Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Ziggurat]

"There is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether or
not transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport."

Wow. That's... not a well researched paper.

It's worth noting, too, that not only is this not a research paper, this isn't even an academic review article. This was written up by librarians, who have no particular expertise in the field, after doing basically just google searches. And they can up with a scant 13 references. That's it. That's the full extent of their research: they googled a few terms, found a few references, and then basically said those thirteen sources couldn't reach any real conclusions about anything. Which... sure, that may be an accurate summary of those 13 sources.

But it's not exactly a useful overview of the topic.

 

[Elaedith]

Difference being that I don't cry that it's literal violence that makes me feel unsafe... you know, because pronouns don't actually hurt people in any way.

Interesting article published recently in BJPsych.

"Within current debates, if gender identity becomes uncoupled from both biological sex and gendered socialisation (Box 1), it develops an intangible soul-like quality or ‘essence’. As a pure subjective experience, it may be overwhelming and powerful but is also unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If this identity is held to be a person's innermost core concept of self, then questioning the very existence of gender identity becomes equated with questioning that person's entire sense of being, and consequently risks being considered a threat to the right to exist, or even as a threat to kill."

One can see a similarity to any other situation where one's sense of self comes to depend on an unverifiable belief system (e.g. religious fundamentalism, where blasphemy is seen as an attack on the identity and dignity of the person holding a belief system and provokes censorship or violent reaction).

 

[Ziggurat]

Though, I could see trans-activists arguing that Karsten Braasch vs Serena Williams doesn't count, and FC Dallas under-15s boys squad vs US Women's National Soccer Team doesn't count, because the subjects were all cisgender at the time. Until Serena Williams plays a bunch of committed transwomen and loses, we won't really be able to draw any conclusions...

Maybe that's the key: maybe identifying as a man provides a huge athletic performance boost.

In which case, we better find out a way to prevent transmen who don't medically transition and hide their identification as men from competing against women unfairly.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is one gem of a paper. I think it is worth a read for everyone. Here's my favorite excerpt.

"There is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether or
not transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport."


I don't have sufficient time to detail all of my thoughts on the research presented in that paper.

I had to laugh at:

There appears to be a lack of primary research on the actual experienced impacts of trans inclusion in services.

What was the term? Chesterton Fences?

Well gee, I mean, we know that males commit violent crimes at a massively higher rate than females, and we know that males commit over 98% of all sexual crimes, and we know that males sneak into women's locker rooms, do panty-raids, peep on girls changing, and engage in a wide variety of voyeuristic behaviors, as well as flashing.

But hey, this hasn't actually been, like studied you know? We should totally just let any male who proclaims to be a "woman" gain access to female spaces, so we can study it to see if anything bad happens.

I'm sure the females won't mind being guinea pigs, it's in the name of science!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting article published recently in BJPsych.

"Within current debates, if gender identity becomes uncoupled from both biological sex and gendered socialisation (Box 1), it develops an intangible soul-like quality or ‘essence’. As a pure subjective experience, it may be overwhelming and powerful but is also unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If this identity is held to be a person's innermost core concept of self, then questioning the very existence of gender identity becomes equated with questioning that person's entire sense of being, and consequently risks being considered a threat to the right to exist, or even as a threat to kill."

One can see a similarity to any other situation where one's sense of self comes to depend on an unverifiable belief system (e.g. religious fundamentalism, where blasphemy is seen as an attack on the identity and dignity of the person holding a belief system and provokes censorship or violent reaction).

That was a good paper, very informative, and touches on a lot of the concerns with how this is being adddressed. There's a lot to talk about in there, but these bits jumped out to me:

Attempts to ‘cure’ same-sex desire included psychotherapy, hormone treatment and various behavioural interventions. These interventions are now considered ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy.3 One high-profile failure for such ‘treatments’ was Alan Turing. After being found guilty of gross indecency in 1951, he was prescribed oestrogen, which rendered him impotent and caused gynaecomastia. He died by suicide in 1954.

Now, they're prescribing estrogen and testosterone to people who are likely closeted homosexuals, but it seems like it's no longer considered conversion therapy to do so...

Same-sex attraction was particularly common among natal females, with only 8.5% of those referred to the GIDS describing themselves as primarily attracted to boys. This raises important questions about current societal acceptance of young lesbians even within youth LGBTQ+ culture. It is possible that at least some gender-non-conforming girls come to believe themselves boys or ‘trans masculine non-binary’ as more acceptable or comfortable explanations for same-sex sexual attraction,35 a kind of ‘internalised homophobia’.

 

[TomB]

the search terms were rather limited as well:

The relevant search terms used were as follows:
 Trans OR transgender AND "women's services"
 Trans OR transgender AND discrimination OR disadvantage OR exclude OR
Exclusion AND "Women's services" OR "female services" OR services
 Marginalisation OR Marginalization AND LGBT OR Heterosexual
 "female services" OR "Women's services"

Bear this in mind when assessing the scope of the review.

 

[TomB]

Here's another incident of a cis-male disguising himself as a woman:
https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/Charge-Cross-dressing-voyeur-recorded-library-5297665.php

To be clear, my position is not that trans-women are a danger to cis-women in bathrooms and locker rooms. My position is that access to these spaces via non-falsifiable criteria (self-ID alone) with no documentation creates a loophole that makes it easier for cis-men to enter these spaces with ill-intentions. Primarily, I think those ill intentions would be voyeurism or exhibitionism.

These are things men already do.

Voyeurism is commonplace enough that it's a theme in things like the Porky's movie and Dwight Twilley's video for "Girls." It's kind of been treated as a joke.

There are already men sneaking into bathrooms to plant cameras and such. Self-ID makes it so that you can't really challenge anyone's access to a space, which makes it easier to get away with and harder to discourage.

Articles pointing out that incidents increase in unisex spaces are relevant for the same reasons. They demonstrate that a reduction of hurdles will increase incidents of voyeurism. I would expect that because access is even more open in unisex facilities, the increase would be greater there, but it demonstrates an extreme.

Now, should trans-women be punished for the actions of cis-men? No. Of course not. But in navigating changing policies, the potential for abuse by cis-men should be considered and addressed.

And yes, I know there is man on man voyeurism in men's rooms and probably a little woman on woman in the women's room. The fact that the filter isn't perfect doesn't obligate using a coarser mesh.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's another incident of a cis-male disguising himself as a woman:
https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/Charge-Cross-dressing-voyeur-recorded-library-5297665.php

To be clear, my position is not that trans-women are a danger to cis-women in bathrooms and locker rooms. My position is that access to these spaces via non-falsifiable criteria (self-ID alone) with no documentation creates a loophole that makes it easier for cis-men to enter these spaces with ill-intentions. Primarily, I think those ill intentions would be voyeurism or exhibitionism.

It's not even just documentation. There's an element of the trans activists that don't even want trans people to even have to present as their self-identified gender in order to access those spaces.

There are already men sneaking into bathrooms to plant cameras and such. Self-ID makes it so that you can't really challenge anyone's access to a space, which makes it easier to get away with and harder to discourage.

Indeed. The idea that predators won't change their behavior to exploit changing standards is pretty much insane.

 

[Lithrael]

So, all biological females have the option to identify as women. They don't have to conform to societal expectations of women.

Right, they don’t have to conform in order for the average member of society to agree they’re women and treat them however that person treats women; they just have to be giving off enough social signals and/or physical signs so that that person doesn’t get confused.

Those females who conform to societal expectations of men, could identify as men.

Well, they could, but they’d still have to pass pretty well in order for the average member of society to treat them however that person treats men. A female can identify as a man without conforming to anything socially male, too, but will have less success being treated like they’re not just kidding.

A biolgical male who wishes to identify as female has to conform to the personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to women.

Well, they don’t have to...

(...) someone can identify with whatever they want, but in order for other people to recognize that identification, the person wishing to be identified in a certain way has to conform to societal expectations.

Yeah, that sounds right.

 

[Lithrael]

What do a butch dyke and a 'straight' transwoman (thus being attracted to males) have in common that a natal male and a natal female do not?

Uh, gender identity, and probably some amount of social inclusion in queer culture and some experience of getting side-eyes from people who like everyone to Act Normal. That’s about it, I think.

But since natal males and natal females can still also be queer, they might share the latter two as well. The term ‘natal’ is a little confusing; it could just as easily mean someone trans who doesn’t medically transition, in which case the question wouldn’t parse very well.

 

[Ziggurat]

Uh, gender identity

That's not a useful answer, given that the whole point of the question is what gender identity even means.

 

[cullennz]

I’m certain it won’t count to some here. Neither will the case, cited many times in these threads, of male bodied high school athletes insisting on using female change rooms and forcing young women to use smaller change rooms. Or the cases of assault by self-identified transwomen in women’s shelters. I’ve seen links to these cases, but the effort to dig them up is beyond me right now.

There might be only few examples like this, but they are not insignificant.

Weirdly I have never heard of that one given the amount of threads, but doesn't surprise me.

 

[The Atheist]

What about the weightlifters identifying as women long enough to smash a women's weightlifting record? I'm pretty sure there's been a couple of those.

We had one.

Couldn't make the grade in the men's competition, then at age 37 or so, decided he was a she and crushed the opposition, taking a load of Commonwealth records.

Why yes, I did laugh when he/she/it smashed his/her/its elbow going for a record lift at the Commonwealth Games in 2018. Career-ending injury.

Tragic.

 

[d4m10n]

So I happened to be revisiting some old Jon Ronson audio and came across the Hare Psychopathy Checklist^WP as a result. This made me wonder whether there is an analogous diagnostic tool which professionals might use to determine a subject's gender identity. Anyone seen anything which fits the bill?

 

[Meadmaker]

I had to laugh at:

I thought you might have been interested in this one:

‘It
may be possible to protect cisgender women’s sense of security without excluding
trans persons … justifications that centre on discomfort tend to be overstated, and
can indeed be accommodated within a more nuanced, non-discriminatory approach’
such as clear communication of policies and rules of conduct.

(Emphasis added)


That whole section is an amazing exercise in doublespeak and missing the point.

 

[cullennz]

I thought you might have been interested in this one:



(Emphasis added)


That whole section is an amazing exercise in doublespeak and missing the point.

Good quote

It is pretty funny how some people miss the bleeding hole in their own arguments.

 

[Aber]

That is what he was saying.

I have no idea what Eddie izzard actually means when he says he has a girl mode and a boy mode. but given that i have no expertise in the matter I don't feel like i am in a position to dispute it. I'll leave that to the people who study it

Missed the point completely

Our London lawyer has been claiming that transgender people have a fixed and clear internal view of their gender which differs from biological reality.

Eddie Izzard is NOT of that view; it seems his views are less clear-cut and look (from the outside) very much like "making it up as I go along"/"let's find something shocking to say".

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, but it is so incredibly close to being the same thing, not just consistent, but exactly the same, that one could be used as a standin for the other. And indeed, the only reason that the two are even mentioned is that people keep trying to pin down the sealions who are pretending to have a good faith conversation, but aren't.

That's weird because the people arguing for gamete based clear binaries had to ditch all that other stuff as part of their argument.

It opens up damn few grey areas. It's really, really, close to binary.

There's a tiny bit of grey area. Caster Semenya and people like her. That's a pretty grey area. Jonathan Yaniv? Not a grey area. Guy who had impromptu surgery from a hand grenade? Not a grey area. Person who is in the process of physical transformation? Grey area. Person who has completed transformation? Not a grey area. (i.e. for the purposes of locker room use, darned near no one would say that a surgically altered person ought to use use the facilities of their birth sex.)

The number of people in the grey area is incredibly small, and no amount of self identification would shift someone into the grey area, regardless of whether we are talking about gamete production or the means available to engage in sexual intercourse.

Your examples of non-grey areas are interesting because surgically transitioned transwomen would not be women by gamete production and yet you say they would be women for the purposes of bathroom usage. I think a lot of people disagree with you on that. In other words a grey area.

And...more sealioning. Yes, I have seen both men and women use the toilet. Far more men than women I might add, but you probably already guessed that. In the course of that observation, I have seen the genitals of both men and women.

I have used toilets for well over 2 score years and have NEVER seen a woman's genitals during the process. What the hell are you guys doing over there?

Of course it's true and you know it, and it's obvious.

Asserting that your experience is true and obvious seems to be a thing with you. Maybe you should consider that other people have different experiences.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There can be more than one oppressed group, jesus christ, you really do sound like a misogynist. I'm assuming it's not intentional, but so many of your posts about women's concerns just drip with it.

It seems to me like you believe that women who have these concerns are making them up, or stating them disingenuously, because... well, I'm still not sure of the because. They just don't want anybody else joining the elite female club, I guess?

When some nasty far-right wingnut preacher starts expressing "concerns" about women's sport, then yeah, I can understand why people might question the motivation. But what possible reason would otherwise liberal (non-radfem) women have for wanting to "oppress" trans people? They're just not that shocking or offensive. As so many in this thread have pointed out, they've always been around. But now we're trying to nail down some solid policies (which is a good thing for trans-people), and there's going to have to be discussion. It's not bigotry to have concerns. We're changing major social norms, here.

All you have by way of reply is snark, and it's so tiring to read everybody snarking at each other. This stuff is a big deal, and the way people approach talking about it is aggravating, unproductive, and upsetting.

It feels like these are questions you should be asking the people who want to oppress trans people rather than me. I don't know their reason for wishing to do so, it appears to be nothing more than prejudice.

as for the snark... that goes both ways. When attempts to ask genuine questions or understand arguments just get nonsense and disingenuous replies what else is left? And then of course you get random accusations of mysogyny because you don't agree with a minority of women trampling on the rights of others.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I suspect it would be nearly impossible to find any example of ciswomen engaging in anything remotely like that sort of activity. I also suspect you won't be able to find any examples of transmen engaging in anything like that sort of activity.

Why not? Because women don't do that, and transmen are women.

If you ever find such an incident, where a female bodied person is snapping voyeuristic photos of anyone, men or women, I'll guarantee you she is sharing those photos with her boyfriend.

I don't know if this is true but it certainly seems like the vast majority of voyeurism is cis man on cis woman. And it goes on currently with segregated bathrooms and changing rooms.

And before I get accused of misogyny again... just to be clear that's a ****** situation and it shouldn't happen and people who do it should be prosecuted.

But the question at hand is whether allowing transwomen to use female spaces is going to worsen the situation. Because that is the claim that is being made by those who oppose allowing transwomen access to female spaces.