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

[Paul2]

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.

The argument for using sex need only have sexual intercourse is an indirect driver of the situation, I think.

Natal females* experience the results of sexual intercourse in a way very different from natal males, and significantly so. Presumably, the consequences of sex are deeply ingrained differentially into the natal sexes, given the evolutionary importance of sex.

That difference drives the perpetuation of the value of modesty about clothing, especially for females.

Modesty, in turn, drives the separation of natal males and natal males when getting unclothed.

Modesty mediates between the consequences of sex and the establishment of separate changing rooms for the two natal sexes.

A natal female (young or old) who is not capable of having children at all can still feel the need for separate changing rooms. The value of modesty has been enculturated into natal females regardless of the specifics of their reproductive status. It can do all the work of the consequences of having sex for natal females in terms of the need for their own changing room even though some natal females will not experience those consequences.

A natal male does not share that situation when a gay natal male is in the changing room because the consequences of sex are so different for them compared to natal females.

That is the best argument I can think of for using natal sex as the basis instead of gender. I'll await others to offer the best argument for using gender.

* Natal females and natal males are defined here to also mean having remained that way.

 

[Matthew Best]

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

But what does that actually mean? I assume the actual provision in the Act is a bit more detailed, because that sentence is essentially meaningless. Or it means that nobody can be excluded from any locker room because your gender identity differs from the sign on the door;

Sign says men? You can't be excluded if your gender identity is "woman".
Sign says women? You can't be excluded if your gender identity is "man".

I assume that's not what the Act intended so it's just another example of how "even some politicians and journalists can't figure out (pretty simple) definitions".

 

[xjx388]

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?


* presumably meaning that either a) transwomen either have to change in the car or before setting off to the sports centre, or b) transwomen are not permitted to use the sports centre at all.

I think it’s pretty simple. If they haven’t actually transitioned, they use the men’s room. If they have transitioned, they use the ladies’ room. By transitioned I mean presenting fully as a female with all the necessary medical and surgical procedures

Nice and clear, problem solved. Speaking purely practically, If a dude in a dress walks into the men’s room, I think most of us get what’s going on and won’t bat an eye, no matter what we think. I don’t think most women would have a problem with someone who appears to be a woman walking in to the women’s changing room. Those who feel the need to physically assault that person should be prosecuted.
It’s the cases of people who appear to be males that’s the problem and they should just use the men’s facilities.

It doesn’t matter what we think on the inside; it matters how we act. It feels like what TRAs really want is thought reform . . .

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

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:

Ironically, the Equality Act seems to do what you have been lamenting.

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

“(3) INCLUDING.—The term ‘including’ means including, but not limited to, consistent with the term's standard meaning in Federal law.

“(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes—

“(A) a sex stereotype;

“(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;

“(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and

“(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

Linky.

Sex now includes sexual orientation (bizarrely) and gender identity? I don't understand why it was written this way.

(The gender identity definition is also hilarious.)

You are transphobic if you think sex and gender are separate. It's why everyone says "assigned male at birth" instead of male, biologically male, born male, natal male, etc.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

But sometimes, efforts to undermine or exclude trans women rely on a somewhat different tactic which takes the following form: A case will be made that sex is distinct from gender — the former being purely biological in nature, the latter being entirely social.

https://juliaserano.medium.com/transgender-people-and-biological-sex-myths-c2a9bcdb4f4a

 

[xjx388]

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:


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:

That paragraph seems to sum up the problems with the bill. It’s not law yet. This is the second time they’ve passed this bill and it doesn’t appear as if it will pass the Senate.

They keep getting it wrong because many people in the US don’t actually support such a sweeping change in policy. If it ever does pass, it will be challenged and given the current makeup of the SC, would almost certainly be stricken.

The biggest problem is: What is “gender identity?” and how do you stop people from lying about it? I can just see a bunch of frat boys wearing dresses insisting they identify as women...

 

[Elaedith]

But what does that actually mean? I assume the actual provision in the Act is a bit more detailed, because that sentence is essentially meaningless. Or it means that nobody can be excluded from any locker room because your gender identity differs from the sign on the door;

Sign says men? You can't be excluded if your gender identity is "woman".
Sign says women? You can't be excluded if your gender identity is "man".

I assume that's not what the Act intended so it's just another example of how "even some politicians and journalists can't figure out (pretty simple) definitions".

And the sentence as quoted is consistent with basing segregation on biological sex.

A transwoman would be excluded 'based on gender identity' if being prevented from accessing a facility for men, on the grounds of not identifying as a man. Conversely, exclusion of a transwoman from a facility marked 'women' is based on biological sex, not gender identity.

 

[Meadmaker]

The argument for using sex need only have sexual intercourse is an indirect driver of the situation, I think.

That is exactly the sort of argument I was referring to. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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....

I believe you're making a LOT of unfounded assumptions about the amount of deep thinking and scrutiny given to this bill. I don't think there's any reason to think that real due diligence and consideration of the impact has been taken into account at all.

One of the challenges with this bill is that it refers to gender identity... but there are no guidelines on what that means. It's not a legal status, it's a self-declaration.

So... what advice do you have for 14 year old females so that they can tell the difference between a genuinely transgender person who identifies as a girl, and a boy who wants to get a peek at the naked girls in the shower? What suggestions do you have for distinguishing between them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You state this as if somehow 1 and 3 are incontrovertible objective truths. You might just as well say that everything makes total sense as soon as one realizes three things: God is the only god, He sacrificed his son to save the souls of all humanity, and that God's Grace is the only path to salvation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But what does that actually mean? I assume the actual provision in the Act is a bit more detailed, because that sentence is essentially meaningless. Or it means that nobody can be excluded from any locker room because your gender identity differs from the sign on the door;

Sign says men? You can't be excluded if your gender identity is "woman".
Sign says women? You can't be excluded if your gender identity is "man".

I assume that's not what the Act intended so it's just another example of how "even some politicians and journalists can't figure out (pretty simple) definitions".

Nope, not really.

What is the actual effect of this? It means that females for example, have no right to privacy from males when they're naked, the males who wish to see them naked don't need their consent in order to look upon their naked bodies. Additionally, it means that females don't have the right to withhold consent to viewing a naked male body. Whether they want to or not is irrelevant, the male's wish to be naked in their presence overrides the consent of the female.

So... at least in schools, restrooms, locker rooms, etc. the US has now legalized voyeurism and flashing.

Progress!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ironically, the Equality Act seems to do what you have been lamenting.



Linky.

Sex now includes sexual orientation (bizarrely) and gender identity? I don't understand why it was written this way.

(The gender identity definition is also hilarious.)

You are transphobic if you think sex and gender are separate. It's why everyone says "assigned male at birth" instead of male, biologically male, born male, natal male, etc.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/



https://juliaserano.medium.com/transgender-people-and-biological-sex-myths-c2a9bcdb4f4a

I also find it off-putting that the definition of "sex" for legal purposes includes "sex stereotypes" but does NOT include actual biological sex.

 

[Elaedith]

I'm not entirely clear on what the connection is between the people on a dating website called Her and Stonewall.

Stonewall has explicitly redefined homosexuality as attraction to the same gender, not the same sex. Of course, this should apply to heterosexuals too, although curiously they are more ambiguous in their definition for 'straight/heterosexual'.

As I understand it, this, along with Stonewall's authoritarianism, is a major factor behind the establishment of the LGB alliance. Those in the LGB alliance believe homosexuality should be defined as attraction to the same sex.

Stonewall responded by branding the LGB alliance as an 'anti-trans hate group' and doing everything possible to have them silenced. They are able to do as a result of their immense power over institutions through their 'Stonewall diversity champions' scheme, where becoming a 'champion' means adherence to whatever ideological orthodoxy Stonewall dictates. This is a major factor behind institutional capture.

Stonewall is currently facing a lawsuit for attempting to ruin the career of a lesbian barrister for wrongthink. The accusation is that Stonewall put pressure on her employer to take action against her or 'face the reputational consequences'.

This case is discussed here 'Do Right, Fear No One (except possibly Stonewall)'. It was also discussed in an article on the lesbian and gay news website.

At a preliminary hearing an application by Stonewall to have the case thrown out was refused. Transcript here. This has received almost no media attention that I have seen.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Ironically, the Equality Act seems to do what you have been lamenting.



You are transphobic if you think sex and gender are separate. It's why everyone says "assigned male at birth" instead of male, biologically male, born male, natal male, etc.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Note - A number of biologists on twitter (myself included) have pointed out the errors in this opinion piece...

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I know it's only passed in the lower house so far (I pointed this out in the post). But that's irrelevant in terms of the post: the Biden government drafted and presented, and the House passed, a bill which aims to give transgender people a reasonably equality of rights and protections to (say) gay people. And furthermore, the bill appears to explicitly refer to gender-based rights - meaning that, for example, transwomen should be recognised & treated as women, and not as males.

I don't really understand what you're saying in your final paragraph. And whatever you're alluding to, I can't see how it addresses the matter of quite why the Biden presidency and the House a) presented/passed a bill recognising transgender people inclusively, and b) used gender separation as the arbiter. I realise you think they got it wrong. I, on the other hand, think they got it bang-on right. And I know precisely how/why they got it right. It'd be interesting if you were able to expand upon why you think they got it wrong. After all, this is the actual real world - and the real world appears, repeatedly, to be reaching pretty much diametrically opposite conclusions/policies from yours.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

But are you someone who believes that the words "man" and "woman" should mean what they've "always meant" - in other words, that those words should continue indefinitely being wholly synonymous with "male" and "female"?

If you're not one of those people either, then I think we're making good progress - it certainly doesn't seem so long ago (it wasn't) that I was being repeatedly (and ridiculously) challenged on "my definitions" of these words....

I didn't say anything about sexual attraction.

But if you're saying it's simply to do with the sexual organs that are on display with a nude body, then there are some rather obvious follow-on questions - starting with a flat-out "why?".

Instructive to that question might be this: in many gyms (including the two I use most frequently), fathers are allowed to take daughters under the age of 6 into the men's changing rooms, and vice versa. So, for example, males of all ages are potentially around the naked bodies of under-6 girls, and under-6 girls are potentially around the naked bodies of males of all ages.

It's only really when people reach pubescence that separation becomes a proper factor*. So, as much as you're claiming it's just down to biology, I'd say that the true underlying reason revolves wholly around issues related to sexual attraction.


On top of all that..... consider, say, a transwoman who has had gender reassignment surgery and whose hormone treatment has given her breasts and resulted in other feminine body/face characteristics. Which changing rooms, in your opinion, should this person use, and why?



* And I realise you might make an argument along the lines of "The only reason for parents to be allowed to take their under-6 offspring into the "wrong" changing room is because children of that age are not old enough to be able to use the "right" changing facilities on their own. But I'd counter that by saying that if, say a father came to use the gym along with his 13-year-old daughter, where his daughter had severe learning difficulties, the father would not be permitted to bring his daughter into the men's changing rooms.

 

[Myriad]

I can just see a bunch of frat boys wearing dresses insisting they identify as women...

Unnecessary elements of your scenario deleted.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

Your right is no more and no less than my right*. And I - quite rightly on every level - have freely and willingly given up my right "not to have gay males being sexually attracted to my naked body in the men's changing room", because clearly it's a ridiculous notion** to say that gay males cannot use the men's changing room.

Incidentally, if a transwoman came into the women's changing rooms, but she was a transwoman who'd had full gender reassignment surgery, would you still object on the grounds of not wanting the possibility of her giving you "the male gaze" while you were changing?


* I assume you're a female, from the context of what you're saying here. I apologise if I'm wrong in that assumption.

** The funny (peculiar) thing is that 50-odd years ago, this wouldn't have been thought about as a ridiculous notion at all to at least a significant minority of the population in countries such as the US and UK. Fortunately, times change. Just as they will wrt transgender rights and protections.

 

[Sherkeu]

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....

Actually, where the bill discusses "women" it is written as a separate category from LGBTQ. The LGBTQ category obviously does contain women, but women are separated out from it in the bill as in "LGBTQ and also women" and are also given separate clauses.

Interesting to note that "sex-stereotype' is used often as describing the means by which perception causes discrimination. i.e We should not make assumptions based on appearance. Assumptions of how the sexes 'should' be causes unfair treatment.
But then Gender identity is defined as thus:

GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

What does that mean in terms of stereotypes?
Should we look to gender-normative signals to treat "gender identity' people fairly? Or can a 'woman' with a penis who looks exactly like a man also qualify here?

Talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Poorly written.

I also not that they single out women as victims of sexual harassment. The LGBTQ group get the words "harassment and violence". No violence for women? How odd. (the word 'female' is NEVER used and 'woman' is never defined)

Read it here!: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5/BILLS-117hr5ih.xml

 

[Collin237]

You are transphobic if you think sex and gender are separate.

I don't think that's what these articles are saying. The key word is "social", as in your quote from Julia Serano. Gender is determined not by a social class system, but by the effect of hormones on the brain. Some of them come from one's own body, and others come from one's physical environment.

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting to note that "sex-stereotype' is used often as describing the means by which perception causes discrimination. i.e We should not make assumptions based on appearance. Assumptions of how the sexes 'should' be causes unfair treatment.
But then Gender identity is defined as thus:


What does that mean in terms of stereotypes?
Should we look to gender-normative signals to treat "gender identity' people fairly? Or can a 'woman' with a penis who looks exactly like a man also qualify here?

Talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Poorly written.

I disagree.

And with specific reference to the definition of gender identity, it's clearly an expanded definition which is meant to capture each and every internalised and externalised expression of gender.

For example, there is a very famous British artist called Grayson Perry. He is male, and he's cishet. But he very often dresses in clothing which current society usually deems to be women's clothing. In other words, he's a transvestite. Under the bill's definition, transvestites would have a valid case for discrimination if it was on the basis of the clothing they wore (eg if a male candidate were rejected for a federal job position wholly or partly on the basis of him having come to the interview wearing a dress).

I note with interest that you're still insistent on using scare-quotes around "woman" when you write ""woman" with a penis who looks exactly like a man". But to answer your question: yes, of course. If I - a male with a penis who looks exactly like a man - choose to identify as a woman, then the bill offers me protection against discrimination on the grounds of my identification as a woman. I really don't see how this is difficult to comprehend.