Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

And that's how we generally see it. It used to be there was a certain model we should attain for, regardless of how we feel, so we would sometimes make choices we wouldn't necessarily make in order to fit all the criteria put upon us to make us the ideal man or woman. And that's even if we had the money and insurance to cover anything, since we tend to be poorer than the general population.

I was almost denied hormones based on a potential blood clotting issue and I had to fight for even that. If I was denied hormones, I would still have transitioned the best I could, but that should also not prevent me from being recognized as a woman. Luckily I had Medicaid as well as VA care, so I could threaten to go elsewhere. Other trans vets unfortunately didn't have that option and had to deal with very strict gatekeeping.

In the context of Seani... what should prevent a person from being recognized as a woman?

I get the impression that you think there should be some criteria, since you would be uncomfortable with Seani in your private and intimate spaces. I don't expect that we'll necessarily have the exact same criteria, but I would very much like to know what your personal criteria are, and what criteria you think would be reasonable for society to adopt.

 

[Boudicca90]

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).

Except I strongly disagree with both of those requirements, which is why I support Self ID.

1) Two years is WAY too long to have to wait to get your gender changed. I remember first hearing about the requirements and waits the NHS put on transpeople in the UK and those it was regressive and barbaric. Length of transition shouldn't be a requirement for anything but surgery.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/26/trans-patients-in-england-face-soul-destroying-wait-for-treatment

2) You shouldn't need a doctor's note, or even have gender dysphoria, to be transgender and therefore should be able to change your gender when you feel you are ready to. You also shouldn't need a diagnosis of GD to access hormones, since there are plenty of non-binary people who go on HRT to feel more masc/femme without having to transition all the way, or other reasons.

So your weak attempt to paint me as a TERF falls WAY flat. I support Self ID to get rid of those requirements. You and Emily should maybe stop trying to misstate my views to make it seem like we agree.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

But millions of biological females never experience childbirth. Some through choice; some not through choice.

So it's wrong to say that childbirth is one of those shared experiences which helps to define "woman". All of those non-childbearing females who identify as women are still (obviously) valid women, are they not?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Except I strongly disagree with both of those requirements, which is why I support Self ID.

1) Two years is WAY too long to have to wait to get your gender changed. I remember first hearing about the requirements and waits the NHS put on transpeople in the UK and those it was regressive and barbaric. Length of transition shouldn't be a requirement for anything but surgery.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/26/trans-patients-in-england-face-soul-destroying-wait-for-treatment

2) You shouldn't need a doctor's note, or even have gender dysphoria, to be transgender and therefore should be able to change your gender when you feel you are ready to. You also shouldn't need a diagnosis of GD to access hormones, since there are plenty of non-binary people who go on HRT to feel more masc/femme without having to transition all the way, or other reasons.

So your weak attempt to paint me as a TERF falls WAY flat. I support Self ID to get rid of those requirements. You and Emily should maybe stop trying to misstate my views to make it seem like we agree.

I'm not trying to misstate your views. I'm trying to figure them out.

The position you take here would absolutely allow Seani, or any other male who puts on a dress, to access your private and intimate females spaces, solely on the basis of that biological male having decided that they're women.

 

[Boudicca90]

In the context of Seani... what should prevent a person from being recognized as a woman?

I get the impression that you think there should be some criteria, since you would be uncomfortable with Seani in your private and intimate spaces. I don't expect that we'll necessarily have the exact same criteria, but I would very much like to know what your personal criteria are, and what criteria you think would be reasonable for society to adopt.

You skipped over the bit just before the highlighted bit where I said I would have still tried to transition without hormones. So I would still want to and have tried to physically look like a woman regardless of hormones or surgery, it just makes it a lot easier.

Seani is making no attempt, she is presenting as a man regardless of her actual gender identity. Which is fine for her, but to me (and you) would present a problem in female-only spaces. So the criteria for me would be for her to continue using men's facilities unless she feels like a more female presentation at some point.

Basically enter the place you best fit into. Same goes for enbies, if you are more masculine in presentation, use the men's, if more feminine, women's.

 

[Paul2]

But millions of biological females never experience childbirth. Some through choice; some not through choice.

So it's wrong to say that childbirth is one of those shared experiences which helps to define "woman". All of those non-childbearing females who identify as women are still (obviously) valid women, are they not?

True. Now we'd have to refines the definition of who we are talking about: not all women, but those who bear children.

So, now, is there anything biological that unites all women? Well, "all" is a pretty big word. So we have to generalize to some extent. If we don't generalize, then we couldn't even say that gender is something that unites women in their experiences.

Let's take having periods from puberty to menopause (although you can make the case that the memory of having periods would be retained after menopause). Some females don't have them, but the vast majority do. That experience would also be mediated through gender, and mediated through other factors, perhaps, as well, but there is still a biological reality that is influencing the experience, and perhaps strongly.

 

[qayak]

But millions of biological females never experience childbirth. Some through choice; some not through choice.

So it's wrong to say that childbirth is one of those shared experiences which helps to define "woman". All of those non-childbearing females who identify as women are still (obviously) valid women, are they not?

No male has ever experienced childbirth. Are you suggesting they qualify as women because some women choose not to/are unable to have children?

The thing about males and transwomen is that even if everything is working correctly, and they really, really want to, they are still unable to bear children. Under the same parameters all women can bear children.

Caitlyn Jenner was not woman of the year. She was a. marketing stunt. We know that because if she were a real woman she would not have been able to win gold in the male decathlon and she would have mothered kids instead of fathering them.

 

[d4m10n]

Basically enter the place you best fit into. Same goes for enbies, if you are more masculine in presentation, use the men's, if more feminine, women's.

Seems like a reasonable solution which should be widely embraced.

 

[theprestige]

Seems like a reasonable solution which should be widely embraced.

Depends how you define "the place you best fit into", and who gets to decide. One way, it's just another way of saying personal fiat/self-ID. The other way, it's just another way of saying you go where everybody else says you go.

 

[TomB]

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 that depends on where you live and what the exact text of the law in question is.

But beyond that, laws can be amended. They aren't locked in stone. Granted, some laws are harder to amend than others, such as those encoded directly in the US constitution. But even those can be modified.

That's why I don't really consider what the law is to be an obstacle when discussing opinions on what the law should be.

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

At the time of membership, or when paying for one time admission at a pool, maybe. That type of thing.

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'

The scenarios you and I described above meet that requirement.

It occurs to me that it there are cases when it doesn't however. Changing rooms at public beaches, for example, where there is no admission or membership process. Just open changing rooms with showers to rinse the saltwater off.

I get your point. Generally, encoding things into law removes the flexibility to make case by case judgements. But if it's approached from the property rights side of things, can an owner/manager verify the applicability of the rights on the property he controls?

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?

See, here is the problem. If you make any kind of verification optional, you make any kind of segregation rule unenforceable. Now, few people like the oft-mentioned Seani (sp?) are likely to try to use female spaces. But some will. And some of them may not actually identify as women. There is no way to effectively enforce the rule in the rare event that it is exploited by a voyeuristic cis-man. Any attempt to do so by, say, monitoring or shaming could result in a discrimination lawsuit if the accuser is incorrect.

Requiring anyone to either provide ID or vacate if challenged allows for enforcement. Unfortunately, that means that some people will be mis-identiofied. I don't have a solution for that.

I know there's an argument to be made to look at behavior rather than appearance. But what would the behavior of a voyeur be? Hanging out in the locker room an excessive amount of time?

Absence of that ability, for practical purposes, amounts to unisex spaces with an unenforceable understanding that men will generally use room A and women will generally use B.

Unless you want to argue for unisex spaces designed appropriately, which neither cis nor trans women appear to favor, I think LondonJohn's suggestion here is about the best available solution.

 

[d4m10n]

Depends how you define "the place you best fit into", and who gets to decide. One way, it's just another way of saying personal fiat/self-ID. The other way, it's just another way of saying you go where everybody else says you go.

Pretty sure Boudicca was going for the latter meaning, since she emphasized presentation.

If people are more likely to perceive you as female, use the ladies room. If people are more likely to perceive you as male, use the gentlemens. I know this is subjective but I've yet to hear a better solution in the absence of gender-neutral private rooms.

 

[TomB]

I'll reply, just to annoy 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)

I don't think anyone is saying it's all biology. I also don't think anyone is saying that biology doesn't play a role either. But there is quite a spectrum of opinion as to just how much of a cis woman's identity relates to biology.

It goes all the way from Boudicca saying she doesn't think biology is very important to Rolfe asking: what are we if not our biology? (Words probably inaccurately paraphrased. It's not important enough to the point to bother getting the correct quotes.)

The point I've tried to make several times is that the "lived experiences" of cis-women are influenced by biology significantly more than the "lived experiences" of men are. That much is obvious, though I don't think biological males can really understand it. Similarly, a non-trans person cannot really understand the 'lived experience" of being trans. The most anyone can do is empathize.

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.

But the gender role of women is rooted in biology...specifically reproductive biology.

Women without functioning uteruses (what's the plural of uterus? uteri?) are still subject to the pressures, sometimes internalized, to have a baby. I've, for example, known women who had no intention of having children who were still absolutely emotionally devastated by an ectopic pregnancy. I've also known several women who had abortions for whom it was an emotional process, despite having no desire for the child nor regret about having the abortion.

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.

And it's not all about the ability to have babies. Not directly. The fact that their bodies are built for that, however carries ramifications. The menstrual cycle for one.

Anyway, my point is there is a huge gulf between: biology is not important in woman's identity and biology is the exclusive factor in women's identity. I don't think it's accurate to place anyone, not even Boudicca or Rolfe, at the extremes. But it seems like the biological women here, including Lithariel (Sorry, can't currently see how your handle is spelled.) see it as having more weight than the biological males in this thread do.

 

[theprestige]

Pretty sure Boudicca was going for the latter meaning, since she emphasized presentation.

If people are more likely to perceive you as female, use the ladies room. If people are more likely to perceive you as male, use the gentlemens. I know this is subjective but I've yet to hear a better solution in the absence of gender-neutral private rooms.

Yep. The question had been raised before. It seems pretty ambiguous to me.

"You need to use the men's room."

"People are more likely to perceive me as female, so I need to use the women's room."

"People are more likely, my ass. I perceive you as male. Get the **** out of the women's room before I kick you out."

And where does this leave mannish females, anyway? Legit cis females who want to use the women's room, and should use the women's room? Do they need to start going where people are more likely to perceive them as belonging?

 

[d4m10n]

Yep. The question had been raised before. It seems pretty ambiguous to me.

Of course it is. Without running a controlled ranodmized survey you can never be sure, but I think most of us can tell pretty much of the time.

 

[theprestige]

Of course it is. Without running a controlled ranodmized survey you can never be sure, but I think most of us can tell pretty much of the time.

I agree. But what happens the times you guess wrong? Someone pushes back, do double down, or meekly trade your self identity for fitting in? Should there be a law that protects your guess? One that protects other people's perceptions?

And seriously: What happens to mannish cis women under this standard?

"You look like a man. You don't belong here."

"What about her? She looks more like a man than I do!"

"Unlike you, she has a naturally produced vagina."

"Have you checked? Biology doesn't matter anyway!"

 

[d4m10n]

I agree. But what happens the times you guess wrong? Someone pushes back, do double down, or meekly trade your self identity for fitting in? Should there be a law that protects your guess? One that protects other people's perceptions?

If you're asking me, I'd rather we left this to prevailing social norms rather than hard and fast and inflexible laws.

And seriously: What happens to mannish cis women under this standard?

Basically, I trust cis women to recognize their own.

 

[MisAndreG]

It's in wikipedia.




My point is that even the somewhat androgynous build of women with CAIS is enough to more than compensate for their complete lack of bioavailable androgen. They have skeletal features, lung capacity and so on some way skewed to the male side of the curve, even despite never having gone through puberty. And yet we're supposed to believe that normal 46XY men who have been through puberty and then have merely reduced their testosterone concentration to maybe only four times the upper limit of normal females don't have any athletic advantage.

Don't make me laugh.

We need to use plain language to describe what these people believe — they think men who are mentally ill, but who have interest groups that have lobbied to change that designation for them, who have mutilated themselves and have taken hormones to “feminize” themselves should be allowed to compete against real women, putting the real women at risk and disadvantage, because if those mentally ill men aren’t allowed to then their feelings will be hurt.

 

[MisAndreG]

Yep. The question had been raised before. It seems pretty ambiguous to me.

"You need to use the men's room."

"People are more likely to perceive me as female, so I need to use the women's room."

"People are more likely, my ass. I perceive you as male. Get the **** out of the women's room before I kick you out."

And where does this leave mannish females, anyway? Legit cis females who want to use the women's room, and should use the women's room? Do they need to start going where people are more likely to perceive them as belonging?

I think this is just a red herring. We don’t want men like Boudicca in our spaces. He can pee in the men’s, and if someone asks why he’s their he can just say he’s trans, and everyone will probably understand what that means and let him pee at the urinal.

 

[MisAndreG]

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.

There is no such thing as cis, John. Stop using a propaganda term, and maybe people will take your performative reasonableness seriously.

 

[MisAndreG]

Here is a thought — let’s stop trying to accommodate harmful lunacy masquerading as identity? Trans is, in the words of Jamie Shupe a detrans person, “total ********”.