Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Aber]

I don't think those are the two, or only 2 positions. There seems to be a position that transwomen are not women and should not be treated as such doing the rounds too...and variations of it.

I'm not sure that even Rolfe goes as far as saying that gender recognition certificates should be ignored.

These are the 2 main positions and have the advantage of being internally consistent. More complex positions like saying self-identifying transwomen should have access to women's scholarships fall apart when the logic is questioned.

There's also the 'it doesn't matter what transwomen are anyway this is about penises and we all know penis means potential rapist!' position

Spoken like someone with a penis.

 

[lionking]

Provided the organisers of the sport are happy that no rules are being broken and Quinn is happy with the arrangement and there is no harm being done to anyone involved then I don't really care if Quinn is 'really' a man a woman a wombat or a Level 14 Warlock.

There are other examples of transwomen competing in women's soccer and things seem to be equally 'OK'.

Life is difficult enough, I don't think there is any need to create issues where none exist.

Have you discussed this with professional sports ciswomen?

 

[caveman1917]

Once more from the top: Transwomen are women.

Once more from the top: Unsupported assertion, demonstrably meaningless at best, demonstrably false at worst. Not internally consistent either way.

But maybe it'll magically become true if only you repeat the assertion enough, talk about irrationality...

 

[caveman1917]

These are the 2 main positions and have the advantage of being internally consistent.

No they don't. Maybe if you repeat this assertion enough it'll magically become true...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm not sure that even Rolfe goes as far as saying that gender recognition certificates should be ignored.

These are the 2 main positions and have the advantage of being internally consistent. More complex positions like saying self-identifying transwomen should have access to women's scholarships fall apart when the logic is questioned.

Spoken like someone with a penis.

Actually people saying that people with penises shouldn't be allowed in sex-segregated spaces don't seem to be making an exception to say 'unless they have some paperwork' so yeah I'd say that the main position on this thread in terms of anti-trans is that people with penises shouldn't be in female spaces. Period.

I don't know where you got your conclusion on scholarships from but there certainly isn't a consensus on that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Maybe where you live.

Probably where you live too. Unless you live somewhere awful.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It’s frightening to see this stunning lack of empathy and openly misogynistic views from someone demanding unfettered access to (previously) private spaces set aside for the safety and security of biological females.

Did you quote the right bit there because your comment seems completely unconnected. Or was it just an attempt to throw misogyny in the mix again as if it means something?

 

[Meadmaker]

I hope you do realise I wasn't indulging in genuine name calling but rather pointing out the emotional elements of being told that you don't meet the standards that other people have deemed necessary and therefore need to be excluded.

Your writings from yesterday had an awful lot of emotional appeals in them. There was the "broom closet" remark. The "bitch" remark. A reference to bigots. A rather lofty declaration of support for expanding rights for everyone, which sounds quite stirring, but didn't really address the central conflict about exactly which rights, and whose, are being infringed upon.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not sure you're correct.

I have seen elsewhere that Quinn identifies as a "transwoman with a uterus".

The pronouns suggest that "non-binary" would be a better description.

"Transwoman with a uterus"? Just when I think I've got the definitions down....

Well, if she isn't saying she's male, then my question wouldn't really have meaning. And I just realized I typed "she" instead of "he", but "he" prefers "they" so....

Well anyway the person in question is a biological female playing on a woman's team, so I'm all good with it, assuming ze isn't taking banned hormone supplements that would give zer an advantage over the other women.

You don't hear too much about "ze" these days. For a while there was a push to include gender neutral pronouns in the language. I kind of liked the idea, although it was awkward to introduce the construct into the language. I think "ze" was the nominative version. I don't remember if "zer" was the possesive verion. "Zis?" "Zine"? Oh well, it never really caught on.

 

[Meadmaker]

You're slightly putting words into my mouth here because I personally don't really care whether there are segregated changing rooms or not.

As you once said, "I don't care" isn't very persuasive.


Nor is it meant to be. It's a value judgement. I said I don't care about the affirmation of a person's gender identity, and I don't. That's not intended to be a persuasive argument. It's a statement of my values. I want people to be able to live as they wish. That's a value of mine. I don't care that other people commend them for their choice, or approve of it, or affirm it. So, I want people to be able to go swimming, but if in the course of doing so they have to be reminded that they are not like the other girls, I'm pretty ok with that.

I value people's privacy. That's a value of mine. So, what we have in the case where a student is allowed to use a faculty room, or some other smaller, more private facility, I see a case where everyone gets the expected level of privacy, and the expected level of safety, and access to the facility, and that's where my caring ends. Yes, it means telling the transgirl, "You aren't like the other girls." and I am sure that some transgirls would not like that outcome. It's not that I don't understand that. It's that I don't care, or, more accurately, that I don't care enough to sacrifice any of the other things that I care about more.

I think perhaps a long term approach to the issue might be to be more supportive of trans people as trans people, as opposed to their gender. In other words, support a trans woman or a trans man as trans people, as opposed to pretending that a trans woman is really a woman. The Atheist often brings up that third polynesian gender that I can't spell, or the Thai ladyboys. I won't pretend to understand exactly how they are treated culturally, but as I understand it, no one would say that a Thai ladyboy is "really" a woman. They are their own sort of thing. I don't know how that translates into where they go to the bathroom or take a shower at a communal gym. I'm not up on my Thai cultural norms.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think it is "instinctive" but for much more basal reasons than you seem to think. Taking off the things that protect us from the elements is going to make anyone feel exposed, having to show strangers one's sensitive bits makes anyone feel vulnerable. It is just that some people are capable of coping with those feelings if they sense that the other people are somehow "like them". Sexually or racially.

The solution shouldn't be segregation, but not putting people in such a vulnerable position in the first place.

The type of locker rooms you obsess about should be banned. They have no place in a society that values privacy and some levels of modesty.

I think your first paragraph is spot on.

I don't think anyone would object to greater privacy, but it's a matter of cost.

I will bet that high schools today are probably built a bit differently than they were when I was in school during the Carter administration. I don't know how differently, though. I think the trend is to at least allow more space for privacy now, but there really is a tradeoff.

The communal locker room at Planet Fitness has a bit more enhanced privacy than the old Bally's gym I used to go to. The changing areas are still open, but for people showering, there are stalls where you can take off all of your clothes. To be honest, I find the process a nuissance. It's not as easy as it was, but I go along with it because it seems the modern sensibility.

 

[LondonJohn]

How can it not? The entire premise of civil rights is to address inequities and disadvantages, is it not? How can that disadvantage be of paramount importance to one group, and irrelevant for the group that is being sacrificed for the "greater good"?

So how come it was deemed acceptable for the disadvantaged* white girls and women of the Alabama of the 1950s to be placed into a position of increased potential danger, as a direct consequence of black civil rights reform....?


* And note, as I said before, that white girls/women of the USA of the 1950s were, without a doubt, significantly more disadvantaged compared with women of the USA (or any other liberal democracy) of the 2020s.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nothing contradictory about that: "I support women's rights, but I don't want to share male changing rooms with them" isn't contradictory either.

This is absolutely incomparable. (For reasons which ought to be obvious)


But just as a thought experiment, do you think that trans women (of any level of transition, right up to medical and surgical intervention) should be made to use the men's changing rooms?

Or would your rule perhaps be: "Trans women should be made to use the men's changing rooms if they've had no surgical intervention and only minor medical intervention; all other trans women (ie those with significant medical or surgical intervention) have to change in the disabled toilet"? And if so, how (and by whom) would that determination be made?

Or would your rule perhaps be: "Trans women of any variety should not be permitted to use either the men's or the women's changing rooms. They all have to use the disabled toilet"?


I'm interested as to what your preferred outcome might be in the case of (eg) public gender-segregated changing rooms.

 

[LondonJohn]

I support women's rights but I'd rather not share a changing room with them.

I support the rights of those who choose to worship Jesus on Wednesday evenings, but I'd rather not sing hymns with them.

I support the rights of those who are not ambulatory without prosthetics or wheelchairs, but I'm not trying to join their basketball league.

I support the rights of those who practice polyamory, but I'm never going to give it a shot myself.

Just because you support someone doesn't mean you ought to join them.

None of this is remotely comparable.


1) Let's say we firstly agree that trans women have the right to use (eg) gymnasiums?

I assume we agree on that at least.


2) Then the next question is: Should those trans women who use (eg) gymnasiums have the right to be able to use changing facilities at those gymnasiums?

I'd hope we'd agree on that too.


3) So the next question is: Which changing facilities at the (eg) gymnasium should those trans women be permitted to use?


There are three (and, I think, only three) options:

a) The men's changing rooms
b) The women's changing rooms
c) The disabled changing rooms


So, to kick this thing off again: provided we are in agreement on those first two questions (but let me know if you disagree), we then arrive at that final question. And which of those three options - a, b, or c (or other) - do you believe is the "correct" (or best) option, and why?

 

[d4m10n]

So how come it was deemed acceptable for the disadvantaged white girls and women of the Alabama of the 1950s to be placed into a position of increased potential danger, as a direct consequence of black civil rights reform....?

Not quite clear on what you're saying here. White girls on the bus would've (obviously) been more at risk from European American men sitting next to them than African American men.

 

[Aber]

I don't know where you got your conclusion on scholarships from but there certainly isn't a consensus on that.

I know there isn't a consensus, but that view does exist.

 

[d4m10n]

There are three (and, I think, only three) options:

a) The men's changing rooms
b) The women's changing rooms
c) The disabled changing rooms

d) The unisex changing rooms I mentioned upthread at post #1016.

It's the same one I typically use; I even linked a photo.

 

[Meadmaker]

d) The unisex changing rooms I mentioned upthread at post #1016.

It's the same one I typically use; I even linked a photo.

That's an interesting situation. So, I'm picturing an open, traditional, locker room, which would have people of various states of undress in it, and there would also be separate changing stalls for anyone who cared to use them, that offered complete privacy.

In that case, would the transwomen need to use the privacy stalls? Logically, I can't think of a reason they ought to. I have said it's not about what they see, but rather what is seen. If a woman doesn't want to take her clothes off in the presence of a male, she can use the privacy stall. If a woman doesn't care, she doesn't have to. Either way, a woman might end up in the presence of a disrobed male, which is awkward, but, is it any worse than awkward?

Maybe it's a complete solution. Of course, not everyone will like it, but not everyone likes anything.

I'm curious what other people would say here. Assuming there are enough privacy stalls for everyone who wants them, is it problem solved?

At my "gut" level, I'm still suspicious of this solution. The presence of the disrobed male is still something that doesn't sit right with me, but I'm trying to be logical about it instead of going with a "gut" reaction.

 

[LondonJohn]

d) The unisex changing rooms I mentioned upthread at post #1016.

It's the same one I typically use; I even linked a photo.

Oh well if there are decent unisex changing rooms, then the whole "changing rooms" issue disappears instantly.

But most sports facilities (especially municipal ones) don't have unisex changing rooms - and they don't have the ability to convert to them because of the need for the sheer number of individual cubicles required in the availble space. We therefore have to accept that the majority of these sorts of facilities will have men's, women's and disabled changing rooms for the forseeable future.

So in the real world where generally there is the absence of unisex changing rooms, what would your option be, out of a, b, c, or other?


(And I'm right - I hope - in assuming you wouldn't suggest that trans women should be required to seek out those gyms etc where there are unisex changing facilitites....)

 

[Matthew Best]

Here's an interesting story:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54233946

Summary, born female, recently came out as transgender male. Plays on Canadian national women's Soccer team and intends to be at the Tokyo Olympics next year. (I so hope that happens, the "Olympics next year" part.)

The person in question prefers the pronoun "them". I won't do it. I'll go with he. I just don't like "them", for one person. Way too awkward.

It ought to surprise no one that I have no problem with that. If he's not taking any substance that is banned for women's sports, then go for it. Do what you want. Go for the gold.

But I do wonder if the more vocal trans-rights supporters, and especially those who think that Quinn is "really" a man, whatever that means, will object. I honestly have no clue if they would or not, but in their world, this would clearly be a case of a man competing in women's sports. Wouldn't that be taboo?

I, of course, think this is a woman competing in women's sports. The transman thing is a social nicety. He doesn't have any biological advantage over the other women, no matter what pronouns he uses, so it's all good. But....does everyone see it that way?

It does seem a bit like having your cake and eating it too. If a trans man thinks they should play in women's sport, and a trans woman also thinks they should play in women's sport, you're at a point where if you're trans you can decide whichever branch of sport you want. I get that people are non-binary, but sport, at the moment at least, is binary.