Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[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 legally prohibit single-sex living arrangements altogether, across the board, if given the chance. Is this correct?



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

Despite the strawmanning, this is what is meant by "Trans women are women". It's not about denying biological reality, it's a statement about practical realities. Trans women are women in the sense that they should be treated as women for all practical purposes. The difference between a trans woman and a cis man is much larger than the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman.

From the lens of social policy, gender identity is much more significant category than a strictly clinical view of sex. Trans acceptance fits fine into any rationale to divide the genders. It makes more sense to put a trans man, vagina and all, into a men's dorm rather than to make a bearded dude go live in a women's dorm.

inb4 idiotic claims about transwomen demanding hysterectomies or whatever nonsense is sure to follow.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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?

Sorry, which bit is wrong? The bit you go on to agree with?

But yes indeed. Let's back up a moment. To answer your question, if you want a genuine answer I would think it's better to ask someone who can give you a more studied answer than me. However if you would like my opinion then it would seem that the more is going to be quite a complex mix of things, a lot of being how you are treated by other people based on assumptions they make about you. And it's going to be a range of experiences because it's going to be different to be a black woman than to be a white woman, to be a beautiful woman vs an ordinary looking woman, to be a disabled woman vs an able-bodied woman and to be a transwoman vs a ciswoman or even to be a transman for that matter.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't see how affirming trans gender identity in law would lead to the end of gender segregated dorms.

Again, I'd say there is a significant difference between segregation by sex and by gender. Indeed, that difference is at the crux of several arguments in these threads.

From the lens of social policy, gender identity is much more significant category than a strictly clinical view of sex. Trans acceptance fits fine into any rationale to divide the genders. It makes more sense to put a trans man, vagina and all, into a men's dorm rather than to make a bearded dude go live in a women's dorm.

I agree with all of this, but my question to you was not whether we should advocate for this policy to be voluntarily adopted but whether it should be legally mandatory for all institutions.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again, I'd say there is a significant difference between segregation by sex and by gender. Indeed, that difference is at the crux of several arguments in these threads.

Ok. Civil rights protections for trans people might mean the end of sex segregated dorms as you define it, but not mean the end of gender segregated dorms, which would be nearly identical to the previous practice except accommodating trans people. Women's shelters, dorms, and other spaces would remain essentially the same.

 

[Earthborn]

Can we agree that there are relatively objective ways of objectively measuring sexual excitement in (gay) men?

There is not, one can feel "sexually excited" with a penile plethismograph showing nothing, and the thing showing huge response without a person feeling sexually excited. It is about as reliable as using a polygraph to see whether you are lying, which is also pseudoscience.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again, I'd say there is a significant difference between segregation by sex and by gender. Indeed, that difference is at the crux of several arguments in these threads.



I agree with all of this, but my question to you was not whether we should advocate for this policy to be voluntarily adopted but whether it should be legally mandatory for all institutions.

Generally speaking, civil right protections are compulsory, except when exceptions are carved out for religious and other such institutions.

If it's not mandatory, it's not a protected civil right.

 

[d4m10n]

Despite the strawmanning, this is what is meant by "Trans women are women". It's not about denying biological reality, it's a statement about practical realities. Trans women are women in the sense that they should be treated as women for all practical purposes.

This sounds like a moral claim (about shared values and desired outcomes) rather than the sort of claim that can be evaluated using the usual skeptical toolbox.

 

[d4m10n]

There is not, one can feel "sexually excited" with a penile plethismograph showing nothing, and the thing showing huge response without a person feeling sexually excited. It is about as reliable as using a polygraph to see whether you are lying, which is also pseudoscience.

Where are you getting your reliability data?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This sounds like a moral claim (about shared values and desired outcomes) rather than the sort of claim that can be evaluated using the usual skeptical toolbox.

As are most social issues. There's no skeptical answer to whether sodomy should be illegal or whether gay people should be imprisoned.

 

[d4m10n]

Women's shelters, dorms, and other spaces would remain essentially the same.

I'm not a woman and have no need of these spaces, but at least some of the (cis) women in this thread would surely disagree.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not a woman and have no need of these spaces, but at least some of the (cis) women in this thread would surely disagree.

Yes, and they aren't shy about white knighting for the entire female gender, despite indications that their positions are not widely held by those they purport to speak for.

Sucks that bigots are uncomfortable around trans women. That's not a good reason to not protect a vulnerable population.

 

[caveman1917]

This sounds like a moral claim (about shared values and desired outcomes) rather than the sort of claim that can be evaluated using the usual skeptical toolbox.

Motte & Bailey. Make a far-going claim of fact ("transwomen are women") and then, when challenged, retreat into a much weaker moral claim ("transwomen should be treated as women for all practical purposes").

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Motte & Bailey. Make a far-going claim of fact ("transwomen are women") and then, when challenged, retreat into a much weaker moral claim ("transwomen should be treated as women for all practical purposes").

Thrash that strawman. Sure, you can nutpick somebody who claims that transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way, but it ain't me baby.

Whole lot of nutpicking going on in this thread. Seems that finding jerks on twitter saying stupid things counts as skeptical evidence on these forums.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Yes, because you're conflating sex and gender to confuse the issue:

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 would end the practice of sex-segregated dorms, which is the problem we're debating and you're dodging.

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.

Simplifying the problem by saying it doesn't exist isn't a solution for the people who see the problem as very much existing.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, because you're conflating sex and gender to confuse the issue:




It would end the practice of sex-segregated dorms, which is the problem we're debating and you're dodging.


Simplifying the problem by saying it doesn't exist isn't a solution for the people who see the problem as very much existing.

I concede it would end sex segregation, which could be replaced by gender segregation. This would satisfy the rationale for the segregation to begin with. My point is that, for all practical purposes, gender segregation that is trans-inclusive is a drop-in replacement that satisfies all the needs of current sex-segregation, and has the added benefit of protecting the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group.

Apologies that I've been a bit sloppy with semantics, which I acknowledge is important in such discussions. I'll try to be clearer going forward.

 

[theprestige]

Thrash that strawman. Sure, you can nutpick somebody who claims that transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way, but it ain't me baby.

Whole lot of nutpicking going on in this thread. Seems that finding jerks on twitter saying stupid things counts as skeptical evidence on these forums.

It sounds like your position is that transwomen are men, but should be treated as women where practical to do so. And the rest of the debate is about what we can agree is practical.

 

[Earthborn]

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?

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

No.

That's because segregation is always problematic. No matter what categories of people you think up -- {black;white}, {hutu;tutsi}, {man;woman} -- or how many categories you think up -- {catholic;protestant;jew} -- there will always be people who don't fall neatly into the any of the categories and will feel confusion over which service they should use, or not have a service available to them. Also, no matter how "equal" you think you make the "separate but equal" service, there will always be people from one or more of the categories who feel they got the worst service, and often they're not wrong.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

As best as I can tell it's the following. We live in a society were the two sexes are expected (and socially reinforced) to behave differently. Some people internalize this to the extent that they develop something called a gender identity. In some of those people that gender identity does not map to their sex, so they want society to reinforce the behaviours expected of the other sex. For this reason they change their appearance and behaviours so as to cause people to reinforce the behaviours expected of the other sex.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It sounds like your position is that transwomen are men, but should be treated as women where practical to do so. And the rest of the debate is about what we can agree is practical.

I'm sorry you misinterpret me so badly. Perhaps it's my fault you came to such a poor conclusion.

 

[caveman1917]

Thrash that strawman. Sure, you can nutpick somebody who claims that transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way, but it ain't me baby.

Not only is "transwomen are women" not equivalent to "transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way", making your response a strawman (gotta love the irony), but "transwomen are women" is not a strawman, it's a literal position taken by many, including yourself.

Seems that finding jerks on twitter saying stupid things counts as skeptical evidence on these forums.

Depends on the claim it's used in evidence of, just like anything else.