Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

Enh. Like The Force Awakens, it starts out with some interesting potential, and then hares off into boring stuff. I'd be interested in more detail on what rights exactly are being pushed for.

Well... I suppose that the more interesting points arising from this article are:

1) The union representing all doctor-level medical professionals in the UK (all of whom are, of course, expert and experienced in physical and/or mental health) yesterday announced widespread support for transgender rights;

2) As part of this announcement, the doctors' union said (in addition to a blanket support for allowing transgender people to live with dignity and access appropriate healthcare facilities) that trans healthcare workers should be able to access facilities appropriate to the gender they identify as, and that trans people should be able to access gendered space in line with the gender they identify as;

3) The debate which informed the announcement appears to have brought up the issues of the appropriate levels of intervention for transgender adolescents, and the particular sensitivities which should be considered in such cases;

4) There appears to have been strong support for self-identification.


As I said, this is the body speaking on behalf of all the doctors in the UK. As such, its views carry considerable weight, and should (IMO) be considered very carefully as the product of considerable cumulative expertise and experience in all aspects of physical and mental healthcare - including, of course, healthcare related to transgender people.

 

[LondonJohn]

That doesn't answer my question.

Well, if I were being facetious, I'd say "whichever one lunges at her in an attempt at a sexual assault"....

But I guess Meadmaker should probably provide an answer to this one.

 

[LondonJohn]

At the very least you'll have to grant that I'm at least trying to have a dialog here, as "wrong" as I might be from your point of view.

The usual suspects dragging the discussion down into some silly "Oh we've just up and decided this well established linguistic flourish is something we'll just pretend to not understand and freak out when we see it" hijack benefits neither of us, nor the people we have are having this discussion about.

I couldn't agree more with all of this. And yes: difference of opinion, drawing different conclusions from the same data set, etc, are inevitable in virtually any area of argument (in fact, it's very healthy that they actually exist).

And so long as the debate is conducted in good faith, within the "rules" of argumentation, and with emotional honesty, then all is good. Personally, I always strive to reach that ideal - sometimes I fall short of it, but I don't like myself if I do so, and it makes me work all the harder to be better in the future. I think you're probably the same.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, if I were being facetious, I'd say "whichever one lunges at her in an attempt at a sexual assault"...

Sounds like a cishet dudebro move, but I'd hate to stereotype.

But I guess Meadmaker should probably provide an answer to this one.

Anyone could answer the question. AFAIK, the answer is "No, there's no way to tell them apart without interrogating their subjective mental states."

 

[Meadmaker]

Is there any way for the young woman in question to tell situations #2 & #3 apart without striking up a conversation?

I can't come up with a way, and even with a conversation, there's no guarantee. People are not guaranteed to be truthful.

 

[Meadmaker]

Presumably this exercise is predicated upon which of the three the young woman perceives as either a) the most offensive to her, or b) potentially the most dangerous to her....

In the exercise, the young woman finds offense at the person sharing a locker room with the second person. There isn't any comparison of the young woman's attitudes. There are three cases to be considered separately.
In each of the three cases the young woman does not wish to share a locker room with the person described in that case.

The exercise is not about her judgements, but yours. She objects. The exercise is about considering the sympathy of onlookers to her objections.

To clarify, I will say that the young woman offers no justification when issuing her complaint, beyond noting that the objection is related to the identity of the person in the locker room. In other words, it is not about the behavior of the person in question, beyond being in and using the locker room normally. It is about the identity of the person in question. In situation 1, the young woman is aware that the 2nd person is a black woman. In situation 2, the young woman is aware that the 2nd person is a trans-woman. In situation 3, the young woman is aware that the person is a cis-man.

Most people who view situations 1 and 2 as being very similar will have little sympathy to her objections. Most people who view situation 2 and 3 as being very similar will be very sympathetic to her objections.

 

[d4m10n]

Most people who view situations 1 and 2 as being very similar will have little sympathy to her objections. Most people who view situation 2 and 3 as being very similar will be very sympathetic to her objections.

This seems about right to me, though it seems unlikely (IMO; YMMV) that the young woman would just happen to have the prior knowledge of the other person's subjective sense of gender identity so as to allow her to differentiate between cases #2 and #3. Since you have stipulated this knowledge as part of the exercise here, I'd say there is a significant difference between those two scenarios for the sake of the exercise. IRL, though? Hard to say.

ETA: Probably I'd be sympathetic to anyone who had been raised to expect single-sex spaces suddenly discovering that this rule no longer holds.

 

[theprestige]

Read this article and let me what you think of it. (goes for the rest of y'all too!)

Why transgender people are ignored by modern medicine

It seems transpersons who are in stealth mode, even in medical appointments, should not be responsible for the inadequate care they get because doctors view them as their preferred identity- because that is what is on the paperwork and they dont tell anyone. They also do not get notified for the appropriate screenings.

Also, since medical care is based on clinical studies segregated by sex, suggesting that someone stop hormone treatment to get appropriate care for their actual sex is deemed unnecessary.
This seems like 'science by emotions' until it doesnt work, and then blame the medical providers who dont have all the facts and NOT blame the patient who does not disclose their true anatomy.

The solution, of course, is to have medical records separate from all others so that care is appropriate for the actual body you have. But then it gives an identifier.

Thanks. Interesting reading.

 

[Meadmaker]

This seems about right to me, though it seems unlikely (IMO; YMMV) that the young woman would just happen to have the prior knowledge of the other person's subjective sense of gender identity so as to allow her to differentiate between cases #2 and #3. Since you have stipulated this knowledge as part of the exercise here, I'd say there is a significant difference between those two scenarios for the sake of the exercise. IRL, though? Hard to say.

Yes, I realized after that I had kind of shifted a bit between two posts. In one, I noted that 2 and 3 could not be distinguished, and later I said that she was aware that the person is a trans-woman.

Let me try and tidy up a bit. When making the complaint, or during the course of making the complaint, the young woman is aware that the person claims identity as a trans-woman. The decision to put it that way was based on imagining the sorts of conversations that could occur when the young woman complained. Even if the young woman is not aware that the person is a trans-woman when approaching the management, it might be that the management will provide her with that information at the time the young woman complains. So, as part of the exercise, the young woman is aware that the person claims transwoman status.

Number 2 could be the high school locker room scenario. The girls know that the second person is a trans-woman (or girl, if you prefer). They know this, not necessarily because they see sex organs, but because this is common knowledge among the students.

ETA: So, to restate, people will likely judge the complainant based on whether they view undressing in the presence of a trans woman as being more like undressing in the presence of a black woman, or more like undressing in the presence of a man.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Speaking personally: I think that those challenges and concerns feature some that are real and valid, others that are invalid, and others that are potentially feasible but cannot yet be measured. I also believe that yes, female cis women (and yes, male cis men also) will have to make some concessions and give up a small section of their rights, in order to accommodate the greater good. But I say that with the belief that females in particular will need to be assured of maximum reasonable efforts being made to safeguard their physical safety*.

Males, on average, have pretty comprehensive right and face little discrimination as males.

Females, on average, have limited rights (including limits on their ownership of their own bodies), and face quite a bit of every-day discrimination. They are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and harassment at rates significantly higher than those of males (outside of prisons).

Trans activists want gender identity to override sex as a protected characteristic. They want gender identity to be a more important class than sex. Transwomen, in particular, want to have all of the rights and services of females, as well as additional rights and protections as transgender people.

In order for transgender people to get what they want, females must see their rights (which are already unequal) reduced, see their security reduces, and relinquish their expectations of privacy. They must share the limited services intended to address the inequity of females with people who are not female, but who identify as women (for an undefined and inexplicable meaning of the word women).

What is it that cismen would have to give up?

And how is it the "greater good" when it's reducing the already unequal rights of half the population in order to provide entitlements to a very small portion of the population? It seems like it's really a lot more of a case of "for the greater good of transwomen, because they're greater than females".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Has anyone pointed out the obvious flaw in your analogy yet?

It would be a lot more apt analogy if LondonJohn were describing black people today being asked to see their rights and security reduced in order to affirm the feeling of belonging of transracial blacks who were assigned white at birth.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It would be a lot more apt analogy if LondonJohn were describing black people today being asked to see their rights and security reduced in order to affirm the feeling of belonging of transracial blacks who were assigned white at birth.

A more apt analogy might be well meaning whites who didnt want to desegregate schools because it meant dangerous and unintelligent blacks would share the classroom with their lily white darlings.

Much like transphobe websites cataloging the misdeeds of trans people, racist websites frequently have "black crime" running features meant to reinforce racist belief.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So what I was saying was this: yes, sometimes it's an inevitable consequence of civil rights laws/rules that one group of people are going to find themselves in a worse situation (and perhaps with a diminuation of their own rights) as a consequence of those laws/rules. And while this is obviously undesirable, it's deemed by a mature, liberal, educated society to be a price worth paying in order to promote a greater good.

Okay, let me try to spell this out for you, so you can see why your illustration is getting push-back as being inappropriate.

What group of people is going to see their rights reduced? Females
Do females already have comprehensive equal rights and treatment? No
Are females still considered a protected class that faces discrimination and substantial barriers to equality? Yes

Now, the clincher: Who are the members of the "mature, liberal, educated society" that has decided that it's worth females paying this price? Males.

I thought the analogy was almost laughably easy to understand for what it was. I shouldn't keep overestimating, I suppose. My bad.

Please stop making condescending comments like this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When I first heard of TERFs I looked at some articles linked (here?) and saw an aspect of the situation that I haven't seen brought up here (though it might have been). Some lesbians were claiming they were being labeled transphobic because they were not willing to have sex with someone with balls and a penis. It must have been a somewhat theoretical argument as no one has suggested they literally owe sex to any given individual - or have they? Were people who said these things attacked as bigots?

Maybe that was just a minority shooting off their mouths, but I would think that this ultimate test might be a bridge too far.

It stood out, I think, because this wasn't an article about intersex people or shared restrooms or dressing rooms. It went right to who you could properly decline to have sex with. Like someone was pushing this as a talking point.

No, it's a real thing. And no, the people who insisted that lesbians are transphobes if they aren't interested in penis-in-vagina sex with males who identify as women were not attacked as bigots by anyone other than the lesbians who were being vilified for not liking wedding tackle.

http://www.gettheloutuk.com/
https://www.genderhq.org/trans-youth-identity-politics-rights-conflicts-lgbt-part3
https://terfisaslur.com/cotton-ceiling/
Account written by a lesbian
https://www.gaycitynews.com/using-terf-randomly-other-signs-your-misogyny-is-showing/
Regarding lesbian erasure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_erasure#In_relation_to_transgender_women

I've brought this up a few times. It's just been ignored completely by the various trans activists in this thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That was what I was pointing out to d4m10n.

Note that I used the word "excited" instead of "arousal" as the latter word does connote a physical response, not entirely connected to one's sexual preference. I was challenging d4m10n on their claim that sexual excitement can be objectively measured by sticking a bunch of wires to someone's little willy.



Is that not the exact same thing I was arguing?

So... You're hinging your argument on the difference between the word "excitement" and "arousal" in order to deflect from the fact that sexual arousal can, in fact, be measured quite well, and has observable symptoms?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's really the self-ID part that is a hindrance.

This has been said several times by me, as well as by others. It's something that gets ignored and brushed away... or the activist side ends up insisting that self-id alone must be accepted as incontrovertible truth and no questions asked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Except that the argument is not that trans people are dangerous. The argument is that males are dangerous and that self-ID creates a loophole that can be exploited to allow (non-trans) men into spaces where women currently feel safe from them. Hence the willingness to accept trans women with a diagnosis and an obvious effort at transition.


See the thing is, they aren't concerned about letting trans women into the changing rooms. They are concerned with letting males into women's changing rooms, but are willing to accept exceptions for trans-women who meet a criteria and show discretion in their behavior. (You know, the same thing you advocate.)

It's more than that. Yes, the loophole with respect to privacy and safety is one issue.

But there's also the issue around access to things intended to address the inequality of females in society. For example, Boudicca has said that she believes transwomen (even self-id alone with no transition) should have access to female scholarships and grants, female shortlist positions, and recognition and honors for females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unless those spaces require people to show their ID cards to enter, self-ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with them. Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already. What the movement for self-identification for changes in civil gender is about is just the M or F on one's birth certificate and ID cards. I find it hard to believe there many people would fake their gender identity just for the privilege of having customs officers ask them "why is there a M/F on your passport when you are clearly a F/M ?"

Realistically, though, they aren't run on self-id. Not in the same sense. It would be more appropriate to say they're run on "consensus public id".

At present, those locations are segregated based on what other people are generally and reasonably going to assume the individual's sex to be. People who look like females use the ladies room. People who look like males use the mens room.

Self-id is different in this context. Self-id refers to an individual declaring who they are on the inside, even if that internal identity is in complete contradiction to their outward appearance. Self-id, in this context, would allow a 6'4" 200lb bearded, muscular lumberjack to dictate that they are allowed to use the ladies room because they "identify" as a woman, irrespective of the fact that every single observer on the planet would correctly identify them as male.


Or this, which is a lot more concise.

No, they are not. As a practical matter, they are mostly run on self-presentation, which isn't the same thing as self-identification.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh I didn't doubt that it had been discussed way upthread as well. Just offering a reminder, that's all - and also because it seemed somewhat germane to my having pointed out that certain groups must (unfortunately) sometimes be prepared to accept a worse situation for themselves in the cause of the greater good

It's not the "greater good" if a very small number of people are granted rights and entitlements above those of other people, and those rights and entitlements come at the cost of reduced rights and protections of an already disadvantaged group.


It's the "greater good of the subgroup C that group A thinks is better than group B, where C is a subset of A".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, and the question becomes, when push comes to shove, do the civil rights of unpopular minorities matter, or do we throw them away in the name of comfort and privilege of the larger majority.

What rights do transgender people lack?
What rights are they asking for?