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

[TurkeysGhost]

It's better for the transperson, silly billy.

Whether or not it's better or worse for females is irrelevant. It matters only that it's better for the transgirl.

God forbid anyone give any consideration to those freaks

 

[Olmstead]

And yet, we still segregate prisons, and no one can come up with a reason why.

I mean, some people can come up with a reason, but those people are wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. You're not assessing risk in a proper manner.

Speaking as someone who assesses risk on a daily basis as part of my profession, Elaedith has assessed risk properly. Each male person in a female prison represents a significantly higher risk of sexual assault than any given female in that prison does.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And yet, we still segregate prisons, and no one can come up with a reason why.

I mean, some people can come up with a reason, but those people are wrong.

Say the quiet part out loud. Society accepts that rampant violence, including sexual violence, in men's facilities is acceptable, if not desirable. So long as it's contained, nobody cares about this massive human rights violation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Speaking as someone who assesses risk on a daily basis as part of my profession, Elaedith has assessed risk properly. Each male person in a female prison represents a significantly higher risk of sexual assault than any given female in that prison does.

The risk that trans women face in men's facilities does not merit concern?

 

[Paul2]

Each male person in a female prison represents a significantly higher risk of sexual assault than any given female in that prison does.

I agree, AFAIK.

The risk that trans women face in men's facilities does not merit concern?

It does merit concern, of course.

Don’t ask me for a solution to the inherent conundrum posed above, that’s beyond me, at least for the time being, but that doesn’t prevent acknowledging both EC’s point and ST’s point.

 

[Olmstead]

Say the quiet part out loud. Society accepts that rampant violence, including sexual violence, in men's facilities is acceptable, if not desirable. So long as it's contained, nobody cares about this massive human rights violation.

Unisex prisons sound like a bad idea in the most ideal of circumstances though. Large discrepancy in strength and individuals with nothing to lose. Transwomen being okay because there aren't enough of them to matter seems like a fallacy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Immaterial, unless/until you can show that this has translated into real-world increased rates of offending (most notably against ciswomen), as (crucially) either a direct or indirect result of the law having been put in place.

So... let me get this straight.

You've argued previously that it's essentially hysterical nonsense on the part of females to be concerned that predatory males will claim transgender identity in order to access females, or to get away with doing predatory things.

There's been a notable increase in the number of male sexual offenders claiming a transgender identity when they are arrested.

There have been cases of transgender identified males using their status to gain access to female spaces for malicious purposes.

But... you want a statistical analysis of the harm that's happening, and done in a special specific way or you won't consider it?

How many females in prison need to be raped or sexually assaulted by bepenised people for you to be satisfied? How many sex offenders need to claim transgender identities when arrested and get transferred to the female estate? How many female rape and domestic violence victims need to be harassed and terrorized by transgender identifying males?

Give me a number so I can work toward that. Because you've already been repeatedly given examples that you've dismissed out of hand. You either dismiss them because they're being catalogued by females*, or because you've decided they are 'outliers', or in some other way don't count.

At the moment, I don't believe that you are engaging in good faith. I don't believe that any amount of evidence or information will alter your belief in any way. I am fairly certain that you will just continue to dismiss any information that comes your way with some flimsy dodge or another.

But I would be quite happy to have you prove me wrong.

+++++++++++++++++

*One wonders if you would be so sanguine about dismissing damage and harm done to black people on the basis of it having been collated by black people or a black rights group. What do you think? Would you dismiss that as being from a biased source?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I agree, AFAIK.

It does merit concern, of course.

Don’t ask me for a solution to the inherent conundrum posed above, that’s beyond me, at least for the time being, but that doesn’t prevent acknowledging both EC’s point and ST’s point.

The obvious solution is to focus on bad behavior, like violence, and not categorically damn trans people and men for the sins of their peers.

 

[Meadmaker]

The risk that trans women face in men's facilities does not merit concern?

Oh, give it up. That's not even sincere as a rhetorical question.


However, you and I ,(and a lot of others) agree on one thing. It is a shame on America that people are in danger in men,'s prisons. That should not be the case.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Oh, give it up. That's not even sincere as a rhetorical question.


However, you and I ,(and a lot of others) agree on one thing. It is a shame on America that people are in danger in men,'s prisons. That should not be the case.

So is the primary problem that trans women are in women's facilities, or that unchecked violence in prisons is tolerated?

Seems a simple fact that our societies are not willing to pay the cost and take the effort to ensure the safety of those we incarcerate, either out of cheapness or (more likely I think) a sense of depraved vengeance on those we deem evil.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not the goal of all transgender people (of either biological sex) to present themselves as convincing visual embodiments of their trans gender. Some feel they wish to do so (and some of those arguably are less than successful in their endeavour). Some feel no wish to try to match their visual appearance to their trans gender. And yet others - perhaps comprising the single biggest subgroup - fall somewhere in-between: they want to present some of the outward visual characteristics that match their trans gender, but have no desire to even try to "pass" convincingly.

I suspect Izzard and Drummond may fall into this last subgroup. But regardless, every transgender person has the right to determine how/how much/whether they seek to alter their outward visual presentation wrt their transgender. And obviously this is an even more obvious observation when it comes to those who identify as non-binary transgender...

Alright, let's start here.

To be transgender in your description above requires no effort on the part of the transperson to pass in any way at all. It's a matter of how much they as individuals want to pass.

Now let's assume self-declaration as the sole measure of whether a person is transgender. Furthermore, let's assume that included under the heading of transgender are people who identify as gender fluid.

By this logic then, it would be entirely possible for a female person to identify as a man sometimes and as a woman at other times, based entirely on how they feel at the moment. Would you say this is correct?

 

[Meadmaker]

So is the primary problem that trans women are in women's facilities, or that unchecked violence in prisons is tolerated?

Seems a simple fact that our societies are not willing to pay the cost and take the effort to ensure the safety of those we incarcerate, either out of cheapness or (more likely I think) a sense of depraved vengeance on those we deem evil.

I think the primary problem is the latter. And I agree with your assessment in the second paragraph.

 

[Olmstead]

So is the primary problem that trans women are in women's facilities, or that unchecked violence in prisons is tolerated?

Seems a simple fact that our societies are not willing to pay the cost and take the effort to ensure the safety of those we incarcerate, either out of cheapness or (more likely I think) a sense of depraved vengeance on those we deem evil.

Well, there are much better prison systems than the "American model" out there, but I think all of them still put men and women into different facilities, even where violence has been minimised (based on a quick Google search). Do you think desegregating prisons would ever be a good idea? I don't.

 

[Elaedith]

So is the primary problem that trans women are in women's facilities, or that unchecked violence in prisons is tolerated?

These are not mutually exclusive problems. It is a problem for women to have males in their prison facilities for several reasons, including the fact that males (regardless of gender identity) are much more likely than females to be violent or sexual offenders, and very few women prisoners are violent or sexual offenders, therefore these are totally different populations (high risk and low risk prisoners are usually kept separate) and women's prisons are therefore low security.

Seems a simple fact that our societies are not willing to pay the cost and take the effort to ensure the safety of those we incarcerate, either out of cheapness or (more likely I think) a sense of depraved vengeance on those we deem evil.

That is true, but a separate issue. You don't solve the problem of violence in men's prisons by taking a subset of male prisoners who have the same or higher risk offending patterns* as other male prisoners and placing them in a lower security prison with female prisoners.

*According to MoJ stats, 58.9% of transwoman without a GRC in prison in the UK are sex offenders compared to 16.8% of men in prison, and 61.8% of these offences amongst male prisoners who identified as transgender were rape or attempted rape (ie the most serious and violent sexual offences). However, I am not assuming that transwoman are inherently more likely to be violent sex offenders than other males, because the stats relate only to those who had received a case management conference. However, only those receiving case management would be eligible for transfer to a women's prison.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That would not be the case if US college sport were deemed to be elite-level (as I believe it ought to be) and thus barred to transgender students seeking to represent their trans gender (as I believe should be the case when it comes to elite-level sport).

#3451, #3474 and #3477 outline my own thinking on this whole matter.

You are incorrect, and this is easily demonstrable with a couple of illustrative scenarios.

Consider two track teams, each of which is allowed five members. The Happy Badgers have five females who run the 100 meter, at 11.5, 11.6, 12.6, 12.8, and 12.9. The Angry Hummingbirds have one male transgirl and four females, who run the 100 meters at 10.9, 11.7, 12.5, 13.1, and 12.2. The male transgirl runs the 10.9. Who places gold, silver, and bronze in that competition? Only the podium finisher in that regional competition move on to the state competition.

Consider a the Affable Oaks track team. During try-outs, they had 10 females and two males try out. The two males ran times of 10.8 and 10.7. The females ran times in the mid to high 11s. With only five places on the team, both male transgirls get spots, and then three of the female students get spots, with times at 11.5, 11.6, and 11.7. The next female down the line, with a time of 11.8, doesn't make the team at all. That female would have been a strong contender in the competition in the prior scenario, but now they don't ever get the opportunity to compete at all.

For every male transgirl that is allowed to compete on the female team, female athletes are denied positions on teams, lose lower level competitions, and do not progress to advanced competitions - the very competitions that gain them access to scholarships and notice.

Consider that the worlds absolute best female competitors in track and field are routinely and completely out-performed by high-school aged males.
https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/

 

[theprestige]

God forbid anyone give any consideration to those freaks

Most of us are, in fact, giving tons of consideration to transsexuals. A lot of this discussion has been around the very few but important areas where it seems necessary to give due consideration to the needs and wants and concerns of both transwomen and women.

Most of us agree that transwomen are humans with human rights and valid concerns. Most of us agree that their identity should be recognized and respected, and their needs should be accommodated wherever reasonable.

Most of us agree that in cases where sex segregation is important, the conventional wisdom of self-ID and unquestioning tolerance is insufficient to come up with a good solution to what is a complex problem.

Some of us - me, for example - have come to the provisional conclusion that there are some situations where sex segregation is necessary, and that therefore biological realities must take priority over self-identification. I recognize this sucks for (some) transsexuals. Unfortunately I can't see how to reconcile this with the general principles of trans acceptance and accommodation that I believe in.

I guess what I'm looking for is a "grand unified theory" that can reconcile these two things. I've been hoping that the more vocal and engaged trans-activists participating here can help us figure out such a theory. Or at least agree on some sort of public policy position that makes the best of the problem.

Instead all I get is dodges, name-calling, and a slew of rhetorical fallacies.

So on the one hand, you have me, who gives plenty of consideration to transsexuals, but cannot see how that solves the problem of sex segregation in sports. Especially if I also give consideration to women. And on the other hand I have you, whose approach to the gordian knot seems to be to cut through it by simply not considering women at all.

I wish there was a way to reset this conversation, you and I, and start over in a spirit of cooperation on one of the few remaining (hard) problems of trans acceptance and inclusion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have about as much standing to critique here as cis women have to critique the concerns that trans people have about their own safety and well being. Strange that in all these conversations about the uniquely high risk that women face, there's no mention of the overwhelming data that shows trans people face even more sexual violence, relationship abuse, social stigma, and mental health problems. I guess only some victims matter.

Transgender prostitutes in Brazil face higher levels of sexual violence.

I'd also like to take a moment and point out that the risk to those transwomen comes from... hold your breath... MALES.

And your proposed solution to the risk to transwomen from males is to subject females to additional increased risk from males.

Why do transwomen need to use the female restroom? Because if they don't, they're at risk from males. Allowing transwomen to use the female restrooms, however, also grants access to females for even more males. Same logic goes for prisons, locker rooms, shelters, etc.

Why should females have to face materially increased risk from males in order to protect some males from other males? Why do you not care at all about the risk to those females?

 

[theprestige]

The risk that trans women face in men's facilities does not merit concern?

It does. But I don't think that concern can be addressed by simply transferring the risk to a different group of people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Now onto my definitions/distinctions (which, as I say, correspond to the definitions/distinctions used by those official public bodies). I use the terms "male" and "female" to refer to the immutable biological sex of a person. And I use "man" and "woman" to refer to the gender identity of a person. This therefore means that (for example) it's possible for someone to be a female who's a man; or for someone to be a male who's neither a man nor a woman.

This is consistent with the definitions that I have consistently used throughout this thread.

So finally, to answer your question: under my definitions/distinctions, a declaration of transgender identity does not turn a female person into a male person.

Okay, we're making progress.

Next question: Is gender identity more valid than sex, less valid than sex, equally as valid as sex, or a mix thereof depending on situation?