespective of one's acceptance of transwomen themselves.

If we had unisex bathrooms then the choice of bathrooms wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be required to make anybody feel any sex at all. My compromise of having an uncategorized bathroom available to anyone allows a non-sexual choice. Using it wouldn't boost a transwoman's womanliness, true, but neither would it detract from it. A neutral outcome, what could be a better compromise?

Better for whom? It's not better for building owners who have to pay for reconstruction to create that third space.

This isn't a scenario where everyone can end up satisfied.

 

[luchog]

Twice than what? We've separated bathrooms since forever.

And sometimes, we've separated them into more than just the common two. And some very small places only have a single restroom with no gender separation, intended for single-person occupancy.

Incidentally, many places in the US already have "family" restrooms which are non-gender-specific, intended primarily for parents and very young children. So yes, there are instances where we, in contemporary society, provide three separate bathroom facilities. Don't see how the cost isn't justified.

Yes. Any additional cost has to be justified. This isn't some ad hoc excuse. We've always done that.

Who said anything about it being unacceptable? I'm saying that the cost might be prohibitive. I don't think you could make it happen across the board.

Funny, we had no problem spending extra on more-than-two-types bathrooms when it was needed to keep those darkies separated from good white folks.

 

[d4m10n]

If we had unisex bathrooms then the choice of bathrooms wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be required to make anybody feel any sex at all. My compromise of having an uncategorized bathroom available to anyone allows a non-sexual choice. Using it wouldn't boost a transwoman's womanliness, true, but neither would it detract from it. A neutral outcome, what could be a better compromise?

Better for whom?

TM's proposed compromise benefits several groups of people in addition to those who choose to transition. Single dads with young daughters, single moms with young sons, husbands with physically disabled or cognitively declining wives (and vice-versa), people who are read as gender-ambiguous (for any reason), people who object to gendering themselves, anyone likely to be challenged when entering the restroom which matches their sex or gender.

 

[Francesca R]

There is no need to fight for access to other people's attention.

Of course there is. It is not a free resource. People even do it here. I mean, they are doing it here. (Including you)

 

[Francesca R]

Three bathrooms seems a reasonable compromise to me. One for uptight women, one for uptight men, and one for people who don't give a **** except for a literal one which is the point of a bathroom to begin with.

Three bathrooms is complete defeat for transwomen who want to use a female only bathroom so that's out.

It is a victory for women who want to preserve their segregated bathrooms.

So it isn't a compromise. And anyway compromise is not possible with mutually exclusive competing objectives, the Venn diagram does not have an intersection.

Did you see what I did there by the way? It was very quick you may have missed it.

 

[theprestige]

Would you argue that a transwoman in a society that practiced FGM or footbinding or forced marriage should undergo those things because it would reinforce her femaleness?

I might.

To be honest, I'm dubious about the premise that mutilation is good treatment. But an otherwise-healthy adult making informed choices about their body under the guidance of a competent mental health practitioner?

I think forced marriage would probably be a moot point. The kinds of societies that have that practice don't seem like the kind of societies interested in forcing a dude who thinks he's a chick into marriage with another dude. Especially if we're talking about adults making informed decisions. Those kinds of societies mostly seem interested in forced marriages of prepubescent girls. Far from me having to counsel against it, the transwoman would be hard pressed to find anyone interested in playing along in the first place.

And if they did find someone interested in playing along, it wouldn't really be forced, would it? Can you imagine?

"Congratulations! We found the one guy in all of Yemen who wants to marry a former dude. So you have to marry him whether you like it or not."

"Thank Allah! Now I can finally feel like a real woman!"

As for FGM, think about what this entails. You've got a guy who, in order to feel more like a woman -
- is surgically removing his penis and testes, and then
- is surgically replacing them with a reasonable facsimile of a clitoris and vagina and so forth, and then
- is surgically removing or altering those new features;
All in the service of more closely approximating their self-image of a woman in that culture. At what point in the process is he going over the edge from treatment to harm?

And as long as we're talking about adults making informed decisions, foot binding is probably just another question of surgical treatment. Binding is most effective at a young age, while the foot is still growing. For someone whose mental health depends on closer conformity to that social goal (right or wrong), foot surgery to get their feet closer to the "bound" result might be indicated. I don't know. But since sex reassignment surgery is already on the table, I'm not going to write off other possible mutilation-as-treatment options.

If we had unisex bathrooms then the choice of bathrooms wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be required to make anybody feel any sex at all. My compromise of having an uncategorized bathroom available to anyone allows a non-sexual choice. Using it wouldn't boost a transwoman's womanliness, true, but neither would it detract from it. A neutral outcome, what could be a better compromise?

That's not a compromise. It's a non sequitur. A compromise seeks to solve a problem by satisficing between competing goods. Your third bathroom ignores the problem entirely.

 

[theprestige]

TM's proposed compromise benefits several groups of people in addition to those who choose to transition.

I don't see how TM's proposal benefits transsexuals, though. And it certainly doesn't solve Rolfe's problem of men being allowed into women's bathrooms by personal fiat.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Because we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room and at least put the possibility that "I want to be a special exception to an established standard so this won't work unless not only is there a rule in a place but I'm allowed to break it" is a factor in at least some of this on the table.

I have no sympathy for anyone who seeks help to overcome discrimination in order to then exercise that discrimination themselves from the other side. Like freed slaves who become slaveowners. Hell with that. I'm not lifting a finger to help someone storm a barricade so they can reinforce it from the other side.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This isn't a scenario where everyone can end up satisfied.

That's the nature of compromise. If the options are between everyone being less than completely satisfied, nobody being satisfied, and some being miserable I'll choose the first option.

 

[theprestige]

But the question itself seems premised on the acceptance of those practices for ciswomen. If one doesn't accept them for ciswomen, then one could reject them for transwomen irrespective of one's acceptance of transwomen themselves.

Also this.

I completely missed TM trying to steal a base here. Thanks for waving him back to first.

---

ETA: Now I'm imagining a man who goes through the genital mutilation of sex reassignment surgery, and then decides that what would make them feel even more like a woman would be to become an activist against FGM.

That would be kind of awesome.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't see how TM's proposal benefits transsexuals, though. And it certainly doesn't solve Rolfe's problem of men being allowed into women's bathrooms by personal fiat.

Transsexuals can use the "don't care" bathroom. So can the "men" who Rolfe is afraid are pretending to be women. All bathroom usage is on the honor system, until you institute guards and a method for them to determine "real" sex and check it. So no, my proposal isn't safe against wilfull deception. Neither is the current system, or any other method proposed so far.

 

[theprestige]

That's the nature of compromise. If the options are between everyone being less than completely satisfied, nobody being satisfied, and some being miserable I'll choose the first option.

The first option results in some being miserable, though. That is still the central point of the debate.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Three bathrooms is complete defeat for transwomen who want to use a female only bathroom so that's out.

It is a victory for women who want to preserve their segregated bathrooms.

So it isn't a compromise. And anyway compromise is not possible with mutually exclusive competing objectives, the Venn diagram does not have an intersection.

Did you see what I did there by the way? It was very quick you may have missed it.

Do you have a superior compromise? Mine at least lets transwomen use a bathroom that doesn't constitute a statement about what sex they are.

If the pro-segregation women are so unreasonable as to demand transwomen can't use the "don't care" bathroom either then they forfeit their own segregated bathroom. They're getting their own bathroom, a "victory" as you termed it, it would be ridiculous for them to then insist on further controlling the behavior of others.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't see how TM's proposal benefits transsexuals, though.

People who are only partway into transition may not yet pass as the opposite sex, and are thus faced with an unpleasant choice when told to self-segregate into the socially appropriate bathroom. After reading James Shupe's story (linked somewhere upthread) it seems this problem may go beyond those who are just starting out with HRT. If you don't look like either a man or a woman, and you're likely to look and/or feel out of place in either multi-person restroom, the family/handicapped third room is an excellent way to find relief without having to negotiate through social awkwardness.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The first option results in some being miserable, though. That is still the central point of the debate.

Less miserable than they'd be if they had no bathroom access at all, or had to use one opposite to the sex they feel they are.

 

[theprestige]

Transsexuals can use the "don't care" bathroom.

Transsexuals care.

So can the "men" who Rolfe is afraid are pretending to be women.

Predatory men also care. Your third bathroom is a complete non sequitur, in terms of these problems. And you still don't seem to understand the nature of Rolfe's problem.

All bathroom usage is on the honor system, until you institute guards and a method for them to determine "real" sex and check it. So no, my proposal isn't safe against wilfull deception. Neither is the current system, or any other method proposed so far.

The honor system is upheld and reinforced by social norms and expectations. Rolfe's problem is that removing the norms and expectations undermines the system that she and other women are currently able to depend on to some degree.

Your third bathroom doesn't undermine the honor system, but it doesn't reinforce it either. So there's that, anyway.

 

[d4m10n]

Transsexuals care.

I'm sure you can find some vocal activists who really do, but I doubt that there is general consensus (among those diagnosed with gender dysphoria) against third restroom use, especially those who are currently gender liminal for whatever reason.

 

[theprestige]

Do you have a superior compromise? Mine at least lets transwomen use a bathroom that doesn't constitute a statement about what sex they are.

This is actually kind of fun. You keep finding new ways to phrase the same dismissal of the problem. So I get to keep finding new ways of rebutting your dismissal.

Here's our latest entry:

The whole point of being a transwoman is to make a statement about what sex they are.

You're not compromising on this point, you're just ignoring it.

 

[theprestige]

People who are only partway into transition may not yet pass as the opposite sex, and are thus faced with an unpleasant choice when told to self-segregate into the socially appropriate bathroom. After reading James Shupe's story (linked somewhere upthread) it seems this problem may go beyond those who are just starting out with HRT. If you don't look like either a man or a woman, and you're likely to look and/or feel out of place in either multi-person restroom, the family/handicapped third room is an excellent way to find relief without having to negotiate through social awkwardness.

Okay, fair enough. I actually agree with this. You're doing a much better job of defending TM's solution than TM is.

 

[Francesca R]

Do you have a superior compromise?

As I already said it isn't a compromise. It is one side prevailing and the other side being denied. Oh it's a superior resolution in my view absolutely. But I wouldn't pretend being on the winning side was compromising that's fake news.