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

[Emily's Cat]

What's is very telling about these situations is the utter lack of curiosity by the trans exclusionists to explore or even consider any other option but exclusion.

This is false, in many ways. To begin with, you insist upon labeling anyone who disagrees with your ideology as a "trans-exclusionist" regardless of whether that description fits or not.

Furthermore, we have discussed and proposed multiple options on almost every topic. The views have ranged from "use whatever bathroom you want to" to "if you have the equipment of the opposite sex, keep it covered or use a family/neutral changing room out of respect" to "if you have the equipment of the opposite sex, you go to the prison of the opposite sex".

Those are my opinions, which I've presented multiple times. I'm open to many possible solutions for mere restrooms. I'm mostly concerned with basic safety and respect in public locker and changing rooms, as well as making sure that children are taken into consideration. In prisons, my main concern is with the safety of the prisoners who are not being given a choice about the matter. A transgender identified male who has had genital surgery should not, in my opinion, be barred from the female prison.

But I'm open to discussion about any of those opinions, and if a better and more reasonable solution is presented, I'll happily consider it.

On the contrary, it seems that your position has been that the only acceptable solution is complete capitulation to the demands of trans activists, with absolutely no care or empathy for the negative effects on other people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a false equivalence

Edited by xjx388: 

Removed moderated content

I provided every possible combination of the two, which makes it definitively NOT a false equivalence.

And my answer to it is as follows: 1) both are valid; 2) both are equally valid; 3) each is applicable in different situations and contexts.

It seems like that would fall into the last category: a mix thereof depending on situation.

Which of those characteristics takes precedence for validity in the context of a locker room? Is sex class, as a valid protected characteristic, of higher precedence than gender identity, given that the law in the UK allows segregation on the basis of sex in appropriate situations? Or is gender identity as a valid claimed characteristic (Self-ID is still not the law in the UK) of higher precedence than sex?

When those two characteristics are in conflict, what is your personal position as a resident of the UK as well as a lawyer?

Shall I perhaps aim some direct questions at you for an answer next time round?

Feel free. Please make them clear, direct, and without embedded presumptions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The thing is: as we sit here in 2021, the rights of transgender people are objectively significantly less than the rights of ciswomen (though thankfully, progressive scientists, legislatures and courts are increasingly closing that gap in many liberal democracies).

Can you elaborate? Which rights to transgender people lack, and which are objectively significantly less?

Throughout six volumes of this thread, this question has been asked, and it has been dodged. Activists keep claiming that transgender people's rights are being denied... but they don't seem able to specify what rights those are.

Please, present your understanding of the lacking rights, for clarity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think transwomen aren't exempted from selective service registration (ie, the draft). That may soon change, though, so... progress?

My preference would be to remove the privilege of females to not be drafted. Either selective service applies to all citizens of eligible age, with considerations for circumstances at the time the draft is enacted... or eliminate selective service altogether.

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't stand to reason that an improvement in transgender rights necessarily implies (or entails) a commensurate deterioration in ciswomen's rights. As I've indicated in the matter of transwomen in women's prisons, for example, the data from England&Wales indicate clearly that ciswoman prisoners actually have far, far more to fear from other ciswoman prisoners than from transwoman prisoners.

Does it, though?

Your analysis seems to treat sexual assaults against female prisoners as being exclusively from other prisoners. That is very unlikely. Prisoners, particularly female prisoners, can also be sexually assaulted by guards.

Your analysis is also ignoring the difference between absolute risk and marginal risk. Since we're considering changes in policy, marginal risk (ie, the change in risk that would accompany a change in policy) is what matters, not absolute risk.

And lastly, of course, absolute risk is also different than risk per exposure (which is more closely linked to marginal risk). Cows are more dangerous than great white sharks, on an absolute scale. But I would still much rather be stuck in a barn with a cow than in a pool with a great white. Can you figure out why?

It's also a highly germane point that transwoman prisoners are very carefully vetted before being allowed to be placed in women's prisons, and carefully monitored once they're there - and I'd suspect that this sort of risk-reduction (to cis-woman prisoners) strategy will only improve much further, as prison officials learn and understand more and more about the most effective strategies.

I have no confidence that prison vetting will improve, and fully expect it to degrade if current trends in accepting self-identification continue.

 

[d4m10n]

Maybe stop those men from hitting each other?

I can think of one way to make that happen, but you're really not going to like it.

My preference would be to remove the privilege of females to not be drafted.

I happened to be in basic training when my Selective Service paperwork came through. The women my age (just over 18) didn't get the same paperwork in their mailboxes which seemed manifestly unfair at the time, especially since we were all already in uniform. Some of those adult human females would go on to fly goddamn fighter jets, yet they weren't considered worthy of registration.

 

[lionking]

You'll have to explain, for each and every prison separately, why you think this is a problem. Prison conditions vary widely, and you have to consider those conditions.

Did you know that the Netherlands has recently housed ordinary non-transgender males in a women's prison?

Maybe stop those men from hitting each other?
If the institutions set aside to house those who readily resort to violence, does not stop those from resorting to violence, you have a systemic failure of those institutions.

“Hitting” is another word for “tackling”. It’s an integral part of rugby and women have been getting hurt when tackled by transwomen.

 

[deadrose]

That gatekeeping served to ensure that the patient was not making a decision they would regret, was not harming themselves physically or mentally, and that they didn't present a risk to other people.

The gatekeeping also required (depending on the doctor) over-projection of femininity (or masculinity as the case may be). If you weren't wearing dresses, stockings, heels, a wig, and full makeup, you didn't actually want to be a woman. And you had to do that for 1-2 years, attempting to use public facilities of your stated gender, before they would consider allowing any changes. If you were lucky, your doctor might allow you to take some hormones, or write you a letter you could use to explain why your presenting gender & ID didn't match. It had no legal standing though.

This is why the gatekeeping was stopped, because it put transgender people at the mercy of their local doctors and psychiatrists. Some took health risks by getting black-market hormones because they couldn't get them from a health provider. A few went through the performative drag and got their doctors' permission. Many more just killed themselves.

 

[d4m10n]

A few went through the performative drag and got their doctors' permission. Many more just killed themselves.

Many more trans people killed themselves than got prescriptions for HRT? Where are these data coming from, as in what nation and time period.

 

[theprestige]

The gatekeeping also required (depending on the doctor) over-projection of femininity (or masculinity as the case may be). If you weren't wearing dresses, stockings, heels, a wig, and full makeup, you didn't actually want to be a woman.

Which brings us back around to the question of what does "be a woman" actually mean?

It doesn't mean perform an interpretation of the social construct of womanhood. That's an option, not a requirement. It doesn't mean be treated like a woman. That's either essentially meaningless, or ridiculously sexist.

As far as I can tell, being a woman boils down to two things: Being perceived as female even if your primary and secondary sexual characteristics all code as male (because you're male), and being allowed to do things traditionally reserved for females (competition in women's sports leagues, incarceration in women's prisons, etc.)

Take away the few things that are reserved for females, and there's no problem. Dress how you want. Use whatever pronouns you want. And to hell with anyone who objects.

 

[d4m10n]

Which brings us back around to the question of what does "be a woman" actually mean?

It doesn't mean perform an interpretation of the social construct of womanhood. That's an option, not a requirement. It doesn't mean be treated like a woman. That's either essentially meaningless, or ridiculously sexist.

If we define the class "woman" as "humans who are perceived to be female and treated accordingly in everyday social interactions" then it is neither meaningless or (necessarily) sexist. There is nothing sexist, for example, in directing someone to the women's bathroom / changing room / clothing area in a department store.

 

[theprestige]

If we define the class "woman" as "humans who are perceived to be female and treated accordingly in everyday social interactions" then it is neither meaningless or (necessarily) sexist. There is nothing sexist, for example, in directing someone to the women's bathroom / changing room / clothing area in a department store.

Sending someone to the women's clothing department because they look female is probably kinda sexist.

Sending someone to the women's restroom is more along the lines of treating them as female, which is different.

 

[d4m10n]

Sending someone to the women's clothing department because they look female is probably kinda sexist.

I guess...? I mean, it's a binary choice. Only one of those departments has underpants with a Y-front.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sending someone to the women's clothing department because they look female is probably kinda sexist.

Clothing is different than a restroom, because people shop for other people, not just themselves. A woman who never wears pants may still have cause to buy pants. If I were working in a department store, if someone asked where the clothing department was, I would either ask which one, or I would give directions to multiple ones. And that’s not because of the sex or gender of the person asking.

 

[Elaedith]

Another case of alleged misconduct by the Tavistock Gender Identity Development service against a whistleblower comes before the Employment Tribunal in a few weeks. I don't know a lot about this one but it will be interesting to see if any new information comes to light.

Gender identity clinic whistleblower wins damages for ‘vilification’.

An employment tribunal has awarded Sonia Appleby £20,000 in damages for vilification and reputational damage after she raised concerns about child safeguarding in the gender identity development service.

Sonia Appleby is still child safeguarding lead for the Tavistock and Portman Trust. It takes guts to sue your employers while still working for them.

Appleby made protected disclosures, "including about “challenges” at GIDS with what she described as “rogue medics and the political expectations of the national service”, as well as splits within the team".

Also giving evidence in this case were some of the 35 clinicians who have resigned from the Trust in the past few years.

 

[theprestige]

Also giving evidence in this case were some of the 35 clinicians who have resigned from the Trust in the past few years.

Unless the trust's physician population numbers in the tens of thousands, 35 resignations who are also willing to testify seems like a lot for a healthy, well-managed organization.

 

[Olmstead]

[...]

Take away the few things that are reserved for females, and there's no problem. Dress how you want. Use whatever pronouns you want. And to hell with anyone who objects.

That's not actually how society works though. Without the transgender momevent, men couldn't "dress like women" without serious negative consequences.

 

[theprestige]

That's not actually how society works though. Without the transgender momevent, men couldn't "dress like women" without serious negative consequences.

It's where we're at today, and in this thread. As a matter of principle, and of trans acceptance, we're all already on the same page about cross-dressing and other trans-normative social expressions. Nobody here is questioning the transcendence of sex segregation in sports because of transphobia.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not so much anymore! Scotland, Canada, and several US States now allow some male people to be housed in female prisons, as long as they know the special password.

"So long as they know the special password" eh?

Edited by xjx388: 

<SNIP> Rule 12

ETA: Those jurisdictions now allow some transwomen (note: "-women") to be housed in women's prisons, as long as a) they identify as transwomen, b) they are carefully screened before being allowed to be housed in women's prisons, and c) they are carefully monitored once they have been housed in women's prisons.

 

[LondonJohn]

For clarity, the data IIRC shows that they are far more at risk from each individual transwomen prisoner, than each individual ciswomen prisoner (risk averaged across those populations).

This means that adding a transwomen prisoner to the population increases the risk.



My comment above remains true, even when the transwomen prisoners have been carefully selected.



Based on the data, the most effective strategy to reduce risk for ciswomen prisoners is not to transfer in any transwomen prisoners.

You're not properly/correctly assessing risk wrt this matter. Please read my explanatory post on this.


(As a hint though: people who swim in the sea off Florida are far, far more likely to die from medically-induced drowning than from being fatally injured by a shark)


ETA: And as I also mentioned earlier, I don't think it's illogical to suppose that prison authorities will get much better over time at things like the risk-profile analysis of transwomen prisoners, and the management of those transwomen prisoners who are allowed to be housed within women's prisons. This is an extremely new circumstance for the prison authorities to be dealing with, and it wouldn't be surprising to me if, at the beginning, things might have been unfortunately slightly suboptimal.