Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

Continuation thread from: https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14361590#post14361590

Posted By: Darat

If there is a document (driver's license or ID card for non-drivers) that is used as identification with objective characteristics (sex, DOB, hair color, etc.), then other documents or objects, like the license plate, can be individually customized without harming the objective identification function of the license/ID card.

The core function of both the card and the plate is to identify the bearer thereof; for whatever reason(s) we allow ourselves to have more fun with the latter than the former, using them to broadcast sundry personal statuses, fandoms, or interests to those stuck behind us in traffic. Why is it okay for the state to print a license plate which identifies the owner as "Animal Friendly" or "Autism Aware" but not a license card which says they refuse to identify as either man or woman?

Oh, and the state can charge more money for a customized license plate.

As the bearer of a custom plate, I'm fully aware.

 

[Shadowdweller]

A critique of the Cass Review by a team of international scientists and physicians:

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

The Cass Review was commissioned to address the failure of the UK National Health Service to
provide timely, competent, and high-quality care to transgender youth. These failures include
long wait times—often years—and resulting delays in timely treatment by skilled providers.
Instead of effectively addressing this issue, however, the Review’s process and recommendations
stake out an ideological position on care for transgender youth that is deeply at odds with the
Review’s own findings about the importance of individualized and age-appropriate approach to
medical treatments for gender dysphoria in youth, consistent with the international Standards of
Care issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Clinical
Practice Guidelines issued by the Endocrine Society. Far from evaluating the evidence in a
neutral and scientifically valid manner, the Review obscures key findings, misrepresents its own
data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method. The Review deeply considers the
possibility of gender-affirming interventions being given to someone who is not transgender, but
without reciprocal consideration for transgender youth who undergo permanent, distressing
physical changes when they do not receive timely care. The vast majority of transgender youth in
the UK and beyond do not receive an opportunity to even consider clinical care with qualified
clinicians—and the Review’s data demonstrate this clearly

 

[Paul2]

The core function of both the card and the plate is to identify the bearer thereof; for whatever reason(s) we allow ourselves to have more fun with the latter than the former, using them to broadcast sundry personal statuses, fandoms, or interests to those stuck behind us in traffic. Why is it okay for the state to print a license plate which identifies the owner as "Animal Friendly" or "Autism Aware" but not a license card which says they refuse to identify as either man or woman?

Because their functions are very different even if they both can be brought under the broad heading of “identification.” Drivers license or ID card is a fundamental form of ID. You cant bring your license plate into a bank and use it as ID to cash a check.

 

[d4m10n]

Because their functions are very different even if they both can be brought under the broad heading of “identification.” Drivers license or ID card is a fundamental form of ID. You cant bring your license plate into a bank and use it as ID to cash a check.

I'm aware of some differences, but it remains unclear why we ought to have a general rule against including information that speaks to the bearer's psychological state. It feels to me like the rationales given thus far are not the true ones.

 

[smartcooky]

A critique of the Cass Review by a team of international, ideologically captured scientists and physicians:

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

FTFY

 

[Paul2]

I'm aware of some differences, but it remains unclear why we ought to have a general rule against including information that speaks to the bearer's psychological state. It feels to me like the rationales given thus far are not the true ones.

I don't think it would be the end of the world if there was optional or individualized information on an ID card, but it's just not the time or place for that type of thing. Sure, the state was pushing that rationale aside at least a little bit to offer personalized license plates, but the license plate is not an official ID of a person like a driver's license is.

 

[theprestige]

It should also be noted that the personalized license plate is still also an accurate and unique key to the car's registration status. "69420" might be amusing to me, but it's still supremely useful to police, DMV, and hotels inventorying their parking lots overnight.

This is why I'm in favor of legal name changes being reflected on government ID.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think it would be the end of the world if there was optional or individualized information on an ID card

Optional info isn't that big a deal, if it's merely in addition to the important stuff. The substitution of arbitrary info in place of objective info, though, that is a real problem. So replacing sex with gender is a problem. Having gender in addition to sex is a bit silly, but not really a problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm aware of some differences, but it remains unclear why we ought to have a general rule against including information that speaks to the bearer's psychological state. It feels to me like the rationales given thus far are not the true ones.

In part, privileging one set of preferences over another offends people who don't have that preference. Why list gender rather than, say, religion? That privileges people who care about advertising their gender over those who care about advertising their religion. Not that big a deal, but really, what do you expect?

More importantly, what really raises people's hackles is the substitution of those preferences for reality. Because that causes actual real-world problems. When male sexual predators are put in female prisons because they claim a female gender identity, there can be devastating consequences (well, not for the middle and upper class TRA's who aren't subject to those predations, but there are for somebody). And that's what the TRA's are pushing. Gender identity on ID's isn't supposed to be in addition to biological sex, they want it instead of biological sex. And that's at the heart of this conflict. Can someone's preferences override reality? TRAs are saying yes, their opponents are saying no. ID's are just another battleground in that conflict.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm aware of some differences, but it remains unclear why we ought to have a general rule against including information that speaks to the bearer's psychological state. It feels to me like the rationales given thus far are not the true ones.

I feel like you're willfully missing the point. Honestly, I can no longer tell if you're playing devil's advocate or not.

So let's back this up a bit. You suggest that we want a general rule against including information that speaks to the bearer's psychological state on official identification documents.

Your assumption is incorrect. It's not that we want a rule against it, it's that we think it's 1) completely irrelevant and 2) being requested by people who want that irrelevant information to grant them special privileges that we don't think they should have.

Do you think that transgender identified people want gender identity markers on their IDs solely because it makes them happy? No, not at all. This isn't like wanting their ID card to have puppy dogs on it, because it makes the holder happy to see puppies everytime they have to demonstrate that they're old enough to buy booze.

They want gender identity markers on their IDs so that they can use that marker to compel other people to treat them differently, and so that other people are obligated to allow them to circumvent sex-based restrictions on spaces and services.

That's what we object to, and that's why we don't approve of placing gender identity markers on IDs. Gender identity markers do not serve to actually identify the person, nor do we think they should provide legal standing for people to compel special privileges from others.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Optional info isn't that big a deal, if it's merely in addition to the important stuff. The substitution of arbitrary info in place of objective info, though, that is a real problem. So replacing sex with gender is a problem. Having gender in addition to sex is a bit silly, but not really a problem.

It depends entirely on what is implied by that gender identity marker. If it has zero policy implications, then fine, it's up there with putting your favorite ice cream flavor on your ID: useless but harmless.

On the other hand, if that gender identity marker gets used to override sex restrictions on spaces and services, then I think it's a problem. If it creates a situation where Eddie Izzard can walk into the female showers at the local Y, drop trou, and parade their twig and giggle-berries around and say "See, my ID has and F on it! You can't make me leave" that's a problem.

 

[Matthew Best]

A critique of the Cass Review by a team of international scientists and physicians:

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

I'm getting "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" vibes.

 

[Elaedith]

A critique of the Cass Review by a team of international scientists and physicians:

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

It might have been better to post this under the Cass review thread in Science and Medicine (I was thinking of posting it there when I've had time to go through it in detail).

This is largely a hit piece written by proponents of current models of GAC for minors, including those associated with WPATH and those whose own research was rejected as low quality by the Cass review. For example, every piece of research published by Jack Turban (one of the Yale authors) was rated low quality and rejected from the final Cass synthesis.

The body of the paper is not even coherent, in that the different sections contradict each other. I'm not sure if they are written by different people and some of them haven't even read the systematic reviews commissioned for Cass. For example, section 2 complains that the review doesn't define evidence quality, in contrast to standards like GRADE. But the systematic reviews did not use GRADE and they do explain how they defined evidence quality. The critique seems to be complaining that high quality evidence as defined by GRADE means placebo-controlled RCTs and that most evidence in medicine can't meet this standard, but the reviews for Cass used NOS which is for non-randomised trials, meaning that a study can be rated as high quality without being a placebo-controlled blinded study or even an RCT. The authors therefore appear to be either ignorant, or deliberately obfuscating and playing into the misinformation distributed by activists that studies were downgraded by Cass for not being double-blinded RCTs (while avoiding saying this directly).

That's just one section I'll give more thoughts when I get more time.

 

[theprestige]

Optional info isn't that big a deal, if it's merely in addition to the important stuff. The substitution of arbitrary info in place of objective info, though, that is a real problem. So replacing sex with gender is a problem. Having gender in addition to sex is a bit silly, but not really a problem.

It depends entirely on what is implied by that gender identity marker. If it has zero policy implications, then fine, it's up there with putting your favorite ice cream flavor on your ID: useless but harmless.

Here I disagree. Putting extraneous information on an ID document detracts from the usefulness of the document. It makes it more difficult to read, requires more cognitive load to sift the document's signal from the document's noise.

Even if the effect is miniscule, it's still a detrimental effect.

 

[d4m10n]

Optional info isn't that big a deal, if it's merely in addition to the important stuff. The substitution of arbitrary info in place of objective info, though, that is a real problem. So replacing sex with gender is a problem. Having gender in addition to sex is a bit silly, but not really a problem.

Agreed. I would argue that it is of at least some usefulness for the person attempting to match an individual to their government name to know in advance whether the person in question identifies as a gender which doesn't match their sex, if only because some people pass really well as the opposite sex and it would be good to know whether to be looking out for that possibility.

Why list gender rather than, say, religion?

Possibly because atheists look much the same as Protestants, whereas gender identity is correlated with gender expression.

More importantly, what really raises people's hackles is the substitution of those preferences for reality. Because that causes actual real-world problems.

I'd argue we can easily prevent such substitution by making it clear that sex and gender are two separate variables, whereas keeping only sex on the document invites the usual confusion.

They want gender identity markers on their IDs so that they can use that marker to compel other people to treat them differently, and so that other people are obligated to allow them to circumvent sex-based restrictions on spaces and services.

I'd argue we can easily prevent such compulsion by making it clear that sex and gender are two separate variables, whereas keeping only sex on the document invites the usual confusion.

 

[smartcooky]

I'd argue we can easily prevent such compulsion by making it clear that sex and gender are two separate variables, whereas keeping only sex on the document invites the usual confusion.

That is an argument the people who want this insanity are never, ever going to accept. Their commitment is to the total elimination of biology as an identifying factor - the elimination of words such as mother, father, male, female. They want the ONLY identifying factor for a man or a woman is down to what they individual feels.

 

[d4m10n]

That is an argument the people who want [gender ideology] are never, ever going to accept.

Judging by the replies to #2521 they are in good company here. Evidently both sides want just one marker, and they each want it to mean exactly what they mean by it.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Judging by the replies to #2521 they are in good company here. Evidently both sides want just one marker, and they each want it to mean exactly what they mean by it.

That marker is and always has been biological sex. The trans activists want to replace that marker by the nebulous, unscientific, and ill-specified "gender identity".

They've failed to make a convincing case. There's no symmetry here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here I disagree. Putting extraneous information on an ID document detracts from the usefulness of the document. It makes it more difficult to read, requires more cognitive load to sift the document's signal from the document's noise.

Even if the effect is miniscule, it's still a detrimental effect.

Perhaps, but I think your objection is largely one of aesthetics and efficiency, not one of policy or appropriateness. On this point, it circles back to damion's post regarding custom license plates which do the same thing you complain of here - the add extraneous info the plate and make it less immediately useful, more difficult to read, and requires more cognitive load to sift out the number and state from the background noise.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Judging by the replies to #2521 they are in good company here. Evidently both sides want just one marker, and they each want it to mean exactly what they mean by it.

Do you think that both sides have equally valid standing?

 

[d4m10n]

That marker is and always has been biological sex. The trans activists want to replace that marker by the nebulous, unscientific, and ill-specified "gender identity".

In many jurisdictions, this has already happened: https://thehill.com/changing-americ...our-gender-designation-on-official-documents/

Taken together, they account for well over half the U.S. by population.

 

[d4m10n]

Do you think that both sides have equally valid standing?

Legally, of course. In terms of persuasive argument, no.

If we had to have just one marker, I'd say we go with "sex" as it was understood twenty years ago.

I'd argue that a better solution (by far) would be to educate people into the understanding that sex and gender are two separate phenomena which ought not be crammed into a single variable.

 

[smartcooky]

Judging by the replies to #2521 they are in good company here. Evidently both sides want just one marker, and they each want it to mean exactly what they mean by it.

Except that those who want biological sex to be that marker are following both scientific fact and objective, observable reality. The others just follow feelings.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[d4m10n]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Factually speaking, is it easier to identify someone who passes as a man if you've been given a heads up not to be looking for a run-of-the-mill female who's never taken testosterone? If so, then we're still in the realm of facts here.

 

[Ron Obvious]

In many jurisdictions, this has already happened: https://thehill.com/changing-americ...our-gender-designation-on-official-documents/

Taken together, they account for well over half the U.S. by population.

Hopefully we'll be able to look back on this idiocy in a few years and shake our head, wondering what the heck we were thinking.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd argue that a better solution (by far) would be to educate people into the understanding that sex and gender are two separate phenomena which ought not be crammed into a single variable.

I agree that they shouldn't be crammed into a single variable.

I'm not convinced I agree that they're both actual phenomena. At least, no more so that I would accept that body and soul are two separate phenomena.

I am, however, curious as to what your argument is to support them being two separate phenomena that should each be separately recognized. I think you and I agree on what constitutes sex, at least enough so that we don't need to go into any detail on that. But how would you define gender such that it should be considered a variable in this context?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Factually speaking, is it easier to identify someone who passes as a man if you've been given a heads up not to be looking for a run-of-the-mill female who's never taken testosterone? If so, then we're still in the realm of facts here.

I've read this five times, and I can't parse it, something isn't clicking. Can you try elaborating or rephrasing please?

 

[smartcooky]

Factually speaking, is it easier to identify someone who passes as a man if you've been given a heads up not to be looking for a run-of-the-mill female who's never taken testosterone? If so, then we're still in the realm of facts here.

To paraphrase JKR... no matter how much lipstick and makeup the male wears, his meat and two veg will give the game away every time!

 

[Roboramma]

I've read this five times, and I can't parse it, something isn't clicking. Can you try elaborating or rephrasing please?

Damion's point is just that telling you someone is trans makes it slightly easier to identify them than if you didn't know. From a bayesian perspective I think that's valid. It may not be all that much information, but its information.

If you told me that the person I was trying to find in a crowd trains powerlifting, I'd probably find them faster than if I didn't know that, because I'd keep my eyes out for a particular type of physique. It wouldn't be 100% accurate, because some people train more than others and you can still have some skinny guy who trains twice a month. But it's still information.

Still, I don't think we should include people's hobbies on their ID, even if that information is potentially useful.

Aside from it being noisy information, there's also the issue of abuse. People can lie about their hobbies and they can lie about being trans. Its not entirely clear to me what the scenario is where we're meant to be using the information on someone's ID. I assume in most such cases the person wants to be identifiable, like when a cop pulls you over, you want them to be able to identify that yes, you are the person on the ID. But if there are any adversarial situations, where people don't want to be identified, then listing hobbies or self-ID gender, is an opportunity for people to choose to be less identifiable. I'm not sure this is an actual issue, but it does seem worth mentioning.

As I said, I think the main issue is just that while there's some information there, it's noisy and not particularly useful. If a male is wearing makeup but in their ID photo they aren't and their ID just says "Sex: Male", I don't think that adding "gender: feminine" would be an aha moment for the cop. The person handing over the ID can just say "yeah, I'm trans".

I can't really think of any situation where including gender on an ID would actually be useful.

 

[Darat]

In the UK one of the two most used “ID” verification methods - the driving licence - doesn’t have sex on it, and I’m struggling to think why we need that info on any officially accepted ID these days. For instance the UK driving licence has a photo of you which is probably the best quick check method of verification. And given technology today if we need more than that we should be looking at biometric verification.

 

[Samson]

Wes Streeting is banning puberty blockers permanently.
Puberty is a human right.
Eta
Puberty is a rite of passage.

 

[Aber]

In the UK one of the two most used “ID” verification methods - the driving licence - doesn’t have sex on it.

Yes it does; 7th digit of the driving licence is 0,1 for male 5,6 for female.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[d4m10n]

I can't really think of any situation where including gender on an ID would actually be useful.

I've already provided one above: any "spa or gym...which openly supports the reasoning behind CA civil rights laws" and wants a state-issued i.d. to settle which patrons go in which locker room. Other examples might include clothiers who want a state-issued i.d. to settle which patrons go in which room to try on clothes, or nightclubs who want to provide lower admission to self-identified women on ladies' night.

 

[Roboramma]

I've already provided one above: any "spa or gym...which openly supports the reasoning behind CA civil rights laws" and wants a state-issued i.d. to settle which patrons go in which locker room.

If the state issued ID's gender category is based on self-ID then it doesn't really add anything to just asking the person "which locker rooms do you want to use?".

Other examples might include clothiers who want a state-issued i.d. to settle which patrons go in which room to try on clothes, or nightclubs who want to provide lower admission to self-identified women on ladies' night.

My above comment applies to both of these, but I also generally don't really see them wanting to use gender instead of sex.

But anyway, I'm happy to accept that are probably some edge cases where people would find it moderately useful to have a state issued ID that lists gender. These sorts of cases however aren't a compelling enough reason to apply state resources to adding gender to ID.

I mean, there are probably also some cases where someone would find it useful to have a list of your hobbies on their ID, but that doesn't make a strong enough case to actually add that to state issued IDs.

 

[d4m10n]

These sorts of cases however aren't a compelling enough reason to apply state resources to adding gender to ID.

At this point in time, we need to talk about adding "sex" rather than adding "gender" because most Americans live in states where the two categories have already been mashed together into a single (useless) one which suffers all the deficiencies you mentioned above but also fails to tell us sex at birth.

 

[Ron Obvious]

At this point in time, we need to talk about adding "sex" rather than adding "gender" because most Americans live in states where the two categories have already been mashed together into a single (useless) one which suffers all the deficiencies you mentioned above but also fails to tell us sex at birth.

I suspect the vast majority of them aren't even aware of that and would almost certainly object if they knew.

 

[d4m10n]

I am, however, curious as to what your argument is to support them being two separate phenomena that should each be separately recognized. I think you and I agree on what constitutes sex, at least enough so that we don't need to go into any detail on that. But how would you define gender such that it should be considered a variable in this context?

Gender is what people say when you ask them if they see themselves as a man, woman, or neither.

 

[Matthew Best]

... which can change from day to day.

 

[Darat]

Yes it does; 7th digit of the driving licence is 0,1 for male 5,6 for female.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_the_United_Kingdom

That you can work out the sex by decrypting a string does not mean that the driving licence has your sex on it - there is no M or F. I bet apart from perhaps the police most people have no idea you can decrypt the sex of the person handing you their ID.

 

[d4m10n]

... which can change from day to day.

As do weight and hair color, both of which are on my i.d.