[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Roboramma]

House passes Equality Act aimed at ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity



https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/equality-act-passes-house/index.html

Based on the snippet you quoted, that sounds like a good thing.

 

[Roboramma]

Is it the new orthodoxy in anti-trans sentiment to redefine women-only spaces as "female-only spaces"? I ask because legislators appear to be legislating along the lines of women-only spaces (and women's sports, etc).

Some of us think that those spaces should be segregated by sex.

In the past they were, whether intentionally or effectively.

There are those who want to segregate by gender.

In the past these two things were not seen as very different. Personally when I talk about "women-only spaces" the word "women" refers to "adult human females", but as some people use the word differently, it probably makes sense for clarity's sake for me to say "female only spaces" so that we're clear just what I'm talking about.

This certainly isn't a change in my position. I don't think it's a change in Meadmaker's. Do you think there are a large group of people who want to segregate by sex now but who didn't in the past?

 

[Distracted1]

We call them transwomen, of course.

And I'd say that your entire description of a transwoman here is unnecessarily pejorative and jaundiced.

Trans women- indeed.
Even you do not seem willing to call them "women".
I am glad we agree on the definitions.

 

[sarge]

Is it the new orthodoxy in anti-trans sentiment to redefine women-only spaces as "female-only spaces"? I ask because legislators appear to be legislating along the lines of women-only spaces (and women's sports, etc).

When the core of a discussion centers around how to assign privacy facilities, it is not not an anti-trans position to attempt to accurately define the terms.

It is also not an anti-trans rights position to argue that biologically female users should never be forced against their will to be nude in front of biologically male users. So lone as this society sees value in providing sex-specific privacy areas it will never make sense to expose females to the clear, obvious, and measurable violation this would create.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it the new orthodoxy in anti-trans sentiment to redefine women-only spaces as "female-only spaces"? I ask because legislators appear to be legislating along the lines of women-only spaces (and women's sports, etc).

At least in the US, most of the people writing legislation prefer the old orthodoxy, in which "women only spaces" and "female only spaces" referred to exactly the same thing.

The point I was getting at is that words mean whatever it is that we say they mean, so we could use the terms man and woman, male and female, cats and dogs, spinks and sporks, or any other term we wish to define, redefine, or invent. Somewhere in all of those words, one pair of them will refer to biological sex, and whatever pair that is, that's the one that should go on the signs outside the locker rooms.

In other words, what really matters when it comes to privacy, modesty, being seen au naturel, is biological sex, by which I mean the manner in which one might participate in activities related to reproduction, including, most importantly, sexual intercourse.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It seems we are being told that there is a biological male/female distinction yet we are literally never allowed to use it, refer to it, or acknowledge it exists.

Again casual, non-literal language that traditionally used the "man/woman" distinction when obviously the distinction was actually biological male/female isn't a fair "gotcha."

Yes we in the past generally referred to it a "women's sports" or a "woman's locker room" or whatever instead of "female sports" or "female locker room."

That's not proof of anything and you can't bootstrap a "Well this new use of the term means this, therefore you we have you trapped in the distinction you made under the old term" argument into a win.

Trying to pretend that a women/men's locker room were ever NOT an attempt to separate the penises from the vaginas and not the "man identities" from the "woman identities" just because of the terminology used is several levels of unreasonable.

There's a huge difference in between arguing that there a distinct difference between gender and sex now, and going back through language of the past where the terms were used more or less interchangeably (the attempt at retconning a mythology that gender/sex was always distinct aside) and trying to prove something is rather silly.

50 years ago when someone built a building and labeled one room the men's room and one room the lady's room they were accounting for this. I'm sorry 50 years ago you just couldn't say "Penis room" and "Vagina room" without killing old women with the vapors.

 

[Olmstead]

It makes more sense if you consider women/men to be a sort of club. If you don't have admission to the clubhouse, you're obviously not a member of the club. If you're a member of the club, you need to have admission to the clubhouse.

 

[LondonJohn]

At least in the US, most of the people writing legislation prefer the old orthodoxy, in which "women only spaces" and "female only spaces" referred to exactly the same thing.

The point I was getting at is that words mean whatever it is that we say they mean, so we could use the terms man and woman, male and female, cats and dogs, spinks and sporks, or any other term we wish to define, redefine, or invent. Somewhere in all of those words, one pair of them will refer to biological sex, and whatever pair that is, that's the one that should go on the signs outside the locker rooms.

In other words, what really matters when it comes to privacy, modesty, being seen au naturel, is biological sex, by which I mean the manner in which one might participate in activities related to reproduction, including, most importantly, sexual intercourse.

Firstly, I couldn't agree more that "words mean whatever it is that we say they mean". But I'm somewhat surprised to hear you say it, seeing as it seems to be a dogmatic belief among anti-trans people that certain words - notably "man" and "woman" - must necessarily mean what they've "always" meant (ie words which are synonymous with "male" and "female" respectively), and that it's effectively impossible to modify their meaning in conjunction with the separation of sex and gender.....

And secondly, if you're using sexual attraction as a defining criterion, please set out for me again why, for example, out gay men should be permitted to share a changing area with other men.

 

[LondonJohn]

When the core of a discussion centers around how to assign privacy facilities, it is not not an anti-trans position to attempt to accurately define the terms.

It is also not an anti-trans rights position to argue that biologically female users should never be forced against their will to be nude in front of biologically male users. So lone as this society sees value in providing sex-specific privacy areas it will never make sense to expose females to the clear, obvious, and measurable violation this would create.

Why should I (a cis het male) be "forced against my will" to be nude in front of an out gay man? Why would that not be precisely the same sort of "clear, obvious and measurable violation"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Some of us think that those spaces should be segregated by sex.

In the past they were, whether intentionally or effectively.

There are those who want to segregate by gender.

In the past these two things were not seen as very different. Personally when I talk about "women-only spaces" the word "women" refers to "adult human females", but as some people use the word differently, it probably makes sense for clarity's sake for me to say "female only spaces" so that we're clear just what I'm talking about.

This certainly isn't a change in my position. I don't think it's a change in Meadmaker's. Do you think there are a large group of people who want to segregate by sex now but who didn't in the past?

I asked because, very specifically, talk appears to have shifted wholly on the part of some within this thread, from:

a) referring to "men's" and "women's" changing rooms (for example), to

b) referring to "male" and "female" changing rooms.

It would appear to me that there is now at least some level of understanding that sex and gender are different and separable concepts (something which previously seemed to be anathema for some...), and that "male/female" are the sex-based descriptors while "men/women" are the gender-based descriptors.

So at least some progress seems to have been made in the area of definitions.

And that being the case, we must now move to a discussion around whether segregation in places such as changing rooms ought to be on a sex basis or a gender basis - and why.

You and others appear to be claiming that it ought to be on a sex basis, and the reasoning (of many) for this appears to be based upon matters related to sexual intercourse. But I argue that this opens up as many issues as it would, superficially, appear to settle.

 

[LondonJohn]

House passes Equality Act aimed at ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity



https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/equality-act-passes-house/index.html

An excellent amendment.

Those here who've (recently) been referring to sex-based demarcation of places like changing rooms ought perhaps to be cognisant of parts of the act such as this:

...an individual (cannot) be denied access to a restroom, locker room or dressing room based on their gender identity

It would therefore appear clear that the US Federal Government is using gender, not biological sex, as its demarcation factor. Would anyone within this thread like to explain quite how and why the US Federal Government has got it so wrong (in their opinion, of course)....?


Incidentally, as a pretty vivid illustration of how even some politicians and journalists can't figure out (pretty simple) definitions, try this paragraph of "analysis" from that article on for size:

Opponents say that would force women and girls to share private spaces with men. Critics also say the bill could facilitate men participating in women's sports if they identify as female.

 

[Meadmaker]

Firstly, I couldn't agree more that "words mean whatever it is that we say they mean". But I'm somewhat surprised to hear you say it, seeing as it seems to be a dogmatic belief among anti-trans people that certain words - notably "man" and "woman" - must necessarily mean what they've "always" meant (ie words which are synonymous with "male" and "female" respectively), and that it's effectively impossible to modify their meaning in conjunction with the separation of sex and gender.....

Well I'm not them, so I hope that clears that up.

And secondly, if you're using sexual attraction as a defining criterion, please set out for me again why, for example, out gay men should be permitted to share a changing area with other men.

I didn't say anything about sexual attraction.

 

[Meadmaker]

It would therefore appear clear that the US Federal Government is using gender, not biological sex, as its demarcation factor. Would anyone within this thread like to explain quite how and why the US Federal Government has got it so wrong (in their opinion, of course)....?

The US House of Representatives passed the bill. The US government has not yet passed it, and it is not expected to become law at this time, due to some that most controversial of senate rules, the filibuster.

As for how so many within the US Federal Government got it wrong (in my opinion, of course), I would refer you to the contents of this thread and the five predecessors thereof.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

House passes Equality Act aimed at ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity



https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/equality-act-passes-house/index.html

Seems that, as of yet, there really isn't any significant TERF bigotry present among the liberal party like we see abroad, especially in the UK. Tentatively hopeful that this particular brand of transphobia will not be significant in the US.

Seems that this fight for civil rights will fall along well worn partisan divide, with liberals supporting and conservatives opposed. I suspect the nastiness of the right wing will make any kind of liberal squishiness on the issue less palatable. The vile barbs of people like MTG or other evangelical, right wing freaks is going to make liberal opposition to trans-rights a less palatable position.


Curious to see if there are any Democrat defections in the Senate or if it also falls down to a strictly partisan divide.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I ask again: if there's a sports centre with a men's changing room, a women's changing room (aka "a female only space") and a disabled changing room...

... which of these three changing rooms (or none) should a transwoman be required to use?


I presume, from the tone of your post, that the one changing room transwomen should not be allowed to use - in your opinion - is the women's changing room.

So that leaves us with 1) the men's changing room, 2) the disabled changing room, and 3) no changing room at all*.

Which of these three options is your go-to option where it comes to transwomen?

Why not flip that around?

If a female does not want to change in front of a be-penised person, what are her options? Is that female required to change in the disabled room or simply not at all?

Why do you seem to dismiss the concerns and worries of females? Why does it seem that you're far more concerned about the options available to the prostate owners than the fact that your proposal removes options from women?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It would appear to me that there is now at least some level of understanding that sex and gender are different and separable concepts (something which previously seemed to be anathema for some...), and that "male/female" are the sex-based descriptors while "men/women" are the gender-based descriptors.

There have only been a couple of people in this thread who don't draw a distinction between sex and gender.

Those people are not the ones you're arguing against.

 

[Distracted1]

Why should I (a cis het male) be "forced against my will" to be nude in front of an out gay man? Why would that not be precisely the same sort of "clear, obvious and measurable violation"?

Do I not have a right to be free of "the male gaze" while changing?

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems we are being told that there is a biological male/female distinction yet we are literally never allowed to use it, refer to it, or acknowledge it exists.

Again casual, non-literal language that traditionally used the "man/woman" distinction when obviously the distinction was actually biological male/female isn't a fair "gotcha."

Yes we in the past generally referred to it a "women's sports" or a "woman's locker room" or whatever instead of "female sports" or "female locker room."

That's not proof of anything and you can't bootstrap a "Well this new use of the term means this, therefore you we have you trapped in the distinction you made under the old term" argument into a win.

Trying to pretend that a women/men's locker room were ever NOT an attempt to separate the penises from the vaginas and not the "man identities" from the "woman identities" just because of the terminology used is several levels of unreasonable.
There's a huge difference in between arguing that there a distinct difference between gender and sex now, and going back through language of the past where the terms were used more or less interchangeably (the attempt at retconning a mythology that gender/sex was always distinct aside) and trying to prove something is rather silly.

50 years ago when someone built a building and labeled one room the men's room and one room the lady's room they were accounting for this. I'm sorry 50 years ago you just couldn't say "Penis room" and "Vagina room" without killing old women with the vapors.

But this - as well as the tone of the rest of your post - appears to be totally at odds with the legislation of Biden's government which has just been passed by the House (and which looks likely to pass through the Senate and be signed into law).

I'd suggest that those in Biden's administration who drew up the bill, together with those who scrutinised and then passed the bill, very probably looked into this issue rather deeply, and with input from many, many expert advisers (from all sides which should have had a say in the debate).

And yet.... and yet..... they passed legislation which appears to (for example) give transwomen the right to use women's changing rooms and bathrooms - inherent in which is a) an affirmation that places such as bathrooms and changing rooms should be segregated on gender lines, rather than biological-sex lines; and b) an affirmation that transwomen are women.

May we live in interesting times....

 

[LondonJohn]

It makes more sense if you consider women/men to be a sort of club. If you don't have admission to the clubhouse, you're obviously not a member of the club. If you're a member of the club, you need to have admission to the clubhouse.

In fact, it makes total sense as soon as one realises three connected things:

1) Not all males are men (and not all females are women);

2) Therefore gender (man/woman) is a construct which is not immutably linked to biological sex (male/female); and

3) Entry to the clubhouse is gender-based, rather than biological-sex-based.

 

[LondonJohn]

Trans women- indeed.
Even you do not seem willing to call them "women".
I am glad we agree on the definitions.

I am perfectly willing to call them "women" (and I'm not altogether sure why you thought otherwise).

They are women. They are also transwomen. Because transwomen are women.

Hope that helps make things clearer on my part.