Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
But you're still ignoring the big gorilla in the room.


You are right about communal showers. No one likes them. No one ever liked them. We grew up with them, but if we had been given a choice, we wouldn't have used them. (Although the coercion was pretty minimal. I can't recall anyone ever getting a detention for not showering. I know there were days when I didn't shower after gym class because I was running late or some variant. Exception: Badminton. If we played badminton, I was drenched with sweat and I wouldn't have cared if I was ten minutes late to my next class, where I had a test.)

But....unless you have individual stalls where you can dress and undress for gym class, and unless there is an enclosed space where you can take off all your clothes within the same enclosed space that holds the shower, but where the clothes remain dry, there is going to be circumstances where you are seen with less clothing than you would normally be seen in. You still have to walk to and from the shower. And forget the shower for a moment. You still have to change into gym clothes.

In the video that started the conversation where I said you were ignoring reality, there were no showers involved. In order to solve that problem with the "greater privacy" approach, you have to create individual changing stalls, quite independent of showering. And in that case, kids can't decide to opt out of showering, or opt out of changing clothes. You've moved the goalposts again. The video was of a girl describing her experiences changing clothes for gym class, and you switched over to showering.

The "greater privacy" option is no real option. It's either prohibitively expensive, or you lose a lot of time, or both. It's the "Let them eat cake" solution.
Click to expand...

I example I cited with showers was simply demonstrating the point that personal privacy is absolutely a solution to this conflict. The unused showers are a clear example of students demonstrating a strong preference for personal privacy.

I imagine many students would opt not to strip naked in front of their peers if they had the option. When I was in high school students refusing to bring gym clothes to change into was a constant minor discipline issue, overcome only by the threat of failing the course. Nobody used the showers because it was not compulsory.

You can say it's not possible or unrealistic if you like. The story I cited explicitly mentions that private changing stalls were being installed. It costs money, sure, but it's probably cheaper than a sexual harassment lawsuit from the parent of a student who feels the school failed in their duty to provide a safe learning environment.

The school district managed to find a solution once trans exclusion was not longer an option (thanks to changes in state law).
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems like a false choice. <same old dodge snipped>
Click to expand...

Not a false choice at all. The actions and reactions of the people involved have to be evaluated in the context of the circumstances in which the incident occurs. Not in the context of some other circumstances that you imagine would free you from having to make these evaluations.
 
The core issue with solutions such as what Kern County has offered for more privacy is that utility is compromised.

The locker itself, where street clothes will be kept, is not in the private space. The private space is the same area as the shower, so what do you do with your clothes when showering, and how do you get to and from the shower if you are taking a shower? Will the floor be fully drained when using it and not taking a shower? Or will people end up with wet socks? Meanwhile, the number of private changing spaces is smaller than the number of students who need to use them, so delays are inevitable.

In short, the locker rooms will offer more privacy, but with extra cost and decreased function. Exercise time will be taken away from gym class to accommodate the extra time required for changing clothes and showering.


Maybe that's a good tradeoff. Maybe you think it's worth it. Fair enough. That's a valid opinion.

What is not a valid opinion is to pretend that there is no loss of function or efficiency by going to the different locker room design.
 
Meadmaker said:
The core issue with solutions such as what Kern County has offered for more privacy is that utility is compromised.

The locker itself, where street clothes will be kept, is not in the private space. The private space is the same area as the shower, so what do you do with your clothes when showering, and how do you get to and from the shower if you are taking a shower? Will the floor be fully drained when using it and not taking a shower? Or will people end up with wet socks? Meanwhile, the number of private changing spaces is smaller than the number of students who need to use them, so delays are inevitable.

In short, the locker rooms will offer more privacy, but with extra cost and decreased function. Exercise time will be taken away from gym class to accommodate the extra time required for changing clothes and showering.


Maybe that's a good tradeoff. Maybe you think it's worth it. Fair enough. That's a valid opinion.

What is not a valid opinion is to pretend that there is no loss of function or efficiency by going to the different locker room design.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you think the primary "function" of these spaces is.

Will it take longer for people to change using stalls rather than stripping wherever there's standing space? Yes.

These parents who are very concerned about modesty and privacy seem to think there are other utility concerns beyond how long it takes people to change their clothes.

I never denied that it might take a bit longer. It certainly will cost money to retrofit existing spaces or more money to build new facilities with better privacy.

Given that it's unlikely that parents are going to stop caring about such intimate privacy concerns for their children anytime soon, decisions to expend resources for this seems an easy ask.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Let's back the truck up a bit here. I don't think anyone in this thread is "against the whole idea of transwomen". Most of us are well aware that people with gender dysphoria do indeed exist. And we almost universally believe that such people should *not* be subject to harassment or abuse, should not be exclude from the basic structures of society, economics, and politics. The should have non-discriminatory access to employment, housing, and medical care.

What many of us *actually* object to is the dogmatic demand that transwomen be considered to be synonymous with female humans, and thus be counted as female humans in all cases - on the basis of their declaration alone.

I have several transgender family and friends. I love them, I respect them. I'm happy to accommodate them in most situations. If my transwoman niece uses the female restroom at a restaurant, I don't care, and I don't bat an eye. They are respectful and considerate of females. But we have also had pretty serious discussions about things like prison arrangements. I suppose I'm lucky that my nibling agrees that it is unjust and unsafe to house male-bodied people with penises in the female prison ward with females. And given that my nibling is 6 feet tall with a size 13 shoe... I'm also happy that they also think that as a general rule, male people should not compete against females in sports, regardless of how they identify.

To reiterate: Nobody denies the existence of transgender people. Nobody wants to eliminate or eradicate them. Nobody wants them to be harmed or abused. Nobody is actually "anti-trans".

Some of us, however, think that sex is important, and real, and a source of abuse, oppression, and disparity for females. And we would like to see sex retain it's role in society, and in single-sex spaces, and in statistical reporting.
Click to expand...

After reading more of this thread, I apologize for jumping the gun once again.

(BTW: thank you for your kind words about Shadow. It was much appreciated)
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Depends on what you think the primary "function" of these spaces is.

Will it take longer for people to change using stalls rather than stripping wherever there's standing space? Yes.

These parents who are very concerned about modesty and privacy seem to think there are other utility concerns beyond how long it takes people to change their clothes.

I never denied that it might take a bit longer. It certainly will cost money to retrofit existing spaces or more money to build new facilities with better privacy.

Given that it's unlikely that parents are going to stop caring about such intimate privacy concerns for their children anytime soon, decisions to expend resources for this seems an easy ask.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really get it. So there is a problem with transwomen in female spaces now? Or are you just trying to make bigots shut up?

Try solving any other segregation issue that way, because that has never gone wrong.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Rowling's book did not have a transgender character.
Click to expand...
Elsewhere in the C.B. Strike series she does have a transabled character, though.

It’s a dark storyline involving serial murder, pedophilia, acrotomophilia (a sexual interest in amputees) and body integrity identity disorder—a psychological disorder in which “transabled” people want to amputate their healthy limbs.
Click to expand...

Seems like an obvious analogy in retrospect, but it certainly wasn't obvious at the time.
 
@LondonJohn Any chance you'll actually respond to my questions?

Emily's Cat said:
LJ, since you're so very fond of making analogies to racism and homosexuality...

1) Do you think it would be reasonable and appropriate for white people to demand to be included and centered in activism intended to remove discrimination from black people? Is it reasonable to refer to white people as "black activists" or would it be more appropriate to refer to them as "allies"? If a white person "identified as" a black person, do you think it would be appropriate for them to demand that black people open all black-focused services and events to them as a *right*, based on their identification as black? Should white people who "identify as" black be counted as black when it comes to evaluating whether black people have equitable participation in society, economics, and politics? Should crimes committed by white people be statistically counted as having been committed by black people because those white people "identify as" black? Should crimes in which the victim is a white person who "identifies as" black be considered as potential hate crimes against black people?

2) Do you think it would be reasonable and appropriate for straight people to demand to be included and centered in activism intended to remove discrimination from homosexual people? Is it reasonable to refer to straight people as "gay activists" or would it be more appropriate to refer to them as "allies"? If a straight person "identified as" gay, do you think it would appropriate for them to demand that gay people open all LGB-focused services and events to them as a *right*, based on their identification as gay? Should straight people who "identify as" gay be counted as homosexual when it comes to evaluating whether LGB people have equitable participation in society, economics, and politics? Should crimes committed by straight people be statistically counted as having been committed by LGB people because those straight people "identify as" gay? Should crimes in which the victim is straight be considered as potential hate crimes against LGB people?
Click to expand...
 
Saw this quote in a news story about Indiana's proposed transgender sports law.


Beth and Nathaniel Clawson, Bloomington parents whose daughter is transgender, worry that their daughter will miss out on life lessons and friendships built through sports.

“My daughter’s mental health and wellness is far more important than your child’s medal or record,” Beth said.
Click to expand...

It really speaks volumes about the debate.
 
Meadmaker said:
Saw this quote in a news story about Indiana's proposed transgender sports law.




It really speaks volumes about the debate.
Click to expand...

This would be the perfect time for LJ to produce the science showing that gender dysphoria in men is a health condition and that part of the medically-sound treatment is allowing transwomen to compete as women.
 
Legislation by the Scottish government to count transwomen as women for the purpose of increasing female representation on public boards has been ruled unlawful after judicial review.

The UK Equality Act 2010 lists both sex and gender reassignment as protected characteristics. The definition of 'women' for the purpose of the Act is 'a female of any age'. By including transwomen with the characteristic of gender reassignment as 'women' for the purposes of legislation, the government attempted to expand the definition of 'woman' to include males, which goes beyond its devolved powers.

Full decision here.

"The protected characteristics listed in the 2010 Act include “sex” and “gender reassignment”. The Scottish Parliament would, as we have noted, have been entitled to make provision in respect of either or both these characteristics. So far as the characteristic of sex is concerned, it would be open to the Scottish Parliament to make provision only for the inclusion of women, since a reference to a person who has a protected characteristic of sex is a reference either to a man or to a woman. For this purpose a man is a male of any age; and a woman is a female of any age. Section 11(b) indicates that when one speaks of individuals sharing the protected characteristic of sex, one is taken to be referring to one or other sex, either male or female. Thus an exception which allows the Scottish Parliament to take steps relating to the inclusion of women, as having a protected characteristic of sex, is limited to allowing provision to be made in respect of a “female of any age”. Provisions in favour of women, in this context, by definition exclude those who are biologically male."

The government can use the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to increase representation of trans people. Including transwomen under legislation intended to increase representation of women conflicts with the intention of preventing discrimination based on the protected characteristic of sex.
 
theprestige said:
Not exactly. A court has ruled on who has the authority to rule on the subject as a matter of law, in the court's jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I had a go at doing what I probably should have done in the first place - reading the actual decision linked by Elaedith. Sometimes I really quite enjoy reading judges' decisions; they can occasionally be really interesting and enjoyable to read. This was not one of those occasions, and I lost interest about halfway through.

The main thing I took away from it is that I am not a lawyer or a judge, and not likely to ever be one, and it's probably just as well that I never tried.
 
Matthew Best said:
Thanks for that. I had a go at doing what I probably should have done in the first place - reading the actual decision linked by Elaedith. Sometimes I really quite enjoy reading judges' decisions; they can occasionally be really interesting and enjoyable to read. This was not one of those occasions, and I lost interest about halfway through.

The main thing I took away from it is that I am not a lawyer or a judge, and not likely to ever be one, and it's probably just as well that I never tried.
Click to expand...

This is complicated by the fact that it involves devolved powers, which I don't know a lot about and which is dealt with in the first part.

There is a more general underlying issue. Sex and gender reassignment are protected characteristics in the UK Equality Act; gender and gender identity are not. Sex cannot be replaced with 'gender' for the purposes of monitoring or addressing issues of sex discrimination. A policy designed to increase representation of women but which includes males who identify as women could result in a representation that includes only males if enough of them identify as women. This would defeat the purpose of addressing sex discrimination. If people are worried about discrimination against people identifying as transgender, that can be addressed separately through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which does not require any medical transition). Monitoring discrimination based on sex and gender reassignment requires that both are measured separately and not conflated.
 
That's the underlying issue, but not the issue that was decided in this court case.

The relevant bit from the decision was this:

“It should be understood at the outset that the case does not form part of the policy
debate about transgender rights, a highly contentious policy issue to which this
decision cannot properly contribute. At its core, this litigation is concerned with
whether certain statutory provisions were beyond the legislative competence of the
Scottish Parliament."

As theprestige said, this decision is telling the Scottish Parliament that they don't have the power to do what they thought they could do.

That's, of course, if I'm reading it correctly, which, as I said, I may not be, because reading the whole thing hurt my brain.
 
I absolutely agree that it’s in everybody’s best interest to keep statistics on both gender and sex (and to have clear standards of what is meant by those when collecting such data) because imo that kind of information is an important tool for figuring out the positives and negatives of what ends up happening at the population level. Medically, socially, representationally, the whole schmeer.

I don’t have any issue with representation being treated with some granularity. I can picture something like ‘ok for women we need at least two cis, two black, one trans’ then you fulfill ‘trans women are women’ for the trans activists and ‘don’t let trans women take over our spots’ for the gender critical types.
 
Matthew Best said:
That's the underlying issue, but not the issue that was decided in this court case.

The relevant bit from the decision was this:

“It should be understood at the outset that the case does not form part of the policy
debate about transgender rights, a highly contentious policy issue to which this
decision cannot properly contribute. At its core, this litigation is concerned with
whether certain statutory provisions were beyond the legislative competence of the
Scottish Parliament."

As theprestige said, this decision is telling the Scottish Parliament that they don't have the power to do what they thought they could do.

That's, of course, if I'm reading it correctly, which, as I said, I may not be, because reading the whole thing hurt my brain.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding of the decision. However, the reason they don't have this power is because it would mean redefining the word 'woman' in relation to the UK Equality Act (which is explicit that 'man' and 'woman' refer to sex and not gender). Many organisations in the UK ignore this and have rushed ahead to replace sex with gender/gender identity for equality monitoring purposes, which is largely due to the infiltration by organisations like Stonewall that misrepresent the law as they would like it to be rather than as it is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom