Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[theprestige]

It was implicitly. If we're talking about a bathroom setting, there's nothing else to go on.


It means casual. As in not formal.

Fortunately, where it matters most, we have highly reliable formal processes to go on.

Sports? A doctor's note, attesting to the sex of the athlete. This can be extended all the way down to preschool, if we like.

Prisons? A doctor's note again, or more likely a direct medical inspection, which happens during prison intake anyway.

Women's shelters and locker rooms? There's no casual way to tell if a person is over 21, but bartenders have government-issued IDs to go on. I see no reason why women's shelters and other administered safe spaces for women can't do the same.

Obviously if we're going to ask people to rely on government-issued ID where necessary, we need to have laws and regulations that stipulate that government-recorded sex is the biological sex (per a doctor's note, probably in the form of a birth certificate), rather than gender identity (whether fiat self-ID or diagnosed).

So there might be some messiness while we sort out what the law currently is versus what we think it should be, to make government IDs reliable indicators of sex in cases where sex matters.

What's left? Recognition of women's breakthroughs in representation and equity? Doctor's note or government ID should work just fine, there. Same as everywhere else.

After that, what? Women's restrooms, where there's no custodian or administrator to gatekeep access? Everyone is on the honor system. I think this can be easily addressed the old-fashioned way: Obvious males don't try it, because they know they'll get confronted. If the authorities get involved, their ID will be checked and they'll be found in violation of the laws about sex segregation of public restrooms. This will undoubtedly make things difficult for some masculine women. Probably more than it used to, just because the Jessica Yaniv contingent has pretty much killed any remaining good will and charitable impulse women might have previously had for the man who's really just trying to pass and not make waves. But probably less than we'd expect.

In any case, that seems like a small price to pay, for solving all the major problems inherent in the current TRA policy proposals.

And, again, there might be some messiness while we work through the variance between what the law currently is, and what we'd like the law to be. But we're in a pretty big mess already.

Is there anything else I'm missing? Anywhere else in society where sex segregation matters, that can't be resolved by a doctor's note or a suitably-regulated government ID?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seems to me that, at least by a certain moral code, tolerance ought to be the default unless there's a good reason not to be tolerant.

What are your "good reasons"? Seriously, you're one of the least tolerant people I've ever interacted with.

My question would be, is there any good reason to deny transgender people legitimacy?

What constitutes "legitimacy", and why does it require that all female boundaries and safeguards be eradicated in order to affirm the beliefs of transgender people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

So yes, I'm just supposed to lie.

Not just lie. You're supposed to actively support and endorse the "dude with a dick" going into female showers and walking around with their dick out, even if that makes the females feel threatened and uncomfortable. You're supposed to actively support and advocate for the right of "dude with a dick" to compete against females in female sports. You're supposed to deride females who object to "dude with a dick" being placed in a prison cell with them against their will.

And you're supposed to vilify anyone who doesn't advocate for that "dude with a dick" as enthusiastically as you do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't feel as though I'm lying or coddling anyone in this regard, I sincerely believe them.

Okay. Let's take this as written, as how you genuinely feel.

What does that mean? When you sincerely believe them... do you mean that you sincerely believe that they believe that they feel like a female human? Or do you mean that you sincerely believe that there is no meaningful difference between them and a female human?

 

[mumblethrax]

Individual laws can be written with either sex or gender in mind, or both, or neither.

I don't think there's much distinction, and it's largely redundant for the law to recognize sex and gender as distinct categories.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it's an open question how much our current society should segregate the genders...

From my vantage, it seems more like a question of how much our society should switch from segregating sexes to segregating personal gender identity feelings.

That's the fundamental disagreement here. You see it as a matter of "gender" - which is a social construct and is to me a pile of regressive *********. I see it as a matter of the material reality of sex.

You are arguing that the social construct of gender should override the material reality of sex - that people's internal subjective beliefs should be held as sacrosanct and unchallengeable, even when doing so creates a real and meaningful disadvantage and risk for one sex.

From my vantage, it seems that you want to elevate the feelings and desires of some males, and are willing to sacrifice the female half of the population in order to fulfill those desires. And it seems extremely unempathetic, uncompassionate, and cruel.

I've not once seen you express any care or concern for the wellbeing of females.

 

[theprestige]

Gender is a social construct, you can't take out other people's perception.

And yet that's exactly what preferred pronouns try to do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, I think your position is clear to me now. Whenever there is a substantial conflict between interest groups (e.g. female athletes, natal male athletes who want to compete against female athletes) you will take the side of sex over gender as the deciding factor "across the board." This sort of makes you the anti-ACLU, since they take precisely the opposite position.

Not just substantial conflict, but meaningful and reasonable conflict.

It's possible for there to be "substantial" conflict between regressive orthodox religious people who truly believe that males should never ever wear skirts or dresses, and that females should be homemakers and child-raisers completely dependent on males for their existence. That can be a "substantial" conflict between the interest of gender as opposed to sex. But I don't think it's either meaningful nor reasonable, and in that case, I fall on the side of those who wish to break those gender barriers - be they males who wish to stay home and clean or females who wish to become CEOs.

On the other hand, there are situations where separating people on the basis of their sex is both reasonable and meaningful, and those are situations where I do NOT think that gender identity should hold sway.

I honestly can't think of any situation where we separate people on the basis of gender, where it is reasonable to retain that separation.

 

[mumblethrax]

Fortunately, where it matters most, we have highly reliable formal processes to go on.

That's exactly what I said upthread.

Women's shelters and locker rooms? There's no casual way to tell if a person is over 21, but bartenders have government-issued IDs to go on. I see no reason why women's shelters and other administered safe spaces for women can't do the same.

One reason is that women who are seeking shelter very often are escaping abusive situations, forced to leave their possessions behind, and therefore might not have their ID on them. Are you going to refuse admission to those women?

Obviously if we're going to ask people to rely on government-issued ID where necessary, we need to have laws and regulations that stipulate that government-recorded sex is the biological sex (per a doctor's note, probably in the form of a birth certificate), rather than gender identity (whether fiat self-ID or diagnosed).

That doesn't seem obvious to me. It's certainly not the case now.

What's left? Recognition of women's breakthroughs in representation and equity? Doctor's note or government ID should work just fine, there. Same as everywhere else.

I really don't see any reason to place restrictions on what private organizations do. I think requiring a doctor's note before you get your Salesman of the Year award would be...ridiculous.

Is there anything else I'm missing? Anywhere else in society where sex segregation matters, that can't be resolved by a doctor's note or a suitably-regulated government ID?

I think you're missing the part where most people would find this invasive and demeaning.

You're also giving "doctor's notes" far too much credit in terms of reliability. Remember when Trump's doctor provided that note that looked suspiciously like it had been written by Trump himself? You'll just be creating a cottage industry of doctors willing to write "notes" that don't reflect reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This also applies to cis people who are present outside the "normal" gender expectation, as shown by the examples of insufficiently femme cis women being confronted in toilets or other such gender segregated spaces.

You know this is a problem that has been created by the transgender push for fiat self-id, right?

We've had butch females using female spaces for well... longer than I've been alive. And it's only begun to be a problem when we could no longer trust that the people around us weren't also female.

You and your fellow advocates are the ones who broke that trust, and who have made females so fearful in female-only spaces that we now feel at risk from anyone who seems even slightly masculine.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think there's much distinction, and it's largely redundant for the law to recognize sex and gender as distinct categories.

I disagree emphatically.

Sometimes the law should recognize sex, for example, when deciding whether mammograms ought to be a covered benefit for individuals who've opted into the ACA marketplace. One sex really is at quite significantly greater risk than the other for the conditions which mammograms are designed to uncover.

Sometimes the law should recognize gender, as when deciding which United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (PHSCC) uniform Rachel Levine ought to use when performing public facing duties. She uses the women's uniform, because gender expression is part and parcel of the uniform experience and has been since my grandparents met during WWII.

Sent from my Declasse Draugur using Tapatalk

 

[mumblethrax]

Sometimes the law should recognize sex, for example, when deciding whether mammograms ought to be a covered benefit for individuals who've opted into the ACA marketplace. One sex really is at quite significantly greater risk than the other for the conditions which mammograms are designed to uncover.

There's a difference between recognizing and creating a categorical status.

The law can recognize racial disparities or racial discrimination without having to put a "Race" field on your birth certificate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Accidents are unfortunate by their nature. We nevertheless have happy accidents.

A quiche is an egg tart by definition. We nevertheless have vegan quiches.

I think perhaps language doesn't work the way you think it does.

We are at war with EastAsia. We've always been at war with EastAsia.

 

[mumblethrax]

We are at war with EastAsia. We've always been at war with EastAsia.

This is not meaningful response.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There isn't a reliable way to casually distinguish between the two.

There also isn't a reliable way to casually distinguish between a transman and a man.

You've got the same problem either way.

Do you though?

How do you tell the difference between a male and a female? I don't need you to be 100% perfectly accurate at half a mile in a blizzard - just a general statement will be sufficient for this discussion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sex is a matter biological. Gender is all of the social, cultural, psychological attachments to sex.

Which side of that razor do you think "the law" falls on?

The law up until 5 ******* minutes ago fell on the side of sex. At the very edge of feasible, I'll give you "presumption of sex".

The law has NEVER fallen on the side of social, cultural, and psychological attachments to sex. When females got the right to vote, we were NOT asking for the right of "people who keep house and clean and take care of kids and wear skirts" to vote. We were fighting for the right of FEMALES to vote.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course it isn't. This is the point I've been trying to make for the past several days. The law is not a direct reflection of reality.


I agree. So why is everyone so confused by it?

Your posts genuinely do not seem to convey the sentiment you seem to be intending.

 

[mumblethrax]

How do you tell the difference between a male and a female? I don't need you to be 100% perfectly accurate at half a mile in a blizzard - just a general statement will be sufficient for this discussion.

A bit hard to answer, because I'm not particularly aware that I'm doing it--it's largely a matter of intuition. Clothing, hairstyle, makeup, face, body type, etc., I guess.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It was implicitly. If we're talking about a bathroom setting, there's nothing else to go on.

No, it wasn't implicit in my question. You have incorrectly inferred the presence of something I did not imply.

 

[mumblethrax]

The law up until 5 ******* minutes ago fell on the side of sex. At the very edge of feasible, I'll give you "presumption of sex".

I am not asking about the contents of the law.

I am asking about the law itself.