Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Meadmaker]

They do. They have the right to eject anybody who is harassing or abusing other people in the shelter. They also have the right - specifically enshrined in law - to eject or refuse to admit someone simply because they are transgender, if they feel or are told that it would or is causing discomfort to the other residents.

This, again, has already been discussed and I have substantiated it with citations. It just seems that we've reached the point of the fringe reset.

The whole argument that self-identification would be a problem in women's shelters is a red herring, because that's how they already operate. The argument that the people running the shelters should be allowed to eject trans people if they cause a problem is a red herring, because they already can.

Speaking only for the UK. I don't know about the US. But I see no immediate reason to suppose that similar policies and laws in the US would have drastically different results.

Hmmmm......I guess I'm not being clear. I thought my position was understandable enough, but I guess there is room for interpretation in there, so I had better clear that up.


I believe that the operator of a women's shelter should be able to exclude any male bodied individual for any reason at all, including simply for being a male bodied individual. They should not be required by law to eject such a person, but it should be at their sole discretion whether or not to allow such a person to use the shelter. Their should be no law or policy which should ever be applied that would compel them to take a male bodied individual.

If they choose to take such a person, for whatever reason, that's ok, but if they choose not to, they can, and they don't have to provide justification beyond, "We aren't required to accommodate anyone with a penis, and today, I have decided not to accommodate you."

I'm pretty sure that, in the UK, under self ID laws, that wouldn't be acceptable. I'm pretty sure that my description above is how shelters operated for years. If you go back in the not very distant past, they would almost never accommodate any penis possessors, while in more recent years they are a lot more flexible on the whole penis thing. However, in the very recent years, under self ID rules, if they choose to reject someone who self identifies as a woman, they have to point to something about the person's behavior as being harassing, or abusive, or in violation of some rule.

In the old days, having a penis in those places was against the rules, but operators could bend those rules when they thought it was warranted. That's the way I think it ought to be.

ETA: Bigot, transphobe, TERF. I figured I would get the name calling started myself.

 

[Ziggurat]

Canada explicitly lists gender identity in their civil rights law as of 2017.

That's nice, but you moved the goalpost. You didn't ask about what the law in Canada was. You asked what Rolfe would support. That isn't simply a question about what the law is, but more accurately what Rolfe thinks the law should be. And you tried to poison the well by throwing racism into the mix.

I don't think the law allows for nearly as much wiggle room for honest debate as the law in other countries that don't explicitly list this.

I should hope that the law allows for a LOT of room to debate what the law should be, even if there's no debate about what the law currently is. If it doesn't allow for such debate, then it is tyrannical.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's nice, but you moved the goalpost. You didn't ask about what the law in Canada was. You asked what Rolfe would support. That isn't simply a question about what the law is, but more accurately what Rolfe thinks the law should be. And you tried to poison the well by throwing racism into the mix.



I should hope that the law allows for a LOT of room to debate what the law should be, even if there's no debate about what the law currently is. If it doesn't allow for such debate, then it is tyrannical.

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not. Comparing it to race isn't poisoning the well. It's how many people, including Canadian law, treat the issue. It's the same law that protects trans people from discrimination that forbids racial discrimination.


Rolfe brought up the loss of public funding by the shelter in Canada as an example of something regrettable. I very much disagree. I admire that Canadians have so unequivocally codified the protection of trans people from bigotry into law.

 

[Meadmaker]

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not.

It's interesting that you put it that way. The interesting thing is that you state it with such authority, as if that's the only possible perspective.


I would say the question at the root of the issue is whether a woman ought to be required to take her clothes off in the presence of a male. I am blithely unconcerned whether the transwoman who identifies as a woman despite having a male body is trans due to an immutable characteristic, or due to a preference. It is, at best, a side issue.

So, I think it is entirely possible that transgender identity is an immutable characteristic. People are born trans, and there is nothing they can do about it. It isn't a preference. it is a part of their identity. I do not know that this is true, but I think it is possible. Let's assume it is true.

If that is the case, I think that transwomen should not use the women's locker room.

And, if that is not the case, I think that transwomen should not use the women's locker room.

In other words, the question that you think is at the root of the issue is a question that I think does not matter.

If you don't understand that, then you'll never understand the other side of the debate.

ETA: For what it's worth, I think that the answer on the question of immutable characteristics is that there are people for whom that is true, and there are people who call themselves trans, but for whom that characteristic is not immutable. However, in terms of locker room use, I don't think it's important.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did you mean 'absurdly low'?

I don't think so? But perhaps I was not as clear as I was in my own brain. If you look at the rate of sexual assaults experienced by women, that rate is absurdly high. As in, it's way more common than most people realize it is. Most women think it's higher than most men think it is, because so many women have experienced it themselves. But even so, when you get a group of women actually being open about it, it turns out to be even higher than those women thought it was.

Think about the whole #MeToo thing. When it started, I think the general assumption was that these were relatively rare occurrences, experienced by only a few people. As more people started sharing their experiences though, it became more and more apparent that it was NOT rare, it was fairly common. And for every person who shared their story on twitter... there are many more who did not share their stories. Even though some of the stories were idiotically oversensitive... the majority were not. That still makes it far more prevalent than most people, especially men, think it is.

That's not intended as a slam on men in any way. It's just that for the most part, these aren't things that happen to men on a regular basis, so they're simply not aware of them at all. And most men, the great majority of men, don't do such things. Most men are awesome. But those who do... do them to many women. Most men end up assuming that because they wouldn't do such things, and nobody they hang out with would do such things (to their knowledge), they assume that they're rare.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My point is that personal experience makes for poor statistics, because you don't know how representative your inner circle is.

Yes... and no. Especially when the phenomenon being discussed actually is the experience itself. Many of these experiential occurrences are very difficult to measure. But they start with discussion and with shared experiences. I'd say if it were only my inner circle of close friends, sure, maybe I've somehow attracted an anomaly of women who've been sexually assaulted. But it's not. I listed the people very close to me for whom I have very clear knowledge of very clear violations. I'm leaving out many colleagues and acquaintances, fellow students and coworkers, neighbors, and random internet discussion folks who've shared similar experiences.

There comes a point where you realize that in every group of women, you'll find that the majority of them have had a similar experience. At some point, the sheer weight of that 'coincidence' indicates that it's not a coincidence at all, but an underlying fact of our experience.

The same thing is true when you start talking about the justice system treatment of black men in the US. Of the career progression and promotion patterns of women and minorities. It's very difficult to measure... but there's a definite pattern there nonetheless. Not being able to quantify it to a degree you find unquestionable doesn't imply that it is nonexistent.

ETA: Also, if you recollect, my personal experience was in response to you having dismissed actual statistics because they 'set off alarm bells' for you...

 

[caveman1917]

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not. Comparing it to race isn't poisoning the well. It's how many people, including Canadian law, treat the issue. It's the same law that protects trans people from discrimination that forbids racial discrimination.


Rolfe brought up the loss of public funding by the shelter in Canada as an example of something regrettable. I very much disagree. I admire that Canadians have so unequivocally codified the protection of trans people from bigotry into law.

Except that, IIRC, the shelter in question did allow transgender people. Even by your own logic, that would be shutting down a service available to trans-men without increasing service for trans-women. What you consider admirable I consider petty. Also, for this comparison to racial discrimination to work there would have to have been discrimination based on transgender status, which is clearly false (trans-men were not refused based on their transgender status). By that logic it is racial discrimination for a women-only group of black and white women to be excluding black men, even though the criterium is clearly sex and not race.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The whole argument that self-identification would be a problem in women's shelters is a red herring, because that's how they already operate.

I believe I've said this before, but I'll say it again because it doesn't seem to have been heard.

I think you're using the term "self-identification" in two different ways, and are conflating them. So let's make a few definitions:

1) Self-Identification (colloquial) - A person shows up and is dressed as a woman, behaves like a woman, but kind of looks like they might be a male person underneath. They say that they're trans, and need shelter. For all intents and purposes, they are presenting as a woman, and they are accepted as a woman, in part because they present as a woman. They are not asked for identification that proves they are a woman, nor are they obligated to show of their genitals. In this sense, "Self-Identification" means that the person presents as a woman and is not asked to prove that they are female.

2) Self-Identification (legal) - A person identifies themselves as a woman. End. In this case, they are not expected or required to present as a woman, behave as a woman, or do anything at all remotely resembling anything associated with the word "woman" as it is commonly understood, but on their claim they are entitled to be treated as a woman and to gain access to any and all services for women. They can present as a man in every single way imaginable, but if they identify themselves as a woman, they must be granted the status of woman.

What you've seemingly done throughout this thread, is to conflate these two meanings. Shelters have traditionally run on self-identification (colloquial). Most people don't have a problem with that. It's discretionary, and it's based on some common sense judgement. What is objected to is that self-identification (legal) becomes the norm, which removes that element of discretion.

You reference that shelters don't seem to have had a problem with self-identification in the past. That's most likely true, because that meaning of self-identification is the colloquial one, in which a person is perceived to be acting in good faith, and presents sufficiently as a woman that it would be inconsiderate to ask them for id. And that's a very reasonable position to take. But you then conflate that colloquial meaning with the legal one that is being objected to. You're extrapolating that the legal sense of self-identification, which allows a person to do nothing more than claim that they are a woman, will produce the exact same results as have been seen in the past.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not.

No, that's not the question at the root of this issue. The question is whether or not a person claiming to be trans (which cannot be proven or clearly demonstrated) should override the characteristic of sex.

The question is whether or not a person should be granted access to sex-segregated services and spaces on the basis of their claim alone.

 

[theprestige]

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not.

Maybe that question is at the root of the issue, but it's already been answered. I'm pretty sure that even Rolfe has stipulated that it's an immutable characteristic worth protecting. We've moved on to the following questions: What is the nature of this experience, and what protections make the most sense?

I get that it's easier to argue over stuff that's already agreed.

 

[Rolfe]

It's obviously not immutable.

 

[The Atheist]

Meanwhile we have the trans lobby insisting that misgendering is "literal violence".

In 2020, when "literal" has completely lost its meaning, they're right.

In the real world, it's bollocks.

I think this is a misrepresentation of the actual facts.

In this thread? Surely you jest.

 

[d4m10n]

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not.

I don't know where you live but where I live it remains legal to treat men and women differently. I think women-only gymnasia were mentioned upthread, along with private clubs for men. Then there are places such as Whole Women's Health which provide medical services just for females. I doubt any of these sorts of institutions are going away completely, at least not anytime soon, not to mention the places where bathrooms and locker rooms are explicitly sex-segregated.

ETA: As to race, well, I cannot think of any place that continues to openly discriminate along those lines, and those who do are in for a load of trouble.

 

[theprestige]

It's obviously not immutable.

Oh? You think gender dysphoria is something that can be changed, and not merely treated?

 

[Meadmaker]

Maybe that question is at the root of the issue, but it's already been answered. I'm pretty sure that even Rolfe has stipulated that it's an immutable characteristic worth protecting. We've moved on to the following questions: What is the nature of this experience, and what protections make the most sense?

I get that it's easier to argue over stuff that's already agreed.

It's obviously not immutable.

Not much agreement there.


There are people who declare themselves transgender, and who later declare that they are not and never were transgender. Therefore, it is trivially obvious that for some people who are claiming transgender status at this moment, for whom that status is not an immutable characteristic. There should not even be any debate or discussion about that.

There are also other reasons to believe that it is not an immutable characteristic for every transgender person. Especially, among those who declare themselves transgender late in life, there is strong reason to believe that some of them have changed from a former identity.

So the question becomes whether there is anyone at all who has always "felt like the opposite sex", whatever that means, and always will feel that way. i.e. are there people for whom the sense of being transgender is immutable.

I think there are, but I don't have scientific proof of that.

As noted earlier, as a core question, I really don't think it matters.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh? You think gender dysphoria is something that can be changed, and not merely treated?

There are numerous examples of people changing their minds and going back to live as their biological sex.

There's also the question of the large number of men who reach middle (sometimes even quite old) age, wife, kids, typical masculine career pattern, and then suddenly announce that they're trans.

Of course there is an obvious and well-understood explanation for this latter demographic, which is routinely shouted down by posters in this thread. However, it's common for men who were perfectly ordinary boyish boys and apparently oridinary men to become trans in later life.

 

[theprestige]

Not much agreement there.


There are people who declare themselves transgender, and who later declare that they are not and never were transgender. Therefore, it is trivially obvious that for some people who are claiming transgender status at this moment, for whom that status is not an immutable characteristic. There should even be any debate or discussion about that.

Yeah, I admit I forgot to take into account the fact that we can't discuss the real problem because some of the people who claim to have the real problem are fakers.

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course there is an obvious and well-understood explanation for this latter demographic, which is routinely shouted down by posters in this thread. However, it's common for men who were perfectly ordinary boyish boys and apparently oridinary men to become trans in later life.

Just in case it matters, I want to say that without your writings, I doubt I would have known about it, and even though other people use the word "discredited" a lot when talking about it. I even went and checked Amazon to see if there are authors who cater to this "discredited" group. I'm pretty sure no one would be writing those books if no one were reading them.

So, you have done your part to put the "E" in JREF, and later in ISF.

 

[Elaedith]

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not. Comparing it to race isn't poisoning the well. It's how many people, including Canadian law, treat the issue. It's the same law that protects trans people from discrimination that forbids racial discrimination.


Rolfe brought up the loss of public funding by the shelter in Canada as an example of something regrettable. I very much disagree. I admire that Canadians have so unequivocally codified the protection of trans people from bigotry into law.

If you can't discriminate or segregate based on a protected characteristic then you can't have women's shelters or any sex-segregated services at all since sex is a protected characteristic. That is not how society operates, as segregation based on sex is widely accepted for some specific purposes, while segregation based on race is not.

If you accept that women's shelters can discriminate based on sex, the only question is how you define sex - biological sex (or possibly appearance/medical transition to it) or self-declared identity. If you base access on self-declared identity then you discriminate against biological males who identify as men and (in theory) against biological females who identify as men. If you base access on biological sex then you discriminate against biological males regardless of how they identify but accept biological females regardless of how they identify. Either way, you discriminate based on a protected characteristic.

Comparisons with race are ludicrous because women of all races are women and the shelter is for women. Biological males are only women based on self-declaration if you accept gender identity ideology (and even then only by a leap of faith since there is no meaningful way to distinguish biological males who identify as women from biological males who pretend to identify as women, when the only criterion for being a woman is that you say you are). If you don't accept gender identity ideology it is no more bigotry to refuse biological males who identify as women than it is to refuse biological males who identify as men.

 

[Ziggurat]

The question at the root of this issue is whether being trans is an immutable characteristic of the human experience worth protecting from discrimination, such as sex or race, or whether it's not. Comparing it to race isn't poisoning the well. It's how many people, including Canadian law, treat the issue.

No. This is obviously wrong. The fact that there are women’s shelters at all, and not just shelters, demonstrates that Canadian law does in fact permit discrimination on the basis of sex.

It’s rather peculiar that gender identity can’t be discriminated against when sex can be. If the argument is based on discrimination being wrong, well, that’s just not coherent.