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

[The Atheist]

I think I might have to have a lie down.

For the first time in my life, I support a decision by a Republican Governor, and it's the one from Florida, of all places:

“In Florida, girls are going to play girls sports and boys are going to play boys sports,” Gov. Ron DeSantis said as he signed the bill into law at a Christian academy in Jacksonville. “We’re going to make sure that that’s the reality.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/flor...gislation-desantis_n_60b67104e4b04ddf13f36d8b

 

[gnome]

That's why I asked earlier how this concept was playing out in cultures that were more open about nudity, public bathing, etc.

This is a huge point here I think. In the US we don't need to tackle this like it's the first time anyone's ever had to deal with the problem. In countries that have attempted to accommodate gender identity as best as they can, what practices have emerged? Who's already fought these fights and where did it wind up?

 

[Matthew Best]

There's an article in today's BBC News about Valentina Petrillo, a trans woman athlete hoping to compete in the Paralympics (she's visually impaired) for Italy this year. She's 47 years old, and ran her last race as a male in February 2020, and in her first official race as a woman last September, she managed to win gold in the 100m, 200m and 400m T12 category at the Italian Paralympics Championship.

She has also competed (and beat) non-Paralympic female athletes, as here:

"Her physical superiority is so evident as to make competition unfair," says Fausta Quilleri, a lawyer from Brescia and a runner in the over-35s "Master" category, arguing that the IOC's exclusive focus on testosterone "makes no sense" when physique is also a factor.

Petrillo understands this reaction. "I asked myself, 'Valentina, if you were a biological woman and had a Valentina, a trans, racing against you, how would you feel?' And I gave myself answers - astonishment, confusion and doubt. I would have those things as a woman. So I believe these doubts and questions are legitimate."

 

[angrysoba]

There's an article in today's BBC News about Valentina Petrillo, a trans woman athlete hoping to compete in the Paralympics (she's visually impaired) for Italy this year. She's 47 years old, and ran her last race as a male in February 2020, and in her first official race as a woman last September, she managed to win gold in the 100m, 200m and 400m T12 category at the Italian Paralympics Championship.

She has also competed (and beat) non-Paralympic female athletes, as here:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/xpCyFSe.png[/qimg]

"Her physical superiority is so evident as to make competition unfair," says Fausta Quilleri, a lawyer from Brescia and a runner in the over-35s "Master" category, arguing that the IOC's exclusive focus on testosterone "makes no sense" when physique is also a factor.

Petrillo understands this reaction. "I asked myself, 'Valentina, if you were a biological woman and had a Valentina, a trans, racing against you, how would you feel?' And I gave myself answers - astonishment, confusion and doubt. I would have those things as a woman. So I believe these doubts and questions are legitimate."

I don't really think there is any way of avoiding it. Someone who is 47 and competed for 46 years as a man, and is now going to compete as a woman, is far and away going to have a massive advantage.

Here are some weighlifters talking about Laurel Hubbard.

They point out that when competing as a man (in junior categories) Hubbard's numbers were "good" but far from elite. Now, as a 30-something athlete in the women's category, Hubbard has enormous advantages with frame, hands, bones, and the type of myonculei advantages that have come from strength training as a man.

Hubbard probably still won't win, but is taking the place of an elite female athelte through unfair means.

 

[The Atheist]

Here are some weighlifters talking about Laurel Hubbard.

And here are 43 very high-profile New Zealand sportspeople who have penned an open letter to our government on the question of trans athletes in sports:

We share unequivocal support for universal participation in sport for well-established benefits to mental and physical health, as much as we celebrate the spirit of inclusivity espoused by the collective of the Rainbow Community.

However, the inclusion of trans women athletes, specifically those who have transitioned after puberty, raises issues of fairness and safety in all sport. And in this context, we believe an important principle of women’s rights has been disregarded in the draft principles.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/women...o-grant-robertson-over-transgender-guidelines

 

[Aber]

Appeal judgement in the Forstater case:

A woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex has won an appeal against an employment tribunal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579

Full judgement:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

A philosophical belief would only be excluded for failing to satisfy Grainger V if it was the kind of belief the expression of which would be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism and thereby liable to be excluded from the protection of rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by virtue of Article 17 thereof. The Claimant’s gender-critical beliefs, which were widely shared, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons, clearly did not fall into that category. The claimant’s belief, whilst offensive to some, and UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ notwithstanding its potential to result in the harassment of trans persons in some circumstances, fell within the protection under Article 9(1), ECHR and therefore within s.10, EqA.

 

[Elaedith]

Maya Forstater wins her appeal.

Full judgement here.

108. 'The fact that the Claimant did not share the gender identity belief is enough in itself to qualify for protection. If a person, A, is treated less favourably by her employer, B, because of A’s failure to profess support for B’s gender identity belief then that could amount to unlawful discrimination because of a lack of belief.'

111. 'Most fundamentally, the Claimant’s belief does not get anywhere near to approaching the kind of belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism that would warrant the application of Article 17.'

112. 'In the present case, there are two further factors which, upon analysis, are wholly at odds with the view that the belief is not one worthy of respect in a democratic society.'

113. 'First, there is the evidence that the gender-critical belief is not unique to the Claimant, but is widely shared, including amongst respected academics'

114. 'Second, the Claimant’s belief that sex is immutable and binary is, as the Tribunal itself correctly concluded, consistent with the law: see para 83'

 

[Darat]

Good.

Would recommend before folk comment on it to read the full judgement, or if one can't be bothered at least read page 3 and 4 rather than relying on media reports of the appeal decision.

 

[d4m10n]

What ought to happen when a public employee refuses to use preferred pronouns?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...olicy-must-reinstated-judge-rules/7610529002/

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hooray for Maya!

 

[The Atheist]

Hooray for Maya!

Yeah, but let's not lose sight of the important thing in all this.

One of the original statements that led to her firing:

I don’t think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like “trans-women are women"

She's been reading my thread!

And now we have judicial confirmation that it's an acceptable position to take, and anyone having a problem with it can shut up.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, but let's not lose sight of the important thing in all this.

One of the original statements that led to her firing:



She's been reading my thread!

And now we have judicial confirmation that it's an acceptable position to take, and anyone having a problem with it can shut up.

It is anything but that black and white.

As ever the circumstances will determine whether it is OK or not. Read page 3 and 4 of the judgment.

 

[Puppycow]

In today's news:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/l...g-gender-discussion/ar-BB1gPBYr?ocid=msedgdhp

Law student being investigated for saying that women have vaginas and are physically weaker than men. (From Scotland)

Follow-up:

Abertay University student Lisa Keogh cleared after being investigated for saying women have vaginas

"I know the University has a duty to investigate all complaints, but to draw this process out for two months while I was taking my final exams was needlessly cruel.

“The University should put a process in place that will enable it to judge what complaints need to be investigated and which ones can be dismissed immediately because they’re vexatious and politically motivated.

I wonder why the investigation took two months to complete?

Just par for the course because it's a bureaucratic process?

 

[The Atheist]

It is anything but that black and white.

As ever the circumstances will determine whether it is OK or not. Read page 3 and 4 of the judgment.

I read the whole thing, and if you genuinely take that position as a philosophical view, it's acceptable.

 

[Ziggurat]

And now we have judicial confirmation that it's an acceptable position to take, and anyone having a problem with it can shut up.

If that’s your takeaway from the ruling, you’re missing the mark by a lot. The ruling didn’t tell anyone to shut up. You are on the side of people trying to shut others up, not the court.

But yes, as a matter of fact, it very much is an acceptable position to take.

 

[Darat]

I read the whole thing, and if you genuinely take that position as a philosophical view, it's acceptable.

That's a misunderstanding, and page 3 does try to explain it.

In summary yes it may be considered part of a philosophical belief in terms of the equality act and therefore under the equality act it may not be used to discriminate against you. However, that "protection" against being discriminated against in employment does not give you carte blanche. For example, such a view may if expressed in a workplace form part of harassment against a trans person and therefore could still be grounds for action against you. For instance, if someone changed their name from Samantha to Samuel and you refused to call them Samuel because of your beliefs that a woman cannot become a man you could still be disciplined for that.

From the ruling:

This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.​

All the ruling did was correct a legally wrong decision as to what constitutes an acceptable philosophical belief. It was pretty much a certainty to happen as it follows the same type of decision there was against the League Against Cruel Sports and a vegan employee a year ago.

It's a good judgement in my mind because it - like all the recent judgements - supports our right to freedom of expression and reaffirms that the equality act covers discrimination against people - whether they are trans or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also relevant...

A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities

Gender-critical academics hope that as more of them speak out, others who share their concerns but were afraid to express them will feel emboldened. When Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at Sussex University and one of Britain’s most prominent gender-critical academics, was given a government award for services to education last December, hundreds of academics from around the world signed an open letter denouncing her. More than 400 signed a counter letter in her defence. But many people, she says, prefer to express their support privately.

Universities will no doubt watch how the debate evolves outside academia, especially in the courts. The dangers of eroding free speech are becoming increasingly apparent as judges rule on matters from the medical treatment of trans-identifying children to people who have been sacked after being accused of transphobia. If Maya Forstater, a British researcher who lost her job because of her gender-critical views, wins her appeal against the ruling of an employment tribunal that this was lawful, universities may become quicker to defend their gender-critical employees.

Regulation may also play a part. In February the British government announced proposals to strengthen academic freedom at universities, including the appointment of a free-speech champion. Some (though not all) gender-critical academics welcome the idea. In America lawsuits invoking free speech may make a difference. But it would be better if universities, which owe their success to a tradition of dissent and debate, did in fact defend it.

 

[d4m10n]

Question for EC (or whomever)

If some particular item of clothing or accessory (e.g. purses, skirts, nail polish) is used by one sex vastly more than the other, does it not inevitably become gendered as a result?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Question for EC (or whomever)

If some particular item of clothing or accessory (e.g. purses, skirts, nail polish) is used by one sex vastly more than the other, does it not inevitably become gendered as a result?

No, not really. It may become associated with one sex or the other... but being 'gendered' in this context implies that there is a social expectation of conformity.

So, sure, it might be the case that females use nail polish more than males do. And that sex-based association will be present as a result. Nail polish is only 'gendered' however, if males face social disapproval for wearing nail polish, or if females face social disapproval for failing to wear polish.

Twenty years ago, it was practically unthinkable for a female to have unshaven legs or armpits... and it was equally unthinkable for males to have any part of their bodies aside from their faces shaved. That is a gendered expectation with respect to body hair. We seem to be gradually moving away from that, and it's not uncommon for males to "manscape" in a variety of ways now. Not all the way there, but moving in the right direction.

 

[Belz...]

I've had time to put a little more thought into an issue I talked about earlier: that the crux of the disagreement here comes from definitions.

I think most people over 40 understand "woman" to mean "adult human female" because that's how the word has historically being understood, at least in English and western languages. So gender and sex are, to them, very closely related. In fact the former is entirely included in the latter. So the idea that you could "identify" as something else is bizarre. But if "trans person" is defined as someone with a specific type of body dysphoria, then the whole thing makes sense, just not the idea of pronouns and such.

The other view stems from the idea that "gender" means "gender roles" i.e. the expectations of a specific society with regards to a sex. Now, it doesn't matter if one agrees with the conflation for now. If one takes that view, then "identify as a woman" simply means "has behaviours and ways that are more associated with females in this society". Suddenly dysphoria is no longer required for a person to be "trans" and it all makes sense again. In fact, even the new pronouns make sense, as do "nonbinaries", since you might not fit with any set of sex-based expectations. Of course that doesn't solve the question of restrooms, for instance, until one decides whether the "men" restrooms are really "male" restrooms or not, etc. But at least it's a step towards understanding the other side of the conversation.

For myself, I don't think there's a need to interpret "gender" as "gender roles" since the latter does the job of expressing that idea quite well. Of course that means trans men aren't actual men and that someone isn't "trans" merely because of identification; it requires the dysphoria. And it makes nonsense out of the new pronouns, but then I don't think those are actual issues. More important are recognising dysphoria as an important issue, and treating those with the condition with respect and dignity, protecting them against discrimination and so on. And as I stated before I am in favour of government financial aid for the transition process, which ostensibly solves the dysphoria.

However, there might be a compelling reason to make the terms change. We still need to have the discussion for restroms and sports and such regardless, but at least we can have that discussion using the same definitions, even if only for the sake of that conversation.

One way or another, mind you, it's not just how one feels that would determine their "gender", but how they act. I'm open to the idea, but I don't think there's any concept for "feeling" like a particular gender, especially since gender has never been defined as how one feels, nor does anyone know how anyone else feels to make the determination.