Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.


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



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?


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.

I think most discrimination cases come down to 'did you have good reason to do what you did other than the presence of the protected characteristic'

Saying it's voluntary to register your new gender doesn't mean it's not enforceable, it means that the person enforcing the rules is going to have to take a duty of care to ensure that they are enforcing it for good reasons.

I'm not a lawyer...it may well be that 'looking like a man' would be considered good reason. I would imagine that 'a woman reported there was a man in the changing rooms' would probably be a good reason to at least question the person as to their gender?

But that's just anti-discrimination law I think. A lot of it comes down to just showing that you have processes and procedures that don't discriminate but there may always be someone willing to throw in a speculative lawsuit and see what the courts decide.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think anyone is saying it's all biology.

Perhaps not, but they seem to be saying biology is all that matters.

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.

I don't think it is obvious at all.

But if biology is not all that matters then it should be reasonable to assume that someone lacking that biology could have a sufficiently similar lived experience to be considered part of the group even without sharing the biology.

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.

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.

The gender role of both genders is probably rooted in reproductive biology. But if we agree that the gender role can still apply if your biology isn't functioning then we agree that the gender role is separate to the biology.

In other words, the defining factor in the lived experience of being a woman is not whether you have a uterus but whether the people you come into contact with treat you as if you have one.

 

[cullennz]

Do you think medical professionals should pretend trans women have a uterus?

 

[shuttlt]

Do you think medical professionals should pretend trans women have a uterus?

You seem to be reducing having a uterus to mere biology. This is exclusionary.

 

[Lithrael]

Do you think medical professionals should pretend trans women have a uterus?

Why do we have to come back around to dumb zingers? Medical professionals shouldn’t pretend women who have had hysterectomies have a uterus either. If anyone ever even said “I want doctors to pretend to give me a Pap smear” it’s a cranky outlier position whether said by a trans woman or a woman who’s had her cervix out.

 

[Boudicca90]

Why do we have to come back around to dumb zingers? Medical professionals shouldn’t pretend women who have had hysterectomies have a uterus either. If anyone ever even said “I want doctors to pretend to give me a Pap smear” it’s a cranky outlier position whether said by a trans woman or a woman who’s had her cervix out.

It's just more transphobic trolling. When I am seeing a new nurse or doctor and they assume I have some anatomy that I don't, I just correct them and move on.

Whenever they ask questions about parts I don't have like a uterus, ovaries, or vagina, I just mention I am non-op transgender and that's that. It's a little embarrassing, but they tend to be used to it so it's no big deal.

 

[theprestige]

It's just more transphobic trolling. When I am seeing a new nurse or doctor and they assume I have some anatomy that I don't, I just correct them and move on.

Whenever they ask questions about parts I don't have like a uterus, ovaries, or vagina, I just mention I am non-op transgender and that's that. It's a little embarrassing, but they tend to be used to it so it's no big deal.

What's weird to me is that they even ask questions about parts you don't have in the first place. When I go in to see a new doctor, there's nothing in my medical records that would cause them to assume I have certain parts that I don't have.

What's the advantage of misrepresenting your physical anatomy on your medical records?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do you think medical professionals should pretend trans women have a uterus?

What purpose does this comment have beyond bad faith trolling?

The conversations between doctors and patients about their individual health care needs has very little to do with broader public policy when it comes to recognizing transgender rights.

I fail to see what a trans straw-woman nonsensically demanding a pap smear really has to do with much of anything, other than satisfying some personal animus or perpetuating the opinion that trans people are mentally ill.

 

[Meadmaker]

Because it's perfectly clear: if (say) a cis man becomes a trans woman in 2020 and then becomes a cis man again in 2025, the person is a man up to 2020, a woman between 2020 and 2025, and a man from 2025 onwards.

Thanks for the answer.


For what it's worth, I think your belief is an outlier.

 

[Meadmaker]

My attitude to them would be to be caring and empathetic to them. I think you would have to listen to their stories and understand their specific situations.

Maybe they were misdiagnosed or maybe they had expectations of transition that weren't realised, maybe they had issues of not feeling accepted as the gender they wanted to be, there could be a million things going on.

Again, if they were sincerely living as a transwoman during the period of transition then they should have been treated as a woman during that period and if it didn't work out then they should be treated as a man again if they detransition.

Again, I still think this hunting for definitions of whether they are REALLY men or women or whatever is a red herring. They are individuals who are obviously struggling with something and need support and empathy.

Thanks for the answer.

 

[Boudicca90]

I have a serious question for the "other side" in this discussion. I really am genuinely curious and not trying to "score points".


What is your attitude toward people who "detransition". i.e. There are people out there who declare themselves transmen or transwomen, and possibly go through some or all physical transitioning available to modern medicine, but later in their lives declare that they are actually still the gender associated with their biological sex.

So, what can we say about them during that period where they were self-declared trans-people, with or without affirmation of medical specialists? If a male transitions to a transwoman, socially or phyically, and then later says he was a man all along, and reverts to self declaration as male, was he "really" a woman during them time he declared himself to be one? Was he "not really" a transperson during that time? Do those words ("really" or "not really") have any real meaning?

To try and go further in the explanation of the significance of the question, some people say that being transgender is not a wish to behave in a certain way, or to have others behave toward you in a certain way, but is a very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of their being. So, when someone switches their self declaration from cis-gender to transgender and then back again, what can we say about their "true" selves during or after the various declarations?


(And, I mean that as a sincere question, because I really don't know how anyone would answer it. I'm not trying to score points by asking the question. However, I'm not so brazen as to say I might never want to use the answer as part of an argument, i.e. to score points, at a later time. I really don't know the answer right now.)

I am fine with detransitioning as long as it is truly their choice. Too often it is because of religion influencing them, or conversion therapy, or social pressure from family and friends and it's not truly how they feel. And if that's the case, I am strongly against it. But sometimes people just get themselves wrong, and that's perfectly okay.

As I've always said in this thread, there is no one way to be trans. Sometimes people find that transitioning wasn't right for them and feel they can live as they were, sometimes they realize they are more non-binary and are fine that way. If Caitlyn Jenner thought that she made a mistake in transitioning and she had been male all along, that doesn't mean she isn't a woman, because regardless of her gender identity, she is presenting as female right now.

Unfortunately it seems like the most common reason for detransitioning among the people I know has been they had to stop HRT for medical and/or financial reasons. They are still transgender, but can't afford the treatments necessary to help them to live as they truly are, so they go back in the closet.

 

[Boudicca90]

What's weird to me is that they even ask questions about parts you don't have in the first place. When I go in to see a new doctor, there's nothing in my medical records that would cause them to assume I have certain parts that I don't have.

What's the advantage of misrepresenting your physical anatomy on your medical records?

There is nothing misrepresenting my anatomy on my records. It's just that I am listed as female on my records and so they tend to ask me questions they would ask of other women. Like "How long has it been since your last pap smear?" or "How long has it been since you last menstruated?" I never misrepresent myself either by saying I have a part I don't have, I just point out that it's not relevant to me.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thanks again to those who answered my question about detransitioning.

To be honest, I'm not sure to make of the answers. It will require some thought to see if I can make sense of them or see a clear pattern.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

It's a pretty common logical misstep.

All A are B does not imply that All ~A are ~B. Some ~A are ~B, but it's also entirely possible that some ~A are still B.

The logically true complement is that All ~B are ~A.

So... All {people who get pregnant} are {female} is a true statement.
The complement is All {NOT female} are {NOT people who get pregnant}.
More concisely translated to common terms, All {Males} are {people who do not get pregnant}

Neither of those statements provides any information on whether a person who does not get pregnant is either male or female.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I think the 'default' that you're referencing is true... but it's not a biological influence. I think that is a social influence. More specifically, it's under the general concept of privilege. The experience of males is the 'default' social experience in the same way that the experience of white people is the 'default' social experience in North America and most of Europe.

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?

Not being a male, my extrapolations are going to be limited. But I would suspect that the competitiveness and aggression correlated with testosterone would be one aspect. Physical strength and presence may be another. At a minimum, I'm guessing that nocturnal emissions, morning wood, and inappropriate erections come into play as part of the male experience, as would the inherent biological drive to procreate which would, presumably, express itself as a strong desire for sex.

Social roles and expectations based on sex are heavily influenced by biology. For the most part, I think that the biological aspects of male maturation tend to be viewed by society as liberating elements that grant young males entrance to the world of men, and all of the privileges that come with that. They're rites of passage, in a sense, that grant increased agency and freedom. Most of the biological aspects of female maturation tend to be confining elements. They come paired with increased vulnerability to pregnancy as well as male interest. The social aspect of female puberty places restraints on female agency.

Those social aspects are something I'd dearly love to see go down in flames.

 

[Lithrael]

Ah dang it, lost a big ol post... even had it copied to my clipboard and then just hit copy on something else by mistake... but anyway.

In other words, the defining factor in the lived experience of being a woman is not whether you have a uterus but whether the people you come into contact with treat you as if you have one.

Yeah, this.

Though the experience of navigating life as someone who can probably get pregnant *is* a huge thing too.... if you don’t say a girl who grew up knowing they’re infertile gets kicked out, then it’s simply not *the* defining factor.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 feel like I am misreading or misunderstanding this. Wouldn't biological sex (what's on the birth certificate) be relevant in the context of a pregnancy test? I mean, maybe it's impolite to say so, but it really seems like a transwoman protesting over being denied a pregnancy test should rightfully be considered our of her mind.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wouldn't totally agree with that, but admit the whole cycle thing must be a pain in the ****

More of a pain in the uterus. And sometimes a pain in the boobs too.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As in just annoying. Not anything else

Usually just annoying... but very often significantly painful as well. And there are several medical conditions that are common in females that can make it considerably worse, and even life-threatening. And that's not including the impact of missing a period.

I ended up extremely anemic and very nearly died because an undiagnosed uterine fibroid hemorrhaged. I ended up hospitalized for a couple of days, then found myself facing choices about treatment - all of which included surgery, but all but one of which would render me unable to have children. I was young enough at the time that my spouse and I hadn't really made a decision about whether or not to have kids. So there I was, in a position where I needed to make a decision so that I don't die the next time I had a period... and weighing the options between the safest options... and the one that would preserve my fertility even though it had a higher likelihood of complications and a longer recovery time. I ended up needing blood transfusions (with all of their attendant risks) prior to surgery.

So... probably more often than you realize, it's more than merely annoying.

Fibroids, endometriosis, cysts, menstrual migraines, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and increased risk of stroke from oral contraceptives are all things that are closely related to periods, and are a bit more than "annoying".

 

[caveman1917]

There is nothing misrepresenting my anatomy on my records. It's just that I am listed as female on my records and so they tend to ask me questions they would ask of other women. Like "How long has it been since your last pap smear?" or "How long has it been since you last menstruated?" I never misrepresent myself either by saying I have a part I don't have, I just point out that it's not relevant to me.

Well let's all hope you're never brought into the ER unconscious and hence unable to correct the doctors' assumptions, possibly leading to serious complications if treatment is administered on the basis of such flawed assumptions.