Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Darat]

Yes, it makes sense, yes it was an observation. It wasn't a useful observation.

We shall disagree.

 

[shuttlt]

Why? Why would it be incredible or unethical to enforce the pre-existing criteria that no males are allowed to compete in female sports categories?

Transwomen are MALE. They are males that wish to circumvent existing limitations. Shouldn't it be expected that research needs to be conducted to support that subset of males being treated as an exception to an already in-place rule?

The difficulty is that this is what a lot of equality legislation demands. Each restriction has to be able to demonstrate that it is reasonable and proportionate, and if accommodations can be made then they must be made. You can no more keep transwomen out of women's sports, or women's changing rooms as a default, than men can keep women out of the boardroom. You have to be able to answer the question "why?" and evidence it and show there is no way of making it work.

 

[d4m10n]

Psychologists don't diagnose anyone as being a transman or a transwoman.

They also don't say which people are "men" and which people are "women" since those aren't exactly medical or psychological terms of art.

 

[theprestige]

It's simply not credible or ethical ... to issue an evidence-free ban on transwomen competing in the women's category.

It's simply not credible or ethical to try to resolve a dispute by revering the burden of proof.

In fact there is plenty of evidence to support safety-based and fairness-based bans on transwomen competing in the women's category. It's simply not credible or ethical to try to resolve a dispute by denying this evidence.

Why should men compete in women's sports? Because they want to? We know that's not credible or ethical - but that's the policy you propose.

Because their doctors prescribe it? That might be credible and ethical - if doctors were actually doing that. But you assert that like sexuality and race, transgenderism is not a medical condition that needs diagnosis, or calls for prescribed medical treatment.

In fact you present no evidence at all that transwomen should compete with women. You offer no medical basis for adopting such a policy. You offer no distinction between transwomen and men, and no commonality between transwomen and women, that would recommend such a policy.

All you offer is the bare assertion that men have the right to compete in women's sports if they say they want to. That's it. And that is simply not credible or ethical.

 

[Aber]

I am still intrigued by efforts to paint this as a left/right or progressive/conservative issue because it doesn't conform to that at all as I understand it. And it is pretty clear that at least one right of centre member here is pro selfID and more than one left of centre member is anti selfID. I can discern this because I am exactly in the centre of course.

There is a significant transatlantic divide to take into account.

Progressive politics in the US strongly supports "inclusion"; in the UK this has been a much weaker argument.

 

[theprestige]

I don’t think it should in the sense of an obligation, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t consider what this distinct sub group of men wants and where possible accommodate those wants.

In practical terms, we're talking about a subgroup of men that want access to sex-segregated spaces for women (both literal and abstract), on nothing more than their claim of entitlement to that access.

There may be another subgroup of men who want medical treatment for their diagnosed condition of gender dysphoria. Accommodations for that subgroup are already well-established and widely accepted, same as accommodations for anyone else diagnosed with a distressing psychological condition.

There may also be another subgroup of men who just want social tolerance for their genderqueer expressions. Men who don't want to lose their jobs if they show up to work in a dress. Men who don't want to be harassed for wearing makeup and acting femme. Men who prefer to be referenced by feminine pronouns. Accommodations for this subgroup are also well-established. And while they may not yet be widely accepted, they are already widely enforced, at least in western liberal democracies.

In practical terms, in public policy terms, all that's left is the men who want access to sex-segregated spaces for women, on the basis of their naked claim of entitlement. I've considered the wants of this subgroup extensively, over several years. I don't see any way to accommodate those wants.

As for "where possible": I'd say "where necessary". All things are possible, but at what cost? Show me the necessity, if you can.

 

[Aber]

sports administration bodies can and will exclude transwomen from competing in the women's category at the elite and sub-elite level. But (and here is the critically important kicker) they will only make that determination following a proper investigation into the scale of the advantage gained by transwomen as it relates to their particular sport.

Imagine if they followed this route for a suspected new type of doping.

 

[smartcooky]

The first paragraph of Allison Bailey's defence against the complaint pretty much sums up my exact position on this issue (key phrases are highlighted)

Gender Critical Feminism is a well established and recognised strand of feminism. It holds that sex is an observable reality. A person's sex is defined by whether, if their body is functioning as it should, their organs produce sperm or eggs. There is no historical example of any human whose body produced both. As a result of this, gender is not a replacement or alternative to sex, but is merely an identity concept. A person may feel that that they identify to a particular gender, but a person's gender cannot supplant their sex. As a result of this, a person who has the gender identity of a trans woman (a person born as a male, but who identifies as a woman) is not a woman. The same is true of a trans man. If they choose to so identify, then that is to be respected, and for example if they have chosen and adopted pronouns these can be used. But in any scenario in which that chosen gender identity conflicts with the rights of women, then the rights of women should prevail. A person cannot change sex and rights, freedoms and provisions that are reserved to women are reserved to women on the basis of their sex, not their gender.

Setting aside any adverse medical condition suffered by an individual, my criteria for whether an individual is a man or a woman (for the purposes of participation in sports and entry into sex-based safe spaces) is as follows...

1. A person who is biologically capable of conceiving and bearing a child, and not capable of fathering a child is female, and therefore a woman. Such a person can never be a man/male.

2. A person who is biologically capable of fathering a child, and not capable of conceiving or bearing a child is male, and therefore a man. Such a person can never be a woman/female.

This is immutable AFAIC. A man is perfectly within his rights to feel like he is a woman, to wear make-up and women's clothes, to change his name to a woman's name, to undergo medical therapies and/or surgery to change their appearance, and to insist on being referred to as she/her. However, none of that magically makes him a woman, and nor should it permit him to participate in women's sports, or allow him right of entry into sex-based safe spaces.

 

[Rolfe]

I don’t think it should in the sense of an obligation, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t consider what this distinct sub group of men wants and where possible accommodate those wants.

I think we've all considered that, and I don't know anyone who isn't prepared to grant this group of men some of what it wants.

Edited by sarge: 

FMF content removed

But I do want to pick up on one thing: “…. There is no objective characteristic of "transwomen" that they have in common with women that all men do not have in common with women….” If research did find such a characteristic - say something like a region in the brain that was only found in women and in trans women would that change your mind as to whether they should be granted “special privileges”?

If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle, as they used to say in happier, more innocent times when someone came out with a wild and improbable speculative scenario in which they suggest their claims might be accommodated.

Research is very much trending in the opposite direction. This is such a hypothetical that I really don't think answering it is helpful at all. At the moment the focus of the discussion is on the current proposals to allow any man at all to be legally recognised as a woman for all purposes by merely filling in a short, non-intrusive form and waiting three months. That is the actual situation we are dealing with, not some hypothetical and almost certainly nonexistent diagnostic test that would identify a small group of men as the illusory "true trans" animal.

 

[Rolfe]

It's simply not credible or ethical - and it would potentially be unlawful in most relevant jurisdictions - if (say) the ITF (tennis world governing authority) were simply to issue an evidence-free ban on transwomen competing in the women's category.

That is the weirdest thing I heard on this topic. Transwomen are male. Eligibility for the women's category depends on being female, which transwomen are not. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever to grant male people free entry into women's events on the basis of their self-reporting of a feeling in their heads.

In addition, male advantage in things like strength and stamina is well-established by existing record books. It's the very reason separate sex categories exist in the first place. It is therefore entirely untrue to claim that there is no pre-existing evidence that would support refusing males entry into the female category.

 

[TomB]

It's simply not credible or ethical - and it would potentially be unlawful in most relevant jurisdictions - if (say) the ITF (tennis world governing authority) were simply to issue an evidence-free ban on transwomen competing in the women's category. They will need to have proper studies that are tailored specifically for tennis, with expert opinion and as many case studies as possible. Only after that process has been carried out will they have the authority to ban transwomen. And that's exactly as it should be.

No. You're wrong.

What you outline basically makes female sports divisions illegal. Unless, of course, they are formed under the basis of the evidence that males have a competitive advantage over females.

So, if female leagues are legal, they are legal on the basis of evidence. The same evidence applies to trans-women as they were born male.

In other words, the evidence you refer to already exists and forms the basis for having a female league in the first place.

The reason that some leagues have been slow to come to firmly defined rules is not because of a lack of evidence. It's because they depend on public support and are afraid of a backlash, which could come from either direction. They are thrust into a politically divisive issue and know they will get burned no matter what stance they take. It's a no win situation for them. So they try to do little or nothing until they are forced to make a choice.

 

[Francesca R]

Progressive politics in the US strongly supports "inclusion"; in the UK this has been a much weaker argument.

Not aware of any transatlantic issue or divide.

However, inclusion or "inclusion" is the holy grail. If you are including you are right, and if you are excluding you are wrong. This is the E in TERF that supposedly makes it a bad thing (I am not aware that radical or feminist were previously bad things on their own or paired, other than, say, in the eyes of misogynists)

But inclusion depends on exclusion sometimes rendering it necessary to balance competiting interests and trade social benefit with social cost. Excluding transwomen from some female only settings is, I argue, an act of relative inclusion. It happens because the social cost is understood to be lower than the social benefit (costs and benefits do not accrue to the same people). Males are excluded from female sport so that females can be included in sport. Males are excluded from female changing areas so that, well, females can have changing areas where it is necessary to change, etc.

 

[Matthew Best]

The Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic is to be closed down after safety concerns were raised in the Cass Review.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ildren-gender-clinic-safety-b2133170.html?amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

This conversation would have gone very differently if it were actually about a medically-recognized psychological condition, with an established and ethically-sound course of treatment accepted by mainstream medicine.

There does seem to be one in the Uk.

...snip...

Now you say you think it seems like psychologists recognize transwomen**. But what does that even mean? What objective criteria distinguish transwomen from other men? Oh, right: They claim to be transwomen. But you don't need a psychologist to recognize that tautology. Is it your proposal that public policy should be based on fiat self-ID?
Or do you propose that public policy should be based on some other, perhaps medical, criteria?

I reposted my view from 2019 just a page or so back.

...snip...

I have great sympathy for trans people, I can understand them just wanting to be themselves and they find it terrible when they can't be. I.e. a trans man being told they have to use the women's toilets.

I don't support the idea that one should be officially able to change their gender just by saying so, it isn't like changing a name.

If someone has as the case is currently in the UK been medically diagnosed and lived as their preferred gender for 2 years I think they should be able to have their gender officially changed.

...snip...

How much clearer can it be that I don't support "self-ID" then saying "I don't support the idea that one should be officially able to change their gender just by saying so, it isn't like changing a name."?

 

[Darat]

The first paragraph of Allison Bailey's defence against the complaint pretty much sums up my exact position on this issue (key phrases are highlighted)

Gender Critical Feminism is a well established and recognised strand of feminism. It holds that sex is an observable reality. A person's sex is defined by whether, if their body is functioning as it should, their organs produce sperm or eggs. There is no historical example of any human whose body produced both. As a result of this, gender is not a replacement or alternative to sex, but is merely an identity ...snip...

You do realise that what "Gender Critical Feminism" is apart from it being a genuinely held belief really had nothing to do with why she won the part she did? From the summary statement: The tribunal held that her gender critical belief that Stonewall wanted to replace sex with gender identity, that the absolutist tone of its advocacy of gender self identity made them complicit in threats against women, and that it eroded women’s rights and lesbian same-sex orientation, was a belief protected under the Equality Act. The tribunal did not have to decide whether that belief was correct. (If you want more details see 54 in the judgement.) She won - like the vegan case a few years back - because it was considered that her beliefs fell under the protected "beliefs/philosophy" section of the act. It's part of our human rights as set out in article 9 of the ECHR. i.e. a right to expression of our beliefs, our thoughts and so on and not be discriminated against for holding those views. The initial decision on that part was so obviously wrong.

 

[d4m10n]

Possibly of some interest here:

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/1552462239222976512

 

[theprestige]

The reason that some leagues have been slow to come to firmly defined rules is not because of a lack of evidence. It's because they depend on public support and are afraid of a backlash, which could come from either direction. They are thrust into a politically divisive issue and know they will get burned no matter what stance they take. It's a no win situation for them. So they try to do little or nothing until they are forced to make a choice.

And then as often as not they make the wrong choice.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is a significant transatlantic divide to take into account.

Progressive politics in the US strongly supports "inclusion"; in the UK this has been a much weaker argument.

My impression is that the "inclusion" argument is stronger in the UK, in part because females have explicit rights and protections in place, which we in the US still lack after 50+ years of trying. Technically, all we have is the right to vote, everything else is state-by-state and convention.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The first paragraph of Allison Bailey's defence against the complaint pretty much sums up my exact position on this issue (key phrases are highlighted)

Gender Critical Feminism is a well established and recognised strand of feminism. It holds that sex is an observable reality. A person's sex is defined by whether, if their body is functioning as it should, their organs produce sperm or eggs. There is no historical example of any human whose body produced both. As a result of this, gender is not a replacement or alternative to sex, but is merely an identity concept. A person may feel that that they identify to a particular gender, but a person's gender cannot supplant their sex. As a result of this, a person who has the gender identity of a trans woman (a person born as a male, but who identifies as a woman) is not a woman. The same is true of a trans man. If they choose to so identify, then that is to be respected, and for example if they have chosen and adopted pronouns these can be used. But in any scenario in which that chosen gender identity conflicts with the rights of women, then the rights of women should prevail. A person cannot change sex and rights, freedoms and provisions that are reserved to women are reserved to women on the basis of their sex, not their gender.

Setting aside any adverse medical condition suffered by an individual, my criteria for whether an individual is a man or a woman (for the purposes of participation in sports and entry into sex-based safe spaces) is as follows...

1. A person who is biologically capable of conceiving and bearing a child, and not capable of fathering a child is female, and therefore a woman. Such a person can never be a man/male.

2. A person who is biologically capable of fathering a child, and not capable of conceiving or bearing a child is male, and therefore a man. Such a person can never be a woman/female.

This is immutable AFAIC. A man is perfectly within his rights to feel like he is a woman, to wear make-up and women's clothes, to change his name to a woman's name, to undergo medical therapies and/or surgery to change their appearance, and to insist on being referred to as she/her. However, none of that magically makes him a woman, and nor should it permit him to participate in women's sports, or allow him right of entry into sex-based safe spaces.

Well said.

I would append that males and females should not be denied employment, housing, use of public accommodations, or medical care on the basis of their expression. This comes with the caveat that such expression cannot supplant sex. So for example, if a job requires a person of a specific sex then gender identity cannot override that; if a job does not require a specific sex, then gender identity and expression cannot be the basis of denying a person that job.

I'm all for protecting people from discrimination and abuse on the basis of gender expression. I'm categorically against gender identity replacing or supplanting sex.

 

[shuttlt]

My impression is that the "inclusion" argument is stronger in the UK, in part because females have explicit rights and protections in place, which we in the US still lack after 50+ years of trying. Technically, all we have is the right to vote, everything else is state-by-state and convention.

Pros and cons. The same process that might have given you those rights, could also give out rights you are less keen on.