Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Aber]

I get that, but see it the opposite way. In dealing with people, I am almost never interacting with their sexual physiology. YMMV.

In a doctor's office it often matters. Competative sports teams care. Prisons care. But in day to day interaction, what's in someone's pants doesn't even... arise, if you'll excuse the expression. Virtually every man and woman I interact with could be the opposite sex from how they appear, and I wouldn't know, nor would it make any difference.

So where do you stand on say identity documents; should a transwoman have a F on a passport, what do you do with non-binary identities, or the gender fluid?

 

[Thermal]

Yes, exactly. In all these mundane interactions, womanhood is irrelevant. It has no practical application.

And in all the interactions where womanhood does matter, what actually matters is biological sex.

Maybe we're talking past each other. If you're looking for agreement that we should treat transwomen as women, except where sex matters, you have my enthusiastic agreement.

But there is a nuance. Treating transwomen as women in all your non-asterisk scenarios means treating them no different from men. In employment and housing, it's actually illegal. Gender expression has no practical application there, as a matter of law.

I get that you are very focused on the public policy aspect. I'm very interested in the purely social aspect, which I assume the law and public policy will reflect. So maybe we are talking past each other in that regard.

Personally, I wish I could say I treated men and women the same, but I don't, honestly. I am very consciously more chivalrous towards women, and am disarming and deferential. I actually noticed this in a weird way a few days ago: a young lady held the door open for me as I was leaving a store, and I gave a quick smile and said 'thank you'. Then I realized it was a young dude, who I normally would have just gave a half nod to and a mumbled 'thanks, man'. Actually felt a little weird about it.

 

[Thermal]

So where do you stand on say identity documents; should a transwoman have a F on a passport, what do you do with non-binary identities, or the gender fluid?

Another tricky one. Basically, we shouldn't have 'gendered' documents. I don't think they serve any useful purpose.

Solution? Maybe have biological sex coded into your passport number, like the last digit discretely being a 1 for a male, a 0 for a female, maybe a 2 and 3 for medically transitioned folks, just so a positive ID can be matched between the physical body and the passbook.

{Eta: by coding it, it's not a big 'front and center' issue anymore, saying you are something you feel you are not. It's just another digit in your number. Kind of like your ss# in the States is full of coded information about where you were born and stuff. Disclaimer for pedants: not on newer cards, but mine does, and it actually matches my kids, although they say it is random now}

I don't acknowledge non binary and gender fluid so that's not really an issue. They're just being recreationally difficult.

 

[theprestige]

I get that you are very focused on the public policy aspect. I'm very interested in the purely social aspect, which I assume the law and public policy will reflect. So maybe we are talking past each other in that regard.

Personally, I wish I could say I treated men and women the same, but I don't, honestly. I am very consciously more chivalrous towards women, and am disarming and deferential. I actually noticed this in a weird way a few days ago: a young lady held the door open for me as I was leaving a store, and I gave a quick smile and said 'thank you'. Then I realized it was a young dude, who I normally would have just gave a half nod to and a mumbled 'thanks, man'. Actually felt a little weird about it.

I think we're actually in agreement:

I agree with you that transwomen should be treated as women in every situation where gender expression has no practical purpose. I think this is prosocial and humane, and I have no objection. I'm even willing to compromise on things like preferred pronouns.

And you agree with me that transwomen should be treated as men, everywhere that practical results are based on biological sex rather than gender expression.

My only objection - and it's not a dealbreaker for me - is that your "women with an asterisk" ends up being a fig leaf over the fact that they're men in every way that actually matters. They're all asterisk where it counts. Again, that's not a dealbreaker for me. I don't go around telling transwomen that they're not really women to their face. That would be rude. If you want to call them "women with an asterisk", be my guest. But maybe think about what it actually accomplishes, if anything.

If treating transwomen as women* simply means not persecuting them for putting on womanface, then we're in agreement.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Another tricky one. Basically, we shouldn't have 'gendered' documents. I don't think they serve any useful purpose.

They're as much an identifying feature as e.g. age and height. More so than weight because that actually CAN change, unlike sex. Of course, it should be part of an identifying document.

 

[theprestige]

Another tricky one. Basically, we shouldn't have 'gendered' documents. I don't think they serve any useful purpose.

Solution? Maybe have biological sex coded into your passport number, like the last digit discretely being a 1 for a male, a 0 for a female, maybe a 2 and 3 for medically transitioned folks, just so a positive ID can be matched between the physical body and the passbook.

{Eta: by coding it, it's not a big 'front and center' issue anymore, saying you are something you feel you are not. It's just another digit in your number. Kind of like your ss# in the States is full of coded information about where you were born and stuff}

Why change the passport specifications to cater to a tiny minority of people who wish the current standard weren't so clear about their biological sex?

Also, what do you say to the inevitable rebuttal, that an "F" encoded anywhere, in any symbol at all, is hurtful to transwomen? How content are they going to feel about that "M", when they know it's just a polite fiction? You need to consider the possibility that transwomen don't want the polite fiction.

I don't acknowledge non binary and gender fluid so that's not really an issue. They're just being recreationally difficult.

"Recreationally difficult." I like that! I also think that anyone insisting on trans privilege, with neither a medical diagnosis nor a physician's prescription for transition as a treatment, is also being recreationally difficult.

 

[Thermal]

I think we're actually in agreement:

I agree with you that transwomen should be treated as women in every situation where gender expression has no practical purpose. I think this is prosocial and humane, and I have no objection. I'm even willing to compromise on things like preferred pronouns.

And you agree with me that transwomen should be treated as men, everywhere that practical results are based on biological sex rather than gender expression.

My only objection - and it's not a dealbreaker for me - is that your "women with an asterisk" ends up being a fig leaf over the fact that they're men in every way that actually matters. They're all asterisk where it counts. Again, that's not a dealbreaker for me. I don't go around telling transwomen that they're not really women to their face. That would be rude. If you want to call them "women with an asterisk", be my guest. But maybe think about what it actually accomplishes, if anything.

If treating transwomen as women* simply means not persecuting them for putting on womanface, then we're in agreement.

Ok, pretty much agreed. The only pedantic quibble is what 'matters'. I'd say that respecting their desire to feel 'normal' in that 99% of day to day interactions is what 'matters' for their well-being, although I of course agree that in that doctors office, the bio sex matters more. And since you offered compromise on pronouns, that pretty much ties up the loose ends. We are in functional agreement.

Now when we get to other issues like the high school girls showers, that asterisk gets big again. Women in every way, till it gets physical with others. That's why I don't call them women with an asterisk, but more like women (but the asterisk has to be kept in mind). If that distinction makes sense?

 

[Thermal]

They're as much an identifying feature as e.g. age and height. More so than weight because that actually CAN change, unlike sex. Of course, it should be part of an identifying document.

Gender isn't. Sex is, and in terms of your driver's license or passport, just code it in. The cop and customs agent know how to read it.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Gender isn't. Sex is, and in terms of your driver's license or passport, just code it in. The cop and customs age t know how to read it.

I agree that "Gender" is not a useful identifying aspect of person, and therefore has no reason for being on any identification document, even if we were to accept it as a real thing in the first place. Much like sexuality, or sexual preference, in that regard. Unlike, say, "age"- which is a number also unaffected by how old you feel you are.

 

[Thermal]

Why change the passport specifications to cater to a tiny minority of people who wish the current standard weren't so clear about their biological sex?

Because for identification purposes, we have been blatantly demanding of gender conformity with sex for a long, long time. A man was expected to look like a stereotypical man, and all that. Pretty sure we can say it's time to clean that up; it's not really something that you can rely on anymore. If you're passing trans, a customs official might think you have a doctored passport just because of the M/F apparent discrepancy.

Also, what do you say to the inevitable rebuttal, that an "F" encoded anywhere, in any symbol at all, is hurtful to transwomen? How content are they going to feel about that "M", when they know it's just a polite fiction? You need to consider the possibility that transwomen don't want the polite fiction.

That's what compromise is all about. A trans person is indignant about the 'wrong' letter? OK. We don't really need it at all, so into the jumble of numbers it goes, and for everyone.

I mean, a passport has your actual photo on it. Why do you really need an M/F? The pic is much more identifying. The M/F you can't even really confirm without dropping trou.

"Recreationally difficult." I like that! I also think that anyone insisting on trans privilege, with neither a medical diagnosis nor a physician's prescription for transition as a treatment, is also being recreationally difficult.

I think a lot of this action is being recreationally difficult, even a transwoman demanding to be let into the women's rest room. I mean, come on. You're peeing and washing your hands. It's not that big a deal, honestly. I could use that Portland high school's rest room area without existential angst. Seems like the whole thing should be no big deal. But we should, as a society, try to make things reasonably comfy for everyone, even if we don't agree.

 

[Thermal]

I agree that "Gender" is not a useful identifying aspect of person, and therefore has no reason for being on any identification document, even if we were to accept it as a real thing in the first place. Much like sexuality, or sexual preference, in that regard. Unlike, say, "age"- which is a number also unaffected by how old you feel you are.

Right, and even age on an ID can be problematic. We all know people that look 20 years younger than they are (I do, anyway). Is that grounds to hold them at customs?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't see why a transwoman would be an affront to your dignity.

BECAUSE HE IS A MAN.

Once again, menstruation issues et al have nothing to do with a transwoman in the restroom with you. Aside from the thought in your head, she's just another occupant.

No. HE is a man. The thoughts he has in his head do not change that.

Speaking for the planet again, are you?

I thought that was your line. I thought you were under the impression you had been appointed to find a "solution" to this issue, on behalf of the entire world.

Us normies ...

The sheer hubris of it, categorising those who disagree with you - who are generally in favour of retaining the status quo as it has been for many decades, bear in mind - as weirdos, and yourself as one of the "normies" - who are trying to change everything to suit their own peculiar world-view - absolutely burns.

The weird hangup you have are not likely shared by most, despite you being the self declared Spokesperson of the World.

Most people, I would think, ...

You really can't see it, can you? This "weird hangup" is simply a strong preference for the way things have been for many decades, since women actually succeeded in their campaign to have their own public toilets (before that there were only men's toilets, so women had to stay home), and the self-declared Spokesperson of the World is you. You imagine how most people would think with no evidence beyond your own self-selected group of mates, and remain entirely disdainful of the huge numbers of people who don't think that way. Well, they're just weirdos, apparently.

You still appear to me to be arguing for trans-identified men to be admitted to women-only spaces, given the way you're refusing to accept that anyone could have a valid reason for objecting to this.

 

[Thermal]

BECAUSE HE IS A MAN.

No. HE is a man. The thoughts he has in his head do not change that.

Right...right, I caught that. And?

I thought that was your line. I thought you were under the impression you had been appointed to find a "solution" to this issue, on behalf of the entire world.

Shockingly, you thought wrongly. Again. This is a discussion thread in Social Issues on a skeptics' forum. We talk about things.

What do you think the point of a discussion thread is? To post bigots from twitter to advertise how poor our thinking is?

The sheer hubris of it, categorising those who disagree with you - who are generally in favour of retaining the status quo as it has been for many decades,

Like racial segregation was, you mean?

You really can't see it, can you? This "weird hangup" is simply a strong preference for the way things have been for many decades,

You just can't let go of that one, can you? Yet you get upset when the obvious parallel is drawn.

Women couldn't vote in the way things were for many decades either. Sufferage was a bad idea, I suppose? We should never, ever change: a reading from the Book of Rolfe.

You imagine how most people would think with no evidence beyond your own self-selected group of mates, and remain entirely disdainful of the huge numbers of people who don't think that way. Well, they're just weirdos, apparently.

Well that and the twitter idiots you post as support for your positions make me pretty confident, yes

You still appear to me to be arguing for trans-identified men to be admitted to women-only spaces,

If, at this point, you really believe that, after the pages of keystrokes I (and some others on your team) have patiently explained to you, communication is not possible. You do not understand words, and you cannot learn.

I don't believe either is the case, but the only alternative is to point out the truth.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, if you don't believe that trans-identifying men should be permitted in women-only spaces, stop telling me why I'm wrong not to want them to be permitted there.

And quit with the comparisons to racial segregation, that's dishonest.

Anyway, this looks like good news, although some say it may not bode well for Wednesday's announcement.

Women’s rights to be prioritised in equality law revamp

Radical overhaul follows concerns about trans people using single-sex spaces

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Thermal]

Well, if you don't believe that trans-identifying men should be permitted in women-only spaces, stop telling me why I'm wrong not to want them to be permitted there.

There's good reasons and bad reasons to want things, and based on your Twitter posts, you're unapologetically all about the bad ones.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, how about you enumerate the good and the bad ones, so we ignorant women know which we're permitted.

 

[Thermal]

How about you go to any of the dozens of posts I've addressed to you and... try... real... hard... to figure it out all by yourself? Bored out of my mind with the repetition.

 

[lionking]

I’ve believed for some time that whenever people bring up racial segregation and gay rights in this thread they have run out of valid arguments and can only throw about the “bigot” label. It’s pathetic really.

 

[Lithrael]

Possibly sometimes, but Thermal is bringing it up in rebuttal to the "I like it to stay the way it's been" criterion.

 

[Thermal]

Possibly sometimes, but Thermal is bringing it up in rebuttal to the "I like it to stay the way it's been" criterion.

Exactly. "This is how we've always done it" is Shirley Jackson's Lottery thinking.