Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[attempt5001]

I followed the link. This person's face still looks male. Not the "bearded trans" sort of male, but still masculine facial features. I seriously doubt they grew up being perceived as female.

Thanks for that Ziggurat. This definitely impacts my own feelings/assessment of whether this is appropriate and makes me feel it is not.

 

[Matthew Best]

This is the lady in question

(She's the one on the right, for the avoidance of doubt.)

#womeninscience

 

[Elaedith]

Thanks for that Ziggurat. This definitely impacts my own feelings/assessment of whether this is appropriate and makes me feel it is not.

The tweet has 330.5k views and 238 likes. Something tells me this is not a popular choice and is not actually going to do transwomen any good.

Better to have a separate award for trans people in science. This is favouring a particular philosophical definition of woman and girl that is contested. It also denies the fact that disadvantages faced by women and girls are based on sex, not subjective identity.

Another thought also struck me - if they are defining 'woman' and 'girl' based on gender identity, does this mean a transman (even one who transitioned as an adult and therefore faced potential discrimination as a female in science, or one who has not medically transitioned at all) is not eligible?

 

[Brainster]

Well, that's one way to increase the numbers of women in STEM.

 

[LondonJohn]

I followed the link. This person's face still looks male. Not the "bearded trans" sort of male, but still masculine facial features. I seriously doubt they grew up being perceived as female.

I don't understand why it should make any difference whatsoever whether any given transwoman has facial features that are more "masculine" or "feminine". Neither do I understand why it should make any difference whatsoever whether any given transwoman was or was not perceived as "female" when their gender matched their birth sex.

Do these issues have relevance for some observers? If so, why?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for that Ziggurat. This definitely impacts my own feelings/assessment of whether this is appropriate and makes me feel it is not.

You're saying..... that in your judgement as to whether or not it was "appropriate" for DSTL to put this transwoman forward.....

......your assessment that she has certain features that are more often associated with masculinity means that..... this makes it inappropriate that she was put forward for recognition?

Have I described your position correctly. I think I have, but I'm rather incredulous so I wanted to double-check.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is the lady in question

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/gvBkJKm.png[/qimg]

(She's the one on the right, for the avoidance of doubt.)

#womeninscience

Indeed. She is a transwoman. And one who, by all accounts, is very good at her job and a good role model.

 

[Francesca R]

The tweet has 330.5k views and 238 likes. Something tells me this is not a popular choice and is not actually going to do transwomen any good.

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly . . . . It looks to me as if every single reply to the tweet is highly critical of the action in question. Is that right? I might not have scrolled all of them. Seems very odd but I'm not too familiar with twitter and the dynamics of pile-ons and suchlike.

 

[Elaedith]

I don't understand why it should make any difference whatsoever whether any given transwoman has facial features that are more "masculine" or "feminine". Neither do I understand why it should make any difference whatsoever whether any given transwoman was or was not perceived as "female" when their gender matched their birth sex.

Do these issues have relevance for some observers? If so, why?

Because the rationale for having a day to highlight achievements of women and girls in science is to address disadvantages that might occur due to being born female and growing up perceived as female. For example it provides women and girls with role models of their own sex, to help counterbalance the fact that historical the majority of those who are prominent in STEM fields are male. The disadvantages are based on perceptions of being female and the expectations and stereotypes based on this and not on invisible subjective identity.

Somebody who is born male and grew up perceived as male did not experience this. The only way they would experience disadvantages due to being perceived as female is that they transitioned very early and 'passed'.

Not only that, but it is potentially discouraging to women and girls considering a career in science to already see few female role models and then have another clearly male person chosen and highlighted on this day.

If somebody experienced disadvantages due to identifying as trans and/or experiencing gender dysphoria, that would be better addressed by having a day for trans people in science.

 

[Abooga]

Well, the Spanish government seems to have given the final ok to our own gender reform law, "La Ley Trans". As far as I understand, (news outlets are not giving much detail) you can self-id and it just requires a simple declaration, no medical certificates or any other kind, then there is a waiting time of "up to 3 months", then a second declaration, then another wait of "up to one month" and done. In previous drafts there were some provisions of possible fines if the declaration was deemed false, I'm not sure if it's like that still.

I didn't think it would pass. There have been many important feminist voices against. At the beginning these voices were ignored and shut down with accusations of transphobia etc. , following a familiar pattern, but lately these gender critical voices were appearing quite visibly in mainstream media...
We'll see how it goes. Spanish laws give many benefits to women so this loophole will presumably be exploited. Still, laws here are usually drafted in an ambiguous way and then judges create some jurisprudence one way or the other, perhaps they will try to close the loophole that way.

Next year general elections will take place so this law might not last. We shall see...

 

[attempt5001]

You're saying..... that in your judgement as to whether or not it was "appropriate" for DSTL to put this transwoman forward.....

......your assessment that she has certain features that are more often associated with masculinity means that..... this makes it inappropriate that she was put forward for recognition?

Have I described your position correctly. I think I have, but I'm rather incredulous so I wanted to double-check.

Thank you for double-checking. No that is not my position. I have tried to articulate my position clearly in post #3458, which I hope is helpful.

 

[attempt5001]

The tweet has 330.5k views and 238 likes. Something tells me this is not a popular choice and is not actually going to do transwomen any good.

Better to have a separate award for trans people in science. This is favouring a particular philosophical definition of woman and girl that is contested. It also denies the fact that disadvantages faced by women and girls are based on sex, not subjective identity.

Another thought also struck me - if they are defining 'woman' and 'girl' based on gender identity, does this mean a transman (even one who transitioned as an adult and therefore faced potential discrimination as a female in science, or one who has not medically transitioned at all) is not eligible?

Yes, regarding your last point, it would be a shame if someone who overcame all the barriers that females have faced in pursuing STEM was not given an opportunity to be recognized (provided they wanted it).

 

[LondonJohn]

Because the rationale for having a day to highlight achievements of women and girls in science is to address disadvantages that might occur due to being born female and growing up perceived as female. For example it provides women and girls with role models of their own sex, to help counterbalance the fact that historical the majority of those who are prominent in STEM fields are male. The disadvantages are based on perceptions of being female and the expectations and stereotypes based on this and not on invisible subjective identity.

Somebody who is born male and grew up perceived as male did not experience this. The only way they would experience disadvantages due to being perceived as female is that they transitioned very early and 'passed'.

Not only that, but it is potentially discouraging to women and girls considering a career in science to already see few female role models and then have another clearly male person chosen and highlighted on this day.

If somebody experienced disadvantages due to identifying as trans and/or experiencing gender dysphoria, that would be better addressed by having a day for trans people in science.

No, that wasn't the matter at hand here.

The matter at hand was to do with some sort of "perceived virtue" rating of transwomen, predicated on how masculine their face might look and how much they might or might not have been perceived as female as younger people before transitioning.

Apparently - according to the viewpoint of at least two posters - transwomen who either have masculine-looking faces or who were unlikely to have been perceived as females in childhood..... are less worthy of being held up for appreciation of the job they do, compared with transwomen who have feminine-looking faces or who were mistaken for females when they were younger.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't understand why it should make any difference whatsoever whether any given transwoman has facial features that are more "masculine" or "feminine".

Whether or not it makes a difference depends on what the question is. In this specific case, the question of whether or not this person's selection is justified (and recall, you stated it was) logically depends on the purpose of such recognition. Recognition for one purpose may dictate different selection than recognition for another purpose.

I asked you what you thought the purpose of a women-specific recognition was. You must have some notion, or you could not logically evaluate whether or not a particular selection was justified, and you already said it was justified. But you have not answered that question. We cannot proceed further with analysis until we know what that purpose is. After we establish that purpose, then we can evaluate this specific selection.

Neither do I understand why it should make any difference whatsoever whether any given transwoman was or was not perceived as "female" when their gender matched their birth sex.

attempt5001 gave an opinion about the purpose of a women-specific recognition. That purpose is obviously not fulfilled by this selection, for reasons that have already been given even if you choose to ignore them. You may not agree with attempt5001's opinion about the purpose of a women-specific recognition. I asked you what you thought the purpose was, but you have not answered. If your opinion of the purpose differs from attempt5001's opinion of the purpose, it would make sense for your opinion on the justification of a selection to differ as well. But again, to evaluate that, we must know the purpose. So please, tell us what you think that purpose is. Ideally, that purpose should also explain why there is no men-specific recognition.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, regarding your last point, it would be a shame if someone who overcame all the barriers that females have faced in pursuing STEM was not given an opportunity to be recognized (provided they wanted it).

Yes. And the overwhelming majority of recognition goes to ciswomen.

Besides which, your viewpoint appears to discount both a) the potential barriers that transwomen/transgirls might face in pursuing STEM studies/careers, and b) the point in her life at which this particular person might have transitioned to being a transwoman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here is an interesting scenario unfolding at a high school in Canada. Not in the news yet to my knowledge.
A trans-girl, who has recently had her gender identity officially (and legally, by Canadian law) changed to match her self-perception entered a girls bathroom while some female students were present. She proceeded to enter a stall to "do her business". The female students were very upset by this and ransacked (destroyed to the point of being unusable) the stall and bullied and intimidated the trans-girl to the point that she is now afraid to return to school (I am not sure if she was physically hurt). Here are some additional details some may feel are worth considering:
1. The females in the washroom were muslim and at least one had removed her hijab and felt highly violated by the presence of a male.
2. The trans-girl presents as very androgynous. She was known to the females in the washroom as a trans-girl, but in another setting, would be unlikely to attract attention entering a women's washroom (e.g. at a mall or theatre among strangers). She is also known as a kind, polite student.
3. Prior to the legal gender change, she used single-occupant, gender neutral washrooms, which are available in the school (not sure how many or how conveniently located).
4. The school has spoken to the females and informed them their behaviour is unacceptable under both the school policy and governing law. Some have agreed regarding the behaviour, while others remain simply angry. They have expressed feelings that their culture is not being understood or respected.
5. Other students have expressed concerns regarding feeling unsafe and/or unheard.
6. A student protest is being planned tomorrow to voice concerns about males in female spaces.
7. A student counter-protest is being planned to express support for trans-rights and recognition.
As is the case with many of these sorts of issues, I find myself able to understand and appreciate elements of both sides, while struggling with others. I am curious to see whether this will garner much media attention and how various groups will respond. Thought I would share here even though it's been a long time since I have posted anything.

I think it's inappropriate for the young females to have bullied the young male. I don't approve of bullying in any shape.

On the other hand... I suspect that the young muslim females felt bullied and intimidated by the presence of a male in a female-only space in the first place. And depending on how devout their families are, being seen by an unrelated male without their hijab could very well result in physical harm befalling that young female. Even though it was not their fault, even though they had no control over the situation, some devout orthodox muslim sects will still punish the female for having been violated in the first place.

It also raises the question of fairness and consent. I'm sure the young transgender identified male feels more comfortable having their gender identity confirmed by being granted access to the female space... but it's being granted by fiat, and without the consent of the females for whom that space is reserved. You can't force people's perception to align with one's wishes, after all.

Why are the feelings of this one young male being placed above the feelings, comfort, and safety of many young females? Even if this young male passes as androgynous enough to not raise concern among complete strangers... this still presents a loophole for all other males to exploit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's interesting (and enlightening) to see that the UK' Defence Science & Technology Laboratory (DSTL) has chosen a transwoman to highlight for International Women & Girls in Science Day:

https://twitter.com/dstlmod/status/1624428381465878534

It ought to go without saying that this entity - and every other relevant entity - would almost always nominate ciswomen. But it's refreshing, and entirely correct, that a transwoman should also have the chance to represent their organisation in this context.

From my perspective, this is once more a case of a male pushing a female out of contention. Females are underrepresented in sciences. Males are not at all underrepresented. It's an affront to females trying to make way in a male-dominated field to see their efforts and their accomplishments being overshadowed by yet another male.

What's the point of having a day that is nominally to elevate females within a field... when by action you prove to them that they can never be as good as a male?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Edited by Darat: 

Rule 12 breach removed.

I disagree that it is "entirely correct". I understand the decision to include trans-women in highlighting women, but when it comes to women in STEM, the highlight is, in part, to recognize women who have excelled despite growing up in a society and context where they likely encountered barriers against this outcome. Primarily, that their being perceived as a female would have lead to assumptions and prejudice about their role, interests, capabilities, and possibly even intelligence. If this trans-women also faced and overcame these specific barriers because she was perceived to be a girl/woman all her life, then this makes sense to me. If not, while I appreciate celebrating the resilience and success of anyone who has overcome barriers, I don't feel it's appropriate.

Agreed. All this does is to further reinforce to young females that they will never be allowed to succeed against males, and that society will always place them second.

We've seen this over and over the past several years. International Women's Day featured many transgender identified males. Even the day highlighting Male Violence against females was hijacked to feature transgender identified males.

While the words used might be "women and girls", by deed and by action, the message provided is that males will always be better, and females will always be placed beneath them. It's repeatedly informing females that males are even better at being females than they are, and thus sends the message that females are worthless in the eyes of society as a whole.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This makes sense if all rights are created equal, but I think there's also a multiplier in that equation that accounts for the impact to both parties. This is where a lot of perception, emotion, subjective experience, bias etc. come into play and complicate things enormously. I think that's where this thread has hit an impasse many times; differing feelings on what constitutes minor vs major accommodation or concession or inconvenience or risk...
In my opinion, since the metrics for measurement of "impact" are highly personal and variable, it doesn't make sense to discuss it in terms of absolutes (e.g. one perspective is "right" and another "wrong"), but rather in terms of balance. This is tricky though, when things come down to a yes, or no decision (i.e. when solutions to accommodate both, as I agree with you, is an ideal solution, can't be immediately found) and when the balance point (in terms of numbers x impact per the perception of most people) is near the middle. This is further complicated when perceptions, understanding, data, etc. are changing at a rapid pace.

I think that the risk of exploitation and loopholes, and the attendant risk associated with them ought to be considered as well.

When this thread first started out, I took a position of not caring about bathrooms at all, and thinking that most locker rooms and showers that were public and for adult use should be available as long as everyone behaved. I didn't think that allowing young males into the locker rooms of school aged females was appropriate, nor vice versa. And I thought prisons should require complete surgical alteration.

I've moved away from that over time... because they have all been exploited and abused over and over again. Repeatedly it is females who get the short end of the stick, who are subjected to a male presence where one is neither expected nor desired. Over and over we have seen unaltered males who feel justified exposing their genitals to females who do not wish to see them, including children. We've seen the entire middle school swim team being told that it was the *right* of the male-bodied transgender person to be naked in the shower during their swim practice, and that if they didn't like it they could all go use the lifeguard's shower one at a time. We've seen females being told that they're bigots for having *noticed* the semi-erect penis of the male in the female-only area of the sauna. We've seen female athletes lose team positions, records, and awards because a male-bodied person claimed that on the basis of their internal and unverifiable gender identity. We've seen female prisoners given no choice in the matter, having to share a cell with a male inmate who developed a newfound gender identity while incarcerated. We've seen female inmates raped by transgender identified males who were granted right of choice in their incarceration. We watched a 26 year old male rapist get placed in a female juvenile detention center, because of his claimed gender identity.

I wish that some practical compromise were possible. But as long as self-id is on the table, that cannot happen. Self-id grants rights to any and all males, and it overrides the rights of females. It completely obliterates the entire concept of consent and sexual barriers for females.

As long as self-id is on the table, no compromise is possible. We've already been shown that it will be exploited, and that females will be harmed as a result.

 

[TomB]

Because the rationale for having a day to highlight achievements of women and girls in science is to address disadvantages that might occur due to being born female and growing up perceived as female. For example it provides women and girls with role models of their own sex, to help counterbalance the fact that historical the majority of those who are prominent in STEM fields are male. The disadvantages are based on perceptions of being female and the expectations and stereotypes based on this and not on invisible subjective identity.

Somebody who is born male and grew up perceived as male did not experience this. The only way they would experience disadvantages due to being perceived as female is that they transitioned very early and 'passed'.

Not only that, but it is potentially discouraging to women and girls considering a career in science to already see few female role models and then have another clearly male person chosen and highlighted on this day.

If somebody experienced disadvantages due to identifying as trans and/or experiencing gender dysphoria, that would be better addressed by having a day for trans people in science.

This.

When you evaluate inclusion of trans people into segregated events, awards, and spaces you need to look at the purposes of those events, awards, and spaces, not just the word "woman" and whatever definition you want to apply to it.

That said, if you make such an examination and find that trans people should be included, it's likely that you will also find that that particular thing did not need to be segregated in the first place.