Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Is committing a crime bad enough to be put in prison for the safety of the public good enough?

Yes, why do you ask?

 

[LondonJohn]

But to address the issue of "proof of gender", I'd suggest that anyone should be able to obtain on demand a "certification of gender" from some authority organisation (whether that's one's doctor, or a central governmental agency of some sort), probably at a fee in order to cover admin expenses.

This could then be used to confirm one's gender identity on demand in such places as gyms etc - in the UK at least, this would negate the need to carry around one's passport as proof.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fair enough, if that's true. I'm unaware of this. And I imagine your average gym employee is too.

I imagine so too. That's one reason why I suggested a "proof of gender" document of some sort which could be easily carried around (and without the large hassle if lost, compared with losing one's passport)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My paraphrase (and I hope I am remembering everything correctly).

There ought to be a medical examination required before any recognition of transgender status. While there is currently a medical requirement, it is made absurd by laws which essentially require the doctor to sign off on any claim presented, so the medical signoff required today is a sham. Essentially, it's paper-pushing, so of no value. It should be replaced with an actual medical requirement, requiring the doctor's actual professional judgement.

Ah, which laws would those be?

For the record, it is not a hate crime for a doctor NOT to diagnose you with gender dysphoria.

I don't see a meaningful difference here. It's a sham because she thinks its a sham. So if it's a sham why is she so scared of losing the protection?

Bear in mind also than when I suggested her problem wasn't with the Self ID law she insisted it was.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But to address the issue of "proof of gender", I'd suggest that anyone should be able to obtain on demand a "certification of gender" from some authority organisation (whether that's one's doctor, or a central governmental agency of some sort), probably at a fee in order to cover admin expenses.

This could then be used to confirm one's gender identity on demand in such places as gyms etc - in the UK at least, this would negate the need to carry around one's passport as proof.

No, can't be voluntary. Because that would suggest that some people can be asked to prove it and others can't. Which would be discriminatory. Would have to be something that is required of all.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, no, it's not necessarily incoherent because "involvement" can mean more than one thing, and in particular it can refer to different things in the two statements. Doctors with experience in gender change giving patients a thorough evaluation is fundamentally different than doctors with no experience in gender change rubber stamping a request. They are both "involvement", though.

Well the requirement is either valuable or not. It can't be both. You are a master of the meaningless nitpick, congratulations. Get a diagnosis from a doctor and I'll print your certificate.

 

[Matthew Best]

Well the requirement is either valuable or not. It can't be both.

But it can be either.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, can't be voluntary. Because that would suggest that some people can be asked to prove it and others can't. Which would be discriminatory. Would have to be something that is required of all.

Well no - I'm suggesting that, for example, we might get to a situation where (for example) people joining gyms - or visiting as guests - might be asked to provide proof of their gender (not in all cases, but for those cases where the gym staff deem it an appropriate question to ask), for the purposes of allocating them the correct gender-segregated changing rooms. And if the person could not provide any form of proof of gender, then they wouldn't be allowed in.

So it would be up to anyone wishing to use a gym to either a) bet on the fact that their gender is entirely obvious and that therefore they won't need to be carrying any proof of gender, or b) realise that it's a real possibility that they might be required to prove their gender, and that therefore the sensible and prudent thing to do would be to carry just such proof of gender.

And for those people in the (b) category: they could either choose to take in their passport (though people, in the UK at least, tend not to like carrying their passports around unless they're actually going abroad, so as not to risk losing them or having them stolen); or they could obtain one of these "proof of gender" cards (for a reasonable admin fee) - which would mean that they could use this to prove their gender anywhere, and leave their passport safely at home.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Would you agree that if I, a cis-male, went into the women's locker room at Planet Fitness that I would be invading the privacy of the women in that locker room? I think the answer is yes, don't you? I'm going to assume that's the answer.

And I think that if a cis-woman goes into the women's locker room and uses it in the normal fashion, she is not invading the privacy of the other women in the locker room, and I assume you agree.

Appreciate I'm cutting a lot her but I want to address this. This seems to assume a LOT. It's almost a thought crime.

If a cis-male goes into the locker room with his 8 year old daughter to find her towel and tries his best not to look at anyone is he violating the privacy of the people there? If a ciswoman lesbian goes in there to check out the racks of everyone in the place is she respecting the privacy of everyone in there?

Or is the social contract based on going into the place and acting in a generally acceptable manner?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But it can be either.

Not simultaneously no.

Well no - I'm suggesting that, for example, we might get to a situation where (for example) people joining gyms - or visiting as guests - might be asked to provide proof of their gender (not in all cases, but for those cases where the gym staff deem it an appropriate question to ask), for the purposes of allocating them the correct gender-segregated changing rooms. And if the person could not provide any form of proof of gender, then they wouldn't be allowed in.

So it would be up to anyone wishing to use a gym to either a) bet on the fact that their gender is entirely obvious and that therefore they won't need to be carrying any proof of gender, or b) realise that it's a real possibility that they might be required to prove their gender, and that therefore the sensible and prudent thing to do would be to carry just such proof of gender.

And for those people in the (b) category: they could either choose to take in their passport (though people, in the UK at least, tend not to like carrying their passports around unless they're actually going abroad, so as not to risk losing them or having them stolen); or they could obtain one of these "proof of gender" cards (for a reasonable admin fee) - which would mean that they could use this to prove their gender anywhere, and leave their passport safely at home.

No, you can't ask when you think you need to ask. That would be discriminatory. You would need to ask everyone. Not only to transpeople but to cispeople who don't present or who don't meet your criteria of their gender.

 

[cullennz]

Appreciate I'm cutting a lot her but I want to address this. This seems to assume a LOT. It's almost a thought crime.

If a cis-male goes into the locker room with his 8 year old daughter to find her towel and tries his best not to look at anyone is he violating the privacy of the people there?

Yes he is

 

[LondonJohn]

Think of it, in fact, as something similar to the "prove your age" system in the UK for things like buying alcohol in supermarkets.

You have to be over 18 to buy (eg) alcohol in supermarkets. And if you look as though you might be under 18, the checkout staff are entitled to ask you to prove your age*. But supermarket staff are never going to ask a man with grey hair, a wrinkled face and a full beard to prove that he's over 18**.

Now, there's something called (I think) a "prove your age" card***, which people between 18 and around 25 are encouraged to obtain and carry - it carries an official declaration of your birthdate, and can easily be carried in lieu of something like a passport or birth certificate; and it can be shown to (eg) supermarket staff if the person is asked to prove that he/she is over 18


* In the same way as people who appear not to have a gender which marries with their stated gender might be asked to prove their gender.

** In the same way as, say, a middle-aged person with a full beard and wrinkled face who says he's a man would not be asked to prove his gender.

*** In the same way, the sort of "proof of gender" document could be carried by anyone so that they could easily prove their gender upon request.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nope, not what I see at all. I see Boudicca90 being less polite and less respectful to those posters who appear to have the most bigoted and entrenched positions against gender dysphoria (and the most bigoted and entrenched opposition to a real-world recognition of transgender identity).

Irrespective of the (assumed) biological sex - or gender identity - of the poster.


Obviously if you can show convincing proof of your argument, then I'll be happy to reconsider my observation.

And one (well maybe more than one) poster attacks men for having an opinion on the matter. Then claims to not be sexist.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not simultaneously no.



No, you can't ask when you think you need to ask. That would be discriminatory. You would need to ask everyone. Not only to transpeople but to cispeople who don't present or who don't meet your criteria of their gender.

Like I said: supermarket staff are not required to ask everyone buying alcohol to prove that they're over 18 (even though it's a criminal offence for someone under 18 to buy alcohol, and it's also a criminal offence for any store to sell alcohol to anyone under 18....).

Rather, supermarket staff can use their own judgement: they allow anyone whom they deem to be obviously over 18 to buy alcohol without being challenged to prove their age. But they are trained to ask anyone who looks like they might possibly be under 18* to prove their age before selling them alcohol.


* I believe the rule of thumb is that if the staff member thinks that the person is probably under the age of 25, this is the threshold point for requesting proof of age.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Like I said: supermarket staff are not required to ask everyone buying alcohol to prove that they're over 18 (even though it's a criminal offence for someone under 18 to buy alcohol, and it's also a criminal offence for any store to sell alcohol to anyone under 18....).

Rather, supermarket staff can use their own judgement: they allow anyone whom they deem to be obviously over 18 to buy alcohol without being challenged to prove their age. But they are trained to ask anyone who looks like they might possibly be under 18* to prove their age before selling them alcohol.


* I believe the rule of thumb is that if the staff member thinks that the person is probably under the age of 25, this is the threshold point for requesting proof of age.

It's not a criminal offence to discriminate based on age in that respect though. I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not a lawyer paid by the Tories to lie about what the law is, so it's just my view but if you only ask people who claim to be women and don't look very womany then I think you are discriminating against transwomen.

I guess they could rewrite the laws and allow it. But then I'm not sure that's going to solve the problem because it's still going to mean people with penises in the changing rooms.

I'd be interested to know how many of the anti Self-ID crowd support free access of transwomen to changing rooms based on a legal and medical gender change without surgery.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Like I said: supermarket staff are not required to ask everyone buying alcohol to prove that they're over 18 (even though it's a criminal offence for someone under 18 to buy alcohol, and it's also a criminal offence for any store to sell alcohol to anyone under 18....).

Rather, supermarket staff can use their own judgement: they allow anyone whom they deem to be obviously over 18 to buy alcohol without being challenged to prove their age. But they are trained to ask anyone who looks like they might possibly be under 18* to prove their age before selling them alcohol.


* I believe the rule of thumb is that if the staff member thinks that the person is probably under the age of 25, this is the threshold point for requesting proof of age.

The problem here is that age is uncontroversial largely. Gender is not. I can't see how you can give any guidance to anyone that isn't discriminatory.

And I don't just mean in terms of trans people.

Try asking the first manly looking woman/girly looking man to prove their gender.

 

[LondonJohn]

Appreciate I'm cutting a lot her but I want to address this. This seems to assume a LOT. It's almost a thought crime.

If a cis-male goes into the locker room with his 8 year old daughter to find her towel and tries his best not to look at anyone is he violating the privacy of the people there? If a ciswoman lesbian goes in there to check out the racks of everyone in the place is she respecting the privacy of everyone in there?

Or is the social contract based on going into the place and acting in a generally acceptable manner?

I'd agree wholly with your final sentence.

But I'd also say that there's a generally-accepted practice that cis men should not be allowed into the women's changing rooms, and vice versa. In the sort of scenario you described above, I suggest that the cis male's best option might be to enlist a female member of staff to go into the women's changing rooms with his daughter, in order to try to find the missing towel.

However, the cis woman lesbian example is indeed interesting to our situation within this thread, as would be the example of a cis man homosexual in the men's changing rooms. Obviously - and quite correctly - the default practice should be that cis man homosexuals use the men's changing rooms, and vice versa.

But, as you say, if (say) the cis man homosexual starts getting sexually aroused at the sight of other men undressing, and starts covertly masturbating in a corner or in a cubicle, or starts coming on in a sexually-provocative way to another man, then he would have violated the implicit social contract (as well as potentially having committed a criminal offence). In those sorts of circumstances, this man should be asked to leave the facility immediately, and could also justly be banned from using it ever again.

And in the same way, the default practice should be for trans women to use the women's changing rooms, and vice versa. And then, in the same way, if (say) a trans women breaks the social contract (and possibly also the law) by behaving inappropriately or deviantly in the women's changing rooms, she should be removed from the facility and possibly banned.

 

[cullennz]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove quote of material sent to AAH

If a cis-male goes into the locker room with his 8 year old daughter to find her towel and tries his best not to look at anyone is he violating the privacy of the people there? If a ciswoman lesbian goes in there to check out the racks of everyone in the place is she respecting the privacy of everyone in there?

Or is the social contract based on going into the place and acting in a generally acceptable manner?

Yes he is

Second question is obviously no there isn't given the yes in the first question.

Why did the man not just ask a staff member, or a passing female and give them a description of the towel?

Let's put another scenario.

You are waiting outside as your 8 year old daughter changes alone in a empty changing room.

Some random bloke rocks up and goes to walk in.

Excuse me you say. What are you doing.

Just finding a towel.

Are you seriously telling me you would just let him just walk on it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'd agree wholly with your final sentence.

But I'd also say that there's a generally-accepted practice that cis men should not be allowed into the women's changing rooms, and vice versa. In the sort of scenario you described above, I suggest that the cis male's best option might be to enlist a female member of staff to go into the women's changing rooms with his daughter, in order to try to find the missing towel.

However, the cis woman lesbian example is indeed interesting to our situation within this thread, as would be the example of a cis man homosexual in the men's changing rooms. Obviously - and quite correctly - the default practice should be that cis man homosexuals use the men's changing rooms, and vice versa.

But, as you say, if (say) the cis man homosexual starts getting sexually aroused at the sight of other men undressing, and starts covertly masturbating in a corner or in a cubicle, or starts coming on in a sexually-provocative way to another man, then he would have violated the implicit social contract (as well as potentially having committed a criminal offence). In those sorts of circumstances, this man should be asked to leave the facility immediately, and could also justly be banned from using it ever again.

And in the same way, the default practice should be for trans women to use the women's changing rooms, and vice versa. And then, in the same way, if (say) a trans women breaks the social contract (and possibly also the law) by behaving inappropriately or deviantly in the women's changing rooms, she should be removed from the facility and possibly banned.

yeah the thing is I've been in situation 1 and there isn't generally someone around when you need them. In the end it got solved by saying 'go in and look again' but if the result of that had been 'i can't see it' then I don't know what I would have done. Vice versa it seems to be the rule that women shout 'woman coming in' and then do whatever they want. But so be it.

But yeah on the second one. Of course, there are no female perverts. So that problem is moot. Or something.

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem here is that age is uncontroversial largely. Gender is not. I can't see how you can give any guidance to anyone that isn't discriminatory.

And I don't just mean in terms of trans people.

Try asking the first manly looking woman/girly looking man to prove their gender.

But the issue of any given person's actual gender is uncontroversial too.

Even self-identification (in England & Wales at least) has never consisted solely of (eg) a biological male simply declaring themselves to be a woman (and then being able to send off for a certificate showing that they are a woman). Rather, it's only after someone has legally declared their new gender identity in front of a judge and a witness that they can properly identify as that new gender.

So even in the case of Self-ID, the issue of their gender would be clear-cut and binary* - and provable.



* I'm not sure if there's been much discussion within these threads about people who assume a non-binary gender identity. There'd obviously be an interesting debate to be had around, for example, which changing rooms such people should be allowed (and not allowed) to use in places such as public gyms and sports centres.