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

[Collin237]

Morhpology shows variances, therefore a penis is exactly the same as a vulva!

Of course not! But the crime of seeing a naked man is exactly as serious as the crime of seeing a naked woman, regardless of who's looking.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Transsexuality is a condition that is being researched by reputable scientists. It is not an ideology. I am condemning the ideology attempting to coopt transsexuality. I am also condemning the conflation of the two.

Fair enough.

Transsexuality is a condition, which has a diagnosis that makes sense and is arrived at after a lengthy and thorough evaluation which considers other comorbid conditions that might be clouding the issue. Even the current DSM-V version of transsexuality (gender dysmorphia) has a fairly clear set of diagnostic criteria and is supposed to be arrived at after a thorough evaluation.

On the other hand... the overwhelming majority of policy initiatives, as well as the mantra of activists, is based on self-id which does not require any diagnosis at all, and is expected to be taken solely on faith.

I support the former, and I oppose the latter.

 

[Matthew Best]

Of course not! But the crime of seeing a naked man is exactly as serious as the crime of seeing a naked woman, regardless of who's looking.

Seeing a naked person (man or woman) isn't a crime.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. It is not at all odd that people object to people being treated differently than people. Separate but Equal is immoral. And in civilized countries, it's also illegal.

WEll, no that's not true. Separate but Equal is in place in a LOT of situations... but in others, the separation is deemed to have no standing. So on the basis of race, segregation is deemed to have no standing legally. On the basis of sex, segregation is deemed to be reasonable and to have standing in some situations, but not in others.

In some situations, we segregate adults from children, we segregate males from females, we segregate mentally disabled from normative, we segregate people with certain violent mental conditions from the rest of society, we segregate prisoners from non-prisoners, we segregate short people from tall people (think roller coasters).

Not all segregation is considered bad. Some segregation has very good reason for being in place.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, it does mean something.

I'll demonstrate it by applying it to the matter of homosexuality - since this is a matter which currently appears to be properly understood by a far, far higher proportion of the general public than transgender identity:

1. Valid lived condition: gay males are sexually attracted exclusively to males.

2. "person really believes it": gay males really believe that they are sexually attracted exclusively to males.

I'd hope that this example might assist you in understanding the difference between the two (and why, for that matter, homosexuals and transgender people alike would be offended by the second one...)

Can we demonstrate that "valid lived condition" means something, by applying it to the matter of Paranoid Schizophrenia? Since the matter of Paranoid Schizophrenia also currently appears to be properly understood by a far, far higher proportion of the general public than transgender identity:

1. Valid lived condition: A paranoid schizophrenic receives instruction or encouragement to endanger to themselves and others.

2. "person really believes it": A paranoid schizophrenic really believes that they are receiving instruction or encouragement to endanger themselves and others.

Honestly I don't see any difference between the two propositions. Not for paranoid schizophrenia, not for homosexuality, not for transsexuality.

Certainly the two must go hand in hand, at least. If a man is really attracted to other men, and doesn't believe it, I'd be very worried about his mental health.

Also, what establishes a "valid lived condition", other than the belief of the person who's life it is?

How do I know you're a homosexual? Only because you tell me that's how you feel, and you believe your feelings.

How do I know that Jessica Yaniv is a trans rights activist and not a cynical provocateur? Only because she says so. What standing do I have to question the validity of Yaniv's lived experience?

As far as I can tell, "valid lived experience" and "person really believes it" are just two different ways of saying "this is how I feel".

So call it whatever you want - valid lived experience, person really believes it, whatever. Unless there's some kind of objective criteria that distinguishes one from the other, they're both problematic for TRAs. Or at least a consistent criteria.

I'm less interested in what exactly "valid lived experience" means, and more interested in why it means one thing for paranoid schizophrenics, in terms of public policy, and it means something else entirely for gender dysphorics. For me, "valid lived experience" is just another word for "special pleading".

 

[Collin237]

Okay. What if a ciswoman athlete doesn't move like other ciswomen athletes. Does that mean she isn't a ciswoman?

Like I just said,

That's a feature not a bug. When it's impossible to please everyone, the only fair option is to please no one.

It doesn't have to make sense. It only has to be a judgment that all sides find equally ridiculous.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ye think???

Yes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah but, in a point I made multiple times that raises problems that have never been adequately addressed. When the person in question was the only active, vocal trans-person in the last few iterations of this discussion can be dismissed as "clearly delusional" isn't the discussion sort of over?

That's sort of a problem. What the "I totally support Trans people" people and the "I'm an actual trans-person" people are telling us that trans-people want is not matching up nearly as much as people are acting.

Let us not forget that not even the most "I'm the most trans-person supporting person ever" types were good enough for Boudicca, which wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that she was the only actual trans voice in the discussion at the time.

IIRC there are a couple of other posters here on ISF who are transgender, and have posted in this thread some. They just don't much get involved, and as far as I can tell, don't much focus on it.

 

[Olmstead]

Like I just said,



It doesn't have to make sense. It only has to be a judgment that all sides find equally ridiculous.

To what end?

 

[theprestige]

I think it's a metaphor - "assigned" by nature, or gestation, or fate, or whatever you want to call it. I don't have any problem with that language, although my understanding is that some intersex people feel it was appropriated from them.

I think it's actually a medical term of art, that's lately being orwelled into other meanings for rhetorical advantage.

From the original context, I think it probably means something like, "observed and recorded by a medical professional attending the birth". Probably with connotations of legitimacy derived from medical authority.

Some TRAs are orwelling the idea that it means "a doctor made something up and put it on the birth certificate, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with real sex or gender."

 

[Emily's Cat]

It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that the only way to protect everyone's rights in a locker room -- including the basic right to privacy, as in the popular interpretation of the U.S.'s 4th Amendment -- is to provide a row of stalls for people to go in and change clothes. And that this is not a right predicated on sex or gender, but a human right applicable to everyone. This idea seems to be totally alien to everyone else here, and I'm trying to find a way to explain it.

ETA: And also stalls enclosing the showers.

Alright.

Now, what's your suggested solution for prisons? Or for rape and domestic violence shelters? For a person having the right to specify the sex of their doctor or nurse for intimate exams? For who qualifies for a sex-based scholarship or position? For who gets counted as female for women's short list positions? For who gets counted as female for quotas and affirmative action statistics looking at women's representation in business and politics? For who gets counted as female in crime statistics?

 

[Collin237]

To what end?

At the risk of sounding clicheed, democracy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also, no offense to the original OP as I know what meaning he intended, but seriously - the title of this thread. It's awful. It's probably responsible for the fact that so many new people enter this discussion with the assumption that it's overtly hostile to trans rights. Can we change it?

How about this - if it spills over into a 6th installment, can we call THAT thread something else?

I started a thread for this in FMF, it's a good idea.

 

[Olmstead]

At the risk of sounding clicheed, democracy.

No, I mean what would this mean for sports. Would you exclude a ciswoman who moves like a "man" from competing in women's sports? How does this solve the transwomen in women's sports issue?

 

[theprestige]

C) At least stop pretending that we don't understand that everyone isn't using the same definition, even if we don't agree with how they are using it and respond to their argument using their definitions and not our own, again even if we disagree with them.

I would be more than happy to respond in good faith to LondonJohn's definition, as soon as he actually commits to one in writing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In regards to the issue of bathrooms and changing rooms:

If the goal is privacy from lustful eyes...

I'm not sure we agree that this is the sole reason. To some degree it is, but it's also because many people don't want to see the other person's nudity even if there's no lust.

Additionally, it keeps getting ignored or dismissed as "not important" but there's also the issue of sexual assault.

Suburban Turkey - what is the reason that transwomen don't want to change in the men's changing room? What is the argument against male-bodied people changing with male-bodied people, regardless of their gender identity?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, nearly every bathroom stall I've ever used in the US has fairly large gaps at every edge and a very large gap at the bottom.

Nobody likes it, and they are still built this way. Not sure why.

Because when they're segregated by sex, it's not really a concern. Females are extraordinarily unlikely to creep on other females, even if they're lesbians. Females just really don't do that sort of thing. Males install hidden cameras and hide in port-a-potties and drill holes through walls so they can get a sneak peek at naked females. The same just isn't true in reverse.

 

[Collin237]

No, I mean what would this mean for sports. Would you exclude a ciswoman who moves like a "man" from competing in woman's sports? How does this solve the transwomen in women's sports issue?

Because I think that's what the debate is ultimately about. Post-modernists would call it "performance" or "presentation". Take away the sophistry, and what they're really talking about is motion style.

 

[theprestige]

You might inadvertently have a point. If it could be established, by taking motion-capture readings and putting them through pattern-matching software, that a distinction can be made between "moving like a male" and "moving like a female", then the debate between sex and gender could be dropped, and everyone could just defer to the software.

I though it was already well-established that males and females have observably different hip structure, resulting in observably different gaits.

And I thought it was already well-established that gatekeeping on such observable biological differences is an absolute non-starter for TRAs. If the clear binary nature of sexual expression isn't a starter... If the clear distinction between XX and XY isn't a starter... Why would the clear difference in hip structure and walking gait be a starter?

Collin, it seems like your heart and your reason are in the right place, but your familiarity with the current state of play needs to catch up. Criteria like chromosomes and the SRY gene have already been proposed, discussed, and rejected (or ignored) by TRAs in this thread.

The current state of play is essentially this: The clear biological distinction between the sexes is counter-productive to the TRA goals. As soon as TRAs agree to such a distinction, it opens up the door for conservative policymakers to draw a bright line down the middle of public policy. "You can perform any gender role you want, you can even invent new gender roles to perform, but you'll always be male and you'll always be required to perform on the male side of the line. You want to perform 'woman'? Fine, but you'll be performing in the men's locker room and on the men's sports team."

 

[Olmstead]

I think it was a mistake to focus on the locker room issue. It just gets sidestepped with the claim that nudity isn't a big deal (and in many places in the world it isn't) or that nudity is always a big deal. Pre-op transwomen in women's prisons/women's safehouses is a more straightforward issue.