Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[LondonJohn]

When activists seriously propose replacing sex segregation with sexual orientation segregation (everyone attracted to males goes to one place and everyone attracted to females the other) we can start considering potential problems with people self IDing as gay.

You're avoiding the fundamental question of whether or not transgender people should be required to be medically assessed and diagnosed in order to be "officially transgender". And they should not be required to do that in any progressive society. Just as homosexual people should not be required to be assessed & diagnosed.

You're doing what denialists always do: avoiding the first-order issue (whether transgender people should be compelled to get an official diagnosis), and instead jumping straight to the second-order question about women's spaces. In reality, the first-order issue is (rightly) assessed without recourse to the second-order matters. Everyone knows that these second-order issues exist, and that they need careful consideration.

In the real world, the adults know (rightly) that the matter of whether (for example) trans women should be allowed to use women's communal bathrooms is entirely irrelevant to the matter of whether transgender people should be compelled to get an official medical diagnosis before they're allowed to identify as transgender.

 

[LondonJohn]

No 'extreme right-wing institutions/personalities and deeply unpleasant fundamentalist religious organisation' are on 'my side'.
Your position (that people should be defined as men or women by conformity to gender stereotypes, and encouraged to think that they might need to alter their bodies to 'match'), is just the flip to that of religious fundamentalists and conservatives, while the gender critical position is the polar opposite. This has been pointed out many times. You just lack any insight.

Ohhhh I think you'll find that they are. Are you in denial of this as well?

And are you still unaware that "my position" is not merely my position? That it's the position which is held by the entire mainstream medical establishment? That it's also the position which is held by increasing numbers of progressive legislatured all over the liberalised democratic world?

Nice to know that I lack any insight though

 

[Elaedith]

You're avoiding the fundamental question of whether or not transgender people should be required to be medically assessed and diagnosed in order to be "officially transgender".

There is no need for anyone to be officially assessed as anything unless they want something they would not otherwise be entitled to without that assessment.

 

[d4m10n]

The reality, however, is that there IS such a thing as transgender identity.

What exactly is this thing beyond an avowal thereof? You've claimed at #109 that it is a feeling of wanting to conform to the gender norms of the opposite sex but (as I already mentioned) that sort of gender nonconformity is a feature of effeminate gays and butch lesbians as well.

And that when someone presents as transgender, they're not just "saying that": they have a deep-seated - and medically-endorsed - identity of their trans gender.

You keep equivocating between the medically-endorsed part (gender dysphoria) and the concept of gender identity.

I don't know why you're trying to quote me out of context to try to make a different point, but...

If you trace back that series of replies, it goes back to #109. There are links in the quote blocks which make this process fairly simple.

And I see you've added in a handy statement of transgender-identity denial

Here you are confusing denialism with a request for clarification.

The experts know that there is "something more to transgender identity tha[n] self-identification", and they are perfectly "clear on what that should be taken to mean".

Okay, let's go with their expert definition of transgender identity. I cannot find it in the DSM-5 but presumably you have other sources.

 

[Elaedith]

Ohhhh I think you'll find that they are. Are you in denial of this as well?

And are you still unaware that "my position" is not merely my position? That it's the position which is held by the entire mainstream medical establishment? That it's also the position which is held by increasing numbers of progressive legislatured all over the liberalised democratic world?

Nice to know that I lack any insight though

No, I think you will find that religious fundamentalists (like gender identity fundamentalists) tend to like gender stereotypes and believe that men and women are defined in relation to them, whereas gender critical perspectives tend to say that being a man or woman are just words referring to sex and should not carry any implications of a need for gender conformity. HTH.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no need for anyone to be officially assessed as anything unless they want something they would not otherwise be entitled to without that assessment.

Is this you saying that transgender people should not be allowed to (for example) use communal changing areas that are aligned to their trans gender... until and unless they have been officially diagnosed as transgender and have a certificate to prove it?

I suspect that this is what you mean. And if so, I'm afraid you're wrong, and you're fundamentally prejudiced on this issue.


Anyhoooo, back to actual "work work". All this pointing out bigotry and intolerance isn't going to pay the bills.......

 

[Ziggurat]

*sigh*

Do you think gay people should not be able/allowed to "self-ID" as gay?

For what purpose?

That's where the whole accommodations thing matters. If a person wants access to female spaces, then self ID is a problem because it allows male predators, regardless of actual trans status, to claim that status to gain access. It is a system ripe for abuse.

I know of no way to abuse self-ID for homosexuality. Straight predators don't prey on gay people, so pretending to be gay to access gay spaces doesn't make sense. Hell, gay spaces in general don't specifically exclude straight people, they just don't cater to their preferences.

Self-ID is fine if there's no harm that can derive from misidentification. It's a problem when harm can derive from misidentification. Trans access to female-specific spaces is an opportunity for harm. I can think of no equivalent opportunity for harm from gay identity. Can you?

The issue of masquerading and potential offending is a second-order question

No, it isn't. It's of primary importance.

(and it's one that requires attention, for sure)

But not from you.

but it doesn't affect the fundamental point that transgender people should not be forced to be medically examined to validate their identity.

Medical examination isn't the only alternative to self ID.

I dunno.... maybe you could/should ask the adults in mainstream medicine and progressive legislatures who understand this issue (and who understand the risks and unintended outcomes perfectly well also), who are introducing self-ID reforms around the world. They know and understand this issue far, far better than you (and me, for that matter).

Legislators don't know this stuff any better than you or me. And they listen to activists as much as, if not more, than actual medical experts. And many medical experts aren't weighing in on stuff like self ID because it's not actually a medical issue.

I trust in the current viewpoint of mainstream medical science and medical practice

I don't trust that you know what that current viewpoint even is. At every opportunity so far, you've shown serious misunderstandings.

 

[Upchurch]

When activists seriously propose replacing sex segregation with sexual orientation segregation (everyone attracted to males goes to one place and everyone attracted to females the other) we can start considering potential problems with people self IDing as gay.

**coughGaysInTheMilitarycough**

 

[Ziggurat]

**coughGaysInTheMilitarycough**

We did away with that. What's your point? Do you want to bring it back? Is anyone else really clamoring to bring it back? Is there an actual influential lobbying effort to bring it back?

ETA: and yes, actually that example DOES demonstrate how ridiculous self ID can be. By saying you were gay, anyone could drop out of the military at any time.

 

[Matthew Best]

But on that point (as I also said in a previous post), it's very interesting and instructive to ...

Yes, I think that was your penultimate post.

 

[Matthew Best]

I know LJ puts a great deal of store in being in alignment with the medical establishment on this, and presumably other matters.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in DSM-II in 1968. In 1973, the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, but replaced it with "sexual orientation disturbance." It did not fall out of DSM entirely until 1987.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I was in disagreement with the DSM for pretty much the entirety of that period. Turns out I was right, and they were wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

We did away with that. What's your point?

How many old saws would you like? History rhymes. History repeats itself. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. etc. etc.

We've been here over and over again. It all ends up the same. A marginalized group starts to gain acceptance in society. People who are against that acceptance latch on to scary scenarios, some real, some imagined, that will absolutely destroy something sacred in society. We go through that nonsense a few times, the sacred thing survives, and finally we hit a tipping point where the group is largely accepted in society and people opposed are ignored as backwards or old fashioned.

My point is that we're well past the tipping point for gays. We're in an earlier stage for accepting trans gender people. Earlier in this thread I rough estimated the tipping point to be about 10-20 years out, but that's assuming the internet doesn't speed that process up significantly.

 

[Ziggurat]

How many old saws would you like? History rhymes. History repeats itself. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. etc. etc.

Unless you're proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely, then this isn't a parallel at all.

Are you proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely? Do you think that would be an improvement?

 

[Upchurch]

Unless you're proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely, then this isn't a parallel at all.

Are you proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely? Do you think that would be an improvement?

You're not paying attention. I was answering a specific question about the process of gay acceptance.

And, I hate to tell you, but sex segregation is already gone. It's gender segregation. Remember that whole "trans people who can pass are already in their preferred bathrooms" discussion we just had? The "old system" you thought worked so well? That's gender segregation, not sex segregation.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're not paying attention. I was answering a specific question about the process of gay acceptance.

Nobody here is arguing against trans acceptance, as in treating trans people with decency. The problem is self ID. Self ID is not sustainable. You can either segregate on the basis of something more substantive than self declaration (as we should in the case of, say, women's prisons), or you can just not segregate at all (as we now do with gays in the military).

And, I hate to tell you, but sex segregation is already gone. It's gender segregation.

Sex segregation is justifiable. Gender segregation is an incoherent mess, because gender itself is at the moment an incoherent mess. The substitution of the latter for the former is what's led to self ID, which is not sustainable.

Remember that whole "trans people who can pass are already in their preferred bathrooms" discussion we just had? The "old system" you thought worked so well? That's gender segregation, not sex segregation.

No. That's sex segregation with limited exceptions.

You cannot limit exceptions to gender segregation, because the categories aren't even coherently definable.

 

[Upchurch]

Nobody here is arguing against trans acceptance, as in treating trans people with decency. The problem is self ID. Self ID is not sustainable.

Great. Then what's the solution that allows trans women use the women's restroom even if they can not 100% pass?

No. That's sex segregation with limited exceptions.

Go on. Finish the sentence. ...with limited exceptions for _____?

 

[Ziggurat]

Great. Then what's the solution that allows trans women use the women's restroom even if they can not 100% pass?

Why don't you start by asking the women who are impacted by this? A number of them have discussed this at length already.

And it's not just about passing 100%. That's a vast oversimplification of how things used to work. 30 years ago, most trans people were getting sex change operations. Almost none of them passed 100%, but that was OK. They made an effort to look female and act female, and that effort mattered, even when people could tell they were trans. Women didn't feel threatened by post-op trans women who acted appropriately.

But the rules have changed. Many trans women aren't post op, and will never be post op. Many of them don't make much effort to look female or act female. And they expose penises to females. The cohort of trans people has fundamentally changed, and that's part of the current problem. I don't think it's a coincidence that the cohort changed in tandem with the rise of self ID. Under the current circumstances, self ID is making things worse.

You asked about what exceptions to allow. I think it's actually pretty simple. Allow exceptions that females feel comfortable with.

 

[Upchurch]

Why don't you start by asking the women who are impacted by this?

...and I assume you also mean the trans women? As it also impacts them?

You asked about what exceptions to allow. I think it's actually pretty simple. Allow exceptions that females feel comfortable with.

I see. And what are trans women expected to do?

 

[Ziggurat]

I see. And what are trans women expected to do?

Make females comfortable with their presence. For some, this may be a big ask. For others, it's going to seem like the obvious thing to do anyways.

 

[d4m10n]

...actually that example DOES demonstrate how ridiculous self ID can be. By saying you were gay, anyone could drop out of the military at any time.

In case anyone is wondering, this actually did happen.