Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Belz...]

"If." This has already been addressed.

Maybe, but I don't know your position on the matter. Should I scour the previous threads to try to surmise it myself?

What if I do agree that they are, in fact, women, but also think this doesn't actually simplify anything, and doesn't actually do anything to solve the unique issues?

That's what I was getting at: agreeing that they are women does not solve the issue. It's irrelevant.

 

[Darat]

I see a couple difficulties in this approach.



On the one hand, it's bound to have a chilling effect on legitimate challenges. Is that a cisnormative transwoman, or an abusive cisman? Doubt on this point is going to deter some women from speaking up when they should.



On the other hand, it's not going to make women's spaces very welcoming to transwomen. Some women will speak up even when they shouldn't. Transwomen will still have to bring their Papers Please, and risk humiliation every time they enter such a space.



It's a step up, but it's still an ugly, awkward, and painful solution, for both cis- and trans-women.

What is your proposal?

 

[TragicMonkey]

If this were a bunch of ciswomen objecting to a cisman using the room how would you side?

Do you think gender is analogous to race in all comparable social situations?

---

Or we can get rid of the questions, and re-cast your post as an actual argument: "We allow black women unfettered access to women's spaces, and condemn as a bigot anyone who would object. By analogy with black women, we should allow the same level of access to transwomen, and apply the same condemnation to those who object."

I wasn't asking you. I was actually going somewhere with that. If Group A's rights are determined by Group B's feelings about Group A's bodies most of us recognize that as wrong. It boils down to justice being treating people by what they do rather than what they are. I'd remove both the lecherous ogling ciswoman lesbian and the tampon-stealing fake transwoman from the ladies room, because of those behaviors. The well-behaved innocent would not he barred. That approach removes the necessity for philosophical wrangling over What Is Woman and "papers please". It would punish the wicked and protect the innocent. And people's feelings about other people's bodies wouldn't be a basis for law.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's what I was getting at: agreeing that they are women does not solve the issue. It's irrelevant.

I hate it, but I have to disagree. Whether trans people are the sex they're trans to is the underlying question that has to be resolved before the questions of access and treatment can be handled. For those who think transwomen are women all the anti-trans stuff is pure and simple bigoted discrimination. For those who think transwomen are men all the pro-trans stuff is a siege upon women. It's not surprising that strong feelings on all parts are evident. I don't see how anything can progress as long as the underlying question remains unresolved with two sides completely convinced of exactly opposite answers.

The third way out would be to stop caring about the underlying question and implementing whatever's most practical regardless of anyone's feelings. I don't see that happening soon.

 

[Meadmaker]

If this were a bunch of white girls objecting to a black girl using the room how would you side?

With the black girl.

 

[TragicMonkey]

With the black girl.

Good. This suggests you don't side merely with a majority, nor do you privilege one group's personal biases over another group's rights. Which is great, I agree.

But it raises the question of what is different between the two examples? Both involve other people's reactions to the physical bodies of others. Skin color and/or race doesn't matter, but being trans does. Why?

To head off the inevitable yes, I would myself discriminate here against cismen. So I do think sex matters but race doesn't in this area. Which brings us back to the fundamental question: are transwomen women, men, or another category?

 

[Ziggurat]

I wasn't asking you. I was actually going somewhere with that. If Group A's rights are determined by Group B's feelings about Group A's bodies most of us recognize that as wrong. It boils down to justice being treating people by what they do rather than what they are. I'd remove both the lecherous ogling ciswoman lesbian and the tampon-stealing fake transwoman from the ladies room, because of those behaviors. The well-behaved innocent would not he barred. That approach removes the necessity for philosophical wrangling over What Is Woman and "papers please". It would punish the wicked and protect the innocent. And people's feelings about other people's bodies wouldn't be a basis for law.

This is too abstract and idealized. When you say Group A and Group B, that implies that the differences are trivial. But sex isn't trivial. There are deep differences between them, differences which have no analogue in most other group identities that get discussed, differences that no amount of social engineering can ever paper over. There are situations in which people will respond based on your sex, regardless of your individual behavior. And there are situations in which it's always going to be a hard ask to give someone the benefit of the doubt about how they're going to behave. For example, let's suppose you get arrested, and the cops decide they need to strip search you. That's generally supposed to be done by a member of the same sex as you. The rule isn't that a female can be strip searched by a male cop so long as the male behaves themselves.

Some level of accommodation can be made for trans people, but a transwoman is never going to be treated exactly like a woman, and a transman is never going to be treated exactly like a man. Categories aren't irrelevant. As a practical matter you're never going to evaluate everyone as only an individual. You can't, if for no other reason than you can't get to know everyone you have to interact with.

 

[Belz...]

I hate it, but I have to disagree. Whether trans people are the sex they're trans to is the underlying question that has to be resolved before the questions of access and treatment can be handled.

Hell, even you're getting confused by the "sex vs gender" semantics issue. At least we're all on the same level on that.

For those who think transwomen are women all the anti-trans stuff is pure and simple bigoted discrimination. For those who think transwomen are men all the pro-trans stuff is a siege upon women.

That's not true. I said that trans women are not women and I never said anything like Rolfe's more opinionated claims. The point is that the two are not the same: you can have X and Y, or you can have one but not the other.

It's not surprising that strong feelings on all parts are evident. I don't see how anything can progress as long as the underlying question remains unresolved with two sides completely convinced of exactly opposite answers.

The problem, of course is that establishing facts depends on definitions, so the two sides are, in addition to having sometimes different observations, having different definitions that twist those facts.

The third way out would be to stop caring about the underlying question and implementing whatever's most practical regardless of anyone's feelings.

However, what you think as practical might not be what others see as practical. After all we're here discussing the concerns of 50% of the population versus those of 0.3%.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hell, even you're getting confused by the "sex vs gender" semantics issue. At least we're all on the same level on that.

I'm not sure I believe there's a difference between sex and gender. Every time I'm told they're different the explanation and examples makes the sound the same. Like Princess Caroline explaining the difference between an agent and a manager.

That's not true. I said that trans women are not women and I never said anything like Rolfe's more opinionated claims. The point is that the two are not the same: you can have X and Y, or you can have one but not the other.

Chromosomes? You can also get XXY and other combos. I don't think genes are going to provide a satisfactory resolution. They're basically just baked up chemicals in the oven that is the womb.

The problem, of course is that establishing facts depends on definitions, so the two sides are, in addition to having sometimes different observations, having different definitions that twist those facts.

Well, yeah. That describes most human conflict.

However, what you think as practical might not be what others see as practical. After all we're here discussing the concerns of 50% of the population versus those of 0.3%.

I side with the tiny minority when the question is their civil rights. They need protection even more if the majority is against them.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure I believe there's a difference between sex and gender. Every time I'm told they're different the explanation and examples makes the sound the same.

I agree, but then you have a problem with the transgender claim: how can someone make a claim that flies in face of obvious physical/biological facts? I can't claim to be a mouse.

Chromosomes?

Gosh, I knew that wasn't clear. That's my fault. No, I meant X as is "consider transwomen to be women" and Y as "treat them with dignity and recognise their issues".

You can also get XXY and other combos. I don't think genes are going to provide a satisfactory resolution. They're basically just baked up chemicals in the oven that is the womb.

They do, however, have a huge impact on the resulting cake.

Well, yeah. That describes most human conflict.

Yep.

I side with the tiny minority when the question is their civil rights. They need protection even more if the majority is against them.

I agree to that, but here's the thing: there's always a limit to how much I'll agree to a principle. If protecting a minority gets to the point where it threatens the well-being of others, I'm not in.

 

[theprestige]

What is your proposal?

I don't have one. I honestly see no good way to square this circle.

I guess in an ideal world, we'd treat gender disphoria as a disability, and make the same requirements of "reasonable accommodation" that we make for other disabilities. We'd recognize that some amount of accommodating their preferred gender construct is beneficial treatment, and pursue that as humanely as possible. But I'm not sure that's possible, and I don't know exactly how it would play out.

 

[Belz...]

I don't have one. I honestly see no good way to square this circle.

I guess in an ideal world, we'd treat gender disphoria as a disability, and make the same requirements of "reasonable accommodation" that we make for other disabilities. We'd recognize that some amount of accommodating their preferred gender construct is beneficial treatment, and pursue that as humanely as possible. But I'm not sure that's possible, and I don't know exactly how it would play out.

Sounds right to me.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which brings us back to the fundamental question: are transwomen women, men, or another category?

Men.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't have one. I honestly see no good way to square this circle.

I guess in an ideal world, we'd treat gender disphoria as a disability, and make the same requirements of "reasonable accommodation" that we make for other disabilities. We'd recognize that some amount of accommodating their preferred gender construct is beneficial treatment, and pursue that as humanely as possible. But I'm not sure that's possible, and I don't know exactly how it would play out.

Do you mean treat it like a disability in the sense of making reasonable accommodations, or do you mean actually consider it a disability? I think the latter might be just as controversial as everything up until now.

 

[theprestige]

Do you mean treat it like a disability in the sense of making reasonable accommodations, or do you mean actually consider it a disability? I think the latter might be just as controversial as everything up until now.

Like I said, I don't see any good way to square this circle.

But I do mean, actually consider it a disability. In US law, for example, officially-recognized disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation. The only way for transsexuals to get that legal protection is to get the corresponding legal recognition.

You hire a guy with a Napoleon complex, you have to make reasonable accommodations. Let him wear the uniform and refer to himself as Emperor, maybe. But you're not required to follow him into Russia next fall, and you don't have to let him use cannon to subdue unruly subcontractors.

One advantage to this approach is that the "reasonable accommodation" standard allows us to look at these issues on a case by case basis, and be more sensitive to context and nuance.

For example, in most workplaces it should be pretty trivial to agree that Joe-sephina can use the women's restroom or changing room without being challenged, if (s)he wants. A blanket, national "one size fits all" ruling on restrooms isn't necessary.

On the other hand, it does mean officially recognizing gender disphoria and similar conditions as disabilities. This, as you say, would be controversial.

 

[Belz...]

You hire a guy with a Napoleon complex, you have to make reasonable accommodations. Let him wear the uniform and refer to himself as Emperor, maybe.

Maybe not.

For example, in most workplaces it should be pretty trivial to agree that Joe-sephina can use the women's restroom or changing room without being challenged, if (s)he wants. A blanket, national "one size fits all" ruling on restrooms isn't necessary.

How about just using the disabled restrooms, then? If you're going to consider it as disability, I mean.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Like I said, I don't see any good way to square this circle.

But I do mean, actually consider it a disability. In US law, for example, officially-recognized disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation. The only way for transsexuals to get that legal protection is to get the corresponding legal recognition.

You hire a guy with a Napoleon complex, you have to make reasonable accommodations. Let him wear the uniform and refer to himself as Emperor, maybe. But you're not required to follow him into Russia next fall, and you don't have to let him use cannon to subdue unruly subcontractors.

One advantage to this approach is that the "reasonable accommodation" standard allows us to look at these issues on a case by case basis, and be more sensitive to context and nuance.

For example, in most workplaces it should be pretty trivial to agree that Joe-sephina can use the women's restroom or changing room without being challenged, if (s)he wants. A blanket, national "one size fits all" ruling on restrooms isn't necessary.

On the other hand, it does mean officially recognizing gender disphoria and similar conditions as disabilities. This, as you say, would be controversial.

I don't like this, particularly as it reminds me of the bad old days when homosexuality was considered a mental illness, but it does sound like the least impractical suggestion yet. Perhaps if this were how it were done it would desensitize the anti-trans portion of the public over time, allowing the matter to be revisited in the future with less furor.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How about just using the disabled restrooms, then? If you're going to consider it as disability, I mean.

A lot of bathrooms have a disabled stall but the bathroom itself is still men's or women's.

 

[Belz...]

A lot of bathrooms have a disabled stall but the bathroom itself is still men's or women's.

Depends on the place. Plenty of places here have separate disabled rooms. I guess adding more of these would do the trick, on top of being more accessible for disabled people.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe not.



How about just using the disabled restrooms, then? If you're going to consider it as disability, I mean.

Many restrooms provide disability-accommodating stalls in regular gendered restrooms. Also, disabled restroom facilities are inclusive, not exclusive. Transfolks and cisfolks both can already walk into an unoccupied disabled restroom and use it if they wish.

Also, mental disabilities don't generally map to disabled restrooms, so I'm not sure what you think this suggestion actually solves.