Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[p0lka]

My solution is 'male' and 'female' and 'don't care' restrooms.

The 'man' and 'woman' restrooms we have don't seem to conform to up to date self definitions people have about themselves as it's gender defined.

Gender is and has become defined as separate from sex which is causing issues as we still have 'man' and 'woman separations in our buildings etc.

My solution would remove gender as a variable in deciding which restroom to use.

1. I am male, I can use the male restroom or the don't care restroom.

2. I am female, I can use the female restroom or the don't care restroom.

so much simpler if you remove gender from the equation.

 

[theprestige]

Trying to steelman LJ’s position, I’d say it might be similar to pain: a totally internal experience for which we usually accept the report of the subject, although it can be abused.

I'm pretty sure none of us actually disputes the validity of the reporting, or the validity of the reported feelings. Right? Nobody disputes that schizophrenia is a valid lived experience.

But LJ seems to be using the term as a binary alternative to "mental health disorder". By saying "valid lived experience", he is claiming that it is not a medical condition that needs diagnosis and treatment. Rather, it's a healthy process that entitles the bearer to certain privileges and rights.

The problem here is that LJ is using the term to beg the question, and avoid any serious attempt to defend the position with science and reason. He just wants us to agree that the science is already settled, and that reason is already on his side.

Which we don't. We reject his begged question. We have found his attempts at appealing to science so far very lackluster and unconvincing.

We've also rejected the analogy to homosexuality, on various cromulent grounds.

So that's the state of play. If LJ were to present a robust scientific argument for why gender dysphoria is not a mental health condition, and why claiming to have it should entitle men to be housed in women's prisons, that would be a major game-changer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Texas and Tennessee legislators have been drafting bills which require people who pass well to use the bathroom in which they do not pass at all. Perhaps these legislators are distracted?

They're drafting bills, yes. But again, let's step back and remember reality. It's not going to be enforceable.

Because... if they pass well, nobody will know and they will never be challenged.

If Buck Angel goes into a male restroom, nobody who isn't already familiar with them is going to ever know that they aren't male. Additionally, Angel has a lot of common sense, and is highly unlikely to drop their pants and flash their vulva around.

Nobody would challenge them, because nobody would suspect them, because they pass well.

 

[d4m10n]

Sadly, none of this is a system of formal logic with clear programmatic answers.

This is basically why I've been arguing that the legal solutions proposed so far—from both pro- & anti-trans inclusionists—lead to absurdities. I don't want a system where passing trans men have to demonstrate their vulval bone fides because they've been forced to use the ladies room at the big box store, nor one where Darren Merager gets a free pass to roam nude through the women's areas at a traditional Korean spa.

 

[Rolfe]

My solution is 'male' and 'female' and 'don't care' restrooms.

The 'man' and 'woman' restrooms we have don't seem to conform to up to date self definitions people have about themselves as it's gender defined.

Gender is and has become defined as separate from sex which is causing issues as we still have 'man' and 'woman separations in our buildings etc.

My solution would remove gender as a variable in deciding which restroom to use.

1. I am male, I can use the male restroom or the don't care restroom.

2. I am female, I can use the female restroom or the don't care restroom.

so much simpler if you remove gender from the equation.

This is fine, for all normal people. The perfect solution.

Unfortunately a substantial cohort of trans people won't accept it. It's part of their mental condition that they demand absolutely no "discrimination", and the undisputed right to use the facilities reserved for the sex they aren't. It's "validating", apparently. Or it will "out" them if they are seen to be using the "don't care" facilities (like everybody doesn't already know).

And, (ick warning), it's part of the AGP complex to be sexually turned on by being in the space where women perform intimate tasks. They want to listen to women peeing and changing tampons and sanitary pads in the next cubicle. They (some of them) root in the bins for used sanitary protection and put this inside their underwear for masturbatory purposes. They masturbate in the Ladies' room, sometimes in the communal space. They hang around there staring at girls or trying to engage them in conversation, enjoying watching their discomfort.

Women didn't know about this, generally, until about ten years ago or less. They believed the "I just want to pee" story. The AGPs were less bold then, and confined their pervy behaviour to inside the stalls. Now we know, we're developing a bit of a hard line about any male inside our intimate spaces.

But this is why the obvious, sensible, kind, inclusive system of having a neutral third space is problematic.

 

[Rolfe]

They're drafting bills, yes. But again, let's step back and remember reality. It's not going to be enforceable.

Because... if they pass well, nobody will know and they will never be challenged.

If Buck Angel goes into a male restroom, nobody who isn't already familiar with them is going to ever know that they aren't male. Additionally, Angel has a lot of common sense, and is highly unlikely to drop their pants and flash their vulva around.

Nobody would challenge them, because nobody would suspect them, because they pass well.

I think there is still a potential problem, and that is malicious harrassment. It is possible that a transwoman or a transman passes perfectly well to any stranger and need never worry about being challenged in the normal course of events. However if someone who knows they are trans has a grudge against them, they could make a point of calling the authorities on them and getting them charged with a breach of the law.

The other problem (and I think this is mainly older transwomen) is when someone is doing the best they can to pass, but doesn't. Do they risk it, or do they march into the Gents' in their tweed skirt, twinset and pearls?

 

[shuttlt]

This is basically why I've been arguing that the legal solutions proposed so far—from both pro- & anti-trans inclusionists—lead to absurdities. I don't want a system where passing trans men have to demonstrate their vulval bone fides because they've been forced to use the ladies room at the big box store, nor one where Darren Merager gets a free pass to roam nude through the women's areas at a traditional Korean spa.

This is the problem with solving problems with law. The expansion of the State has been a process of collapsing more informal modes of enforcement, social taboos, local solutions etc. into universalist, legally enforced solutions. There isn't necessarily a solution to this that can be articulated as a law that doesn't have unfortunate edge cases.

 

[d4m10n]

They're drafting bills, yes. But again, let's step back and remember reality. It's not going to be enforceable.

In random public spaces like malls and dept stores, a passing trans man is unlikely to encounter someone "who isn't already familiar with them" as you say.

But let's step back even further and look at the bills in question. In Tennessee, Republicans "approved a bathroom bill that would apply to public schools and colleges in the state and would require students to use a restroom that corresponds with their sex as identified at birth." If such a law were passed, young adults (typically 18-24) who have already transitioned would have to either obey the law or else remain in the closet so as not to expose themselves to the possibility of legal action. That's a helluva choice to put on someone, and you can't just handwave it away by saying that the law is unlikely to be enforceable much of the time.

 

[Rolfe]

This is the problem with solving problems with law. The expansion of the State has been a process of collapsing more informal modes of enforcement, social taboos, local solutions etc. into universalist, legally enforced solutions. There isn't necessarily a solution to this that can be articulated as a law that doesn't have unfortunate edge cases.

I have to agree with this, but I'm not sure that I'd put the bulk of the blame on the expansion of the state. Such expansion isn't even happening here, but we have the same problems.

In my view the blame rests squarely with the trans lobby, who used the informal leeway given to well-passing and non-aggressive transwomen to insist on non-passing, not-even-trying-to-pass, aggressive and fetishistic men being given the legal right to occupy women's intimate spaces.

Once that has happened informal arrangements don't work any more and you're in the situation of all men (who want to) or no men at all. That's what we're arguing about now.

I was reading this article about the experiences of a woman in a domestic violence shelter in Canada. It's particularly interesting because she had no negative feelings towards transwomen when she entered the shelter, but her experiences while she was there were quite the education - and not entirely in the direction one might imagine.

Woman Evicted From Domestic Violence Shelter After Expressing Concerns About Gender Self-ID

 

[Paul2]

I'm not sure that helps at all. What is this "totally internal experience" we're supposed to accept? That a biological male has somehow magically turned into a female? That isn't an internal experience, that is a description of a physical reality which is self-evidently impossible.

I'm perfectly happy to agree that trans-identifying people feel certain things and believe certain things about themselves. This is not the problem. The problem comes when they then insist on claiming privileges they are not eligible for by virtue of the physical reality of their physical bodies, privileges that remove my rights.

It was an answer to what does a genuine (=valid) lived condition mean. Pain is also a genuine, valid lived condition, in the way relevant to the analogy.

 

[Paul2]

I'm pretty sure none of us actually disputes the validity of the reporting, or the validity of the reported feelings. Right? Nobody disputes that schizophrenia is a valid lived experience.

My analogy to pain was merely an attempt to define and understand what the term "genuine/valid lived condition" might mean, because some were questioning what it could possibly mean. The analogy to pain seems apt, and so that should inform our understanding of what "genuine/valid lived condition" means.

 

[Rolfe]

Survivors' Network ought to be legally permitted to host female-only spaces, but it's a bit authoritarian to say they ought to be legally compelled to do so. Are Brits not into the whole freedom of association thing?

I meant to reply to this. The argument of the plaintiff is that the organisation offers groups which are male-only and groups that are specifically for trans people only. She believes it is a breach of the Equality Act not to offer any group for female people only.

She's not suggesting they should be prevented from offering a group or groups that include transwomen along with women, merely that refusing to offer any group for women only is discriminatory against women on the grounds of sex (a protected characteristic).

Transwomen can choose to attend a male group (because they are male) or a trans-only group (because they are trans) or a women's group (because these are open to anyone prepared to assert that they are a woman). This is extremely generous provision. It appears discriminatory that women are not offered any single-sex provision at all.

 

[d4m10n]

I meant to reply to this. The argument of the plaintiff is that the organisation offers groups which are male-only and groups that are specifically for trans people only. She believes it is a breach of the Equality Act not to offer any group for female people only.

I am surprised to learn that such a progressive group enforces a policy of excluding trans men from support groups for men. Are you quite sure about this?

 

[Rolfe]

I am surprised to learn that such a progressive group enforces a policy of excluding trans men from support groups for men. Are you quite sure about this?

It is what I had read, but no, I am not sure.

This twitter thread is by someone who understands the basis for the legal challenge in more detail than I do.

https://twitter.com/AudreySuffolk/status/1542137232387182593

 

[theprestige]

This is basically why I've been arguing that the legal solutions proposed so far—from both pro- & anti-trans inclusionists—lead to absurdities. I don't want a system where passing trans men have to demonstrate their vulval bone fides because they've been forced to use the ladies room at the big box store, nor one where Darren Merager gets a free pass to roam nude through the women's areas at a traditional Korean spa.

I feel similarly. When this thread first started, I thought the social aspect was mostly settled. I figured the biggest challenge was how to preserve the essential nature of safe spaces for women, without having to resort to "papers please".

After a couple years of this debate, I just don't see how to accommodate legitimate trans inclusion, without having to do exactly that. The essential problem, in that context, is that fiat self-ID is just a blank check for all kinds of abuse and bad behavior. *Especially* if it's codified in law or regulation, so that women who suspect abuse of the system are criminalized for voicing their concerns.

 

[shuttlt]

I have to agree with this, but I'm not sure that I'd put the bulk of the blame on the expansion of the state. Such expansion isn't even happening here, but we have the same problems.

The expectation for decades now has been that the state will right wrongs like this. Feel you are being treated badly at work because of your sex.... it is the states job to come up with regulations. Not allowed to be a member of some club because of your race, the state can regulate that. It's not necessarily a question of blame. The expectation is that the state will fix these problems, and the tendency is for the state to try to fix them. Sure, the transactivists have been busy, but you hardly have to drag government departments kicking and screaming to expand the scope of the issues they need to be funded to manage.

Once that has happened informal arrangements don't work any more and you're in the situation of all men (who want to) or no men at all. That's what we're arguing about now. This is a well trodden road by feminists, race activists, gay liberation activists and presumably others I'm not thinking of. They built the expectation that problems will be fixed in this way, and the bureaucracy to do it. Trans-rights activists are just taking advantage of what is already there.

I was reading this article about the experiences of a woman in a domestic violence shelter in Canada. It's particularly interesting because she had no negative feelings towards transwomen when she entered the shelter, but her experiences while she was there were quite the education - and not entirely in the direction one might imagine.

Woman Evicted From Domestic Violence Shelter After Expressing Concerns About Gender Self-ID

I'm sure. It's not like bigots are bigots for no reason at all.

 

[shuttlt]

It was an answer to what does a genuine (=valid) lived condition mean. Pain is also a genuine, valid lived condition, in the way relevant to the analogy.

Maybe I've missed a post or something. I don't get what the words genuine and /or valid are adding to "lived condition" in this sentence. Can you give me an example of a non-valid lived condition? People can feel pain, when there is in fact no injury. People can feel like they have a missing limb, when they do not have a missing limb. People can feel like they have a limb that is in fact missing. People can feel like they are Napoleon, when they are not in fact Napoleon. People can feel like they are a woman, when they are not in fact a woman. Are these examples of invalid lived conditions? If not, what would an invalid lived condition be?

 

[mgidm86]

[..... snip ....... uh, I mean ]

I was reading this article about the experiences of a woman in a domestic violence shelter in Canada. It's particularly interesting because she had no negative feelings towards transwomen when she entered the shelter, but her experiences while she was there were quite the education - and not entirely in the direction one might imagine.

Woman Evicted From Domestic Violence Shelter After Expressing Concerns About Gender Self-ID

Read the article, it is very sad and disturbing.

Saw this headline on the same page:

"Trans-Identified Adult Male Takes First Place Against 13-Year-Old Girl in Women’s Skateboarding Event"

https://reduxx.info/adult-male-take...-year-old-girl-in-womens-skateboarding-event/

Tres, a 29-year-old trans-identified male, came in first place against 13-year-old Shiloh Catori. Of the 6 competitors, 4 were under the age of 17, with the youngest being 10-year-old Juri Iikura.

Sounds like more than just the gender issue obviously (age). Maybe that's next? But then......probably not:

This comes just weeks after Silverman, a professional skateboarder, posted a statement to her Instagram in which she called out the Redbull Cornerstone skate event she took part in for allowing a biological male athlete to compete against women, and take the top spot.

 

[p0lka]

This is fine, for all normal people. The perfect solution.

Unfortunately a substantial cohort of trans people won't accept it. It's part of their mental condition that they demand absolutely no "discrimination", and the undisputed right to use the facilities reserved for the sex they aren't. It's "validating", apparently. Or it will "out" them if they are seen to be using the "don't care" facilities (like everybody doesn't already know).

And, (ick warning), it's part of the AGP complex to be sexually turned on by being in the space where women perform intimate tasks. They want to listen to women peeing and changing tampons and sanitary pads in the next cubicle. They (some of them) root in the bins for used sanitary protection and put this inside their underwear for masturbatory purposes. They masturbate in the Ladies' room, sometimes in the communal space. They hang around there staring at girls or trying to engage them in conversation, enjoying watching their discomfort.

Women didn't know about this, generally, until about ten years ago or less. They believed the "I just want to pee" story. The AGPs were less bold then, and confined their pervy behaviour to inside the stalls. Now we know, we're developing a bit of a hard line about any male inside our intimate spaces.

But this is why the obvious, sensible, kind, inclusive system of having a neutral third space is problematic.

Do you have a link for this agp complex thing? All I get is math series stuff and proteins?
Is this agp thing common? what's the probabilities and that?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm pretty sure none of us actually disputes the validity of the reporting, or the validity of the reported feelings. Right? Nobody disputes that schizophrenia is a valid lived experience.

But LJ seems to be using the term as a binary alternative to "mental health disorder". By saying "valid lived experience", he is claiming that it is not a medical condition that needs diagnosis and treatment. Rather, it's a healthy process that entitles the bearer to certain privileges and rights.

The problem here is that LJ is using the term to beg the question, and avoid any serious attempt to defend the position with science and reason. He just wants us to agree that the science is already settled, and that reason is already on his side.

Which we don't. We reject his begged question. We have found his attempts at appealing to science so far very lackluster and unconvincing.

We've also rejected the analogy to homosexuality, on various cromulent grounds.

So that's the state of play. If LJ were to present a robust scientific argument for why gender dysphoria is not a mental health condition, and why claiming to have it should entitle men to be housed in women's prisons, that would be a major game-changer.

Hmmm, you seem to be misrepresenting my position and my arguments. Considerably. With copious strawmen to boot.

And who are "we" here? "We" most certainly are not the important real-world legislators and regulators in most progressive liberal democracies. But I guess "you" (ie the people you choose to describe as "we") know that already. "You" also ought probably to be aware that yes, mainstream medicine and science currently* considers transgender identity to be a valid lived condition - no matter how much "you" non-experts reject the notion.

As for your quasi-judicial dismissals/handwaves of my references to current mainstream medical/scientific opinion on this subject - coupled with your requests for me to present "a robust scientific argument" - I'll merely refer you back to the actual, real-world scientific and medical bodies. Perhaps you should read their expert opinions. Agree with them or not: I don't really care. What I care about is that (fortunately) those experts' opinions are accepted, and acted upon, by most real-world legislators and regulators in liberal democracies.

Oh and one more thing: whether you've done it intentionally or accidentally, the core issue here is transgender identity. Not gender dysphoria. It's transgender identity - and its validity - which (eg) gives transmen the right (within proportionate reason, and with adequate safeguards) to be housed in men's prisons and transwomen the right (again, within proportionate reason, and with adequate safeguards) to be housed in women's prisons.

On the subject of gender dysphoria though: perhaps one day the proportion of transgender/nonbinary people suffering from gender dysphoria will diminish to very low levels. That would happen as a result of greater public acceptance of transgender identity, less marginalisation of transgender people, and fewer bigots (including the ones hiding inside a particular Trojan Horse that's pretty well-recognised by now...).


* One of several strawmen in your reference to my argument concerned your misguided attempt to say that I was claiming "the science is already settled". Perhaps you'll be able to quote me stating that (or words to that effect). Oh actually, perhaps you won't.... because I've never held that position. The position I do hold - the true and correct position - is that current mainstream scientific/medical thinking considers transgender identity to be a valid lived condition. That's good enough for me. And it's good enough for the people in the real world who govern us and pass our laws. Fortunately, the opinions of global experts in this field usually tend to trump the opinions of under-qualified and under-experienced people on internet forums......