Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Earthborn]

Remember Seani, though.

Does Seani use the ladies room though? If so, under UK law women would not discriminate if they object. Not even if Seani got their legal gender changed under the Self-ID law, which would be unlikely to be approved.

As best as I can determine some single-sex services exist (sex is a protected category) which are, in principle, regulated by the sex recorded on the individual's passport.

So it is regulated by legal gender?

 

[caveman1917]

So it is regulated by legal gender?

I think it says "Sex: M/F" and not "Gender: M/F" on the passport, suggesting that M/F stands for male/female in the sense of sex and not for masculine/feminine in the sense of gender. Either way, operationally it is regulated by whether it says M or F on the passport, as best as I can tell.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Incredibly disturbing, if true.

Perhaps "not allowed" is too extreme. More like "severely criticized and accused of being transphobic and engaging in conversion therapy if they do"

 

[Emily's Cat]

My comparison has absolutely nothing to do with any considerations of prior oppression.

But if you insist on taking that line..... I'd say that transgender people could lay a pretty fair claim to having been oppressed by the rest of society - by us - up to now. Woudn't you?


Note also that in my counterexample, I suggested that one subgroup (white girls/women) out of the whole set of people whom the civil rights legislation was not aimed at helping (that whole set therefore equalling all white people) ended up being placed at potentially increased danger as a direct consequence of that legislation.

Just as, wrt transgender legislation, I suggest that one subgroup (cisgender girls/women) out of the whole set of people whom the civil rights legislation was not aimed at helping (that whole set therefore equalling all cisgendered people) might end up being placed at potentially increased danger as a direct consequence of that legislation.

Each to his/her own, I guess.

And again, I will provide the illustrative analogy that you are suggesting that black people should have to give up some of their rights, privacy, and safety in order to grant entitlements to hispanic people, while white people give up nothing.

To make the parallel even clearer: You are suggesting that female people give up some of their rights, privacy, and safety in order to grant entitlements to transwomen, while male people give up nothing.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, my initial analogy can be made even more clear by saying: You are suggesting that black people should have to give up some of their rights, privacy, and safety in order to grant entitlements to white people who identify as black, while white people give up nothing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think they mean "a condition which is valid in and of itself (as opposed to a disorder, or the product of a disorder), which is real (as opposed to imaginary - within the psyche of the person concerned), and which is lived (meaning it manifests itself in the way that the person concerned identifies their existence and conducts their life)".

I think you're conflating the "lived condition of gender dysphoria" with the "lived condition of actually being the gender they feel like".

A person with gender dysphoria who identifies as a woman, has a real valid condition of gender dysphoria. That condition does not, however, imply that they are actually a woman in any meaningful sense. It merely means that we recognize that they have a real feeling of distress caused by the incongruence between their mental perception of themselves and the physical reality of their body.

It does not mean that their mental perception of themselves is more true than their physical body.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Not at all. And I've never said or implied that.

My claim is no more or less than this:

1) A premise has been proposed that it cannot be right for cis women to be (potentially) placed at higher risk as a direct consequence of the introduction of certain transgender rights.

2) I showed a counterexample where a group of people were (potentially) placed at higher risk as a direct consequence of the introduction of other civil rights (here: black rights).

3) I am saying that (2), IMO, demonstrates that the "cannot be right" part of (1) is not a logical truism.

Your entire claim is false. Civil Rights is about the extension of equal rights to others. It is NOT about taking away rights in order to give them to others. It has never been about that.

You keep using this false analogy, with the assumed premise that granting civil rights to black people actually reduced the rights of white people. It did not do so. It simply did not.

On the other hand, granting the desired rights of transwomen actually does reduce the rights, safety, and privacy of females.

Transpeople and their allies are LITERALLY asking that the existing sex-based protection of our civil rights be REINTERPRETED as "gender identity" instead of biological sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But transgender identity (as opposed to gender dysphoria) is the only thing that is relevant to (eg) discussions about which changing rooms trans women should use.

On what basis have you decided that transgender identity is the only relevant aspect? Why have you decided that sex is not relevant, and have you got the support of the half of the population that you're speaking for here?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Eh? We are getting deeply into semantics now. And of course the word "disorder" crops up a lot: the entire underlying argument essentially rests or falls on the question of whether gender dysphoria should be considered a disorder (or product of a disorder) or not.

Will you define what you think "disorder" means, as opposed to "condition", and why they are meaningfully different in this context?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Probably helpful for the thread:

Disease, disorder, condition, syndrome – what’s the difference?

• A disease is a pathophysiological response to internal or external factors.
• A disorder is a disruption to regular bodily structure and function.
• A syndrome is a collection of signs and symptoms associated with a specific health-related cause.
• A condition is an abnormal state of health that interferes with normal or regular feelings of wellbeing.

By changing it from a disorder to a condition, all they're really doing is saying that gender dysphoria is not the disruption caused by an underlying condition, but is the condition itself.

For consideration, I have the condition of epilepsy (the underlying cause of my symptoms). The symptoms (seizures) are in the class of seizure disorders (the observable disruptions to normal functioning) that can be caused by a variety of conditions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because it's ultimately a psychiatric condition.

Can you, for example, tell me how one can define the "realness" of sexual desires for others of the same sex? Can you tell me how it's possible to tell whether the possession of sexual desire for others of the same sex is a) a valid, real condition, or b) the product of a mental disorder?

We actually did touch on this earlier in the thread.

Sexual arousal can actually be measured. We can actually directly observe the arousal of an individual for a person of their same sex, and the lack of arousal for individuals of the other sex.

The removal of homosexuality from the DSM wasn't a case of it being changed from a disorder to a condition, or any similar semantic issue. It was actually the determination that homosexuality needs no treatment at all. It does not require any medical intervention at all. In much the same way that eventually, left-handedness was determined to need no intervention.

I don't think that same thing can be said of gender dysphoria.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hooray!

Today, in the UK, Gender Recognition Act reform has been scrapped. Read why this is good news for women and girls.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/grascrapped

I think this passage from that article sums up a lot of the conflict (emphasis mine):

But most shocking of all has been the increasing pressure not to use the words “male” and “female” in official policy development meetings. As a policy stakeholder invited to represent the sex-based rights of women and girls, both in the UK and internationally, we respectfully refuse. We use sex-based language not to be rude, but because gender identity is not the same characteristic as sex. Being able to acknowledge and identify the male and female sex is fundamental to the theory and practice of sex-based rights for women and girls.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not being scrapped. Some of the proposed revisions to the act are apparently (according to the leaks) being scrapped. Other revisions to the act are apparently (according to the leaks) being implemented.

You know, nobody who opposed the reform was opposed to the cost reduction and the shorter waiting period.

It seems a bit misleading to present it this way. Pretty much some of the proposed revisions to the act (the ones that many, many people objected to) are being scrapped. Other revisions to the act (the ones that nobody objected to) are being implemented.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But I repeat again: a little privacy for everyone, is that too much to ask?

Nope, not too much to ask.

What's your view on untransitioned transwomen:
- competing in female sports?
- performing intimate medical and person treatments on females when the female has requested a female doctor/nurse/aide?
- being housed in female prisons?
- qualifying for female shortlist positions or being counted as females for quotas?
- having access to female scholarships and grants?

The discussion always gets dragged back to toilets and changing rooms. Can we just set those aside as a case where there's probably a reasonable compromise available... and maybe focus on the areas where there is a real issue of safety and rights?

 

[Emily's Cat]

TP.S. Can you give an example of a "gender segregated space"? Do any actually exist and, if they do, how are they policed?

Clothing aisles in department stores? Although, to be fair, access to those spaces is not segregated at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A space that is segregated on the basis of the F or M on one's ID card is a gender segregated space.

Sex and gender are not the same thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes - I can well imagine that there will be an explosion of heterosexual men masquerading as trans women in order to masturbate over the "thrill" of being in (non-visual) proximity of women changing or using the toilet.

Have you visited the internet any time in the last decade? People use mirrors and all kinds of shenanigans to get up-skirt panty shots of random women. There are whole regions of the web devoted to "nip slips". And videos catering to voyeurism are not exactly rare.

Are you familiar with the term "peeping tom"? Heterosexual men getting their jollies watching unsuspecting females is not exactly a new phenomenon, nor is it particularly rare.

 

[d4m10n]

Clothing aisles in department stores? Although, to be fair, access to those spaces is not segregated at all.

How about changing rooms in department stores? Given that trans men will be trying on men's clothing in the men's area it would not make much sense to have them cross back over to the women's department in order to try on prospective outfits.

 

[Joe Random]

Have you visited the internet any time in the last decade? People use mirrors and all kinds of shenanigans to get up-skirt panty shots of random women. There are whole regions of the web devoted to "nip slips". And videos catering to voyeurism are not exactly rare.

Are you familiar with the term "peeping tom"? Heterosexual men getting their jollies watching unsuspecting females is not exactly a new phenomenon, nor is it particularly rare.

When the peeping issue had been brought up in the past I'd noted the cases where men would ... submerge themselves in outhouses/portajohns just to be able to sneak a peek at a woman baring herself. Given the willingness to go to that extreme I don't see the barrier of 'you must say that you identify as a woman to walk through this door' as being too terribly high for some.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When the peeping issue had been brought up in the past I'd noted the cases where men would ... submerge themselves in outhouses/portajohns just to be able to sneak a peek at a woman baring herself. Given the willingness to go to that extreme I don't see the barrier of 'you must say that you identify as a woman to walk through this door' as being too terribly high for some.

Unless the submerging was part of the enticement.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How about changing rooms in department stores? Given that trans men will be trying on men's clothing in the men's area it would not make much sense to have them cross back over to the women's department in order to try on prospective outfits.

I think dressing rooms, along with restrooms and most changing rooms, are effectively based on presentation and common sense. And again, I'll suggest that a degree of self-awareness is probably key: if most people are going to think you look female, use the ladies side; if most people are going to think you look male, use the mens side.

Anecdote: Yeats and years ago, I worked in a department store while I was in high school. We had a regular customer who would come in and try on women's lingerie and dresses. He was a very slight older man, polite as can be, and a pleasant conversationalist. He presented as a man throughout the store, and he would use the mens dressing rooms. He'd come in about once a month or so, and would usually buy stockings, undergarments, and a dress or blouse. I have no idea if he was a transvestite or was transgender. His view at the time was that if he used the ladies rooms, it would make women uncomfortable... but if there were a lot of men in the mens rooms, he would wait, because they made him uncomfortable. He usually tried to come in when we weren't very busy.