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

[TurkeysGhost]

Here's the judgement in question:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view

Statements like this where the problem lies:

Please stand up for the truth that it is not possible for someone who is
male to become female. Transwomen are men, and should be respected
and protected as men.”

Maya is pretty clear that transwomen should not be afforded the legal status and protection afforded to women and should be treated legally as men.

I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male
people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no
one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not
believe.

Despite her other comments about not being rude, she deliberately misgenders trans women and explicitly makes her stance to continue to do so clear.

Maybe someone with UK vantage could tell me about the employment part. Her contract ended and her company choose not to renew. Is the choice not to renew an employment contract generally considered legally actionable? She tried to get a court to claim that her anti-trans animus was protected speech.

 

[Ziggurat]

Statements like this where the problem lies:

Please stand up for the truth that it is not possible for someone who is male to become female.

Well, she's right. Neither hormone therapy nor sex reassignment surgery actually make a person the other sex, only a facsimile (and often not that good) of the other sex.

Transwomen are men, and should be respected and protected as men.”

I'm not really sure what this means in practice. But it's an opinion, and it doesn't seem particularly hateful. Certainly nothing that should be illegal to say.

Maya is pretty clear that transwomen should not be afforded the legal status and protection afforded to women and should be treated legally as men.

OK. I know why trans people might object to this position, but it still seems within bounds to me.

Despite her other comments about not being rude, she deliberately misgenders trans women and explicitly makes her stance to continue to do so clear.

That's rude. But people should be allowed to be rude. She's absolutely right about compelled speech: we shouldn't stand for it.

She tried to get a court to claim that her anti-trans animus was protected speech.

It absolutely should be in terms of government imposing restrictions. It becomes trickier regarding employment. On the one hand, employers should have some leeway to fire people who present an image for the company that they don't want. On the other hand, it's a bad thing if employment is used to stifle political debate in society. I don't know an easy solution here. I'm also not very familiar with UK employment law, so I've got no idea if she's got a legitimate legal complaint. She certain had a legitimate non-legal complaint, though.

 

[Puppycow]

That's rude. But people should be allowed to be rude.

Certainly rudeness, while not illegal, could nonetheless be grounds for firing from any job.

Then again, this was (I assume) outside of her job and was statements made on social media. In the old days before social media, employers generally didn't care about what opinions you expressed when off the clock and not at work. But now, for people who express their opinions publicly on twitter or the like, everyone knows.

The question is not whether she has the right to say these things (she does), but whether her employer is obligated to continue to employ her even if they don't want to. She has the right, but they presumably have rights too.

 

[cullennz]

Certainly rudeness, while not illegal, could nonetheless be grounds for firing from any job.

Then again, this was (I assume) outside of her job and was statements made on social media. In the old days before social media, employers generally didn't care about what opinions you expressed when off the clock and not at work. But now, for people who express their opinions publicly on twitter or the like, everyone knows.

The question is not whether she has the right to say these things (she does), but whether her employer is obligated to continue to employ her even if they don't want to. She has the right, but they presumably have rights too.

Presumably it all come down to what is explicitly written into her employment contract about harming the companies rep' etc.

Not that I get how what she said is particularly bad in the first place

 

[Ziggurat]

The question is not whether she has the right to say these things (she does)

Even that is becoming less obvious in the UK.

 

[Aber]

Maybe someone with UK vantage could tell me about the employment part. Her contract ended and her company choose not to renew. Is the choice not to renew an employment contract generally considered legally actionable? She tried to get a court to claim that her anti-trans animus was protected speech.

It's complex - AIUI she is claiming that unlawful discrimination played a part in the process:

As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_employment_equality_law

and the judgement was mostly about whether her beliefs on transwomen were a protected characteristic.

 

[Giz]

Even that is becoming less obvious in the UK.

Yes, she may have gotten off lightly:

“A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

...

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.”


Section (b) would seem to cover it...

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, she may have gotten off lightly:

Six months in prison for insulting someone. What a god damn joke the UK is turning into. Thank god we have a first amendment here.

 

[Brainster]

Maya is pretty clear that transwomen should not be afforded the legal status and protection afforded to women and should be treated legally as men.

What are the extra protections and legal status that women have as compared to men?

 

[8enotto]

I don't know how much a 1st amendment covers when it comes to the alphabet soup crowd. My bosses even 20 years ago were careful no one offended or harassed them for fear of legal actions.

I will say there is a difference to stating ones stance vs outright insults and discrimination.

 

[Puppycow]

What are the extra protections and legal status that women have as compared to men?

Well, there's the right to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, compete in women's sports, some scholarships are for women, there are shelters for abused women, and in some cases there may be affirmative action programs for women. That's more or less what this thread is all about. Should trans women have equal access to all those spaces and programs for women, or should those be reserved for only biological females?

 

[Mycroft]

Neither hormone therapy nor sex reassignment surgery actually make a person the other sex, only a facsimile (and often not that good) of the other sex.

That's your opinion, but not everybody agrees with that.

I look at all the differences between men and women and notice that lots of them are mutable and not at all universal. So if you can change them, or even most of them, why shouldn't we be allowed to then say, "okay, this person now belongs to that other grouping."

 

[Mycroft]

Some time ago someone who also wouldn't post links told me roughly what to google and like an idiot I did. I need to scrub my brain out with a brillo pad.

And no doubt we'll have all the apologists on again saying, but what about the women who do [fill in stomach-churning fetishistic behaviour here]? They don't. Women don't fetishise female bodies. They don't even seem to fetishise male bodies, or not that I ever saw. Lesbians seldom (I say seldom because no doubt someone will dredge up a report from West Virginia from 1995) harrass women in single-sex spaces, not even other lesbian women.

We need sex-segregated spaces for a reason, and whatever we do about the genuinely dysphoric, post-operative transwomen we used to accept on a grace-and-favour basis, what we absolutely cannot do is permit any man who pleases to self-identify in there with us.

If we take away the fear mongering, puritanism, and kink-shaming then you haven't said anything at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's your opinion, but not everybody agrees with that.

And they are wrong.

I look at all the differences between men and women and notice that lots of them are mutable and not at all universal.

A lot of them are immutable.

So if you can change them,

You cannot.

What do you think sex is?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, there's the right to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, compete in women's sports, some scholarships are for women, there are shelters for abused women, and in some cases there may be affirmative action programs for women. That's more or less what this thread is all about. Should trans women have equal access to all those spaces and programs for women, or should those be reserved for only biological females?

That isn’t the only question. If we allow access to trans women, then what qualifies? Do you need a medical diagnosis? A legal status change? Simply self-identification? There are activists pushing for the latter, but it’s functionally equivalent to doing away with female-only spaces.

 

[Mycroft]

And they are wrong.

Evidence?

A lot of them are immutable.

The only gender attribute I can think of that's immutable is the actual x/y chromosome. Can you think of more?

You cannot.

Except we can. Hormones and surgery. What are you thinking of?

What do you think sex is?

For some people gender identity is way more complex than a simple dichotomy. If you want to assert that nobody can change sex, then you're in denial of that.

That isn’t the only question. If we allow access to trans women, then what qualifies? Do you need a medical diagnosis? A legal status change? Simply self-identification?

Difficult questions, sure, but the existence of these questions itself doesn't invalidate transgenderism.

There are activists pushing for the latter, but it’s functionally equivalent to doing away with female-only spaces.

No, it's not.

Very few men are willing to claim to be women just to violate women's spaces. Just because someone can do something doesn't make it that everyone wants to. It's morally wrong to deny millions the use of the bathroom they feel safe and comfortable in just because there are a half-dozen or so people who would abuse it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidence?

Where to begin...

The only gender attribute I can think of that's immutable is the actual x/y chromosome. Can you think of more?

Skeletal structure past puberty, for another. Genitals and gonads. You can remove them, but you can’t replicate them.

Except we can. Hormones and surgery. What are you thinking of?

Hormones and surgery create a facsimile of the opposite sex. It isn’t the real thing. And it’s never fully functional.

Plus, of course, if self-identification is the only standard, then neither hormone treatment nor surgery are required to access opposite-sex spaces, so even qualities which can be changed by these things don’t have to be.

For some people gender identity is way more complex than a simple dichotomy. If you want to assert that nobody can change sex, then you're in denial of that.

I used the word “sex” and not “gender” for a reason. The fluidity of gender identity, no matter what it is, cannot produce actual sex change. Again, what do you even think sex is?

Difficult questions, sure, but the existence of these questions itself doesn't invalidate transgenderism.

How have I tried to invalidate transgenderism? I don’t know how that’s even possible, absent someone claiming they are all faking it. And I certainly haven’t done that. You are arguing against a position I never took.

Very few men are willing to claim to be women just to violate women's spaces.

That has been true in the past, under the old rules. And why do you think that is? Is it because predatory men are too honest to try that? No, of course not. It’s because it would be hard to do under the old rules. If the rules change, then behaviors may change as well. People respond to incentives. Remove the incentives to not misbehave, and you will get more misbehavior.

Just because someone can do something doesn't make it that everyone wants to. It's morally wrong to deny millions the use of the bathroom they feel safe and comfortable in just because there are a half-dozen or so people who would abuse it.

You think there are that many more trans women than male predators? I find that very unlikely. Furthermore, this is a straw man. I’m not arguing for denying access to women-only spaces for all trans women. I’m arguing against self-identification as being the only requirement for doing so in any and all cases. That hardly precludes all trans women from accessing such spaces.

 

[Mycroft]

Where to begin...

Skeletal structure past puberty, for another. Genitals and gonads. You can remove them, but you can’t replicate them.

Still a pretty short list. More importantly, nothing on that list is singularly definitive.

Hormones and surgery create a facsimile of the opposite sex. It isn’t the real thing. And it’s never fully functional.

Lots of cis-people have genitalia and gonads that are not fully functional, yet we don't say they no longer belong to their gender category.

Plus, of course, if self-identification is the only standard, then neither hormone treatment nor surgery are required to access opposite-sex spaces, so even qualities which can be changed by these things don’t have to be.

I can see that self identification has it's flaws, but the underlying assumption in pointing that out is that there are different standards where a trans-person could be identified as the gender of their choice. What do you think that should be?

I used the word “sex” and not “gender” for a reason. The fluidity of gender identity, no matter what it is, cannot produce actual sex change. Again, what do you even think sex is?

I'll guess you prefer sex to gender because "sex" is more binary and "gender" is more nuanced, but the larger discussion is more about gender than sex.

How have I tried to invalidate transgenderism?

By describing "sex" as immutable.

That has been true in the past, under the old rules. And why do you think that is? Is it because predatory men are too honest to try that? No, of course not. It’s because it would be hard to do under the old rules. If the rules change, then behaviors may change as well. People respond to incentives. Remove the incentives to not misbehave, and you will get more misbehavior.

Nobody is proposing removing incentives not to misbehave. Sexual harassment and rape are still illegal, even if the supposed perpetuator is or claims to be trans. Also people who commit these crimes try to do it in ways that doesn't draw attention to themselves, and few things draw attention to oneself like claiming to be a different gender and assaulting people in the bathroom.

You think there are that many more trans women than male predators? I find that very unlikely.

No, that's not what I claimed. You are dishonestly placing "all male predators" in place of people faking transgenderism to access women only spaces. Those are tremendously different groups.

Furthermore, this is a straw man. I’m not arguing for denying access to women-only spaces for all trans women. I’m arguing against self-identification as being the only requirement for doing so in any and all cases. That hardly precludes all trans women from accessing such spaces.

You were arguing that it's not possible for someone who is male to become female, and presumably vise-versa. If you want to change that to "we need something better than self-identification to determine who gets to be identified as male or female for purposes of gaining access to gender restricted spaces", then I'll consider that to be quite a shift.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Do x and y chromosomes determine gender?

Do x and y chromosomes always determine gender the same way?

The second question is probably more on the nose. We've learned a lot about gene expression over time and layman understanding of genetics hasn't caught up.

I don't put a lot of faith in those two genes determining behaviors and perspectives, especially since men and women reliably follow the very different behaviors and expectations of the social systems they live in (across geography or time) despite having those same x and y chromosomes.

Once again we run into trying to explain a variable with a constant.

 

[p0lka]

Do x and y chromosomes determine gender?

Do x and y chromosomes always determine gender the same way?

The second question is probably more on the nose. We've learned a lot about gene expression over time and layman understanding of genetics hasn't caught up.

I don't put a lot of faith in those two genes determining behaviors and perspectives, especially since men and women reliably follow the very different behaviors and expectations of the social systems they live in (across geography or time) despite having those same x and y chromosomes.

Once again we run into trying to explain a variable with a constant.

I think x and y chromosomes determine sex, gender seems to be more of a subjective, maybe learned, thing to me.

EDIT: Taking the devils advocate position; look what happened when we stopped having blue boy toys and pink girl toys, the kids don't know the roles they are supposed to take anymore..we've got not manly boys in the kitchen and the girls are out hunting wabbit!