Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the reasons for Self-ID is that requiring medical treatment for the social status of M or F is problematic because some trans persons may not be able to get hormones or surgery for medical reasons, but still want to live as the opposite sex.
But to find out if the trans person can't get hormones or surgery, wouldn't they have to see a doctor to begin with? Seeing a doctor doesn't obligate them to get inappropriate treatment, and I'm sure doctors would agree. So why not a screening appointment for this issue?

This post of yours is several days old, maybe someone has asked this question already.
 
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.


Peeping Tom was a Tommy-come-lately. Could I remind people of Acteon? Part of me wishes Diana's (somewhat permanent) solution was still available.
 
Peeping Tom was a Tommy-come-lately. Could I remind people of Acteon? Part of me wishes Diana's (somewhat permanent) solution was still available.

That myth was always borderline for me. Most of the versions present Actaeon as accidentally stumbling upon Artemis, not intentionally peeping. Death by ones own hounds seems a bit extreme for a genuine accident. But I'd be okay with being paraded through town while naked for intentionally peeping.
 
WHO

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

Sex is biological

I really find it odd people struggle to see the difference
 
WHO

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

Sex is biological

I really find it odd people struggle to see the difference

I would bet that about 2/3 of the people in the English speaking world have not gotten that memo yet, or have heard it, but refused to acknowledge it.
 
I would bet that about 2/3 of the people in the English speaking world have not gotten that memo yet, or have heard it, but refused to acknowledge it.

It's been pounded into our heads for years now that gender is different from sex, and that's the entire premise behind transgender people needing recognition and acceptance. Their gender is different from their sex, and it is paramount that it be recognized as a separate thing in order for the activist platform to make headway.

I find it very frustrating when it is transgender people and transgender allies who so frequently conflate the two now.

The other 2/3 of the people to whom you refer are the ones who rejected the initial TRA position, and have consistently stuck by the view of gender being a polite synonym for sex.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that gender identity is a construct, based largely on gender stereotypes driven by the assumption that gender expression and gender roles are something voluntarily chosen rather than something enforced by social norms of behavior.

  • Sex is what your body is.
  • Gender is what other people assume your body is.
  • Gender identity is what you want other people to assume your body is.

Gender is comprised of two elements: secondary sex characteristics driven by biological factors including hormones, and expression driven by social conformity.

Secondary sex characteristics include the elements of a sexually dimorphic phenotype, including externally visible reproductive organs, breasts, facial and body hair, pelvic bone shape, skull shape, musculature, bone density, size of hands and feet relative to leg and arm lengths, width of shoulders relative to hips, and the distribution of fat across the body, among other elements.

Expression includes clothing and shoe choices, makeup, hairstyles, jewelry and accessories. Expression is frequently a factor in sexual selection, serving to advertise a person's sex in order to attract a mate. Note that it is not always a freely adopted expression, but is very often a reflection of social convention based on culture.

Gender roles are social expectations of expression and behavior that are correlated with the assumed sex of the person in question. Although some elements of roles can confer privileges, they can also be very confining, and can present very real barriers to individual success depending on the degree of taboo enforcement inherent in that culture.

Making all of that even more difficult are the elements that are a mix of sex characteristics and expression. Some behaviors are at least partially sex-linked, including the tendency toward aggression caused by testosterone and the tendency toward emotiveness caused by estrogen. Additionally, beyond the vocal pitch range defined by anatomy, there's a socially-reinforced expectation of higher voices for females and lower voices for males, which frequently results in people speaking outside of the midpoint of their vocal range in many cases. It's also reflected in the applied level of projection of one's voice, with women tending to temper their projection to seem more soft-spoken, and men tending to enhance their projection to seem more confident.

Sex is fixed in the womb, during fetal development. Some sex characteristics are present from that differentiation in the fetal stage (internal organs, genitalia), but many of them develop during puberty, triggered largely by sex-differentiated hormones.

Gender expression is learned behavior. It is highly influenced by gender roles within a culture, and can vary in strength significantly from one culture to another.
 
Gender expression is learned behavior.

Nailed.

Again, I turn to Samoans and their third gender. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that their high rate of fa'afafine/trans women comes from a country where the culture dictates that the youngest grandchild gets to look after their grandparents, and if it isn't a girl, they dress the boy like one and treat him as a girl.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it smacks to me of parents who tell delightful stories about what their five-year-old said about baby Jesus, using it as justification for their faith, despite it being rammed down the kid's throat since birth.
 
Does Seani use the ladies room though?
We know only that Seani believes that she belongs in womxn-friendly spaces on the internet.

If so, under UK law women would not discriminate if they object.
Objecting to someone entering a bathroom based on their gender presentation is—by definition—discrimination based on gender presentation. The question for us here is whether that sort of discrimination ought to be allowed or not, in terms of either social norms or applicable laws. As far as I can tell, such an objection would not be legal in California.
 
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.



What about "you must present evidence that you have chosen to identify as a woman to walk through this door"?

Given that even the proposed rules around self-identification (which appear to have been dropped from any reform of the law) required a witnessed sworn statement, and given that in the absence of self-identification it will require clinical assessment and diagnosis in order to confirm the new identity...

...it's really not too difficult (IMO) to conceive of a near-future scenario in which anyone who visibly appears to be transgender (trans woman, for the sake of this argument) would be required to present evidence of their trans identity in order to use the women's changing areas. This would (IMO) be neither an onerous nor demeaning demand of trans women - and it would constitute part of this "social contract" negotiation which I've been proposing here before.

The potential additional safeguard (to other women) of this sort of approach is that it might also be reasonable for staff either to note down the person's (often-) new legal name from the trans identity evidence, to be used if that person committed any unwelcome or unlawful acts within the changing rooms.

I really think that this "male menace in women's changing rooms" moral panic is essentially probably misplaced. Systems will evolve to safeguard women in those sorts of situations as much as is practicable.

In fact, I think an argument could be made that in future - with such systems in place - women might even potentially be better safeguarded than they are at present: after all, right now a suitably-determined and suitably-deviant male can, if he has something of an androgynous appearance, walk into the women's changing rooms with few (if any) questions asked; and even extremely male-looking males can slip into the women's changing rooms in a quiet period and install himself in a cubicle to go about his disgusting and illegal business. So, real risks exist today - unfortunately.
 
We know only that Seani believes that she belongs in womxn-friendly spaces on the internet.

Objecting to someone entering a bathroom based on their gender presentation is—by definition—discrimination based on gender presentation. The question for us here is whether that sort of discrimination ought to be allowed or not, in terms of either social norms or applicable laws. As far as I can tell, such an objection would not be legal in California.



It would not be (and is not) legal in England & Wales either.

However, it's clear (to me at least) that work needs to be done quickly to put in place a workable framework which a) ensures non-descrimination against transgender people in these sorts of situations, but also b) safeguards other users of the facilities as much as is reasonable and practicable. There will (IMO) need to be some concessions from all parties - though obviously all safeguarding aspects should carry significantly more weight in those negotiations than, say, matters related to verification of transgender identity.
 
I get that the bathroom and changing room questions are exciting and interesting, and involve some discussion of genitalia... but there are other aspects that I think merit discussion, as they have more direct impact on females:

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?
 
I get that the bathroom and changing room questions are exciting and interesting, and involve some discussion of genitalia... but there are other aspects that I think merit discussion, as they have more direct impact on females:


I entirely agree.

And just as I suggest with the changing rooms issue, I propose that for all of those other issues you listed there, a careful and consultative process of negotiation will be required - with the criteria/requirements/desired outcomes and their relative weightings being different on an issue-by-issue basis.

For example, on the oft-discussed "trans women in women's sport" issue, my own opinion (stated here before) is that trans women should not be permitted to participate in elite, national-level or regional-level women's competitive sports (for those sports in which physiology and/or anatomy are factors affecting competitive advantage). And I hold this view because a) I believe that - even after medical intervention to reduce the levels of testosterone and other hormones - trans women will almost always still have a general advantages (over biological females) related to the anatomical and physiolocical (chiefly muscular and cardio-vascular) developments of their bodies prior to any transition, and thus b) I believe that the inclusion of trans women in these levels of women's sports is likely to result in some level of discrimination against biological females competing in these levels of women's sports.


But I believe that - for this "trans women in sport" issue (as with all of those other issues) - proper negotiations and consultations will have to take place, with a truly independent and disinterested arbitration body both mediating and adjudicating on each case.
 
Last edited:
Nope, not too much to ask.

What's your view on untransitioned transwomen:

- competing in female sports?

Against it, on any highly competitive arena, including high school, college, Olympic, or professional. If you allow unrestricted competition, the guys will win almost all the time. If you do hormone level qualifications as many societies are now doing, you are basically picking whether or not the guys will win, based on the level you choose, and/or you are telling people how much hormones they ought to put into their body based on a sporting competition, as opposed to medical advice. I fear that it will encourage some males to take excessive levels of female hormones, beyond what is recommended by their physicians concerned about dealing with their gender dysphoria.

I might be willing to compromise by allowing them to compete in the uneven bars competition. Go ahead. I dare you.

- performing intimate medical and person treatments on females when the female has requested a female doctor/nurse/aide?

Privacy considerations. If she requests a female, she should get a female, not someone who is trying very hard to appear female.

- being housed in female prisons?

Case by case basis, depending on the facilities available. Under no circumstances should they pretend that the males are women, nor should they allow any situation where a woman would be unsupervised with a transwoman inmate, or where a woman's privacy considerations would be compromised.

- qualifying for female shortlist positions or being counted as females for quotas?
- having access to female scholarships and grants?

In a perfect world, these wouldn't exist. However, we live in a far from perfect world, and these do exist in order to facilitate for current and previous discrimination, and I think that's ok. This is the one area that I can think of where I might be willing to allow transwomen to be treated as women. Presumably, transwomen also face discrimination.

This area is one where I think the practical consequences of allowing transwomen to compete for postions, scholarships, etc. should be considered. I suspect that the impact on actual women would be very small. In other words, transwomen would receive very few scholarships intended for women, and in cases where they do, they might be the most deserving.

For illustration, I'll compare what I mean to the athletics situation. The most athletic and best trained female would consistently lose to a mediocre male in an athletic competition. I'm not sure that's true in a math scholarship competition. So, I'm undecided, but leaning toward allowing it.
 
Present evidence to whom? Only the really high-end venues still have washroom attendants.



Ah OK - if we're talking about men's and women's cloakrooms/bathrooms/toilet facilities in places such as restaurants, then yes, that's true.

But then again, by the same token, it's not altogether difficult right now for the stereotypical big burly bearded male, with determination and the urge for sexual deviancy, to slip into a women's bathroom - if he's kept an eye on who's going in and out, and makes his move when he knows the bathroom is empty - and install himself in one of the toilet cubicles.
 
...it's not altogether difficult right now for the stereotypical big burly bearded male, with determination and the urge for sexual deviancy, to slip into a women's bathroom...
Outside of California, though, he could be challenged for doing so without running afoul of anti-discrimination statutes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom