Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Louden Wilde]

This simply has nothing to do with what is being argued.


Is it your position is that housing discrimination against trans people should be legal? If not, then you've already conceded that this isn't the way to help trans people.


Most people aren't interested in inter-racial romantic partnerships, either. It has no bearing on how we treat people of different races generally.


This concern would be more plausible coming from people who weren't opposed to the movement in the first place.


No evidence has been presented for this position, and I wasn't discussing "the movement" in any case.

You think gender dysphoria has nothing to do with being transgender? That is not true. You need to expand this statement or explain it better to have it taken seriously

No, trans people should not be discriminated against in housing or employment (unless there is a proviso on sex for said employment) and I don't see how you would infer that. Everybody regularly participating in this thread is against that (to my knowledge)

Race is not a good analogy - particularly as it is a continuum and sex is not. The vast majority of people are attracted to the sex that they are not (and selection will insure that this will always be the case) , with a small persistent minority who are same-sex attracted. Either way, trans folk are (broadly) not ever going to get treated like the sex they want to be. It's the false premise at the heart of the movement - i.e. that heterosexuality (and homosexuality) are bigotries that can be overcome.


Yes, we are here to discuss the movement. Plenty of evidence has been presented in this thread(s) to show that's doing damage - see the Cass report, de-transitioners stories, the falsehoods about biology, the impingement on female only spaces/ activities, representation

I was not opposed to the movement in the first place - similar to many others here*. It's not a movement that stands up to scrutiny ( in my case it was the falsehoods about biology and too much time during the pandemic that got me digging into it).

*Also - it's a bad sign when you have to resort to the "Hitler was a vegetarian" mode of arguing.

 

[Ziggurat]

They are--with respect to gender identity.

But not with respect to sex.

So which is more important? Sex or gender identity? If your answer is gender identity, you need to do some serious thinking about what these things are. Because unless you make 4 (or more) categories, distinguishing on the basis of one is mutually exclusive with distinguishing on the basis of the other.

You are confused. You invoked "reasonable accommodation" in order to justify an investigation into sincerity of beliefs, when it has no bearing on the current topic.

Sincerity of beliefs absolutely matters if you want to be able to distinguish between authentic and fake trans. And if you won't do that, then granting access to trans people is the same as granting access to anyone who wants it.

Right, the same...with respect to sex.


They are asking to be treated the same, with respect to gender identity,

Which is irrelevant if the basis for treatment isn't gender identity but sex. You don't get to substitute the distinction you want for the distinction society uses.

Because I've yet to see any serious elucidation of those other problems.

Because you aren't paying attention.

 

[mumblethrax]

You think gender dysphoria has nothing to do with being transgender?

No. You can tell by the way I didn't say this, or anything like it.

No, trans people should not be discriminated against in housing or employment (unless there is a proviso on sex for said employment) and I don't see how you would infer that.

Because you stated it would be better to focus on "dispelling the illusion". What is the thing that this is meant to be better than? Enforcement of anti-discrimination measures.

If discrimination in housing or employment aren't warranted, it's because discrimination on the basis of gender identity isn't warranted. Which ought to put any pro-discrimination argument in public accommodations on the back foot. You need some good reason why it's warranted in given circumstances.

And when it comes to bathrooms, I don't think there is one. It's just a bunch of handwaving.

Race is not a good analogy - particularly as it is a continuum and sex is not.

I wasn't using race as an analogy for sex. I was pointing out that we generally don't take it as an affront to an egalitarian society if people aren't attracted to some subset of the population.

It's the false premise at the heart of the movement - i.e. that heterosexuality (and homosexuality) are bigotries that can be overcome.

This isn't at the heart of the movement.

Yes, we are here to discuss the movement. Plenty of evidence has been presented in this thread(s) to show that's doing damage - see the Cass report, de-transitioners stories, the falsehoods about biology, the impingement on female only spaces/ activities, representation

None of which establishes that the movement can only do damage.

The anti-discrimination measure you say you support are a result of the movement. And they don't exist everywhere. Which means there is still good to be done.

*Also - it's a bad sign when you have to resort to the "Hitler was a vegetarian" mode of arguing.

Which, notably, I didn't.

 

[Rolfe]

I am not usually one for listening to hour-long podcasts, but I listened to this one and I thought it was very good.

No Fear. No Favour. Episode Two: Nick Wallis

Journalism should be fearless - and free of favour. We talk to investigative journalist Nick Wallis about his journey into covering sex and gender

seeninjournalism.substack.com

It is an interview with Nick Wallis, the journalist who spearheaded the investigation of the Post Office scandal, who has now turned his attention to the trans scandal. It's thoughtful and rational and in the end optimistic.

 

[smartcooky]

Is it your position is that housing discrimination against trans people should be legal?

No-one here at all is arguing for this. In terms of this thread, that is a strawman of your making.

If not, then you've already conceded that this isn't the way to help trans people.

Treatment and counseling the way to help transpeople.
Enabling and celebrating their fantasy is the worse possible thing to do. This is especially so when it comes to pumping children with drugs that are known to cause bodily changes, and that we KNOW have serious, long term, irreversible effects.

Most people aren't interested in inter-racial romantic partnerships, either. It has no bearing on how we treat people of different races generally.

Once again, race has nothing whatever to do with this issue. Race IS NOT any kind of analogy or stand-in for transgenderism in any way at all.

The "race as an an analogy for trans" canard is just a desperate attempt by trans allied people to couch opponents as bigots.

This concern would be more plausible coming from people who weren't opposed to the movement in the first place.

If you are opposed to males being allowed in women's spaces, your opinion is worth nothing?

 

[d4m10n]

Which ought to put any pro-discrimination argument in public accommodations on the back foot.

Nearly every public accommodation with multiuser bathrooms and/or locker rooms uses some factor to discriminate between patrons fit for one room and those fit for another. If want to argue that gender expression or identity is a better discriminator than sex—for your own values and purposes—please do so, but let's not pretend that you'd be doing away with discrimination based on a protected characteristic unless you want to argue for the elimination of sorting criteria altogether.

 

[Ziggurat]

The anti-discrimination measure you say you support are a result of the movement.

And those legitimate objectives have been achieved, at least in the US and the UK. But the movement isn't stopping. So its continued activities are now doing more harm than good here. Past good doesn't excuse current harm.

And they don't exist everywhere. Which means there is still good to be done.

The over-reach in places like the US will make it harder, not easier, to reach the legitimate objectives in those other places.

 

[mumblethrax]

No-one here at all is arguing for this. In terms of this thread, that is a strawman of your making.

It wasn't a strawman. It was a question where I expected the answer to be support for anti-discrimination measures, because....

Treatment and counseling the way to help transpeople.

...it completely undermines this sentiment.

If you are opposed to males being allowed in women's spaces, your opinion is worth nothing?

No, this isn't what I said, and doesn't follow from what I said.

let's not pretend that you'd be doing away with discrimination based on a protected characteristic unless you want to argue for the elimination of sorting criteria altogether.

We are doing away with discrimination based on a protected characteristic, no make-believe necessary. We're not doing away with discrimination on all protected characteristics.

 

[mumblethrax]

So which is more important? Sex or gender identity?

As a matter of law, neither is more important. Both forms of discrimination are impermissible.

Sincerity of beliefs absolutely matters if you want to be able to distinguish between authentic and fake trans.

You just aren't going to be able to do that in the moment.

And if you won't do that, then granting access to trans people is the same as granting access to anyone who wants it.

I didn't enjoy this ride the first time, and it still isn't true.

Which is irrelevant if the basis for treatment isn't gender identity but sex.

The basis is gender identity. That's what the anti-discrimination measures in question do.

Because you aren't paying attention.

No. No one has elucidated a strong case here. They've just waved in the direction of who is bothered by it, which isn't really relevant to overcoming the presumption that disparate treatment is impermissible.

 

[mumblethrax]

And those legitimate objectives have been achieved, at least in the US and the UK.

They haven't. As you yourself noted, gender identity is not a protected class at the federal level. There are lots of places in the US where it's perfectly legal to kick someone out of an apartment, or refuse them service because of their gender identity.

The over-reach in places like the US will make it harder, not easier, to reach the legitimate objectives in those other places.

This keeps being asserted, but I see no evidence that it's true.

 

[Ziggurat]

As a matter of law, neither is more important.

Depends on which law. Under federal law, sex is more important than gender. But that wasn't actually my question. Which do you personally think is more important? Not what you think the law says, I want your own opinion.

Both forms of discrimination are impermissible.

If that were true, no form of sex or gender segregation would be permissible.

No one, including you, is arguing for that. Nobody actually believes it's true. It's all a pose, a pretense.

 

[d4m10n]

We're not doing away with discrimination on all protected characteristics.

Why choose the newly protected characteristic over the much more venerable one, around which Title IX was originally drafted?

 

[Ziggurat]

They haven't. As you yourself noted, gender identity is not a protected class at the federal level.

It doesn't need to be. Sex protection works for that at the federal level, supreme court precedent has already established that. The only thing gender identity as a protected class adds is the right to transcend sex segregation, but we don't need that.

There are lots of places in the US where it's perfectly legal to kick someone out of an apartment, or refuse them service because of their gender identity.

No, there are not.

This keeps being asserted, but I see no evidence that it's true.

Then you have not been paying attention.

 

[Aber]

The problem is that those who would set aside important principles can't be more specific than "privacy" and "decency".

What are those important principles?

Your posts may make sense to you, but it is difficult to see what coherent argument you are trying to make. I would prefer not to put words into your mouth.

 

[d4m10n]

There are lots of places in the US where it's perfectly legal to kick someone out of an apartment, or refuse them service because of their gender identity.

No, there are not.

I think probably @mumblethrax is correct here.

Looking through www.HUD.gov I'm not finding anything to indicate that the previous ban on gender identity discrimination remains in effect, and some sources which show that it was specifically rolled back, such as this handbook, which "Removed references to the Equal Access Rulein accordance with Executive Order 14168."

 

[catsmate]

IIRC, there was at least one case of a male with a transgender identity in britain who was excused from prison time, because the judge decided that being trans was an extenuating circumstance for why they had thousands and thousands of child torture and porn images.

Have you any evidence to support this claim?

 

[catsmate]

To the surprise of no-one who's been paying attention to events, there has been a major rise is violence towards trans and intersex people.

Intersex people in Europe face ‘alarming’ rise in violence, EU finds

Increase in violence since 2019 is linked to online campaigns seeking to sow disinformation and fuel hatred

www.theguardian.com

Rising violence and harassment against intersex people in the EU

fra.europa.eu

 

[mumblethrax]

Depends on which law.

If I'm talking about where gender identity is a protected class, I'm obviously talking about the laws that make it a protected class.

Which do you personally think is more important? Not what you think the law says, I want your own opinion.

I'm not entirely sure what is being asked here. I suppose I'd say that discrimination that causes more harm is more serious.

If that were true, no form of sex or gender segregation would be permissible.

...without a plausible basis.

That is, anti-discrimination laws shift the justificatory burden. Once you accept that trans people should not be subject to disparate treatment, you need some good reason to subject them to disparate treatment.

And those reasons, at least when it comes to bathrooms, have not been articulated.

 

[mumblethrax]

It doesn't need to be. Sex protection works for that at the federal level, supreme court precedent has already established that. The only thing gender identity as a protected class adds is the right to transcend sex segregation, but we don't need that.

That's just false, bordering on nonsensical. Protecting people from housing discrimination on the basis of gender identity does not involve "transcending sex discrimination."

No, there are not.

They are.

Then you have not been paying attention.

I have. The evidence has not been presented.

 

[mumblethrax]

Why choose the newly protected characteristic over the much more venerable one, around which Title IX was originally drafted?

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in the disbursement of federal funds. Not terribly relevant to public accommodations.

Title VII, notably, does not establish sex as a protected class with respect to public accommodations at all. That had to come from elsewhere (14th amendment case law, state and local laws).

But there's no reason to treat the law as if it newly enacted laws are less important than older laws. It's a general principle of constitutional law that the whole document is to be treated as if it were all written at the same time.

There's also no sense in which I'm "choosing the newly protected characteristic over the much more venerable one". They're both impermissible forms of discrimination.