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

[Emily's Cat]

It's not the genitals. It's the biology. It's all the primary and secondary (and tertiary) sexual characteristics, taken holistically. It's menstruation and menopause. It's the valid lived experience of being the biologically female. It's the sociology that derives from the observed biology. It's the valid lived experience of that sociology.

Genitals are but one effect. Biology is the cause. It's about all the direct and indirect effects of that biology, that women have and transwomen don't, taken together.

And really, aside from the trivial and superficial accommodation of preferred pronouns, the only time gender identity should matter anywhere outside a person's head is when genitals are involved. And then, it matters to the other person.

If a transwoman is being treated differently because of her gender self-identity, then society is doing it wrong. Outside of the bedroom, she should get the same treatment as anyone else, regardless of gender. Inside the bedroom, it's her partner's perception of her gender, and degree of attraction to that perceived gender, that prevails.

So on the one hand, the biology is irrelevant. On the other hand, it's the only thing that really is relevant.

And I'm still curious how you think transwomen should be counted, demographically. Do you think they should count as women, for things like the census, or for programs aimed at changing ratios of the sexes in employement, education, etc? Do you think they should count as women, for the purposes of sex segregation?

Yeah, as a female, I'm going to add in that *wanting to avoid a sexual relationship* also makes genitals important. You know, in cases like sexual assault and rape? Or even in less aggressive scenarios like voyeurisms and exhibitionism.

Sure, it's great to say that one's genitals are nobody else's business. It's quite another to say that other people must be subjected to those genitals without their consent, such as in changing rooms, domestic violence shelters, rape shelters, and prisons.

 

[Emily's Cat]

All of which is also none of anyone else's business.

I rather think it's the business of the person being sexually assaulted and raped. And as a female who has experienced the effects of that sociology based on biology, I rather strongly want it to be people's business.

This is quite like insisting to a black person, who has faced decades of disadvantage, racism, and social inequity, that skin color is not important, and that they should just shut up about it.

Yes. I ran screaming from That Thread, but trans women are women.

Transwomen are men who wish to live as women. And they should be accommodated in that desire within reason.

Sex segregation should end. All of it.

Why? What is your rationale for declaring that males should have access to vulnerable females at their discretion, and that females should have no say about it?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Uhmmmm I'm against the notion of one person assaulting another person as well.

You and others don't seem to realise this: if there's a suspicion that granting Group A civil rights might put Group B at potential jeopardy....

...the answer is not to halt the granting of Group A's civil rights.

The answer is to take all reasonable steps to mitigate that potential jeopardy against Group B (via such mechanisms as electronic surveillance, identifiability of potential criminals, suitable grades of punishment, and other deterrent mechanisms), and monitor the situation carefully.

And if it does indeed turn out that the granting of Group A's civil rights results in increased violence etc against Group B that cannot be mitigated.... well then (and only then) it's time to take more decisive action.

Well, you seem to have already granted that it's not ok to put a man and a woman in the same boxing ring at the same time. Or really in the same sports event, for most of them.

I'm more than willing to consider how would you mitigate that, other than just keeping them separated. Seems like you already granted that the best solution is to just keep them separated, no?


Let's move to another hot topic then: the demand to put trans-women in the same bedroom as biological women in colleges. Because, see, that's also not just because we decided to be dicks to trans women.

The underlying concern is that it seems like currently college is where the chance to get raped spikes sky-high for women. You may well be at a higher risk to get raped in a college dorm than the whole rest of your life. ESPECIALLY if you ever end up, say, passed out drunk in the same room as a guy.

So now what's effectively being proposed is that you have no safe space.

So how would you mitigate that?

Increase the penalties for rape? Problem is, we can't actually go much higher with those, without ending up with an extra bunch of murdered women. I mean, if the penalty isn't much different, game theory says that murdering the one who could file a complaint is the smart thing to do. You lower the probability of being caught by eliminating the one who could file a complaint, the penalty isn't much different, so going by probability times penalty, the smart thing to do is go for murder.

It's not even a hypothetical, since we know that's what happened in a bunch of places when you'd get hanged just the same for murder as for robbery. We just ended up with an extra helping of dead merchants.

So, ok, how would you mitigate that before just segregating them and calling it a day? Genuine question, really.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Personally, while I agree strongly with provisions which establish and protect transgender rights, I believe that elite-level sports should be segregated by sex (and indeed I believe that this is exactly what will happen).

I appreciate that, but I think you're missing a large component of this.

People who go forward to compete at elite levels are, almost exclusively, people who competed in those sports in college, and usually also competed in high school and middle school. They are almost always people who have competed in sports their entire lives.

Allowing for sex segregation at the elite level, but NOT at secondary and collegiate levels, will still result in females being pushed out of sports, and would effectively destroy elite women's sports.

Because females cannot effectively compete against males once puberty has begun.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Uhmmmm I'm against the notion of one person assaulting another person as well.

You and others don't seem to realise this: if there's a suspicion that granting Group A civil rights might put Group B at potential jeopardy....

...the answer is not to halt the granting of Group A's civil rights.

The answer is to take all reasonable steps to mitigate that potential jeopardy against Group B (via such mechanisms as electronic surveillance, identifiability of potential criminals, suitable grades of punishment, and other deterrent mechanisms), and monitor the situation carefully.

And if it does indeed turn out that the granting of Group A's civil rights results in increased violence etc against Group B that cannot be mitigated.... well then (and only then) it's time to take more decisive action.

Electronic surveillance in ladies changing rooms... what could go wrong?

You've already been given plenty of evidence that the granting of these privileges puts females at risk, and has actually in reality already caused direct harm to females.

How much is enough for you to propose that maybe we pause for a moment and try to figure out a way to PREVENT the harm from happening int he first place? At what point do you reach "that's too much" and decide that maybe we shouldn't give male prisoners the privilege of self-declaring their gender identity and allowing them to choose which prison ward they want to be in - a privilege that is DENIED to other prisoners?

 

[sarge]

Uhmmmm I'm against the notion of one person assaulting another person as well.

You and others don't seem to realise this: if there's a suspicion that granting Group A civil rights might put Group B at potential jeopardy....

...the answer is not to halt the granting of Group A's civil rights.

The answer is to take all reasonable steps to mitigate that potential jeopardy against Group B (via such mechanisms as electronic surveillance, identifiability of potential criminals, suitable grades of punishment, and other deterrent mechanisms), and monitor the situation carefully.

And if it does indeed turn out that the granting of Group A's civil rights results in increased violence etc against Group B that cannot be mitigated.... well then (and only then) it's time to take more decisive action.

You missed a step. First, determine if the right exists. In this instance, it does not. There is no right for a person with a penis to be nude in front of an unwilling person with a vagina.

 

[xjx388]

Personally, while I agree strongly with provisions which establish and protect transgender rights, I believe that elite-level sports should be segregated by sex (and indeed I believe that this is exactly what will happen).

However.......

To point out the holes in your argument: in the current regulatory climate, all males under 5ft10 tall haven't got a hope in hell of competing for honours in the men's high jump. Should we (per your argument) have a separate category of men's high jump for males below the height of 5ft10, so that these men will have the chance to be champions in the event?

Can a 5’10” woman compete with a 5’10” man in the high jump? No, they cannot. Unless of course, that woman was born with a male body...

That’s what we are talking about here.

 

[arthwollipot]

I haven't been posting in this thread, and that is deliberate. I've had one post moved here from another thread. I'm going to make an exception to my general rule to share this, which was shared with me by one of my trans friends. It's a Twitter thread by someone named Lilah Sturges, who is not someone I know, but I think this is important. I apologise if it is not consonant with the current trend of the thread oh wait no I don't.

https://twitter.com/LilahSturges/status/1374715926017359874

What you may not have considered, if you're not trans, is that the "conversation" about trans people is one that happens all around us, all the time, almost always without our input or consent. And that conversation is about FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS of our lives.

It is not a friendly conversation. It is not a conversation that considers our best interests. In fact, it doesn't consider OUR interests at all. The "trans conversation" is about whether we should be PERMITTED to participate in human social life.

The "conversation" is about whether the fear, hatred, and disgust of people who don't know us and have never met us should determine if we can go to the bathroom, if we can get or keep a job, even if we can do something as trivial as play high school sports.

And the worst part is that even though we are not invited to JOIN the "conversation," we also cannot AVOID it. Any attempt to stay abreast of current events means that we are constantly updated on the current status of the debate about our lives.

And even if we COULD avoid it, we can't afford to, because its various outcomes have REAL consequence - often dire - for our lives.

So, while you're watching the rhetorical soccer match that is the "trans conversation," please keep in mind that trans people aren't players in the game. We're not even spectators. We're the ball.

And it SUCKS.

 

[Aber]

And if it does indeed turn out that the granting of Group A's civil rights results in increased violence etc against Group B that cannot be mitigated.... well then (and only then) it's time to take more decisive action.

Again setting the bar way too high - "only proven increased violence against women is a reason to protect their existing rights; and then only if all the mitigations we try don't work".

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I haven't been posting in this thread, and that is deliberate. I've had one post moved here from another thread. I'm going to make an exception to my general rule to share this, which was shared with me by one of my trans friends. It's a Twitter thread by someone named Lilah Sturges, who is not someone I know, but I think this is important. I apologise if it is not consonant with the current trend of the thread oh wait no I don't.

https://twitter.com/LilahSturges/status/1374715926017359874

Well, yes, but that just illustrates one of my problems with it: indeed most of the time the actual trans people aren't even a team in that debate, they're the ball. And you still seem to miss what it's actually saying. I.e., what the problem IS.

It's this: It's not just the anti-trans side. The ones playing the pro-trans side are also some clueless puppies who have no clue whatsoever about what it's like, but just want to be seen barking together with the fashionable pack. They've got no real clue, no stake in it, nothing, but still feel entitled to kick that ball around -- i.e., tell the trans what to do -- if that's what makes them feel 'progressive'.

And for that matter, it turned out into telling biological women what they can or can't do. And apparently they're also not supposed to actually have a say in it. I.e., they're also supposed to just be the ball. Only now apparently it's 'progressive' instead of raging misogyny.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You missed a step. First, determine if the right exists. In this instance, it does not. There is no right for a person with a penis to be nude in front of an unwilling person with a vagina.

That's pretty much my opinion on he matter. I'm still waiting to hear how removing consent from females is the "right" thing to do here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I haven't been posting in this thread, and that is deliberate. I've had one post moved here from another thread. I'm going to make an exception to my general rule to share this, which was shared with me by one of my trans friends. It's a Twitter thread by someone named Lilah Sturges, who is not someone I know, but I think this is important. I apologise if it is not consonant with the current trend of the thread oh wait no I don't.

https://twitter.com/LilahSturges/status/1374715926017359874

That's a very emotionally moving post. It's also misleading, however.

The “trans conversation” is about whether we should be PERMITTED to participate in human social life.

No, it's not about that. Every single one of us agrees that trans people should be allowed to participate in human social life without abuse or harassment. 100% they should. The discussion is about whether trans people should be allowed to participate in human social life as if they were females, when doing so displaces and disadvantages females.

The “conversation” is about whether the fear, hatred, and disgust of people who don’t know us and have never met us should determine if we can go to the bathroom, if we can get or keep a job, even if we can do something as trivial as play high school sports.

Again, no. The vast majority of those of us who want deeper discussion and consideration on this topic do not have any fear, hatred or disgust. Portraying it this way is demeaning, the inability to consider that we have a conflict of desire versus safety and rights is insulting, frankly.

Transgender people can already go to the bathroom - they've never been disallowed to go to the bathroom. The question is whether trans people should have the privilege of using the female bathroom, when doing so 1) makes females uncomfortable and 2) increases the loopholes available for predatory males (regardless of how they identify) to *further* take advantage of and harm females.

Every single person in this thread, indeed every single person in this discussion that I have interacted with across several platforms including in real life think that trans people should absolutely 100% not be disallowed to have jobs and definitely should not be fired for being trans. That doesn't, however, mean that transpeople should always get any job they want, it it still means that in some cases - intimate care, rape examinations, etc. - females should retain the right to request a female caregiver.

Trans people are already allowed to play high school sports. Absolutely nothing at all prevents them from playing high school sports based on their sex. What is being asked for is that they be allowed to play high school sports as if they were female, even when doing so displaces female athletes and deprives them of opportunities.

And the worst part is that even though we are not invited to JOIN the “conversation,” we also cannot AVOID it. Any attempt to stay abreast of current events means that we are constantly updated on the current status of the debate about our lives.

When it comes to policy, it's the trans lobbying organizations driving the conversations. This person's individual voice may not be heard... but the voice of the lobby working on their behalf most certainly is being heard. Looking at the policies that have been passed throughout the English speaking world... the trans lobby is being heard loud and clear, and are often purposely excluding females from the conversation. How this person feels? Yeah, that's how females have felt for ALL OF HISTORY, and we're currently seeing our meager gains rolled back and our rights lost. And they're being lost to a very small portion of incredibly loud trans people. For this person to moan about not being involved in the discussion is absurd given that females have been intentionally excluded from the discussion about things that directly affect us and reduce our opportunities and rights and safety in a material way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again setting the bar way too high - "only proven increased violence against women is a reason to protect their existing rights; and then only if all the mitigations we try don't work".

We're nothing more than collateral damage in this, sacrificed on the altar of granting penis-havers even more privileges, including the privilege of overriding the consent of females.

 

[Collin237]

Are you attempting to argue from a position of "transwomen's brains are female brains"? If that's the case, I'd like to get some background information on your views toward mind-body duality and the existence of souls.[/QUOTE]

This is a Skeptics' forum. My views on non-skeptical topics are irrelevant.

 

[Collin237]

Transwomen are men who wish to live as women. And they should be accommodated in that desire within reason.

There have always been people who wish to live as someone different. But trans people have not existed, except as an extreme rarity, until a few decades ago. It is not a desire; it is a disability. Trans women are men who are fated, for some unknown physical reason, to internalize the mannerisms of women instead of men. They have a right to spaces in which their mannerisms are accommodated. This does not mean women's spaces.

People who think trans women should be in women's spaces are implying that men are too stupid to learn how to respect men who can't acquire male socialization.

If it sounds like I'm describing autism, maybe it is. Even pronouns. Some autistic people refer to themselves as "you".

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, yes, but that just illustrates one of my problems with it: indeed most of the time the actual trans people aren't even a team in that debate, they're the ball. And you still seem to miss what it's actually saying. I.e., what the problem IS.

It's this: It's not just the anti-trans side. The ones playing the pro-trans side are also some clueless puppies who have no clue whatsoever about what it's like, but just want to be seen barking together with the fashionable pack. They've got no real clue, no stake in it, nothing, but still feel entitled to kick that ball around -- i.e., tell the trans what to do -- if that's what makes them feel 'progressive'.

And for that matter, it turned out into telling biological women what they can or can't do. And apparently they're also not supposed to actually have a say in it. I.e., they're also supposed to just be the ball. Only now apparently it's 'progressive' instead of raging misogyny.

This is why I always try to listen and understand what my trans friends are saying, so when I do kick that ball, I do so from a position of informed compassion.

And the same goes for my female friends. As you might be aware, this is a huge issue for the Australian government right now.

 

[d4m10n]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of rule 11 removed.

My main question remains pretty much the same: What makes any given gender identity valid?

I think the answer from the affirming side is that if someone sincerely affirms it, that's all that matters. Two people may identify as kingender but we only need one for it to be considered a "valid" alternative gender.

My other question is specifically for LJ: Did you find the page in the DSM-5 which specifically references non-binary identity yet?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's pretty much my opinion on he matter. I'm still waiting to hear how removing consent from females is the "right" thing to do here.

What about the removing of consent from males for (transgender) females to be naked in front of them? Or is it only the consent of females that you're concerned about?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is why I always try to listen and understand what my trans friends are saying, so when I do kick that ball, I do so from a position of informed compassion.

And the same goes for my female friends. As you might be aware, this is a huge issue for the Australian government right now.

Exactly. It's a complex issue, and one in which there are always, to some extent, going to be "losers". It requires intelligence, balance and understanding to even attempt to provide solutions. And it will also require observation, feedback, monitoring, and - almost certainly - adjustment once the "first go" policy has been implemented.

But I (and, I suspect you) am 100% certain that the matter should not - and cannot - be addressed via hysterical, Reefer-Madness-style rhetoric along the lines of "transwomen should clearly not be allowed to use women's changing rooms etc, because this will probably result in waves of rape, sexual assault, and all levels of sexual harassment on the part of the..uhhhh *penis havers*"

 

[LondonJohn]

Can a 5’10” woman compete with a 5’10” man in the high jump? No, they cannot. Unless of course, that woman was born with a male body...

That’s what we are talking about here.

That's just a different inequality.

I was talking about a 5ft7 male trying to compete against a 6ft5 male in high jump. Which is precisely the same type of inequality to your example.

There are, incidentally, plenty of occurrences in non-sports life where we already take it as read that a) there's an un-level playing field between males and females, and b) this results in males being either the only ones who participate, or forming the overwhelming majority of those who participate. For example, tunnel digging. Or high-rise steel construction. Or lumberjacking.


Please note, at the same time, that I personally am strongly in favour of elite-level sport preserving a sex-based separation (though at non-elite levels I am not in favour of that). And that's exactly what I think will end up being the case. But I am somewhat playing devil's advocate to point out that the male-female separation in sports is only an arbitrary construct, and that it's a construct which doesn't apply in many other real-world situations.