Trans rights: a perspective

[Outrider]

That there is no check does not mean that it is not sexed based. Women fought for the right to have women's toilets because they didn't use to provide them because they were expected not to be in such places. That fight wasn't based on gender but on sex.

Was it? Or was it based on both, given that there was no discernible distinction between the two at the time?

Gender is a social construct that has no real meaning.

It might have no meaning to you; you can be pretty sure it has meaning to people whose gender doesn't match their sex...

If you are talking about gender, what is a women in those terms?

It's the expression of traits depicted as typically masculine or feminine in a given culture or society.

ETA: And while we are on sports self ID has been argued for there as well by some TRAs.

I'm aware, and that's an arena where after some consideration I think I have to disagree with it being applied in those circumstances.  I think the biological classifications are difficult to adequately determine, so we end up with the horrendous treatment doled out to the likes of Castor Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name escapes me (who aren't, I appreciate, trans women but it's in the arena of what make a particular sex or gender), but I think to have someone with the biological physiology of a man competing in women's sport is no different to having able-bodied people skewing the field in disability sports.

O.

[wigginhall]

Women's sport is sex-based because there are biological checks (some of questionable value) which are done to ensure biological sex of the people taking part.  Toilets are assigned based on a gender expression in the general culture - there is no blood test, no DNA check, no sex-organ check... how is it a 'sex based' place?  Historically, given that there wasn't a cultural acceptance of the difference between sex and gender, it could be treated as though the two concepts were interchangable, but that's no longer the case.

O.

It depends how much weight you give to 'third gender' in countries such as India, Samoa, Thailand, US.   You can argue that the fa'fafine of Samoa are not a separate gender category, just 'cross dressing men', as the tabloids say.  However, it's very difficult to talk about it at a distance.   In some areas such as Thailand, with its ladyboys (kathoey), there seems to be an overlap with trans, but again distance obscures.

[Outrider]

It depends how much weight you give to 'third gender' in countries such as India, Samoa, Thailand, US.   You can argue that the fa'fafine of Samoa are not a separate gender category, just 'cross dressing men', as the tabloids say.  However, it's very difficult to talk about it at a distance.   In some areas such as Thailand, with its ladyboys (kathoey), there seems to be an overlap with trans, but again distance obscures.

It's about how masculinity and femininity (and the spectrum between) is depicted within any given culture or subculture - it's not an absolute.  At which point, of course, it's worth noting that sex isn't an absolute, either...

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Was it? Or was it based on both, given that there was no discernible distinction between the two at the time?

It might have no meaning to you; you can be pretty sure it has meaning to people whose gender doesn't match their sex...

It's the expression of traits depicted as typically masculine or feminine in a given culture or society.

I'm aware, and that's an arena where after some consideration I think I have to disagree with it being applied in those circumstances.  I think the biological classifications are difficult to adequately determine, so we end up with the horrendous treatment doled out to the likes of Castor Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name escapes me (who aren't, I appreciate, trans women but it's in the arena of what make a particular sex or gender), but I think to have someone with the biological physiology of a man competing in women's sport is no different to having able-bodied people skewing the field in disability sports.

O.

Yes, it was based on sex - it wasn't women fighting for the right to have toilets, or for the right to vote because they wore skirts, or were meek, or had long hair, and to try and present it as such is deeply sexist.

[Nearly Sane]

It's about how masculinity and femininity (and the spectrum between) is depicted within any given culture or subculture - it's not an absolute.  At which point, of course, it's worth noting that sex isn't an absolute, either...

O.

It's not an absolute but it is binary. It isn't a spectrum and the use of intersex in the debate about gender, is both specious and deeply insulting to people with intersex conditions

[Outrider]

Yes, it was based on sex - it wasn't women fighting for the right to have toilets, or for the right to vote because they wore skirts, or were meek, or had long hair, and to try and present it as such is deeply sexist.

No, it's simply acknowledging that gender is CULTURE SPECIFIC - so in a culture that doesn't differentiate between sex and gender, anything that is sex-based is gender based as well.

O.

[Outrider]

It's not an absolute but it is binary. It isn't a spectrum and the use of intersex in the debate about gender, is both specious and deeply insulting to people with intersex conditions

Keep throwing out those ad hominems, that really shows the strength of your case.  How we see sex - including intersex - informs how we see gender, including how much it is restricted or freed of the semi-binary nature of sex.  Of course, it suits your argument that gender is meaningless if it can be entirely divorced from any sort of context like how our historical view of sex has needed to be updated for a variety of reasons.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it's simply acknowledging that gender is CULTURE SPECIFIC - so in a culture that doesn't differentiate between sex and gender, anything that is sex-based is gender based as well.

O.

That's simply nonsense people were not being observed female or male at birth because of gender traits - but because of sex. It was the oppressive idea of what a woman was that women fought against. The idea that someone then identifies as a women because of a feeling is then regressive.

[wigginhall]

It's about how masculinity and femininity (and the spectrum between) is depicted within any given culture or subculture - it's not an absolute.  At which point, of course, it's worth noting that sex isn't an absolute, either...

O.

I think gender studies initially focused on masculinity and feminity, but writers such as Robert Stoller and Judith Butler branched out to include identity issues, and what Butler calls performativity.  I think she means that you do gender, not be it.  However, this is a hopeless summary.  But you can argue that some 3rd genders live as women, a fraught phrase in itself, but then Butler adds provocatively that all gender is drag.

[Nearly Sane]

Keep throwing out those ad hominems, that really shows the strength of your case.  How we see sex - including intersex - informs how we see gender, including how much it is restricted or freed of the semi-binary nature of sex.  Of course, it suits your argument that gender is meaningless if it can be entirely divorced from any sort of context like how our historical view of sex has needed to be updated for a variety of reasons.

O.

If I insult you - which the post didn't - that says nothing about the strength of my case - that's simply a piece of fallacious logic. And no, I'm arguing gender is a regressive expectation which does not exist in the sense sex does. I notice you still haven't gven an answer to what is a women in gender terms that is anything more than handwaving.

[Outrider]

That's simply nonsense people were not being observed female or male at birth because of gender traits - but because of sex.

Right.

It was the oppressive idea of what a woman was that women fought against.

Right.

The idea that someone then identifies as a women because of a feeling is then regressive.

Nope.  Even as the oppression starts - and there's a long way to go - to lessen, there are still cultural expectations around being male or female that do or don't fit with your individual personality.  If your personality doesn't match the expectations your culture has of your body, what do you do?  As time has gone on, and victories in sex rights have been achieved, so there's room for a better and more nuanced understanding.

The ideal is a culture where male or female is absolutely no limitation or restriction on who or what you want to be, but we aren't there.  If and when we are, I can't guarantee there still won't be people who don't feel like they match up to their body - at that time we'll have to be looking at what we're doing that affects them.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I think gender studies initially focused on masculinity and feminity, but writers such as Robert Stoller and Judith Butler branched out to include identity issues, and what Butler calls performativity.  I think she means that you do gender, not be it.  However, this is a hopeless summary.  But you can argue that some 3rd genders live as women, a fraught phrase in itself, but then Butler adds provocatively that all gender is drag.

In a sense surely that's true. The current idea that people say they are non binary seems bizarre because I don't (A) know what all the traits are that define the binary position, and (b) of the common ones that we might think of I'm different things at different times, and I've never seen or can possibly conceive of someone who wasn't like that and therefore everyone is non binary. Maybe there are people out there for which the façade is the reality, how would we know? How would they know?

[Nearly Sane]

Right.

Right.

Nope.  Even as the oppression starts - and there's a long way to go - to lessen, there are still cultural expectations around being male or female that do or don't fit with your individual personality.  If your personality doesn't match the expectations your culture has of your body, what do you do?  As time has gone on, and victories in sex rights have been achieved, so there's room for a better and more nuanced understanding.

The ideal is a culture where male or female is absolutely no limitation or restriction on who or what you want to be, but we aren't there.  If and when we are, I can't guarantee there still won't be people who don't feel like they match up to their body - at that time we'll have to be looking at what we're doing that affects them.

O.

You continue the fight to be gender critical. You don't accept the regressive idea and then define what is a woman by the gender stereotypes because that violates those victories in sex based rights. You don't campaign for changes in laws which would allow men to self ID as women. You don't accept awards for woman in business because you dress in what are thought of as 'women's clothes' 2 days a week. You don't campaign for withdrawal of funds for rape crisis centres because they don't want males on the premises. You don't campaign for male sex offenders  identifying as women to be placed in women's prisons. You don't campaign for puberty blockers to be given to children.

ETA: You don't call lesbians and gay men  transphobic if they say their attraction is based on sex.

[Outrider]

If I insult you - which the post didn't -

You suggested that I was being sexist - I suspect, like me, you'd see that as an insult.

that says nothing about the strength of my case - that's simply a piece of fallacious logic.

No, it's my experience that insults of the person tend to come in to mask a weak argument.

And no, I'm arguing gender is a regressive expectation which does not exist in the sense sex does.

I agree that gender is a cultural creation, not an assessment of a physical trait like sex, but so is culture itself.  As to whether it's 'regressive', in what way?  Its increasing the complexity of ways in which we can view people, adding to the understanding that humanity is a diverse spectrum of a multitude of traits.  I wish we didn't need the concept, but right now we either have 'gender' or we have people trapped by a limited cultural expectation of them based upon their sex.

I notice you still haven't gven an answer to what is a women in gender terms that is anything more than handwaving.

You don't have to like the definition, but it's what you've got. I can link some sources with their broadly similar definitions, but I suspect that won't make much difference - you don't disagree with the definition, it seems, you just don't want to put any weight in it.  That's fine, you don't have to, but you don't get to tell the rest of the world that they have to accept your understanding that 'gender isn't a real thing' either.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

You suggested that I was being sexist - I suspect, like me, you'd see that as an insult.

No, it's my experience that insults of the person tend to come in to mask a weak argument.

I agree that gender is a cultural creation, not an assessment of a physical trait like sex, but so is culture itself.  As to whether it's 'regressive', in what way?  Its increasing the complexity of ways in which we can view people, adding to the understanding that humanity is a diverse spectrum of a multitude of traits.  I wish we didn't need the concept, but right now we either have 'gender' or we have people trapped by a limited cultural expectation of them based upon their sex.

You don't have to like the definition, but it's what you've got. I can link some sources with their broadly similar definitions, but I suspect that won't make much difference - you don't disagree with the definition, it seems, you just don't want to put any weight in it.  That's fine, you don't have to, but you don't get to tell the rest of the world that they have to accept your understanding that 'gender isn't a real thing' either.

O.

I didn't call you sexist in the posts you replied too but if I think you are making a sexist point which I did say in an earlier post, surely I'm allowed to call that out? Your experience is simply you repeating your assertion.  I think Boris Johnson is a liar - does that weaken my case against him if I call him that. And I don't want to put any weight on it because the expectation of how a woman should look or behave is what allows sexism. It's what was used to stop women from voting. Using it as definition of women then is surely regressive?

[wigginhall]

In a sense surely that's true. The current idea that people say they are non binary seems bizarre because I don't (A) know what all the traits are that define the binary position, and (b) of the common ones that we might think of I'm different things at different times, and I've never seen or can possibly conceive of someone who wasn't like that and therefore everyone is non binary. Maybe there are people out there for which the façade is the reality, how would we know? How would they know?

I think non binary and gender fluid are attempts to avoid traditional traits.   I don't know if these things are temporay, a kind of adolescent phase, but I celebrate them.  I found working class masculinity an oppressive strait jacket, full of injunctions.  Whether or not new stereotypes will be formed, dunno.

[jeremyp]

That's not a strand specific to the trans-rights movement, though, there are 'mens rights' activists and all-sorts who are claiming that equality means we shouldn't have sex-specific anything

That's true, but nobody listens to the men's rights activists. On the other hand people do listen to trans gender activists to the point where they will shout down not only people who disagree with them but also people who want to have a discussion about whether it's OK to disagree with them.

Take NS's example women only web site from a few posts back. When a trans woman joined, not only did threads about issues that biological women have get banned (not inclusive to the new trans members) but you couldn't even argue about whether such a ban should be in place.

Another example from the popular Stack Exchange web site: they are about to introduce a new code of conduct which says "you shall use preferred pronouns if known". One moderator asked if it was OK to avoid using gendered personal pronouns altogether (e.g. by using the poster's name instead) and she got fired just for asking the question.

[Outrider]

You continue the fight to be gender critical.

Who's giving up?  Making accommodations to make people's lives easier now doesn't remove the drive to get to a better place.

You don't accept the regressive idea and then define what is a woman by the gender stereotypes because that violates those victories in sex based rights.

I don't see it like that, I see it as building on those victories.

You don't campaign for changes in laws which would allow men to self ID as women.

I don't - I think women should be allowed to be women despite having been born in a man's body.

You don't accept awards for woman in business because you dress in what are thought of as 'women's clothes' 2 days a week.

And has anyone done that?

You don't campaign for withdrawal of funds for rape crisis centres because they don't want males on the premises.

Absolutely agree - but why the shift in language from 'women' to 'male'?  You're reinforcing the understanding that there's gender (men and women) and sex (males and females).  There are time when sex is important, and with people who've gone through traumatic events like rape that's one of the times, I'd say.

You don't campaign for male sex offenders  identifying as women to be placed in women's prisons.

Why? If they're women, don't they belong in a women's prison?  Or are you suggesting we should be putting women in a male prison?

You don't campaign for puberty blockers to be given to children.

I don't know enough about the psychology of children to be definitive on that; I worry that messing with developing minds in such a drastic way could have devastating effects later on, but equally I can see that early intervention might spare individuals later difficulties... until and unless I can find a strong body of well-researched evidence either way I'd err on the side of caution and wait, personally, but there are clinical experts collectively discussing and debating what the best approach is, and I'll defer to their expertise until there's more publicly available reporting.

O.

[Outrider]

And I don't want to put any weight on it because the expectation of how a woman should look or behave is what allows sexism.

It is. And despite my - and your, by the sounds of it, best efforts it's still a thing.  We can keep working to eliminate that without disavowing the progress that's already been made, or writing off people trapped by those expectations, can't we?

It's what was used to stop women from voting. Using it as definition of women then is surely regressive?

No, it's not, because it's not using the same definition.  Women were stopped from voting because, amongst other things, they were considered BIOLOGICALLY too limited to contemplate the implications, and too prone to hysterical outbursts to be trusted - those traits were also what justified reserving women to particular areas of life, and whilst we've come a long way in eliminating those myths about female biology we're still working in a culture that implicitly works on the understanding that women are domestic, caring, supportive and nurturing and men are assertive, domineering, dynamic and stoic.  Those stereotypes have implications on both sides, and anything that breaks the cycle of reinforcing particular gender stereotypes with a particular sex is a move forward, not backwards.

The goal, ultimately, is to appreciate the women are people, and men are people, and it's their individual personality that determines whether they are more less assertive or nurturing or anything else, and to appreciate that we can all be any of them in the right situation.  Until then, accepting that someone born with male sex organs can live a life where society puts feminine expectations on them is both a start on that path, and makes their individual life a little bit easier.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Who's giving up?  Making accommodations to make people's lives easier now doesn't remove the drive to get to a better place.

I don't see it like that, I see it as building on those victories.

I don't - I think women should be allowed to be women despite having been born in a man's body.

And has anyone done that?

Absolutely agree - but why the shift in language from 'women' to 'male'?  You're reinforcing the understanding that there's gender (men and women) and sex (males and females).  There are time when sex is important, and with people who've gone through traumatic events like rape that's one of the times, I'd say.

Why? If they're women, don't they belong in a women's prison?  Or are you suggesting we should be putting women in a male prison?

I don't know enough about the psychology of children to be definitive on that; I worry that messing with developing minds in such a drastic way could have devastating effects later on, but equally I can see that early intervention might spare individuals later difficulties... until and unless I can find a strong body of well-researched evidence either way I'd err on the side of caution and wait, personally, but there are clinical experts collectively discussing and debating what the best approach is, and I'll defer to their expertise until there's more publicly available reporting.

O.

For the woman of the year see below
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html

In what sense can someone say they have been born into the wrong body? What is a woman needs to be clearly defined there so you cannot do your handwaving approach especially if you are going to house male sex offenders in a women's prison simply on their say so. And if they are women in that sense then why does the rape crisis centre work on sex for you but not gender?

[Nearly Sane]

Those stereotypes have implications on both sides, and anything that breaks the cycle of reinforcing particular gender stereotypes with a particular sex is a move forward, not backwards.


O.

This bit makes no sense - saying you are a woman because you want to conform to stereotypes makes the definition of woman based on those stereotyprs - it reinforces them it does not break them.

[jeremyp]

Women's sport is sex-based because there are biological checks (some of questionable value) which are done to ensure biological sex of the people taking part.

No, that's not why sports are segregated based on sex. Sports are segregated based on sex because it is recognised that biological female humans are at a disadvantage in physical activities compared to biological males who are bigger and stronger on average and the difference is more pronounced at the elite end. The checks you mention are just the current way to enforce that segregation.

Toilets are assigned based on a gender expression in the general culture - there is no blood test, no DNA check, no sex-organ check... how is it a 'sex based' place?

Traditionally people with penises went into one public toilet and people with vaginas went into a different one. It's only recently that we've started to accept that there is an issue with that separation. And you have to believe that there are some people with vaginas who get uncomfortable and even intimidated when sharing toilets with people with penises. There's a conflict between the rights of two people to both use the toilet that they feel comfortable in. You can't just wave it away by magically saying "gender is all".

[Outrider]

For the woman of the year see below
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html

OK, my misunderstanding, I thought you were referring to a trans-woman, and this is a slighty different case.  In this instance, I don't think I'd have voted for them to receive this award, because they aren't a woman.  There's only a woman's award at all because there's a range of cultural trends that push against women achieving in business, there's nothing intrinsic that makes them any more or less capable, so in that sense I can understand the decision, but to my mind the problem is that I can't imagine a woman who turned up in male clothing with short hair a few time a week being nominated for the businessman of the year category.  It reinforces the idea that male/man is the standard, and women is becoming a category for 'not male/man' rather than a distinct idea.  Which raises the question, if there are people who don't identify in gender as either, are gendered awards going to continue to be viable?

In what sense can someone say they have been born into the wrong body?

In the sense that because of the particular sex organs they were born with there are cultural expectations upon them that they don't feel comfortable conforming to.

What is a woman needs to be clearly defined there so you cannot do your handwaving approach especially if you are going to house male sex offenders in a women's prison simply on their say so.

What a woman is - it's the sum of the cultural expectations of women, there's nothing more vague nor precise than that.  As culture changes, or if you move cultures, then what a woman is changes, and the expectations and stereotypes change as well.

Of course, it's not purely on their say so, it's not just a guy who gets sentenced and decided 'oh, but I'm a woman now' - there are any number of psychiatric and psychological evaluations involved in the transitioning process, this is something significantly more than merely putting on a dress and speaking in a falsetto.

And if they are women in that sense then why does the rape crisis centre work on sex for you but not gender?

Because in the rape crisis centre it's about the wellbeing of the people who've undergone a traumatic experience who aren't necessarily in the right place to take a nuanced view and shouldn't be expected to.  There's a duty of care to them, by the nature of the establishment.

O.

[jeremyp]

Women were stopped from voting because, amongst other things, they were considered BIOLOGICALLY too limited to contemplate the implications, and too prone to hysterical outbursts to be trusted - those traits were also what justified reserving women to particular areas of life

I don't think that is true. I think that is the excuse, not the reason. I think women were viewed by men as possessions. You'd no more allow your wife to vote than you would your cow.

[Outrider]

No, that's not why sports are segregated based on sex. Sports are segregated based on sex because it is recognised that biological female humans are at a disadvantage in physical activities compared to biological males who are bigger and stronger on average and the difference is more pronounced at the elite end. The checks you mention are just the current way to enforce that segregation.

The decision to segregate at all is based on that understanding, yes.  What makes it sex-based rather than gender-based is that there are biological checks conducted to determine sex, not psychological tests to determine gender - that's the distinction I was making.

Traditionally people with penises went into one public toilet and people with vaginas went into a different one. It's only recently that we've started to accept that there is an issue with that separation. And you have to believe that there are some people with vaginas who get uncomfortable and even intimidated when sharing toilets with people with penises. There's a conflict between the rights of two people to both use the toilet that they feel comfortable in. You can't just wave it away by magically saying "gender is all".

I'm not pretending that there isn't, and I'm not castigating people feeling uncomfortable about it, but the way to deal with that discomfort is to be open about what the fears are, how real they might be, and to push back against any implicit or explicit denigration of people who are in that uncomfortable position where they don't feel that they comport to social expectation, and to be clear in discussions like these (which I think people have been, I'm just saying that it's important) so that you can't be accused of implicitly denigrating people.

O.