Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[d4m10n]

What I object to is the opposite, the granting of any male who is prepared to say the magic words the legal unchallengeable right to be in women's single-sex spaces.

Yes, I remember.

The point I'm trying to make just now is that (here in the U.S.) we've got two competing sets of legal solutions and they both suck. One of these consists of legally granting the "unchallengable right" which you object to above (based on self-i.d.) which we have in places like California. The other legal solution has been suggested by legislators in red states (e.g. TN, TX) and puts thoroughly transitioned FtM individuals in women's facilities, which will cause all manner of discomfort even if everyone stays on their best behavior.

I am not convinced that legislators can come up with a solution which is flexible enough to take into account all the variations in the real world.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I remember.

The point I'm trying to make just now is that (here in the U.S.) we've got two competing sets of legal solutions and they both suck. One of these consists of legally granting the "unchallengable right" which you object to above (based on self-i.d.) which we have in places like California. The other legal solution has been suggested by legislators in red states (e.g. TN, TX) and puts thoroughly transitioned FtM individuals in women's facilities, which will cause all manner of discomfort even if everyone stays on their best behavior.

I am not convinced that legislators can come up with a solution which is flexible enough to take into account all the variations in the real world.

I have a jargon dispute here. There's no such thing as a Female to Male transition. There are (invasive, disruptive), cosmetic surgeries and hormone therapies that approximate some physical appearances typically associated with the opposite sex, but the patient's actual sex does not change.

A transman is still female. Wherever sex segregation is rightly applied, e.g., prisons, transmen should be segregated with the other females, regardless of how effectively they can pass as males (with some effort, in chosen favorable conditions, with a willing audience).

It's no surprise that some lawmakers, seeing a trend towards "they had top and bottom surgery, so they're male now", are seeking to explicitly codify in public policy that this is not the case.

 

[d4m10n]

Wherever sex segregation is rightly applied, e.g., prisons, transmen should be segregated with the other females, regardless of how effectively they can pass as males (with some effort, in chosen favorable conditions, with a willing audience).

I linked you to the bathroom bills earlier, because I was talking about how awkward it would be when people who pass as men will be legally required to use women's bathrooms in jurisdictions like Texas. I don't mind talking about prisons, but it seems to me that you've just elided over the point I was making about public bathrooms.

There's no such thing as a Female to Male transition.

You know full well there are people who've made enough changes to pass as male. I've met a few of them, you may well have without knowing it. Which bathroom should these people use in Texas?

 

[Emily's Cat]

So, per this, does it logically lead to the inference that your point of view is also a blanket rejection of the fundamental validity of transgender identity?

You've never bothered to explain what you mean by "valid".

Transwomen are males, have always been males, and will always be males. Transmen are females, have always been females, and will always be females.

What they 'identify as' is completely irrelevant to reality.

 

[Matthew Best]

A woman is suing a rape crisis centre because the charity allowed a trans woman (who apparently presented as male, wearing male clothing) into the women's group therapy sessions.

"I don't trust men because I have been raped by a man. I've been sexually abused by men. And I just don't necessarily trust that men are always who they say they are," she said.

However, she says the person running the session asked her to speak to the group. "I felt manipulated and coerced into talking," she said. "When I left the session I had a panic attack, I was absolutely distraught."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

 

[LondonJohn]

"Valid" is meaningless in this context. Don't use the term if you cannot provide a real definition for it.

Ironically, I provided a definition for it in the very sentence you quoted: "valid" means that it is considered by mainstream science & medicine to be a genuine lived condition, as opposed to the product of a mental illness or deviancy or some other aberration.

Maybe if I give you another example, it might help clarify things: for many dark years, homosexuality was considered by the science/medicine of the time to be a sexual deviancy and in effect the product of a form of mental illness. But of course now, in more enlightened and advanced times, homosexuality is considered a valid lived condition in its own right.

If you transfer that principle to transgender identity, I hope it will help in terms of what "valid" means in this context.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ironically, I provided a definition for it in the very sentence you quoted: "valid" means that it is considered by mainstream science & medicine to be a genuine lived condition, as opposed to the product of a mental illness or deviancy or some other aberration.

Then you are just wrong.

Maybe if I give you another example, it might help clarify things: for many dark years, homosexuality was considered by the science/medicine of the time to be a sexual deviancy and in effect the product of a form of mental illness. But of course now, in more enlightened and advanced times, homosexuality is considered a valid lived condition in its own right.

Homosexuality doesn’t cause distress. Dysphoria does. They are not equivalent.

 

[Rolfe]

Ironically, I provided a definition for it in the very sentence you quoted: "valid" means that it is considered by mainstream science & medicine to be a genuine lived condition, as opposed to the product of a mental illness or deviancy or some other aberration.

Maybe if I give you another example, it might help clarify things: for many dark years, homosexuality was considered by the science/medicine of the time to be a sexual deviancy and in effect the product of a form of mental illness. But of course now, in more enlightened and advanced times, homosexuality is considered a valid lived condition in its own right.

If you transfer that principle to transgender identity, I hope it will help in terms of what "valid" means in this context.

I do not believe that definition of "valid" is a term used by "mainstream science and medicine". It's judgmental and fundamentally meaningless. It's judging the lives and experiences of people with mental illness as being in some way second-class and not worthy of respect.

 

[d4m10n]

Ironically, I provided a definition for it in the very sentence you quoted: "valid" means that it is considered by mainstream science & medicine to be a genuine lived condition, as opposed to the product of a mental illness or deviancy or some other aberration.

I have no idea why anyone would think living with mental illness should not be considered a "genuine lived condition," and I've yet to see any psychologists or psychiatrists advocating the peculiar dichotomy you present here.

 

[theprestige]

You know full well there are people who've made enough changes to pass as male. I've met a few of them, you may well have without knowing it. Which bathroom should these people use in Texas?

What does Texas law say about sex segregation of bathrooms?

More generally, I think bathrooms are and should remain sex-segregated spaces, and that transmen should therefore use the women's restroom, regardless of how thoroughly they can pass after surgery and hormone treatment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I linked you to the bathroom bills earlier, because I was talking about how awkward it would be when people who pass as men will be legally required to use women's bathrooms in jurisdictions like Texas. I don't mind talking about prisons, but it seems to me that you've just elided over the point I was making about public bathrooms.

You know full well there are people who've made enough changes to pass as male. I've met a few of them, you may well have without knowing it. Which bathroom should these people use in Texas?

Here's where some common sense really comes into play. Let's be realistic, and not get caught up in the technicalities here.

If a person successfully passes as the opposite sex, they will never encounter a problem using the restroom of their presented gender. If nobody can tell that you're female, use the male restroom. If nobody can tell that you're male, use the female restroom. If nobody can tell... then NOBODY CAN TELL.

People who pass fairly well have never been the problem. The focus on people who pass well is a distraction, and a needless one at that.

Step back and think about what is driving this discussion, as well as these heavy-handed bills. Because they didn't used to be necessary, the entire discussion didn't used to be necessary. Trans people have existed for quite some time, albeit rare. We know they're there, and it hasn't been a problem.

Think about what situations have actually caused a problem, what scenarios have prompted people to put their foot down. Because it is absolutely NOT about people who pass - both visually and behaviorally.

The entire problem is caused by people who do not pass. It is overwhelmingly the result of male people who do not pass as female. In fact, it is the direct result of male people who do not pass as female, do not behave with reasonable respect and consideration toward females... and who demand that females must give way to their desires, regardless of the effect this has on females.

So at the end of the day, regardless of the laws in place, this is not at all about people who pass. If they pass, they pass.

I will add the caveat (which I would never have previously imagined was needed at all) that if a person who visually passes strips down and lets other people see their genitals... they no longer pass. A male-looking person will not pass as male if people can see that they have a vulva. A female-looking person will not pass as female if people can see that they have a penis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ironically, I provided a definition for it in the very sentence you quoted: "valid" means that it is considered by mainstream science & medicine to be a genuine lived condition, as opposed to the product of a mental illness or deviancy or some other aberration.

Can we unpack this? You tend to use "lawyerly" language which is not clear and which causes confusion.

You say "Valid means that it is considered by science & medicine to be a genuine lived condition"

1) What do you mean by "genuine lived condition"? In this context, do you mean that people who "feel like" they're the opposite sex genuinely do feel like they're the opposite sex? In which case, you would be saying that they really do feel what they feel? Or do you mean that people who "feel like" they're the opposite sex actually, for realsies ARE the opposite sex in some fashion? In which case, you would be saying that their feelings override material reality in some meaningful way.

2) When you say "mainstream science and medicine" which sciences, and which medical practices are you referencing? Are you referring to mainstream gender studies and critical gender theory? Or are you referring to mainstream, accredited evolutionary biology, sports science, and reproductive science? Are you referring to practitioners of gender affirming medicine? Or are you referring to the medical organizations backing the decisions from Sweden, Finland, the UK, etc.?

 

[d4m10n]

A woman is suing a rape crisis centre because the charity allowed a trans woman (who apparently presented as male, wearing male clothing) into the women's group therapy sessions.

Survivors' Network ought to be legally permitted to host female-only spaces, but it's a bit authoritarian to say they ought to be legally compelled to do so. Are Brits not into the whole freedom of association thing?

 

[d4m10n]

More generally, I think bathrooms are and should remain sex-segregated spaces, and that transmen should therefore use the women's restroom, regardless of how thoroughly they can pass after surgery and hormone treatment.

Okay, so what exactly should cisgender women do when someone who looks like Buck Angel walks into their restroom and how should he respond?

 

[d4m10n]

The focus on people who pass well is a distraction, and a needless one at that.

Texas and Tennessee legislators have been drafting bills which require people who pass well to use the bathroom in which they do not pass at all. Perhaps these legislators are distracted?

 

[theprestige]

Okay, so what exactly should cisgender women do when someone who looks like Buck Angel walks into their restroom and how should he respond?

I don't know what Buck Angel looks like, but Emily's Cat's point about people who successfully pass has given me some food for thought.

Historically, women have simply told the man in their restroom to piss off to the men's room, and raised hue and cry if he didn't apologize and comply.

Sadly, none of this is a system of formal logic with clear programmatic answers. The reason for sex segregation is the physical advantage of males and the risk they pose to females in safe spaces for females.

If Buck Angel typically passes as a man, I doubt the other men in the men's room will notice or much care. But if they do, I guess he'd have to use the lady's room. And if the ladies don't like it, I guess he'd have to explain his actual status.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay, so what exactly should cisgender women do when someone who looks like Buck Angel walks into their restroom and how should he respond?

Yes. As you say (although it appears de rigueur in these parts to consider the normalised majority well over and above the marginalised minority...), how is a transman supposed to feel/act if he is forced to use the facilities congruent with something with which he expressly does not identify: the identity "woman"?

And as the obvious corollary to this situation, how is a transwoman supposed to feel/act if she is forced to use the men's facilities? Yes, I can see how that's going to end up well for all concerned.

Fortunately, progressive legislatures are taking concrete, real-world decisions in these matters which are proportionate, fair, and well-informed. I give a tiny vote of thanks each day that this thread is a million miles away from real-world decision-making with real-world consequences.

 

[Paul2]

Can we unpack this? You tend to use "lawyerly" language which is not clear and which causes confusion.

You say "Valid means that it is considered by science & medicine to be a genuine lived condition"

1) What do you mean by "genuine lived condition"? In this context, do you mean that people who "feel like" they're the opposite sex genuinely do feel like they're the opposite sex? In which case, you would be saying that they really do feel what they feel? Or do you mean that people who "feel like" they're the opposite sex actually, for realsies ARE the opposite sex in some fashion? In which case, you would be saying that their feelings override material reality in some meaningful way.
. . . .

Trying to steelman LJ’s position, I’d say it might be similar to pain: a totally internal experience for which we usually accept the report of the subject, although it can be abused.

 

[Rolfe]

Trying to steelman LJ’s position, I’d say it might be similar to pain: a totally internal experience for which we usually accept the report of the subject, although it can be abused.

I'm not sure that helps at all. What is this "totally internal experience" we're supposed to accept? That a biological male has somehow magically turned into a female? That isn't an internal experience, that is a description of a physical reality which is self-evidently impossible.

I'm perfectly happy to agree that trans-identifying people feel certain things and believe certain things about themselves. This is not the problem. The problem comes when they then insist on claiming privileges they are not eligible for by virtue of the physical reality of their physical bodies, privileges that remove my rights.

 

[d4m10n]

Fortunately, progressive legislatures are taking concrete, real-world decisions in these matters which are proportionate, fair, and well-informed.

As when California granted Merager the legal right to expose themselves to everyone on the women's floor at Wi Spa.