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

[d4m10n]

Are you arguing for lines then?

Between feminity and masculinity. No.

Or are you saying that everyone has both genders?

I'd say that everyone has both feminine and masculine qualities. Indeed, most males have more of the so-called "feminine virtues" (e.g. empathy, nurturance) than they care to talk about in the company of other men.

Buck Angel is a lot more feminine that I think you realise.

I'll have to take your word for it, only seen him on podcasts and such.

 

[Meadmaker]

I’m looking forward to everyone in the locker room getting eye tracker headsets that make an annoying noise when you do a male gaze, and then you can get kicked out for making your headset go bzz too much. And the ladies can relax when nobody is beeping.

That's a hilarious image. "Must ......not .......look....." BUZZ!!!! "Uhh...sorry."


(And best of all, once in a while, "sorry" would be followed by, "Don't worry about it." And maybe a smile. Or.....oh dang I have to go to the optometrist today because my old prescription isn't strong enough anymore. I should probably have my blood pressure pills renewed, too. But you young kids have fun.)

 

[Collin237]

And how does that differ from a religious belief?

I still don't get why that's confusing. How can a chronic physical sensation that you don't know the cause of be religious?

 

[Olmstead]

Between feminity and masculinity. No.

I'd say that everyone has both feminine and masculine qualities. Indeed, most males have more of the so-called "feminine virtues" (e.g. empathy, nurturance) than they care to talk about in the company of other men.

The only reason masculine qualities are considered to be masculine is because a majority of males display them, and a majority of females don't.* Which just brings us back to gender being a description of what a sex does, and this particular subset of gender being a description of what a significant majority of a sex does.


*This is a little simplified. History and circumstances have shaped much of our understanding of masculinity and femininity.

 

[Thermal]

It's vitally important to be able to have a separation between 1) words used to denote biological sex, from 2) words used to denote gender. when transgender identity is under discussion. For reasons which I'd hope would be obvious.

Yes, it's long been culturally (and legally) embedded that sex and gender are interchangeable, since the view has long been that gender is inextricably linked to sex. Which is precisely why society instinctively uses "man" and "male" interchangeable, and likewise for "woman" and "female".

But that model cannot (obviously, I'd hope) be used when describing transgender identity. And this is exactly why, in the context of transidentity, it's necessary to separate sex (fixed, biological) from gender (not fixed, internal). In a transidentity universe, a person can be a female and a man, or a male and a woman, or a male/female and neither a man nor a woman.

Ok, I was with you up to that last sentence.

For many of us, man means adult male, woman means adult female.

Changing man and woman to mean 'whatever you think of yourself as' seems a little capricious, but whateva. I assume that definition is to be inclusive and give legitimacy to transfolk? That's a good thing in spirit, but it seems confrontational in practice, resulting in the whole 'I can whip out the Johnson in a women's changing area and you all have to like it' thing.

 

[d4m10n]

The only reason masculine qualities are considered to be masculine is because a majority of males display them, and a majority of females don't.

I would say that males tend to display them more than females, with only a handful of exceptions relating to primary sexual characteristics. Some of the gendered aspects of style are entirely arbitrary (e.g. how people dress their babies) and some gendered behavioral norms are downright harmful (e.g. encouraging submission in young women).

 

[Thermal]

Apologies if this was already discussed, but do untransitioned transmen have this dilemma in a male locker room, or does that get resolved differently?

 

[Olmstead]

I would say that males tend to display them more than females, with only a handful of exceptions relating to primary sexual characteristics. Some of the gendered aspects of style are entirely arbitrary (e.g. how people dress their babies) and some gendered behavioral norms are downright harmful (e.g. encouraging submission in young women).

Sure, that's more accurate. But that still means the two genders are just paradigms based on what members of a certain sex tend to do. The understanding of gender is still completely dependent on sex.

It's a coherent concept, but useless in the context of transgenderism, where even the most feminine men will always be men unless they have gender dysphoria.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Apologies if this was already discussed, but do untransitioned transmen have this dilemma in a male locker room, or does that get resolved differently?

Not recently, to my knowledge. I'd say this would create a very different dynamic. Males are less likely (to put it mildly) to be threatened by an obvious female in their presence. Longer term, I'd be worried about a "Boys Don't Cry" situation....

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's one scenario which I think will never happen: I don't think there'll ever be a time when a) there is anything more than a tiny number of sex crimes being committed by males against ciswomen in women-only spaces, where b) legislators sit back and say "oh well, there's nothing we can really do about that: it's fundamentally important that we allow self-ID transwomen to access women-only spaces, irrespective of any negative outcomes that result".

In other words, I believe that if anything more than a tiny number of sex crimes are being committed by males (whether by genuine self-ID transwomen or by cismen masquerating as transwomen) in women-only spaces, governments and legislators will - quite rightly - have no choice but to act in order to protect ciswomen in these scenarios.

I'm... not so sanguine as you. I also think it's pretty egregious negligence.

Let's take it out of context. What is being proposed is a policy with a [giant gaping loophole]. You, and current policymakers are saying "We don't believe that anyone will actually take advantage of [giant gaping loophole]." I find that sentiment of belief to be extraordinarily naïve. Furthermore, the position you're taking is to wait and see... and if enough people actually do take advantage of the [giant gaping loophole], then AFTER they've done so, we'll talk about what can be done to [reduce the size of the giant gaping loophole].

My problem here is that the [giant gaping loophole] is something that ALREADY happens, but is currently illegal. One class of people (Group Y) already contains a subset (Ysub) that go to bizarre lengths in order to do the things that [giant gaping loophole] makes much easier. They go to those lengths in a situation where the those activities are currently illegal and socially unacceptable.

That [giant gaping loophole] provides a situation in which Ysub can engage in those previously illegal and unacceptable behaviors and have a plausible excuse that protects them from punishment.

To think that Ysub will NOT take advantage of [giant gaping loophole] is so naïve as to be straight up negligence.

Furthermore, inherent in your suggested approach is that the level of Ysub taking advantage of [giant gaping loophole] needs to reach some threshold that you deem to be "enough" for it to merit intervention. That implies that there is a rate of activity that you feel is 'acceptable collateral damage' let's call it.

Now, if we were talking about [giant gaping loophole] meaning that some small amount of a store's inventory gets stolen by shoplifters, I'd have a complaint, but I think we could reasonably all agree that there's a level where the impact of that inventory loss is minor.

But that's not the case here. [Giant gaping loophole] is one that puts a different class of people (Group X) at physical risk of injury and death, as well as mental and emotional trauma. To blithely say "We don't think anyone will take advantage of [giant gaping loophole]. and even if some did, it's okay if some of X are harmed by Ysub as long as it's not a lot" is tantamount to reckless endangerment.

Furthermore... Just in case you've forgotten... We already have demonstrated evidence of Ysub taking advantage of [giant gaping loophole] in one of the most extreme situations - one in which we would expect that even greater care would be taken than in other situations. We already see Ysub taking advantage of [giant gaping loophole] in prison, and we already see X being physically and emotionally harmed by Ysub in prison as a result of [giant gaping loophole].

So to say "Oh, we don't think it will happen, and if it does, then if it's too much we'll revisit this policy" is willfully ignoring an actual present risk that materially affects X.

So I will reiterate my oft-ignored question: How much rape should females be expected to endure in order to validate the feelings of transwomen?

 

[theprestige]

At least we might now be able to move forward from

1) Constant badgering me for "my" definition*

to

2) Telling me in so many ways why "my" definition** is meaningless and therefore worthless.

Nobody is telling you your definition is meaningless and therefore worthless.

We're asking you the obvious and important questions about how your definition has meaning and worth for public policy.

Specifically: How do you propose we use your definition in public policy, to screen cismen out of access to places where nobody wants them?

You have repeatedly claimed that the appropriate medical and government authorites have already answered this question. But as far as I can tell, this is not true.

Anyway, that's the question on the table for you. I think that if you cannot (or will not) explain how you would use your definition as the basis for public policy, then it is fair to say that your definition is meaningless and worthless in the context of this discussion.

 

[Olmstead]

Apologies if this was already discussed, but do untransitioned transmen have this dilemma in a male locker room, or does that get resolved differently?

A straight man expressing his displeasure at seeing a vagina and/or female breasts would be social suicide.

Edit: now that I think about it, gay men might want to refrain from such opinions as well.

 

[theprestige]

Why on earth would that matter?

If I asked you to tell me the approx distance between the Earth and the Sun, I'd be satisfied if you used any authoritative source to supply and support your answer. I wouldn't care whether you'd, say, used the International Astronomical Union as a source - why the heck would it matter, so long as the source you did use was sufficiently credible and authoritative in itself.

Totally bizarre.

I don't think the UK Office of National Statistics is an authoritative source for the UK's definition of "woman". Mainly because they're not a source at all. They reference some other government entity as the source of their definitions of sex and gender. Distinctly lacking from the ONS is any authoritative medical definition. You've asserted that there's an authoritative medical definition. Where is it?

 

[theprestige]

I mean that woman and trans women, collectively, at the worldwide grass roots level, need to reach a peaceful consensus, and capture the world with it.

Remember that the most privileged identity of all is the non-identifier.

You'd think that going on fifty years on this planet would produce a more practical, less naive solution than global kum-by-ya.

 

[theprestige]

I still don't get why that's confusing. How can a chronic physical sensation that you don't know the cause of be religious?

Good point. It's more like a psychosis.

But we're pretty clear on the human rights of psychotics:

- They have the right to be treated for their psychosis.

- They have the right to reasonable accommodation from society.

- They do not have the right to society playing along with their psychosis as if it were reality.

What makes gender dysphoria different from body identity disorder, or paranoid schizophrenia, or hypochondria? In none of these other cases do we consider it wise or healthy to just pretend that the patient's view of reality is correct, and that we should all just go along with it as much as we can.

"Reasonable accommodation" doesn't mean "pretend it's real". It means recognizing the limits imposed on a person by their condition, and taking reasonable measures to help them overcome those limits, or to live productively within those limits. This can include modified working conditions or work schedules, additional time off for doctor's visits, etc. Disabled access to buildings is a good example, but not directly relevant to mental disorders.

So.

If one of the proper medical authorities that LJ alludes to but steadfastly refuses to cite were to say, "the mental condition of gender dysphoria is best treated by social transition, and the following reasonable accommodations are the best known treatment strategy" I would accept that as a basis for public policy. Up to and including self-ID and other contentious demands from the TRAs, assuming they were part of the authoritative medical treatment recommendation.

But I doubt very much that any such medical recommendation currently exists. It's not a hate crime to tell a schizophrenic that the voices they hear aren't real, and that they should seek treatment for their condition rather than enabling it. It shouldn't be a hate crime to tell a transwoman something similar.

 

[Lithrael]

Quotin’ from last page..

The risk is going up, but if it’s going up a tiny amount then... participating in society just HAS risks, and we don’t say ‘how many mangled kids are okay with you if we raise the speed limit over 35.’ What we do is actually look at the risks vs what the people want to be able to do with their lives and compromise. Exclusionists say ‘compromise, bs, this is my only thing and I fought for it and you can pry it from my cold dead hands,’ and what are those of us who still want to share supposed to do? Let exclusionists slap it out of our open hands so the other guy can’t get it?

 

[theprestige]

In a transidentity universe, a person can be a female and a man, or a male and a woman, or a male/female and neither a man nor a woman.

What's your public policy recommendation for locker room access, for the male/female and neither a man nor a woman contingent?

Are they restricted to the venue that matches their biological sex?

Also, biological sex is almost always male or female, never male/female. Which raises the question of what you think male/female means in this context, and how you square it with the ONS's definitions of sex and gender.

 

[caveman1917]

Apologies if this was already discussed, but do untransitioned transmen have this dilemma in a male locker room, or does that get resolved differently?

I assume they have the opposite dilemma, they have to worry about sexual misbehaviour by the men in the locker room against them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well if anything I think the last 5 threads have safely put to bed the whole "There's an obvious compromise that we can come to" thing.

 

[theprestige]

Quotin’ from last page..

"The risk is going up, but if it’s going up a tiny amount then... participating in society just HAS risks, and we don’t say ‘how many mangled kids are okay with you if we raise the speed limit over 35.’ What we do is actually look at the risks vs what the people want to be able to do with their lives and compromise."

In the speed limit analogy, we have a solution ready to go if we decide the risk is too large: Decrease the speed limit. And we have a criterion for determining if the risk is too large: Number of mangled kids at a given speed limit.

The questions for the TRA contingent are:

What is your proposed solution if the risk turns out to be too large?

What is your criteria for determining that the risk is too large?

And my own followup:

Why is it medically necessary to accept any new risk at all?