Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

The "best" example of that is the likes of PIE back in the 1970s, looking back it seems sheer insanity that such organisations existed never mind used civil rights movements to promote their pedophilia.

It caused immense harm to various civil rights groups, harm that lasted decades.

Exactly so.

Frankly, the outliers at both ends of any civil rights dispute (or any dispute at all, in fact) should usually be safely disregarded. But yes, the problem usually arises when those on one side of the dispute choose to "weaponise" the extremists on the other end of the spectrum in order to (attempt to) justify their own opposition to the other side's overall argument.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Eh, it’s understandable.

I'm just trimming for length because I don't take objection to anything significant in what you say here. It's understandable, yes. But what I am getting at is the view that it's ALL biology and gender doesn't matter. (And for the record I am not taking the opposite view that it's ALL gender and biology doesn't matter either)

The things you and others raise like pressure to have babies, or not to have babies to me aren't necessarily about the biological possession of working uteruses but also about the gender role of women. There are many cis-women who can't have babies. I don't think they are less women because of that, but I think that is the logical conclusion of exclusively considering biology in many cases.

I just find it reductionist and exclusionary to focus on biology to the exclusion of other things. The experience of being a woman may be affected by the ability to have babies but I don't believe it is defined by the ability to have babies.

 

[LondonJohn]

Everyone here agrees with the idea of promoting "civil rights" so it's a form of reverse well poisoning to say that your position counts as such.

Put up or shut up, IMO.

What?

I was talking (in my original post in this little chain) solely about how, for example, the leaders of moderate campaigns for civil rights...

...can find it difficult to condemn the activities of the most radical extremist campaigners for those civil rights.


It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the actual specifics of the civil rights being requested by transgender people (whether extremist or moderate). And what you mean - in the context of my original post - by "it's a form of reverse well poisoning to say that your position counts as such" is totally beyond me. As is the "put up or shut up" piece of collegiate advice



(But for the record, and seeing as you're clearly interested, I've stated my own personal position wrt transgender rights - including a case-by-case breakdown of such things as elite sports, healthcare, changing rooms etc - many times within this thread. I'd recommend doing a search under my user name and using key words such as "elite sport" and so on: that should easily lead you to the answers that you appear to crave. Good luck with your quest )

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes absolutely, it is the current case.

But I personally think that once these sorts of things are addressed more formally, in-depth, and with consultations, a reasonable compromise - and one which would help to safeguard cis women - would be for anyone who does not present visually as a woman would be required to produce proof of gender.

I know this sort of approach would draw protests from many trans-activists, but I just believe that it's one of the prices worth paying. If trans-activists look at this sort of situation pragmatically, sensitively, and from all perspectives, I think that the carrying of some form of official recognition of gender (it might even take the form of a credit-card-sized plastic document) to be presented upon request (by staff, not by women....) would be a reasonable compromise in order to minimise the chances of a heterosexual cis male masquerading as a trans woman in order to commit criminal acts within the women's changing rooms.

I think you might run afoul of discrimination laws again if you are only carding 'people who look like men'. I also think you are going to upset a lot of cis-women who get carded!

I guess for gyms or whatever though it should be something that is dealt with at the time of applying for membership generally.

I'm not a lawyer but I think the general principle would have to be either 'everyone has to prove their gender' or 'nobody has to prove their gender'

I guess it could be a voluntary thing where transpeople volunteer the information if they like to avoid embarassment or hassle further down the line?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm just trimming for length because I don't take objection to anything significant in what you say here. It's understandable, yes. But what I am getting at is the view that it's ALL biology and gender doesn't matter. (And for the record I am not taking the opposite view that it's ALL gender and biology doesn't matter either)

The things you and others raise like pressure to have babies, or not to have babies to me aren't necessarily about the biological possession of working uteruses but also about the gender role of women. There are many cis-women who can't have babies. I don't think they are less women because of that, but I think that is the logical conclusion of exclusively considering biology in many cases.

I just find it reductionist and exclusionary to focus on biology to the exclusion of other things. The experience of being a woman may be affected by the ability to have babies but I don't believe it is defined by the ability to have babies.

This.

(And I'm going to predict that there will not be a counterargument to this. Mainly on the basis that IMO no reasonable, rational counterargument actually exists...)

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you might run afoul of discrimination laws again if you are only carding 'people who look like men'. I also think you are going to upset a lot of cis-women who get carded!

I guess for gyms or whatever though it should be something that is dealt with at the time of applying for membership generally.

I'm not a lawyer but I think the general principle would have to be either 'everyone has to prove their gender' or 'nobody has to prove their gender'

I guess it could be a voluntary thing where transpeople volunteer the information if they like to avoid embarassment or hassle further down the line?

As I've said before, stores in the UK selling alcohol already have the right to ask anyone whom they even suspect of being under 18 to show proof that they are over 18 before they are sold alcohol. And further, staff in these stores have the discretion to select purely those whom they suspect of being under 18, while allowing all those whom they deem to be clearly over 18 to buy alcohol without having to prove their age.

I don't really think that what I suggested wrt transgender people and changing rooms is a light-year away from the alcohol-in-supermarkets case. And I think, as I said, that it may be a price worth paying - both by transgender people and by cisgender people who may be asked in error to prove their gender - if we are to take reasonable steps to safeguard eg cis women from cis hetero men getting into the changing rooms with nefarious motives.

But it may turn out to be unworkable for many reasons (including legal ones). It's merely a suggestion from me, in an attempt to propose one step which might indeed help safeguard cisgender people in these circumstances.


And sure, it could be entirely voluntary as to whether the person being interrogated chooses to provide proof of gender or not. But I'd suggest that places such as sports centres could potentially be granted the right to refuse entry to anyone who, when asked for proof of gender, refused (or was unable to) provide proof.


ETA: And yes, of course, in principle it would be "anyone can be asked to prove their gender". But in just the same way, anyone can be asked by a supermarket to prove that they are over 18 - the supermarket would be within its rights to ask anyone for such proof, and refuse to sell them alcohol if they would/could not provide it. And just as in the alcohol-buying example, I'm suggesting that staff should be given the discretion to refrain from asking for proof of gender from anyone whom they consider is either a) clearly a man, who has identified to them as a man and who therefore wishes to use the men's changing rooms; or b) clearly a woman, who has identified to them as a wpman and who therefore wishes to use the women's changing rooms.

 

[LondonJohn]

Since joining in this thread, I've been talking to all of my female friends and family. We have diverse views on all sorts of topics. Some are extremely progressive and politically active, some are deeply religious and socially conservative. I've got a bit family and a fair number of friends.

What has become clear through these conversations is a staggering lack of knowledge of what's going on with respect to transgender activism. Out of about 20 females I've talked to, all but one started from a position of "Yes, transwomen should be treated as women, and yes, I support them having equal rights".

But none of them were aware that most transwomen still have male genitalia, and that many of them have no intention of every getting GRS. None of them were aware that a not-insignificant number of transwomen have no intention of undertaking HRT or GRS at all. All of them were appalled to learn that Canada, Scotland, Ireland, California, and Nevada have all moved to a "Self-ID" approach to legal gender reporting, which does not require any medical consultation, therapy, or diagnosis at all. All of them were floored and concerned to find that some countries as well as California are now taking the default position that transwomen should be housed in female prisons, on their self-declaration of being women, regardless of whether they have male genitalia at all.

These are significant changes to our starting assumptions of how the world works, and how transwomen fit into that world. And a large amount of it is happening without our knowledge or our consent.

But at the fundamental core level of gender dysphoria and transgender identity, no: cis women and cis men most certainly do not have the right to consent (or not) as to whether those things are real conditions.

Rather, the areas where cisgender people do have the right for knowledge and consent is (only) those areas where transgender rights intersect with their own rights. And I absolutely agree that in these areas, cisgender people are clearly stakeholders with the right to a voice.

And I believe that this will happen, once legislators get round to it (they're quite busy on other stuff at the moment...)


(Incidentally, do you think that (for example) heterosexual men and women should have had the right to knowledge and consent about the classification of homosexuality as a valid condition in its own right, and the consequent granting of gay rights?)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But at the fundamental core level of gender dysphoria and transgender identity, no: cis women and cis men most certainly do not have the right to consent (or not) as to whether those things are real conditions.

Rather, the areas where cisgender people do have the right for knowledge and consent is (only) those areas where transgender rights intersect with their own rights. And I absolutely agree that in these areas, cisgender people are clearly stakeholders with the right to a voice.

And I believe that this will happen, once legislators get round to it (they're quite busy on other stuff at the moment...)


(Incidentally, do you think that (for example) heterosexual men and women should have had the right to knowledge and consent about the classification of homosexuality as a valid condition in its own right, and the consequent granting of gay rights?)

I'm amused by people who claim others have 'a staggering lack of knowledge' and then go on to make factually inaccurate claims in the same post.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm amused by people who claim others have 'a staggering lack of knowledge' and then go on to make factually inaccurate claims in the same post.

 

[caveman1917]

I just have skepticism about her claim due to her presenting as male. Plus the fact that I can't seem to find any other info except for her pics on her Instagram, which all show her as presenting as male. That would ultimately be the problem here, regardless of how she identifies.

If she is truly female, she needs to make some attempt to show it. I would be just as uncomfortable as you if she walked into a women's restroom looking as she does.



It is true there have been a number of changes over the years, for the better. Back 20 years ago when I first realized I was transgender and really female, the medical and psychiatric communities were still working off Gender Identity Disorder and the Harry Benjamin/WPATH SOC, which were very restrictive compared to how things are today.

I remember having a lot of problems with the old "transsexual" way of looking at us because while I had gender dysphoria, I never had a lot of dysphoria about my penis and didn't feel it was necessary to risk going through a potentially dangerous surgery just to become a woman. It made me question myself for a long time if I was really trans if I didn't want to go all the way. After a close friend almost died from complications from her GRS, it has made me even more wary of having that kind of surgery.

With our current understanding of transgenderism we realize that we don't have to go through potentially risky medical and surgical options if we don't feel we have to. This helps me and a lot of other transgender people who don't want to alter our bodies if we don't feel it is necessary. I shouldn't have to risk my life to get rid of my penis just to be female.

It appears your views are closely aligned to the current UK law. In order to legally change gender the person in question has to

1) Have lived in their desired gender for at least 2 years. (basically has to present as the gender they want to legally be).

2) Have a doctor's note stating that they indeed have gender dysphoria. (importantly, there is no requirement for actual medical or surgical procedures, merely that the person has gender dysphoria).

Point 1 relates to your statement about actually presenting as female, point 2 relates to your statement about actual surgery not being a requirement. Which, assuming you want to retain those restrictions (as you say it would make you uncomfortable as well if a transwoman who doesn't present as female walked into a women's restroom), interestingly puts you in the TERF camp as it relates to the UK (the proposed Self-ID legislation is to remove those two requirements).

 

[Earthborn]

Which, assuming you want to retain those restrictions (as you say it would make you uncomfortable as well if a transwoman who doesn't present as female walked into a women's restroom), interestingly puts you in the TERF camp as it relates to the UK (the proposed Self-ID legislation is to remove those two requirements).

The proposed Self-ID legislation has no influence on restroom access. That is covered by anti-discrimination law that states that is illegal to deny trans people access to the restroom of their target gender if they are undergoing treatment. That is to say, they present themselves as the other gender, but there is no requirement that one has to have done this for at least two years. Arguably there is a requirement for a diagnosis, but not a requirement to be able to present documentation of such to get access. (Many trans people do carry some documentation just in case).

Since Seani is not transitioning, and is not presenting themselves as a woman, it is not illegal discrimination to deny them access to the ladies restroom. The proposed Self-ID legislation would not have changed that.

 

[caveman1917]

The proposed Self-ID legislation has no influence on restroom access. That is covered by anti-discrimination law that states that is illegal to deny trans people access to the restroom of their target gender if they are undergoing treatment.

Can you show this anti-discrimination law and show that it states what you say it states?

The proposed Self-ID legislation would not have changed that.

So you keep saying. But then, you say lots of things. Until you can actually show this I'm going with how it was explained to me by others:

- Access to segregated spaces is based on legal sex.
- Self-ID legislation would have removed point 1 and point 2 (in my previous post) as requirements for legally changing sex, to be replaced with simple self-declaration as the only requirement.

 

[Earthborn]

Can you show this anti-discrimination law and show that it states what you say it states?

Sure.

The Equality Act 2010 officially adds "gender reassignment" as a "protected characteristic", stating that:

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.[14]

- Access to segregated spaces is based on legal sex.

It isn't.

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the provision of separate and single-sex services but includes an exception that service providers can use in exceptional circumstances.[16] In general, organisations that provide separate or single‑sex services for women and men, or provide different services to women and men, are required to treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.[16]

 

[caveman1917]

Sure.



It isn't.

You're mixing up the protected characteristics of "gender reassignment" and of "sex." If a person wants to enter, say, a female-only single-sex space then there are two possible ways for doing so, having a birth certificate that says female or having the characteristic of "gender reassignment." Self-ID isn't about extending the characteristic of "gender reassignment" but about removing several requirements from the procedure to change the sex on one's birth certificate. Your appeal to the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" is a red herring.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure.



It isn't.

The way I read the laws that you quoted, the Equality Act says that if you are in a process of transitioning, you get to use the facilities of your preferred gender.

So, you only get to switch sides if you are actively working towards, "changing the physiological or other attributes of sex".

My interpretation of that is that segregated facilities are based on sex, but if you are altering your body so that you have characteristics of the opposite sex, then you can use the facilities of that sex.

I'm sure the fine print describes exactly what each of those terms mean, but it doesn't mean that you can use the women's loo if you put on a dress. In other words, it's physical changes, not how you feel or what you declare yourself to be, or how you "present".

 

[Paul2]

Personally I find the constant reduction of woman-hood to mere biology as they are just breeding-livestock to be the most unfeminist position going.

This mis-represents that position. One can focus on what biology leads to without reducing women to mere biology. Focusing on something is not reducing the issue to what is focused on.

If you have a link that supports what you're saying, I'm all ears.

But I think there is a difference between 'biology' and 'what biology leads to' and I think the 'what biology leads to' is in reality much closer to, if not synonymous with, 'what gender leads to'

Biology influences gender, presumably, but it is surely not synonymous with it. That would destroy the entire reasoning behind distinguishing behind biological sex and gender.

But my original point doesn't depend on the distinction between biology itself and what biology leads to. At least, not that I can see. That point is that no one in this thread, IIRC, reduced womanhood to biology.

And to whatever extent there is a share sisterhood of experiences among women that is going to be based on 'what gender leads to' rather than 'what biology leads to

In other words if a tranwoman was truly accepted as and treated as equivalent in every way to a ciswoman then the biological differences would lead to experiences that were no more different than two different ciswomen might experience.

I see no reason why shared experiences should not be based on biology in part. For instance: childbirth. You might say that the experience of childbirth is mediated through gender, but there is still the thing that is being mediated, which is the biological fact of childbirth. It's still there and has its influence.

 

[Earthborn]

You're mixing up the protected characteristics of "gender reassignment" and of "sex."

I don't think I am.

If a person wants to enter, say, a female-only single-sex space then there are two possible ways for doing so, having a birth certificate that says female or having the characteristic of "gender reassignment." Self-ID isn't about extending the characteristic of "gender reassignment" but about removing several requirements from the procedure to change the sex on one's birth certificate. Your appeal to the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" is a red herring.

It seems you are arguing that the "protected characteristic" of sex is defined solely on the basis of what is on one's birth certificate. I think that is a rather creative interpretation of the law. Here's how "sex" is defined:

In the Equality Act, sex can mean either male or female, or a group of people like men or boys, or women or girls.

I guess you could argue that since it says "either male or female" it has to refer to legal gender because biological sex isn't always quite that binary, but I think what is meant here is biological sex.

If this protected characteristic was based on legal gender, would that mean that if the UK decided to stop registering people's sex at birth, the protected characteristic of sex would disappear? I don't think the UK registers babies race or religion at birth, but those are still protected characteristics. I assume that sex works the same way, but feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Earthborn]

I'm sure the fine print describes exactly what each of those terms mean, but it doesn't mean that you can use the women's loo if you put on a dress.

You probably can if the people there don't know whether you are serious about transitioning.

But if you are denied access and you want to sue for discrimination, you probably have to present evidence that you "are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning your sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

 

[Meadmaker]

You probably can if the people there don't know whether you are serious about transitioning.

But if you are denied access and you want to sue for discrimination, you probably have to present evidence that you "are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning your sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Ok. That's what I thought.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Funny enough learning this was one of the things that made me much *more* comfortable with the whole transgender concept. It’s a whole lot easier for me to understand just wanting to live like and be treated as the opposite gender, maybe with top surgery, than it is for me to understand trying to mess with genitals, which may be the wrong ones for you, but at least work. I mean if that if someone’s jam, more power to them I guess, but I’d never be satisfied so it’s hard for me to sympathize.

It's challenging to put into words here, partly because the word soup itself gets confusing on this topic.

There are a couple of competing interests here, and I have very different reactions to them. On the one hand, people should be able to dress, present, and socialize however they feel comfortable. In that context, I think that genitalia is irrelevant and nobody's business but their own. This is the context in when the social definition of gender should, in my opinion, become much more flexible, so that the constructs of "feminine" and "masculine" become much more loosely tied to biological sex.

On the other hand, however, there are existing sex-based rights, as well as the realities of biology that affect the sexes different, including risks associated with assault. In that context, I think that genitalia and physicality are relevant and important.

Well I don’t know about the others but if we’re talking about the US, requiring the ticking of various medical ticky boxes is pretty obviously way too high of a time and money hurdle to be anything like fair to the poor and working class population.

I'm all for proposals that make it considerably less financially burdensome to tick those boxes.