Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

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 ********”.

I seeeeee.

I think this is perhaps the definition of an "outlier" position on the spectrum of views.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

I'm saying that "childbirth" cannot be one of the defining qualities of what it means to be "woman". That's all. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

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.

No, all women cannot. (And I think you probably mean females, not women).

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.

She won her Olympic gold medal as a man. And, just as bearing children is not a defining criterion of "woman", 1) providing the sperm to a female to produce children is not a defining criterion of "man", and 2) providing the sperm to a female to produce children is not an exclusionary factor for "woman"*.


* But in any case, Caitlyn Jenner provided the sperm to a female to produce children under the identity of "man" (not that this is especially relevant to any exploration of gender identity though, as I explain above)

 

[caveman1917]

I don't think I am.

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: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.

Biological sex is binary, we've discussed this at length upthread. More to the point, if there was ever - in context of the protected characteristic of "sex" - disagreement over whether person A is male or female then A's birth certificate would be what settles that fact. Before same-sex marriage was legal, if two people sent a request to marry and both their birth certificates state the same letter (M or F), then their request would've been denied on the basis of it being a same-sex marriage. It seems a bit odd to claim that the sex recorded on one's birth certificate has no legal value in context of anti-discrimination law when it was exactly that which had been stopping homosexual people from getting married for a long time.

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.

If it wasn't registered then the judge would probably come up with some ad-hoc test. I don't think this ever happened, but if there ever was a court case where one party was claiming to be a racial minority and the other claiming the opposite, in context of anti-discrimination law, then the judge would probably come up with some ad-hoc test for determining whether a particular person does or does not belong to a racial minority. For sex such an ad-hoc test isn't necessary though, as it is recorded on one's birth certificate.

 

[caveman1917]

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

Which of the following statements do you agree with? The first, the second, both, or neither?

1) Seani should not use female-only services.

2) All barriers stopping Seani from using female-only services should be removed.

 

[theprestige]

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 ********”.

It's an interesting thought, and one I have considered many times. I end up rejecting it, though, because it begs the question.

Not everybody agrees that it's a harmful lunacy. Among those that do agree that it's harmful, not everyone agrees that using aggressively pejorative terms to describe it is helpful to the debate.

"Let us stop trying" - who is "us", in this appeal? Are you actually talking to the audience you think you're talking to? Because it seems like this appeal depends on an audience that already accepts some premises that this audience does not already accept.

And that's before we even get into the debate over "accommodation" versus "treatment". If some degree of accommodation is one of the few treatments shown to be effective in reducing distress, that's probably a good reason to keep doing it.

Interestingly - paradoxically? - If accommodating gender identity in transsexuals really is an effective treatment, then dismantling majority perceptions and norms about sex-based gender roles in society is actually counter-productive.

 

[Rolfe]

I suspect "majority perceptions and norms about sex-based gender roles in society" are actually a large part of the cause of transgender identity. Dismantling them could be the best solution for everyone. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that accommodating delusions is seldom helpful in treating them in the long term, and that "gender identity" delusions are not necessarily an exception to this.

 

[theprestige]

I dunno. Dismantling the idea of Napoleon seems like a terrible solution for people who think they're Napoleon and for everyone else.

 

[Meadmaker]

I seeeeee.

I think this is perhaps the definition of an "outlier" position on the spectrum of views.

I don't think you're correct. Let me explain so there's no confusion.

I think MisAndreG's position is that a trans-person is not "really" the opposite gender from their sex. Moreover, there is no one that is "really" trans. In other words, his (her? doesn't matter) position is that there are men who like to behave as or be seen as women, but that doesn't reflect something about their "true identity". It represents their actual desires, but that's somewhat different. There is no "gender identity" that is a core of a person and is both natural and immutable. We are males and females based on our biology.

You say that his position is an outlier, which would mean it is believed by very few people.

So, having made explicit what I think you are saying,

I think you're wrong. I think that's a pretty mainstream belief, at least in the USA.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think you're correct. Let me explain so there's no confusion.

I think MisAndreG's position is that a trans-person is not "really" the opposite gender from their sex. Moreover, there is no one that is "really" trans. In other words, his (her? doesn't matter) position is that there are men who like to behave as or be seen as women, but that doesn't reflect something about their "true identity". It represents their actual desires, but that's somewhat different. There is no "gender identity" that is a core of a person and is both natural and immutable. We are males and females based on our biology.

You say that his position is an outlier, which would mean it is believed by very few people.

So, having made explicit what I think you are saying,

I think you're wrong. I think that's a pretty mainstream belief, at least in the USA.

Ah well, I meant an outlier within the spectrum of reasonable views.

I probably need not remind you that, for example, the mainstream belief in the USA used to be that gay people were deviants committing sins against God.....

 

[Meadmaker]

Ah well, I meant an outlier within the spectrum of reasonable views.

I probably need not remind you that, for example, the mainstream belief in the USA used to be that gay people were deviants committing sins against God.....

Indeed. You need not remind me of that.

Nor of the fact that Helium has two protons.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I didn't skip it for any malicious reason. I already know that you're passing well, and I don't have any doubts about your sincerity or intentions. You aren't a problem - you're one of the people that have historically been given a pass by other females, in recognition that you've had a rough time of it and you're committed to being one of us.

That's one of my points here: Not all transgender people are like you. There are a lot that are NOT like you. There are a lot that don't seem to care about blending in, or about not making other women uncomfortable or intimidated. The question remains: how do we come up with an approach that allows people like you to be treated as women and grant you access to intimate and vulnerable spaces... while also not throwing open the door to those who we don't perceive as women, those who aren't trying their best to blend in, those who demand to be treated as women and granted access to women's spaces while looking entirely like cismales? And how do we ensure that we're not made more vulnerable to cismales with malicious intent, who could take advantage of the situation?

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.

That's pretty much my ideal for toilets and changing rooms. But that relies on an unspoken social contract. What do we do when people (like Seani, and others who don't present as female) violate that social contract? How do we protect our privacy and safety (yours as well as mine) against that violation?

 

[Lithrael]

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.

I think we’re mostly in agreement but slightly talking past each other on this one. For starters there’s two parts to this experience that I’m describing. One is related to biology and the other is related *only* to being socially perceived as female.

The biology one is that at some level you have to worry about what a guy might physically do to or with you, good or bad, and all the consequences and ramifications of that. Some things a guy can do to you that just, say, a bigger girl, is unlikely to do, and some things a bigger girl is incapable of doing.

The social one is the one about expectations and pressures. You get that whether you actually ever turn out to have a functioning baby oven or not. Constantly being told Guys Only Are Interested In You For One Reason, knowing lots of people will never take you as seriously as a guy, watching people call a girl bossy and a boy a little leader, none of that stuff is actually about biology at all. Tied to it, based on it, built on assumptions about it, yes. But the reason it lands on you as an individual girl isn’t actually because of what equipment you possess, it’s because everyone knows you’re a girl. And you know everyone knows you’re a girl. Especially that boy who is looking at you Like That, when you’d really hoped to just be a friend without benefits.

(Part of the benefit of being a tomboy, for a lot of tomboyish girls, is that until/unless you start to grow up and get really obviously shapely... you’re sort of socially allowed to opt out of a LOT of the girl-role perception-field. To put it simply, boys automatically know you will help catch frogs, and most of them won’t kick up any fuss about team picks unless you legitimately suck, and girls won’t try to use any social hierarchy tools on you (good or bad) because everyone knows you are a girl who is not paying attention to the girl rules. But even in the depths of all this you notice that it’s not too bad to be an honorary boy, but a boy wanting to join in on the girl stuff is absolutely crapped on by everyone but the most inclusive girly-girls who just want to dress up anyone. It can make you really uneasy about what’s going on in your society.)

So you see two understandable types of objections to being totally inclusive of trans women. One is about socialization: You did not grow up perceived as a girl so how can you join the club of that shared experience?

This one doesn’t convince me because I can see how obviously different even just growing up girly-girl vs tomboy leaves you. If the experiential grid there is already so diverse I don’t see the problem with including ‘growing up as a boy who could tell their maleness levels were not ringing the proverbial bell.’ (The only thing I’d demand here is that a trans woman make as much effort to understand where other women are coming from, as much as I have to try to understand where a really mothery mom or a really fashioney shopping scene woman is coming from, or where those types have to understand where I am coming from. And conversely, I do expect other women to try to understand where trans women are coming from, and that there is plenty of diversity there too. Women are not a monolithic group; neither are trans women. But it seems to me that there is a similar ‘you will never be taken as seriously as A Man’ sentiment there, that bridges some of that gap.)

The other one is about biology: How can you ask me not to be as wary of you as I am of any man? I am wary because of what a typical man is capable of doing, and you may be capable of doing all of those things. How can you demand that I just have to put up with being wary where I didn’t before? How can you ask female prisoners to accept being locked in with an inmate who can get boners, etc?

Some of these concern me, some don’t. Some concern me but not more than other pressing issues that affect these populations. Overall I think we’ll all find relatively satisfying standards for dealing with all this. No I don’t know what they’re going to be.

But then it quickly starts drilling down into trends and social expectations again: How can I trust you not to do what any man might do, when you’ve been raised expected by everyone to behave in male ways, trying to reinforce your male behaviors? How can you expect me to sit next to you in womens’ abuse support therapy when you are setting off the same alarm bells in my psyche that any man does? Etc.

Again these are things that don’t rise far above the noise of risk assessment for me but I can understand people being worried, and the support group type stuff I honestly don’t know where lines really ought to be drawn to make sure nobody gets left in the cold. Womens’ shelters for example are sometimes not safe places even without any trans women hoping to sleep there. So to me it’s not about adding a risk where none existed but about weighing a risk while already managing perceived and actual safety.

And the sport one is about biology too of course; again I think this one will iron out to reasonable standards eventually. Nobody wants womens’ sport to be handily dominated by trans women, but how much this actually happens is still shaking out. It happens sometimes for sure, and we need more satisfactory remedies for such situations. I’m not denying that an average guy is as strong as a really quite strong woman, for example. So I would not want say, an untransitioned 22 year old trans woman walking away with a professional level womens’ track event. But I’m not convinced that sort of stuff happens enough, or gets generally accepted enough, to say the sky is falling.

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. You need not remind me of that.

Nor of the fact that Helium has two protons.

Oh right. Is this - and I'm really not sure, so it'd be helpful if you could explain more explicitly - your way of claiming that 1) an analysis of the reasonable nature (or not) of mainstream US attitudes to homosexuality, even as late as the 1970s, is of no relevance whatsiever to 2) an analysis of the reasonable nature (or not) of present-day mainstream US attitudes to transgender identity?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Women without functioning uteruses (what's the plural of uterus? uteri?)

Both are acceptable, though "uteruses" is a bit more common. The "i" ending is only applicable when the singular version of the noun ends in "us" AND the root is latin. Even then, it's almost always acceptable to pluralize it to "uses". So even though I think most people know "radius" pluralizes to "radii", it's also acceptable to refer to "radiuses".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm saying that "childbirth" cannot be one of the defining qualities of what it means to be "woman". That's all. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

For all of your pretense at logic, you seem woefully lacking in basic critical thinking and the foundation of logical comprehension.

Not all A are X, but ONLY A are X. X is a sufficient characteristic, but is not a necessary characteristic. If, however, ~X is universal characteristic, then that is sufficient to identify the item in question as ~A.

Not all females can bear children, but only females can bear children. No males can bear children, therefore males are not females.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh right. Is this - and I'm really not sure, so it'd be helpful if you could explain more explicitly - your way of claiming that 1) an analysis of the reasonable nature (or not) of mainstream US attitudes to homosexuality, even as late as the 1970s, is of no relevance whatsiever to 2) an analysis of the reasonable nature (or not) of present-day mainstream US attitudes to transgender identity?

Number 1.

If the truth be told, whether or not an attitude is mainstream, common, or anything else doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is correct. However, you did introduce the subject, by declaring Andre's attitudes as an "outlier". The reason I decided to jump in, though, is that I see this sort of dismissal as a rather persistent feature of your writings. We don't have to worry about those people because they are throwbacks and not worthy of engaging. In terms of public policy and/or social acceptance, you're wrong. If you want your views to become the societal norm, you have to sell those views to the masses. Do not make the mistake of believing you have already done so.

ETA: Actually, I'm not sure I even understand the question. I thought it was meant as an either/or, but rereading it, I'm not sure.

So, my commentary above stands. In terms of being correct, it doesn't matter what people think. In terms of social acceptance, the beliefs described aren't outliers.

In terms of either one and the question of relevance to attitudes about homosexuality, I don't think there's much connection. People's beliefs about homosexuality have no bearing whatsoever toward the correctness of your position on transgenderism, because people's beliefs on anything have no bearing on the correctness of your beliefs. As for the relevance of acceptance of homosexuality and a comparison to the acceptance of some position on transgender issues, there is an obvious correlation. People who believed, or still believe, that homosexuality is sinful are more likely to believe that transgenderism isn't a "real" thing (whatever that means).

My comment about helium was to illustrate that while homosexuality and transgenderism may be correlated in the world of public opinion, there is not, for an awful lot of people, including all of the participants in this thread, any real connection. You need not remind us that the sinfulness of homosexuality was once a mainstream belief, because it doesn't really influence our thinking about transgenderism. In a way it was an unfair comment, because the two are obviously connected in the world of the public at large, and that was under discussion at the time, but for me and other people here, it just doesn't matter. There's no real connection.

 

[Paul2]

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.

I've seen this idea a couple of times, and while the issue is only peripheral to this thread, I'll weigh in.

I'm not sure that the lived experiences of cis-men aren't influenced by biology just as much. Just because you can point to aspects of female biology that aren't shared by males (reproductive aspects) doesn't mean that male biology doesn't drive the lived male experience any more or less than female biology drives the female lived experience.

 

[Paul2]

For all of your pretense at logic, you seem woefully lacking in basic critical thinking and the foundation of logical comprehension.

Not all A are X, but ONLY A are X. X is a sufficient characteristic, but is not a necessary characteristic. If, however, ~X is universal characteristic, then that is sufficient to identify the item in question as ~A.

Not all females can bear children, but only females can bear children. No males can bear children, therefore males are not females.

Thanks, nicely done. (LJ was replying to me.)

 

[Lithrael]

I'm not sure that the lived experiences of cis-men aren't influenced by biology just as much. Just because you can point to aspects of female biology that aren't shared by males (reproductive aspects) doesn't mean that male biology doesn't drive the lived male experience any more or less than female biology drives the female lived experience.

It’s hard to say of course. There’s the very common perception that ‘male’ is the same as ‘default’ which ends up having connotations for both genders. It ends up feeling like ‘male behavior’ is ‘everything that isn’t female behavior.’ To the point where in fiction, genderless robots are always ‘he’ unless you add pink paint or a boob plate.

This is both less and more so now than it was when I was a kid. Little kids’ stuff is WAY more gendered, yet at the same time it’s not a movie-title-worthy joke when a guy has a large role in taking care of kids.

How would you describe the strict biological influence on maleness of growing up as a guy? Is it like, everyone expecting you to be able to do a pull-up, fret over what your junk looks like, and Have Sons For Your Family?

 

[Earthborn]

More to the point, if there was ever - in context of the protected characteristic of "sex" - disagreement over whether person A is male or female then A's birth certificate would be what settles that fact.

Only if the disagreement is over what sex is A's birth certificate. If the disagreement is over A biological sex, it wouldn't be what settles it. For example if A is a transwoman and protests being denied a pregnancy test, what is on her birth certificate should be irrelevant.

I don't think this ever happened, but if there ever was a court case where one party was claiming to be a racial minority and the other claiming the opposite, in context of anti-discrimination law,

I don't see how it would happen. the whole point of anti-discrimination law should be to make it irrelevant what "racial" group one belongs to.

Interestingly - paradoxically? - If accommodating gender identity in transsexuals really is an effective treatment, then dismantling majority perceptions and norms about sex-based gender roles in society is actually counter-productive.

No, treating everyone the same is fine too. Many transsexuals would be fine with dismantling gender roles as they often don't fit perfectly into either one. Heck, they are often the ones actively challenging majority perceptions and norms about sex-based gender roles in society.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that accommodating delusions is seldom helpful in treating them in the long term, and that "gender identity" delusions are not necessarily an exception to this.

You do know that transsexuals are tested whether they are suffering from delusions, right? And that they are only diagnosed "transsexual" if they do not?