Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Robin]

1) Yes

2) No


What a strange contribution.

Why is it a strange contribution? We have just been talking about whether or not homosexuality is a genuine valid condition and that wasn't considered a strange contribution.

Why then is it strange to have the exact same discussion about heterosexuality?

Don't we need to hear from the experts in the field to find out if heterosexuality is a genuine valid condition?

 

[Robin]

maybe someone who is smarter than I am can break this down for me. So the best and largest studies on trans treatment (hormone and surgery) Branstrom and Dhejne found that there was no benefit for ppl diagnosed with a “gender incongruence”. The treatments don’t reduce anxiety or depression and increase suicidality and all cause mortality. so what the hell are we doing to these ppl? My goodness we’re destroying ppl because of what? What reason?

I have been asking for decades what the point of gender reassignment surgery is, sometimes losing trans friends over the question.

Perhaps we should start to regard it as an outdated response.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay so once again here is the question:



Given that we all celebrated the holding of Bostock v. Clayton County can you have a go at the question as of today?

The decision narrowly applies to employment. There is no wider recognition that transgender identity is a protected class federally. It remains lawful in many states to discriminate against trans people in housing and other non-employment parts of society.

Several states have passed explicitly anti-trans laws requiring them to use bathrooms consistent with their biological sex, regardless of their transitioned gender identity.

Trans people are routinely the targets of hate crimes and only some states classify them as such.

Only some states have included gender identity as a protected class in their civil rights statutes.

It remains legal federally and in many states for parents to compel their children to attend conversion therapy, which is widely regarded as little more than psychological torture.

Trans people are largely considered "mentally unfit" for military service, a reversal of previous policy.

The few advances that trans people have made over the last few years are perceived to be in great danger of being eliminated by a new conservative SCOTUS, which is probably why anti-trans legal advocacy groups like the ADF deem it a good time to bring such litigation.

 

[Roboramma]

A few questions for everyone and anyone:

1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

I can't really think of anything, though if people loosely segregate social gatherings by gender, that might make sense in some circumstances.

2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

Yes, I think so. Competitive sports are a pretty clear cut example of something I think should be segregated by sex, because of the biological advantages that men have over women.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes. My local big box stores have separate clothing depts. for feminine and masculine clothing, and this strikes me as convenient for nearly everyone. A separate area for clothing especially tailored for those pursuing unisex and/or non-binary fashions would be appreciated as well.

I may have misunderstood the question. I certainly think it makes sense to have separate men's/women's clothing, partly due to biological differences in body shapes, but also because of gendered differences in fashion tastes. But I don't think, for instance, that people who are predominantly masculine should be prohibited from buying female clothing. Some of my favorite clothes used to be tights I got from Victoria's Secret. I stopped wearing them because I put on some weight and they don't look so good anymore, also there are many more options in men's yoga clothing in the past few years. A lot of men asked me where I got them (or sometimes women looking to shop for their boyfriends), but they'd usually feel uncomfortable when I told them.

 

[d4m10n]

It remains lawful in many states to discriminate against trans people in housing and other non-employment parts of society.

Would you rather single-sex housing (e.g. dormitories at Catholic University) were prohibited by federal law?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Would you rather single-sex housing (e.g. dormitories at Catholic University) were prohibited by federal law?

I would rather landlords did not have the option to discriminate against trans renters. Complexities of religious colleges and single sex dorms aside, it's perfectly lawful for bigoted landlords to straight up prohibit trans renters from ordinary rental properties.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We can observe the distress, and we can treat the distress. But we cannot objectively determine that the transgender person who feels like a woman actually does feel like a woman, or in fact shares any commonalities with a female that aren't otherwise shared by all humans.

Isn't the treatment for the distress basically to treat the person of the gender that they say they identify as?

I believe that you identify as a woman and I doubt that you would a) appreciate anyone telling you that they don't agree with you b) reduce that identity to the mere presence of genitalia?

I think this reductionism potentially does women in general a disservice because if we reduce 'women' to biology then we open the door for a lot of the efforts made to help women reduce inequalities to be dismantled unless they have a biological basis. Or worse, the invention of spurious biological justifications for inequalities.

I'm sure we agree the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, then surely that also allows for an experience of being a woman absent female genitals? It may not be the same lived experience as you but that doesn't mean it's invalid. After all I'm sure there are all sorts of women who have all sorts of different lived experiences from you. All that is being asked is that the range of 'lived experiences of being a woman' includes transwomen.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Would you rather single-sex housing (e.g. dormitories at Catholic University) were prohibited by federal law?

These two issues appear unconnected but I don't think that separating men and women on such spurious, quasi-religious grounds is healthy. If it was the Islamic University doing it there would be uproar.

 

[d4m10n]

I would rather landlords did not have the option to discriminate against trans renters.

Me too—in mixed sex structures such as apartment buildings—of course. That said, you seem to be deliberately dodging the hard problem here. Some institutions are deliberately segregating by sex in housing right now. Would your ideal legislation require that they give up the right to do so?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Me too—in mixed sex structures such as apartment buildings—of course. That said, you seem to be deliberately dodging the hard problem here. Some institutions are deliberately segregating by sex in housing right now. Would your ideal legislation require that they give up the right to do so?

Religious institutions are given wide latitude to conduct themselves in ways that would otherwise be considered discriminatory in other contexts. A discussion of religious privilege to violate equal protection laws seems like a derail from the topic thread.

I see no reason why this hyper-specific, very special case is really relevant to whatever point about how great trans people have it in the US is supposed you seem to be making.

Ordinary landlords renting out normal homes can discriminate against trans people in many states across the country. You asked what rights trans people don't have, there's one. I have no interest in quibbling about Catholic University communal dorms or whatever you're on about.

 

[d4m10n]

You asked what rights trans people don't have, there's one. I have no interest in quibbling about Catholic University communal dorms or whatever you're on about.

If you want to be taken seriously when proposing changes to the law of the land, it helps to show that you've thought through all the implications. And once again, here, you've dodged the question of whether it would be appropriate and desirable to ban single-sex living quarters outright.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If you want to be taken seriously when proposing changes to the law of the land, it helps to show that you've thought through all the implications. And once again, here, you've dodged the question of whether it would be appropriate and desirable to ban single-sex accommodations outright.

Religious universities already have wide latitude to ignore civil rights laws. Adding trans protections would likely do little to change that because private religious schools generally can ignore anti-discrimination law and be as bigoted as they please in these matters.

Nor am I much interested in protecting the right of religious institutions to practice bigotry under the name of orthodoxy. If it were up to me, these places would be found in violation of anti-discrimination laws for all their anti-gay and other bigoted policies, but it's not.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If you want to be taken seriously when proposing changes to the law of the land, it helps to show that you've thought through all the implications. And once again, here, you've dodged the question of whether it would be appropriate and desirable to ban single-sex living quarters outright.

There is no need to ban single-sex living quarters provided you allow trans people access to the quarters they wish to live in.

 

[theprestige]

The decision narrowly applies to employment. There is no wider recognition that transgender identity is a protected class federally. It remains lawful in many states to discriminate against trans people in housing and other non-employment parts of society.

The employment vs housing situation makes sense when you think about it. We all pretty much agree that employment should be largely co-ed. And we all pretty much agree that housing, like locker rooms, can legitimately be sex-segregated.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have all the same employment opportunities as other men and/or women? Absolutely.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have access to female-only housing opportunities? Well, here we are in this thread.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The employment vs housing situation makes sense when you think about it. We all pretty much agree that employment should be largely co-ed. And we all pretty much agree that housing, like locker rooms, can legitimately be sex-segregated.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have all the same employment opportunities as other men and/or women? Absolutely.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have access to female-only housing opportunities? Well, here we are in this thread.

My reading of damion's post seems to be that he thinks trans protections will end the practice of sex segregated communal dorms, which doesn't really make sense for me.

Trans people would be assigned to the dorms of their gender identity, which can totally remain segregated into men/women as they are now.

I agree this is just a rehash of the "locker room" dilemma that some have, but I don't see how this would end the practice of gender segregated dorms.

It's only complicated if you take the line that trans women should not be treated as women (and likewise for men/transmen), which creates a complex problem what to do with these people that have set aside as "the other" with no good place to go.

 

[d4m10n]

Nor am I much interested in protecting the right of religious institutions to practice bigotry under the name of orthodoxy.

It is fair to say that the Catholic Church is bigoted as between men and women, but Catholic University isn't the only school in play here. Other institutions also have policy choices regarding dormitories; even our local state school segregates by floor.

I'm getting the sense that you'd prefer to legally prohibit single-sex living arrangements altogether, across the board, if given the chance. Is this correct?

My reading of damion's post seems to be that he thinks trans protections will end the practice of sex segregated communal dorms, which doesn't really make sense for me.

Can you see any difference between segregating by sex and segregating by gender?

There is no need to ban single-sex living quarters provided you allow trans people access to the quarters they wish to live in.

In which case, why would we call them single-sex?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It is fair to say that the Catholic Church is bigoted as between men and women, but Catholic University isn't the only school in play here. Other institutions also have policy choices regarding dormitories; even our local state school segregates by floor.

I'm getting the sense that you'd prefer to ban single-sex living arrangements altogether, across the board, if given the chance. Is this correct?

I don't see how affirming trans gender identity in law would lead to the end of gender segregated dorms. Trans women could live in all women dorms and still exclude men. Likewise for trans men and all men dorms.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Can you see a difference between segregating by sex and segregating by gender?

A semantic one, yes. A practical one, not so much.

 

[theprestige]

Isn't the treatment for the distress basically to treat the person of the gender that they say they identify as?

I believe that you identify as a woman and I doubt that you would a) appreciate anyone telling you that they don't agree with you b) reduce that identity to the mere presence of genitalia?

I think this reductionism potentially does women in general a disservice because if we reduce 'women' to biology then we open the door for a lot of the efforts made to help women reduce inequalities to be dismantled unless they have a biological basis. Or worse, the invention of spurious biological justifications for inequalities.

I'm sure we agree the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, then surely that also allows for an experience of being a woman absent female genitals? It may not be the same lived experience as you but that doesn't mean it's invalid. After all I'm sure there are all sorts of women who have all sorts of different lived experiences from you. All that is being asked is that the range of 'lived experiences of being a woman' includes transwomen.

The only person doing genital reductionism in this thread is you. So this is wrong:

"I'm sure we agree the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, then surely that also allows for an experience of being a woman absent female genitals?"​

The question is, do we agree the experience of being a woman is more than the experience of having the genes, the hormones, the morphology (including, yes, some substantial subset of primary and secondary physical characteristics such as genitalia), and the social gender construct built on that biological reality? And do we agree that it is possible to experience being a woman absent all of those things?

But let's back up a moment. You say the experience of being a woman is more than the experience of having female genitals. Okay, sure. I agree with that - I think. What exactly is your "more"? What else, besides genitals, do you think goes into the experience of being a woman?