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

[Belz...]

No, I did mean "gender". "Gender identity" is merely the gender with which a person identifies. And it's gender which is the fundamental element, not gender identity.

If gender is whatever you identify as, 'gender identity' is redundant.

You can't have it both ways.

But my point was precisely that psychiatrists no longer assess transgender identity as a disorder.

Because of changing understandings, or because of social pressure?

And if it's not a disorder, that means dysphoria is irrelevant. But if you don't have dysphoria, who do you know you're trans? I repeat that I, as a man, have no idea what it 'feels' like to be a man. My determination of my sex and gender have nothing to do with my feelings.

Um, you did make that decision. You claimed X isn't valid. Now you're saying it's not in your pay grade to say whether X is valid or not?

Whatever is convenient.

 

[LondonJohn]

If people can imagine that they are a completely different person, and some identify as cats or a different ethnicity, I don't se why they couldn't identify as inanimate objects.

Sure. Of course people can identify as inanimate objects. But they will be determined to be afflicted with a mental disorder (or the product of a mental disorder) if they do so.

Again: that is going by a recent and far from universally-accepted definition of gender. You need to convince people to use that definition before you can build an argument from it.

People used to be taught - not so long ago - to believe that homosexuality was immoral, against God, and a (correctable, hopefully) mental disorder. If people (or at least the majority of people) can be persuaded to re-evaluate the way they consider something like homosexuality, I'm betting that they can be persuaded to re-evaluate the way they consider gender and gender identity. Plus there'll be the weight of medical/scientific opinion on the side of such a re-evaluation. Oh and, increasingly, legislation.

Well that's the issue, isn't it? If what someone identifies as is the absolute determinant of what they are and should be treated as, we have no basis for denying otherkin or attack-helicopter-people the very same considerations.

No. Those (non-)comparators are in no way analogous to gender identity. Which is.... precisely why the World's experts in the relevant fields consider gender identity to be different from those (non-)comparators of yours. And why legislators around the world (of liberal democracies) are increasingly acting to protect and defend the rights of transgender people - and why they're not similarly acting to protect (for example) attack-helicopter-people.

 

[LondonJohn]

If gender is whatever you identify as, 'gender identity' is redundant.

You can't have it both ways.

I really don't know what you mean here.

Gender is a social and psychological construct which is based upon traditional roles, presentations, responsibilities, vulnerabilities (and many more).

So to take the gender "man": this gender is the set of societal, cultural, practical and communicable expectations which are most usually - but, importantly, by no means necessarily - associated with adult males. So this gender might, for example, involve always being emotionally strong and not showing weaknesses. And so on and so on.

Gender identity is exactly what it says it is: the gender with which a person identifies. So most males, for example, tend to identify as binary-gender "man". However, some males identify as the gender "woman". Some females identify as the gender "man". Some males and females identify as neither "man" nor "woman", but instead identify as something in-between the two.

Because of changing understandings, or because of social pressure?

You're seriously suggesting that the World's experts in the fields which are relevant to a learned and considered assessment - and classification/non-classification - of transgender identity...... are somehow bowing to "social pressure" and making assessments which are at odds with their clinical conclusions?

And if it's not a disorder, that means dysphoria is irrelevant. But if you don't have dysphoria, who do you know you're trans?

Huh? Firstly, gender dysphoria is very different from transgender identity. Secondly, gender dysphoria is a disorder. Thirdly, I have no idea what you mean by that second sentence.

I repeat that I, as a man, have no idea what it 'feels' like to be a man. My determination of my sex and gender have nothing to do with my feelings.

At this point, I might repeat the suggestion that you're not entirely conversant with the notion of (trans)gender identity (and gender dysphoria).

Whatever is convenient.

Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean here. Could you expand?

 

[d4m10n]

From this morning's NYT, "a culture clash that seems to have come out of nowhere."

 

[Belz...]

Sure. Of course people can identify as inanimate objects. But they will be determined to be afflicted with a mental disorder (or the product of a mental disorder) if they do so.

And why would they?

People used to be taught - not so long ago - to believe that homosexuality was immoral, against God, and a (correctable, hopefully) mental disorder.

Apples to oranges. We're talking about usage of words; definitions. If you want to argue from the standpoint of objective observations you'll have to dump the definition of gender you've been using.

No. Those (non-)comparators are in no way analogous to gender identity.

You have made no real effort to argue as to why one is legitimate and the other not. This is a direct consequence of saying that your identity identity is ONLY determined by what the person 'feels'. Again, you can't have it both ways. Either whatever you feel like is your identity, which means any identity is just as valid, or gender is determined by objective factors, which means dysphoria is required.

Which is.... precisely why the World's experts in the relevant fields consider gender identity to be different from those (non-)comparators of yours. And why legislators around the world (of liberal democracies) are increasingly acting to protect and defend the rights of transgender people - and why they're not similarly acting to protect (for example) attack-helicopter-people.

I don't think 'politicians respond to pressure' is a very convincing argument.

I really don't know what you mean here.

It's really quite simple: if gender is a social construct, and your gender is determined by your own identification, then the two terms are one and the same.

You don't seem to want to deal with the consequences of the definitions you champion.

You're seriously suggesting that the World's experts in the fields which are relevant to a learned and considered assessment - and classification/non-classification - of transgender identity...... are somehow bowing to "social pressure" and making assessments which are at odds with their clinical conclusions?

Considering that you get deplatformed or fired if you argue against said pressure? Yes.

Firstly, gender dysphoria is very different from transgender identity.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't recognise internal "identity" as a determinant for anything. It's irrelevant.

I have no idea what you mean by that second sentence.

It follows directly from the previous points, man. You're just unable to even consider that your definitions may be wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

More and more I am certain that defining oneself with a term that you have stripped all the meaning from is the point.

At this point we're basically talking using gender as something equivalent to, at best, religion and at worst your astrological sign.

 

[Belz...]

More and more I am certain that defining oneself with a term that you have stripped all the meaning from is the point.

At this point we're basically talking using gender as something equivalent to, at best, religion and at worst your astrological sign.

Exactly. And you can't simultaneously want gender to be very important, special and meaningful AND be whatever you feel like at a given moment.

 

[theprestige]

More and more I am certain that defining oneself with a term that you have stripped all the meaning from is the point.

At this point we're basically talking using gender as something equivalent to, at best, religion and at worst your astrological sign.

Exactly. And you can't simultaneously want gender to be very important, special and meaningful AND be whatever you feel like at a given moment.

And this is why I think the actual goal is transsexual segregation privileges. The only place "my gender is whatever I say it is" has any real value is when it's actually a proxy for sex, and you're actually saying you're entitled to cross some line of sex segregation.

This whole debate is, and will always be, a motte-and-bailey hokey-pokey. Standing in the bailey of "gender is a fluid concept", you put your right foot in the motte of "if I say I'm woman I get to use the women's locker room". Then, when there's pushback, you take your right foot out of the motte and put it back in the bailey. Lather, rinse, repeat until the walls fall down.

 

[Collin237]

More and more I am certain that defining oneself with a term that you have stripped all the meaning from is the point.

At this point we're basically talking using gender as something equivalent to, at best, religion and at worst your astrological sign.

It is religion. It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to prevent transgender people from living normal lives. Transgender people are not defining themselves. They are trying to deal with the meaningless definitions that society is forcing upon them. They do have a medical condition, but it's not a mental disorder. They're being left with self-identification as the only option after the medical community has failed them.

The transphobes are the ones doing the ideological capture. They captured the proposal to drop the term LGBT -- which is the only reason the term is still used. They captured the claim that trans women are men, thereby forcing trans women to call themselves women as the only defense. And they captured feminists by convincing them that trans women want their "spaces", whatever that means.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is religion. It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to prevent transgender people from living normal lives. Transgender people are not defining themselves. They are trying to deal with the meaningless definitions that society is forcing upon them.

If the definitions are meaningless, which I (in most contexts) 100% agree they are, then this "It is vitally important that I get to define my side of it and you have to accept it" becomes even more pointless.

That really does seem to be where people think we have to land and pretend it makes sense.

"Gender doesn't mean anything, but it is still vitally important that we nod and agree with no resistance whenever anyone says what gender they are."

I don't buy it. People are not fighting this hard for recognition of a "meaningless" definitional distinctional.

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL at the incredible lack of understanding/recognition of the concept & reality of transgender identity.

It's a very good thing that the people who are charged with being the go-to expert authorities in this area (and they also hold important and influential roles in advising political bodies etc) do not share this antediluvian view of transgender identity. And nor, increasingly, do lawmakers. And I'm happy that my set of beliefs and observations in this area tallies closely with theirs.


(I suppose the CT required at this point is to claim that the sum of the World's most expert psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and medical doctors are either pulling some massive con trick, or they're "bowing to social pressure" for some reason....)

 

[LondonJohn]

If the definitions are meaningless, which I (in most contexts) 100% agree they are, then this "It is vitally important that I get to define my side of it and you have to accept it" becomes even more pointless.

That really does seem to be where people think we have to land and pretend it makes sense.

"Gender doesn't mean anything, but it is still vitally important that we nod and agree with no resistance whenever anyone says what gender they are."

I don't buy it. People are not fighting this hard for recognition of a "meaningless" definitional distinctional.

Here's a ready reckoner. It sets out the UK Government's definitions of terms. I hope it will be of some educational value:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

 

[Manger Douse]

Lol

 

[TomB]

Indeed.

This is exactly why I floated it as an idea, together with a clear note of caution that many matters related to privacy and consent would have to be carefully considered.

As you say, there can be (and are) very strict laws in place governing how this sort of recorded footage can be viewed or passed on. There is also (I think) a person in each case who is ultimately responsible for the safeguarding of the footage: if the footage gets used illegally, it's that person who's prosecuted (whether or not it was he/she who actually misused the footage).

Nice to have a voice of reason against the blanket it-cannot-be-done-don't-be-so-ridiculous-no-woman-would-ever-use-a-communal-changing-room-ever-again crew

Not so much in the US:

1. Cameras Aren’t Allowed in Areas Where People Expect Privacy

If there’s an  expectation of privacy in an area, then you can’t have a camera. Settings with an expectation of privacy include but are not limited to commercial bathrooms and changing rooms. But it can be a gray area, as well; what about a bedroom? Certainly, the homeowner has an expectation of privacy in the bathroom, but other people, such as nannies or house cleaners, might not.

Bathrooms are nearly always considered an area where someone can expect privacy. Because of that, security cameras aren’t allowed in bathrooms. But security cameras can be allowed outside of bathrooms. If you’re concerned about someone taking merchandise into a bathroom or entering into your home’s bathroom, you can position cameras outside doors and windows in a way that they can’t see into the bathroom itself.

...

3. Security Cameras Can Be Anywhere with  Permission

On the other hand, it’s important to note that anyone can be filmed with permission. If you have a private bathroom and you and your spouse both know that a security camera is in that bathroom, you have eliminated the problem entirely. You and your spouse are the only ones who use that bathroom, and thus, you are allowed to put a camera in it.

But this assumes that no one else ever uses that bathroom and, more importantly, there is a  warning posted  somewhere on that bathroom. Should a house cleaner go into that bathroom, they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy because bathrooms can be reasonably expected to be private.

It would be an  interesting  case should a burglar enter or exit through that bathroom, as no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy  when they are trespassing.  This is a situation that could be argued either way.

Ultimately, positioning a security camera inside of a bathroom is a risk. It’s more likely to be illegal than not. In commercial areas, it’s often not legal full stop, even with warnings. In your own home, you may be able to get away with it… but you’re still going to be at risk if someone uses your bathroom without knowing that a security camera is in there. You can get around this issue by putting cameras  outside  of the bathroom and not pointed into the bathroom instead.

https://brinkshome.com/smartcenter/are-security-cameras-allowed-in-bathrooms-three-surprising-facts

This link reiterates the above, with a couple of exceptions. I'm unable to select text for a quote, but those exceptions allow for cameras pointed at common areas. The cameras must be fixed so they can't pan or zoom, and cannot capture private areas like stalls and cannot point at mirrors.
https://learncctv.com/are-security-cameras-allowed-in-bathrooms/

Also, recording conversations is illegal. Therefore CCTV cameras cannot record audio.

But again, you are asking people to trust some people that don't have a particularly trustworthy reputation.

As to the card swipe:
1) On a technical basis, it would mean installing a card-swipe system on every multi-stall bathroom which is network connected to a government database to verify which facilities that person may access. This is, of course, an added expense for businesses.

2) This would also require an active connection to a government database that determines which facilities the person who swiped the card has access to. Can you imagine the frustration when the link is down or slow as happens with credit card systems fairly frequently? Or when you find out at the most inconvenient time that the strip on your card is wiped? (I just had to replace my work ID which I use for building access for this reason.) Or when you discover your wallet has been lost/stolen?

Also, I await the YouTube videos when someone insists that the next person swipe themselves in rather than piggy back on the swipe by the person ahead of them.

3) This requires everyone have an ID that supports their access to facilities. Something you have said before that you find acceptable. (I actually agree here. It gives the basis for resolution if someone questions a person's presence in an area. And, admittedly, the card-swipe would validate for everyone equally, thus eliminating questions.) I'm not sure that this is acceptable to the trans-community, however, as it would require formal action before they can implement this portion of their transition and may require some sort of verification process.

4) How would access be assigned? Men (cis/trans) to the men's rooms, women (cis/trans) to the women's room, non-binary to (??). What about gender-fluid people? Do they get an all-access pass?

5) At what age will children be issued their ID? Most people in the US get an ID if/when they get their driver's license. People who don't drive can get an ID card (driver's license without driving privileges) at any age. But unless needed for boarding an airplane, I don't know that many children have them.

Are you advocating for everyone getting government ID? Hey, that could be useful for the people who want to tighten voting security. (Two birds, one stone. Or two debates, one flush.)

 

[TomB]

No. I've dismissed radical-feminist hysteria as hysteria.

I have, many times, entirely accepted the validity of females' concerns. Which...... is one of the reasons why I am suggesting possible ways in which females might be protected.

So tell me: what sums what up, again?

To give you credit, you are the only one, I think, who has presented ideas to improve security and verification of access to spaces.

I would also point out that some of the "radical feminist hysteria" is in direct response to some radical trans statements. Such as the idea that lesbians who are uninterested in trans-women are either trans-phobic or bigots. Or the idea that trans-women should be able to compete in female sporting events prior to receiving treatments that would mitigate the male competitive advantage.

The more radical ideas on both sides are the ones that get the press.

 

[theprestige]

Well that's very generous of you, and good to know. I guess we'll all just have to see the direction in which governments (and legislatures, importantly) are going to move in the real world, won't we?

*hand to ear* What's that, we are already seeing the direction in which many such governments and legislatures are moving?

Do you ever worry that the governments of the world might be wrong?

 

[Belz...]

And this is why I think the actual goal is transsexual segregation privileges. The only place "my gender is whatever I say it is" has any real value is when it's actually a proxy for sex, and you're actually saying you're entitled to cross some line of sex segregation.

That could be very accurate, making Rolfe's reservations quite justified.

 

[TomB]

There are tricks to hide one's genitals even when disrobing in the view of others cannot be avoided. Transgender individuals who wouldn't raise an eyebrow when entering, very likely have mastered that art. Which is why the suggestion by some that transmen should use the women's changing room is so unhelpful; no one will ever notice that they are not (biological) men.

This is true. And I think that many of the "anti-trans" side of this debate have little issue with trans-women who try to be discrete. (By discrete, I mean not standing around letting it all hang out...turn back, pants down, pants up, done.)

However, there are those who say that trans-people should not be expected to hide their bodies or practice discretion when in locker rooms. (I don't believe that this is a universal within the trans-community.)

But what is good behavior in a locker room? Informally, discretion probably counts for a lot. But if you make a law granting access, how do you mandate good behavior in a non-subjective manner? It's easier to tolerate (with "good" behavior) informally than it is to legislate something with definitions of bad behavior.

I'm not in favor of bathroom laws in either direction, because legal terms don't allow for situational flexibility. And the problem, in my view, is not trans-women, it's cis-men who are creepers that may exploit loopholes. If segregated spaces are based on gender identity (as opposed to sex) and gender identity is a matter of self-determination without any kind of verification or certification, then it is impossible to tell anyone that they are in the wrong locker room, let alone enforce it. Effectively, you have gender-neutral bathrooms. (Well, not quite, as most men will use the men's room and few women will use the men's. But it's an opening for those who want to cause trouble.)

A couple anecdotes regarding unisex bathrooms....

I have a friend who works for a Big Ten University in another state. (I'm not going to name it because it's not my story.) Last week he mentioned that the bathrooms in his building were going unisex. He was surprised how much push-back there has been from the females in his building, most of whom are pretty much as liberal as you can get.

In many places, single stall bathrooms have been changed to gender neutral. Which only makes sense, really. However, I know one place where the women's room was made unisex. The men's room, however, had a toilet and a urinal. Since there was a divider between, it was considered two-stall. So that's still the men's room. There is now a men's room and a unisex bathroom. There is no women's room.

 

[Belz...]

LOL at the incredible lack of understanding/recognition of the concept & reality of transgender identity.

It's a very good thing that the people who are charged with being the go-to expert authorities in this area (and they also hold important and influential roles in advising political bodies etc) do not share this antediluvian view of transgender identity. And nor, increasingly, do lawmakers. And I'm happy that my set of beliefs and observations in this area tallies closely with theirs.

If your views align with theirs you would be expected to be able to support these views. So far you have not. Your only argument so far is one that relies on a definition few people use.

Do you ever worry that the governments of the world might be wrong?

Governments often go with the wind. Currently there is a LOT of noise on the trans issue, so much that it's hard to get a clear picture of exactly what's being claimed or asked for. Given the volatile nature of the discussion, it's no surprise that governments act the way they do. But that doesn't mean that the aforementioned noise (or any portion of it) has any substance, support, or evidence.

 

[Belz...]

This is true. And I think that many of the "anti-trans" side of this debate have little issue with trans-women who try to be discrete. (By discrete, I mean not standing around letting it all hang out...turn back, pants down, pants up, done.)

I'm not convinced that there are any "anti-trans" people on this thread, mind you. I think we're basically in agreement on the more pressing issues and questions. It's when definitions lead to absurdities (real or imagined) or in more marginal cases (sports, etc.) that there are disagreements. Disagreement on one part of the issue does not imply disagreement on all of it. We're just not spending any time debating the stuff we agree on.