Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[lionking]

I'm not sure. Seems to me that even in relatively regressive jurisdictions trans women have all the same legal rights which cis men (like myself) do. What they would like are a different set of legal rights (e.g. Title IX protections) previously reserved to natal women.

In other words, there is already discrimination happening based on sex and they would like to be part of that existing discriminatory regime, based on the sex with which they identify rather than the one they happened to have been assigned by accident of birth.

Precisely.

Of course saying this means you are a transphobe and a bigot.......

 

[lionking]

No, it doesn't. I don't know why it's important for people to have to outright lie about that. It's OK to be wrong, but insisting on being wrong after you have been corrected isn't OK.

You've been told what Self-ID means. It's a legal process.

Incorrect.

 

[Earthborn]

And why does the government need to register their birthdate anyway? What if they identify as much younger than they are?

Good question. The answer is pretty obvious: if the government registers some property of its citizens, it is because it wants to discriminate them on this property. Some countries register people's religion or "race"/ethnicity at birth for this reason.

The government registers people's birthday because it wants to discriminate them on age. There may be legitimate reasons to do that can't be solved in any other way.

 

[d4m10n]

It's curious this. Is there any other area of medicine where it's legitimate for non-experts to just argue that they don't accept condition X is really a thing? Because quite a few of the arguments on this thread seem to come down to just exactly that.

If by "condition X" you mean gender dysphoria (previously known as GID) that's not an answer to the question, clearly, since cis women don't have it.

Perhaps stop worrying about why people need to justify why they should be treated as X and turn it on it's head and consider what are the justifications for not treating people as they wish to be treated...

Suppose a heavyweight wants to be treated as a welterweight for purposes of a title bout. Are there good justifications for refusing to treat her as she'd wish? Of course. Why do I bring up this specific example? Because you have to drill down to specific cases before you can determine whether justifications exist.

 

[lionking]

Good question. The answer is pretty obvious: if the government registers some property of its citizens, it is because it wants to discriminate them on this property. Some countries register people's religion or "race"/ethnicity at birth for this reason.

The government registers people's birthday because it wants to discriminate them on age. There may be legitimate reasons to do that can't be solved in any other way.

Yes. It's to identify someone. Discrimination may or may not follow from that identification.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm not sure. Seems to me that even in relatively regressive jurisdictions trans women have all the same legal rights which cis men (like myself) do. What they would like are a different set of legal rights (e.g. Title IX protections) previously reserved to natal women.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work? It's equivalent of saying that gay people have the same rights as straight people because a gay man can marry a woman if they want, the same as a straight man can.

I'm not overly familiar with Title IX but my understanding is that it does not specify that it only applies to natal women but in any case, what transpeople are arguing for is not to be discriminated against by e.g. being excluded from being treated like women because they are transwomen.

Now you might think it's OK to exclude them but that doesn't change what it is they are asking for.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Incorrect.

Evidence?

Again, lying about something doesn't give a good impression that you are engaging honestly in a discussion.

 

[Earthborn]

In other words, there is already discrimination happening based on sex and they would like to be part of that existing discriminatory regime, based on the sex with which they identify rather than the one they happened to have been assigned by accident of birth.

Most probably wouldn't mind getting rid of the sex/gender discrimination all together.

 

[lionking]

Evidence?

Again, lying about something doesn't give a good impression that you are engaging honestly in a discussion.

Evidence of what? Self identification in the context of this thread is self identification of whichever gender you wish to identify as. This is not a legal process at all. The act of doing so may be legal in certain jurisdictions, but not all and not without qualification.

And be careful of accusing me of lying.

 

[d4m10n]

...what transpeople are arguing for is not to be discriminated against by e.g. being excluded from being treated like women because they are transwomen.

Can you provide a specific example of when it is good public policy to treat women differently from men?

Most probably wouldn't mind getting rid of the sex/gender discrimination all together.

I've argued for this on occasion with respect to changing rooms and bathrooms in particular. Not particularly well received, IIRC.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If by "condition X" you mean gender dysphoria (previously known as GID) that's not an answer to the question, clearly, since cis women don't have it.

It wasn't an attempt to answer your question, it was an attempt to discover why you think the question is so important. If the medical profession says gender dysphoria is a thing and that the treatment for it is to transition then what's to be gained by nitpicking on definitions?

Suppose a heavyweight wants to be treated as a welterweight for purposes of a title bout. Are there good justifications for refusing to treat her as she'd wish? Of course. Why do I bring up this specific example? Because you have to drill down to specific cases before you can determine whether justifications exist.

Yes you do. And there will be certain cases where discrimination is justified but none of that will be based on these arguments about definition.

For example, one could say 'in a case where not discrimination would cause a greater harm to either party it is OK to discriminate'. There may be other rules that can be used. I'm open to hearing them.

 

[Earthborn]

This is not a legal process at all.

Self-ID in the context of this thread involves filling out a government form in which one has to swear they intend to live permanently as the other sex. I think that might count as a "legal process".

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Evidence of what? Self identification in the context of this thread is self identification of whichever gender you wish to identify as. This is not a legal process at all. The act of doing so may be legal in certain jurisdictions, but not all and not without qualification.

And be careful of accusing me of lying.

Self ID as was being discussed is a legal process. That you want to muddy the waters by using it incorrectly is your choice.

I'm not accusing you of anything. No accusation is needed when it's obvious for all to see.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//ETA: Thread moved faster than I anticipated. Adding quote to clarify who I was responding to//

Self-ID in the context of this thread involves filling out a government form in which one has to swear they intend to live permanently as the other sex. I think that might count as a "legal process".

"Live as the other sex" means nothing in a society that doesn't force the sexes to live differently.

 

[d4m10n]

If the medical profession says gender dysphoria is a thing and that the treatment for it is to transition then what's to be gained by nitpicking on definitions?

No one here, in any iteration of the thread, has questioned whether gender dysphoria is real. As to the efficacy of treatment, can you show us a study (or better yet, a comprehensive meta-analysis) wherein experts compared different treatment modalities? If not, why should anyone assume medical science has already arrived at the last and best answer, given the iterative nature of scientific advancement?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Can you provide a specific example when it is good public policy to treat women differently from men?

I'd say as a general rule, no. But there are probably some examples where it might be good policy to offer women some things that are not available to men to help overcome systemic discrimination. So for example I have no problem with a public school offering girls only after school STEM lessons. I can't see any advantage in excluding transgirls from that though.

I've argued for this on occasion with respect to changing rooms and bathrooms in particular. Not particularly well received, IIRC.

Segregated changing rooms seems like more of a social convention than sound public policy. If someone can show that it would be significantly harmful to allow transwomen access to women's changing rooms then it would be justified to exclude them. Has that been done?

 

[Earthborn]

Adding quote to clarify who I was responding

No biggie. I knew who you were responding to.

Live as the other sex" means nothing in a society that doesn't force the sexes to live differently.

IKR?

All this ******* just to change an M or F into a F or M. Using "self-id" for that is the arch-conservative idea there still needs some sort of sex/gender discrimination. The progressive idea is just to do away with it and get the government out of our underpants.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No one here, in any iteration of the thread, has questioned whether gender dysphoria is real. As to the efficacy of treatment, can you show us a study (or better yet, a comprehensive meta-analysis) wherein experts compared different treatment modalities? If not, why should anyone assume medical science has already arrived at the last and best answer, given the iterative nature of scientific advancement?

Actually people on this thread have argued that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing while others try to be more clever and insinuate that it can't be a real thing because there is no such thing as 'essence of woman' for it even to be a real thing.

I'm happy for experts to discuss the best treatment. What I am not happy with is for non-experts to second guess the whole shebang and/or claim to have better answers based on nothing.

Unless you have done the work to come up with a better answer then we should follow current medical best practice until such times as it is superceded? Yes?

Whether or not you or I accept it or understand it or can explain it is neither here nor there. Agree?

 

[JoeMorgue]

No biggie. I knew who you were responding to.

I know but this is a heated thread and I wanted full clarity.

 

[d4m10n]

Actually people on this thread have argued that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing...

Can you quote just one of them? If so, I'm happy to retract.

I'm happy for experts to discuss the best treatment. What I am not happy with is for non-experts to second guess the whole shebang and/or claim to have better answers based on nothing.

Where exactly did someone suggest an alternative treatment?

Unless you have done the work to come up with a better answer then we should follow current medical best practice until such times as it is superceded?

Who argued otherwise?