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

[Rolfe]

"I'm female, and I think there's a legitimate biological justification for me to be afraid of males in some situations. No offense."

"I'm male, and... it's kinda true. None taken."

"I'm not male, so this doesn't apply to me."

"How are you not male in this context?"

"Shut up."

Exactly.

 

[Elaedith]

I thought that was another Sokol until I saw the word "Canada". Now I'm genuinely uncertain.

Speaking of Sokal, he added his name to a letter in defending academic freedom against the attempt to smear Kathleen Stock.

He also published this recently on how postmodernism has 'weakened our defences against deranged fantasies'.

There was a recent replication of the Sokal hoax against gender studies: 'The conceptual penis as a social construct'.

Some quotes:

'The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial'.

'We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.'

I did wonder if the transability article I linked to was a hoax. However, it appears the author is an associate professor and is transgender. 'He considers his work to be intersectional, involving queer, trans, feminist and gender studies, as well as sociology of the body, health, social movements, and of critical suicidology.'

 

[LondonJohn]

I just think that's largely become one of the major problems with the whole thread. For example, someone says, "Self-ID laws could allow perverts with ill intentions into private spaces" and others hear, "Trans people are likely to be perverts!" Someone says, "Getting rid of sex-segregated spaces could put women at risk from malicious male actors," and someone else hears, "Men are bad and dangerous and just the presence of their penises hurts poor little women."

"Assuming a broad brush" might be a good term for it, maybe? Sorry to nip your head off. I've got a weird-feeling spot in my throat and I've been stressing all morning that it's corona.

Yes, but a little while ago in these threads I argued that this was, in principle, analogous to this (as might have been said in '50s Southern USA):

"Allowing black people to share bus seats with white people could allow male black perverts with ill intentions to sit right up next to my (white) wife or teenage daughter and commit acts of sexual deviancy"

I don't think that anyone is not aware that there's a good case to be made that females in spaces such as women's changing rooms might be at increased risk of harrassment or sex crimes from cismen choosing to masquerade as transwomen.

But....

If transgender people are to be afforded equal rights and protection against discrimination, then what are we to do with regard to matters such as access for transwomen to changing areas in sports centres.

The possibilities are (I think) as follows (including extremes, in order to be exhaustive)*:

1) Transwomen are not allowed to use sports centres.

2) Transwomen can use sports centres, but must arrive already wearing sports kit/swimming costume (under clothes), and must go home to shower or change afterwards.

3) Transwomen can use sports centres, but must use men's changing rooms.

4) Transwomen can use sports centres, but must use disabled changing rooms.

5) Transwomen can use sports centres, and can use women's changing rooms, but only upon provision of some sort of documentary proof of their transgender identity.

6) Transwomen can use sports centres, and can use women's changing rooms without being required to show documentary proof of their transgender identity.


Now, I'd hope anyone could agree that options (1)-(4) are non-starters. So we're left with (5) or (6). Is (5) actually workable in practice? I suspect not**. And if that's the case, then all we have is (6).

However, I'd suggest that if (6) is indeed implemented as part of future transgender recognition legislation and guidance, two things are likely to happen: firstly, there should be a required standard of safety provisioning within all women's changing areas - perhaps including multiple panic/assistance buttons, and even perhaps constant CCTV monitoring (which would/could only ever be accessed and viewed if a criminal/deviant act was reported, but whose presence would be clearly posted in order to act as a deterrent); and secondly, there should be a close monitoring of just how many actual acts of deviancy or sex crimes were taking place under a self-ID-transwoman regime - and if acts of this nature were seen to be becoming a genuine safety issue to females, it might then become necessary to revise or even reverse certain parts of legislation accordingly.


* I'm discounting options which require either a) the allocation of a new, separate changing facility for transwomen, or b) the conversion of all changing/showering facilities to individual lockable changing cubicles and shower cubicles, on the grounds that these would either be too costly or too impractical to implement for the majority of sports centres etc currently using men's/women's changing areas.

** Though of course I'd be keen to hear suggestions as to how & why this could be made to work in practice.

 

[LondonJohn]

"I'm female, and I think there's a legitimate biological justification for me to be afraid of males in some situations. No offense."

"I'm male, and... it's kinda true. None taken."

"I'm not male, so this doesn't apply to me."

"How are you not male in this context?"

"Shut up."

Transwomen are male though.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not a wonder at all. What is a wonder to me is the volume of people on this site who feel justified if they're the ones doing the attacking because it is upheld by their beliefs and/or feelings.

Not you - this is a reference to some of the cross-topic intersection with the CHUD thread.

Uhm... everyone on every side of every argument feels justified doing the attacking because it is upheld by their beliefs and/or feelings.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think it's as equivalent as you've presented it.

If the DO intervene, then they do actual harm to their patient, in error. At the very least, it's medical malpractice. And it has life-long impacts to the patient who has been irreversible harmed by a lackadaisical approach to treatment.

If the DO NOT intervene, your fall back is that the child might commit suicide? In what way is the gender clinic directly liable for that suicide? Suicidality is a mental health issue, that should be addressed by an appropriate clinician.

Ascribing liability for the suicide to the gender clinic for NOT giving the child transition assistance when it is not likely to be appropriate is kind of silly. You could just as easily argue that if a parent denies their child extra cake for desert, and that child then commits suicide, the parents are liable for the suicide because they didn't give the kid extra cake. It creates a situation in which all people must always give any child anything they want for fear of them committing suicide. It's absurd.

Oh, well it's my belief that if (for example) a 15-year-old boy committed suicide, and left a note saying that he was desperate to transition to a woman but that his wish had repeatedly been rebuffed by the medical specialists in the field (and that he had no desire to live any longer as a result)... and subsequent investigation of medical files essentially confirmed this as accurate.... then the medical authorities absolutely would find themselves under scrutiny. But you think otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

Transwomen are male though.

Not according to Boudicca.

 

[d4m10n]

Now, I'd hope anyone could agree that options (1)-(4) are non-starters.

I use the private lockable changing room at my local gym. Does that count as option #4?

 

[Sherkeu]

However, I'd suggest that if (6) is indeed implemented as part of future transgender recognition legislation and guidance, two things are likely to happen: firstly, there should be a required standard of safety provisioning within all women's changing areas - perhaps including multiple panic/assistance buttons, and even perhaps constant CCTV monitoring (which would/could only ever be accessed and viewed if a criminal/deviant act was reported, but whose presence would be clearly posted in order to act as a deterrent); and secondly, there should be a close monitoring of just how many actual acts of deviancy or sex crimes were taking place under a self-ID-transwoman regime - and if acts of this nature were seen to be becoming a genuine safety issue to females, it might then become necessary to revise or even reverse certain parts of legislation accordingly.


* I'm discounting options which require either a) the allocation of a new, separate changing facility for transwomen, or b) the conversion of all changing/showering facilities to individual lockable changing cubicles and shower cubicles, on the grounds that these would either be too costly or too impractical to implement for the majority of sports centres etc currently using men's/women's changing areas.

** Though of course I'd be keen to hear suggestions as to how & why this could be made to work in practice.

- If my daughter had to shower with a panic button and cctv after water polo practice, I'd just take her home.
- And you cannot have kids showering in a locked stall. It is not safe either unless the parent gets inside with them.
- there are curtains on showers and changing stalls in our facility but some of the girls just change right by the lockers so they don't have to move all their stuff. Imagine telling them they need to go to curtained areas because of possible peepers who are legally allowed to enter.

Just make a few separate family stalls. This is a good place for dad's with little girls to go. That's why family restrooms are available so the kid can get a diaper change without going to the Men's room. Same goes for any opposite sex pairs where one needs assistance.

But the trans women won't like that idea because it makes them separated and unacknowledged as 'real women'..

 

[LondonJohn]

I use the private lockable changing room at my local gym. Does that count as option #4?

Maybe read my first asterisk-ed footnote?

The vast majority of sportscentres/gyms/public baths in current operation a) use the system of separate men's/women's changing areas (with communal changing and showering areas for each); and b) would find it either extremely costly or practically impossible (or both) to switch to an individual-cubicle model.

One of the gyms I use has a single, very large changing area with dozens of lockable changing cubicles (ranging in size from single-person to families of 6 or so people), banks of lockers for clothes/valuables storage, and lockable shower cubicles. Its sister gym in the next town (a gym of similar overall size and scope) has men's/women's changing rooms, with communal changing and showering. The latter simply would not be able to convert to the model of the former without requiring the building of additional purpose-built changing-room space under the cubicle model.

 

[LondonJohn]

- If my daughter had to shower with a panic button and cctv after water polo practice, I'd just take her home.- And you cannot have kids showering in a locked stall. It is not safe either unless the parent gets inside with them.
- there are curtains on showers and changing stalls in our facility but some of the girls just change right by the lockers so they don't have to move all their stuff. Imagine telling them they need to go to curtained areas because of possible peepers who are legally allowed to enter.

Just make a few separate family stalls. This is a good place for dad's with little girls to go. That's why family restrooms are available so the kid can get a diaper change without going to the Men's room. Same goes for any opposite sex pairs where one needs assistance.

But the trans women won't like that idea because it makes them separated and unacknowledged as 'real women'..

So I'm guessing you'd also be actively against, for example, giving your daughter a rape alarm once she reached the age of around 15-16, as a precaution for when she was out at night? You'd just keep her at home rather than do that?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, but a little while ago in these threads I argued that this was, in principle, analogous to this (as might have been said in '50s Southern USA):

"Allowing black people to share bus seats with white people could allow male black perverts with ill intentions to sit right up next to my (white) wife or teenage daughter and commit acts of sexual deviancy"

I don't think that anyone is not aware that there's a good case to be made that females in spaces such as women's changing rooms might be at increased risk of harrassment or sex crimes from cismen choosing to masquerade as transwomen.

But....

If transgender people are to be afforded equal rights and protection against discrimination, then what are we to do with regard to matters such as access for transwomen to changing areas in sports centres.

The possibilities are (I think) as follows (including extremes, in order to be exhaustive)*:

1) Transwomen are not allowed to use sports centres.

2) Transwomen can use sports centres, but must arrive already wearing sports kit/swimming costume (under clothes), and must go home to shower or change afterwards.

3) Transwomen can use sports centres, but must use men's changing rooms.

4) Transwomen can use sports centres, but must use disabled changing rooms.

5) Transwomen can use sports centres, and can use women's changing rooms, but only upon provision of some sort of documentary proof of their transgender identity.

6) Transwomen can use sports centres, and can use women's changing rooms without being required to show documentary proof of their transgender identity.


Now, I'd hope anyone could agree that options (1)-(4) are non-starters.

Why is [ETA: 3, not 4] 4 a non-starter 3 a non-starter? This is my most serious question about all of this. As best I can figure, this question and its answer gets right to the heart of the problem.

 

[theprestige]

Transwomen are male though.

Then why is it so important that everybody treat them as women, and society accommodate them as women?

What does treating them like women even mean? As far as I can tell, all it means in practical terms is, "gets to use the female locker room". Which seems fruitless. Using the female locker room is not an entitlement males enjoy. If that's all that being a woman means, then the problem is easily solved: Transwomen are males and get to enjoy all the privileges that males are entitled to.

To which males are entitled.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not according to Boudicca.

Boudicca is entitled to her own opinions and definitions. But hers are not the definitions used throughout academic, medical and legal* discussions wrt gender identity. The accepted definitions of terms are these:

Biological sex (immutable, in almost all cases): male or female.

Gender (not fixed): man or woman - or anywhere on the spectrum between the two.

So therefore, for example, a transwoman is (a) male, and a transman is (a) female.

I do hope that those on one side of this debate are not somehow seeking to focus one of the points of their attack upon one term which one contributor to the thread used (IIRC once only), rather than the standard definition of terms in the context of transgender identity.


* And just to counter any claims along the lines of "but England&Wales law says woman/female and man/male can both be used interchangeably", that's only in one specific area of the legislation, in respect of transgender abuse (so that therefore it allows for the prosecution of someone who abuses a transwoman by using the word "male", provided that the court can establish that the word "male" was used here as a term of abuse, rather than as a biological statement of fact).

 

[theprestige]

Oh, well it's my belief that if (for example) a 15-year-old boy committed suicide, and left a note saying that he was desperate to transition to a woman but that his wish had repeatedly been rebuffed by the medical specialists in the field (and that he had no desire to live any longer as a result)... and subsequent investigation of medical files essentially confirmed this as accurate.... then the medical authorities absolutely would find themselves under scrutiny. But you think otherwise.

What other way would it be reasonable to think?

You're begging the question that medical transitioning is right and that authorities in the field of medicine are wrong to deny it upon request.

If someone wants medical support for a program of self harm that they have drawn up for themselves, the doctors have no liability for denying their support for such a program. Quite the opposite.

 

[LondonJohn]

Then why is it so important that everybody treat them as women, and society accommodate them as women?

What does treating them like women even mean? As far as I can tell, all it means in practical terms is, "gets to use the female locker room". Which seems fruitless. Using the female locker room is not an entitlement males enjoy. If that's all that being a woman means, then the problem is easily solved: Transwomen are males and get to enjoy all the privileges that males are entitled to.

To which males are entitled.

Well, you're either asking this as a deliberate attempt to masquerade as some sort of ingénue.... or you're asking this sincerely owing to a genuine ignorance of the subject.

Either way, the best (most) I can do is point you towards the wealth of academic, medical and legislative material which explains it far more eloquently, and far more exhaustively, than I could ever do. Let me know if you'd like some links.

 

[LondonJohn]

What other way would it be reasonable to think?

You're begging the question that medical transitioning is right and that authorities in the field of medicine are wrong to deny it upon request.

If someone wants medical support for a program of self harm that they have drawn up for themselves, the doctors have no liability for denying their support for such a program. Quite the opposite.

No. I'm not saying that the medical services in that example would necessarily be found at fault (that's your *interesting* inference, not mine). What I'm saying is that they would without doubt face questions as to whether they'd acted appropriately or not. Hope this helps.

 

[theprestige]

Well, you're either asking this as a deliberate attempt to masquerade as some sort of ingénue.... or you're asking this sincerely owing to a genuine ignorance of the subject.

Either way, the best (most) I can do is point you towards the wealth of academic, medical and legislative material which explains it far more eloquently, and far more exhaustively, than I could ever do. Let me know if you'd like some links.

I'd like to start with your summary in your own words, if you don't mind. If you want to cite some references that support your position, that's fine too, as long as they're in support of and not in place of.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why is 4 a non-starter? This is my most serious question about all of this. As best I can figure, this question and its answer gets right to the heart of the problem.

Do you think transwomen are disabled?

Do you think that genuine disabled people should be entitled to the expectation of sharing their changing facilities with others who are going to have their own personal experience and understanding of the particular needs of disabled people when changing etc (which is precisely why there are separate disabled changing rooms in the first place...), rather than with able-bodied people who are transgender?

 

[Sherkeu]

So I'm guessing you'd also be actively against, for example, giving your daughter a rape alarm once she reached the age of around 15-16, as a precaution for when she was out at night? You'd just keep her at home rather than do that?

A remote panic device is ok, I suppose. It can also be misused to her detriment though.

No woman (or parent of a young girl) wants a camera in a changing space. I thought that might be a bit obvious but maybe not.

The installation of security devices makes me think "danger!". If I am in a neighborhood where all the homes have bars on the windows, then I'm likely somewhere with high crime. It sends a message that things are NOT safe there that money would be spent on such things. Yes, I'd just take her home then.

Might be easier just to send a message to parents to stay with their kids and wait inside or just outside the 'girls' area. (depending on which parent). I must say that I was one of the only parents to actually do that but my kid was the youngest one (she is very tall and plays with the teens)

Also, they could have hours just for adults. Depends on how many pools they have and the difficulty of scheduling.