Trans rights: a perspective

[Nearly Sane]

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 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 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.

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.

There's a duty of care in prisons as well and the aim of many TRAs is to get rid of all of those checks and in ceratin places like Canada they have succeeded. There is no transitioning, there are no medical procedures or medication. There is simply the declaration.

And even here - what checks?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white

[Outrider]

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.

And when those women started to campaign they were told they weren't capable.  Which was the fundamental belief and which the excuse that followed it, there came a time when they were both firmly established in the belief of the men making the rules; the one that they chose to express openly, though, was the claim of a lack of capability; it might have been more convenient than the other, but I think it was genuinely the view.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

There are many TRAs who see Bunce as a transwoman - what are your criteria for a transwoman?

[Outrider]

There's a duty of care in prisons as well and the aim of many TRAs is to get rid of all of those checks and in ceratin places like Canada they have succeeded.

The duty of care to people in prison, though, is owed to people in a profoundly different psychological place.

There is no transitioning, there are no medical procedures or medication. There is simply the declaration.

According to Wikipedia (not an absolute authority, but generally a reasonable first point of call) all the territories require medical back-up to any self-made declaration of a change of gender on official forms such as birth certificates (Except Novia Scotia, which will accept an affirmation from other professionals than medical, but which hasn't published the list of what those professions are, yet).  Perhaps more of an issue is the number of people who have gender-neutral determinations on their state documentation, which might make such determinations difficult in the future.

O.

[Outrider]

There are many TRAs who see Bunce as a transwoman - what are your criteria for a transwoman?

That they identify as a woman - Bunce, in their own words, identifies as gender fluid.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That they identify as a woman - Bunce, in their own words, identifies as gender fluid.

O.

So the only criterion you have is a declaration. Oh and while Bunce is gender fluid he thinks he's a woman when he says so.

[Nearly Sane]

The duty of care to people in prison, though, is owed to people in a profoundly different psychological place.

According to Wikipedia (not an absolute authority, but generally a reasonable first point of call) all the territories require medical back-up to any self-made declaration of a change of gender on official forms such as birth certificates (Except Novia Scotia, which will accept an affirmation from other professionals than medical, but which hasn't published the list of what those professions are, yet).  Perhaps more of an issue is the number of people who have gender-neutral determinations on their state documentation, which might make such determinations difficult in the future.

O.

See in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white

And many women in prison will come from abusive relationships where they will have been raped and sexually assaulted not sure that having committed a crime puts them in a sufficiently psychologically different position for their trauma to be ignored.

[jeremyp]

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.

Yes but you are wrong. The intention is to segregate based on sex. The tests are designed (perhaps poorly) to segregate based on sex in order to align the tests with the intention.

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.

But how do you resolve the conflict? On the one hand, you have a person who is unhappy with sharing a toilet space with biological males. On the other hand, you have a person who feels they are being denigrated if they are excluded from a facility that all the other women are allowed in.

With toilets, maybe the answer is just to design them based on the particular bodily function you need to be dealing with and remove all gender distinctions altogether. I don't really know.

[Outrider]

See in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white

And, from my work in prisons, this isn't about White's transgender nature - a woman with a history of violent sexual assaults against women shouldn't have afforded that level of freedom, and arguably shouldn't have been at that category of prison.  That's not about her transgender status, it's about her criminal status.

And many women in prison will come from abusive relationships where they will have been raped and sexually assaulted not sure that having committed a crime puts them in a sufficiently psychologically different position for their trauma to be ignored.

It's the immediacy of the event, rather than that they've never undergone it.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

And, from my work in prisons, this isn't about White's transgender nature - a woman with a history of violent sexual assaults against women shouldn't have afforded that level of freedom, and arguably shouldn't have been at that category of prison.  That's not about her transgender status, it's about her criminal status.

It's the immediacy of the event, rather than that they've never undergone it.

O.

And yet it was their transgender status that led to the transfer so saying it doesn't have anything to do with it seems idiotic to me. And referring to White as a woman then leads to the nonsense where various police forces have recorded gender rather than sex leading to a spike in woman raping people which given the definition in this country is both remarkable and disturbing.

So women in prison who have been raped just need to get over that when a bloke is placed in their prison?

[Outrider]

Yes but you are wrong. The intention is to segregate based on sex. The tests are designed (perhaps poorly) to segregate based on sex in order to align the tests with the intention.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.  They identified that there are biological differences between males and females, and instituted a segregate sporting category for females. Entry into that category is determined by biological/medical tests which identify (with varying degrees of success) sex, and that makes the intent and the actual segregation sex-based; this is in contrast to things like which toilet people use, where there are no medical tests, there is a self-identification gender test.

But how do you resolve the conflict? On the one hand, you have a person who is unhappy with sharing a toilet space with biological males. On the other hand, you have a person who feels they are being denigrated if they are excluded from a facility that all the other women are allowed in.

You help people to understand that someone being a 'biological male' doesn't make them a man, and you try to design unisex facilities so far as you can.

With toilets, maybe the answer is just to design them based on the particular bodily function you need to be dealing with and remove all gender distinctions altogether. I don't really know.

I'm not trying to pretend that this is an easy thing, there are always going to be ingrained beliefs and long-held traditions and some practical concerns, considerations and difficulties.  Our ideas of gender and sex are, in some ways, fundamental to who we are; that's at one and the same time why it's so difficult to navigate, and why it's so important that we try.

O.

[Outrider]

And yet it was their transgender status that led to the transfer so saying it doesn't have anything to do with it seems idiotic to me.

It was their transgender status that led to them being transferred from a men's prison to a women's one, it didn't determine which category they would go to, it didn't determine what oversight should have been in place when they got there.

And referring to White as a woman then leads to the nonsense where various police forces have recorded gender rather than sex leading to a spike in woman raping people which given the definition in this country is both remarkable and disturbing.

You wanted equality, right?  White is a woman, that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts.

[/quote]So women in prison who have been raped just need to get over that when a bloke is placed in their prison?[/quote]

A 'bloke' isn't being placed in their prison, though. They might feel as though one is, and that understanding can be discussed and dealt with in a way that simply isn't available in the immediate aftermath of a rape.  What's your alternative? Leave a woman in a male prison?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

It was their transgender status that led to them being transferred from a men's prison to a women's one, it didn't determine which category they would go to, it didn't determine what oversight should have been in place when they got there.

You wanted equality, right?  White is a woman, that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts.

So women in prison who have been raped just need to get over that when a bloke is placed in their prison?

A 'bloke' isn't being placed in their prison, though. They might feel as though one is, and that understanding can be discussed and dealt with in a way that simply isn't available in the immediate aftermath of a rape.  What's your alternative? Leave a woman in a male prison?

O.

A bloke is. A man is. Again prisons are sex based not gender. And I can cite you many medical experts who will tell you that woman is a sex based classification and that you can't change sex.

[Outrider]

A bloke is. A man is. Again prisons are sex based not gender.

No, they aren't.  There isn't a medical check of sex to gain entry, it's a cultural assessment of man or woman.

And I can cite you many medical experts who will tell you that woman is a sex based classification and that you can't change sex.

And, medically, you can't - you can do surgery, you can alter the outer shape, you can remove some glands and provide hormone treatments, but you've still got someone that's biologically male or female (or, in vanishingly rare cases, something that's a mixture of both).  In situations where that's important that's worth remembering, but in situations where it's irrelevant, like which prison you're in, it's meaningless.

How many penises you have do or don't have isn't a factor in prison interactions to anything like the extent of whether you're a man or a woman.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No, they aren't.  There isn't a medical check of sex to gain entry, it's a cultural assessment of man or woman.

And, medically, you can't - you can do surgery, you can alter the outer shape, you can remove some glands and provide hormone treatments, but you've still got someone that's biologically male or female (or, in vanishingly rare cases, something that's a mixture of both).  In situations where that's important that's worth remembering, but in situations where it's irrelevant, like which prison you're in, it's meaningless.

How many penises you have do or don't have isn't a factor in prison interactions to anything like the extent of whether you're a man or a woman.

O.

And again prisons are based not gender based. Cultural assessment as not medical areas of expertise. Especially since your only assessment can be based on expectations of women being defined by regressive stereotypes. We're back at the issue that you have no real definition of man and woman as you want to use it. And that you are willing to stop 'women' in your terms entering a rape crisis centre means I think you know that.

[Outrider]

And again prisons are based not gender based.

Can you show me the bit in the Prison guide where it explains what medical or biological checks are conducted to make it a sex-based check?

Cultural assessment as not medical areas of expertise.

Which would be important if this were a medical assessment, but it's not.

Especially since your only assessment can be based on expectations of women being defined by regressive stereotypes.

That's your opinion of them, it's not a universally accepted assessment.

We're back at the issue that you have no real definition of man and woman as you want to use it.

You mean it's not a simple black-and-white issue - no, that's sort of part of the point.  It's a judgement call in a few isolated instances - I'd rather have a better measure, but there isn't one available.

And that you are willing to stop 'women' in your terms entering a rape crisis centre means I think you know that.

No, it means I accept that it's not the right time to be trying to convince someone else.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Can you show me the bit in the Prison guide where it explains what medical or biological checks are conducted to make it a sex-based check?

Which would be important if this were a medical assessment, but it's not.

That's your opinion of them, it's not a universally accepted assessment.

You mean it's not a simple black-and-white issue - no, that's sort of part of the point.  It's a judgement call in a few isolated instances - I'd rather have a better measure, but there isn't one available.

No, it means I accept that it's not the right time to be trying to convince someone else.

O.

If it's not medical then why would I trust  'that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts' to quote you.

I don't think it's ever the right time to 'convince' a woman who has been raped that she's wrong about seeing someone with a penis as a man.

And to try to it on the basis of something that is both moveable and cannot be defined seems horrific to me. And yes it is my opinion, but then that's all it would seem we have so what makes the other opinion more valid and why should women be endangered because of that opinion?

[Outrider]

If it's not medical then why would I trust  'that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts' to quote you.

Different use of medical - not my best moment, but still - medical in the sense of biological checks vs medical professionals in the form of psychologist and psychiatrists.

I don't think it's ever the right time to 'convince' a woman who has been raped that she's wrong about seeing someone with a penis as a man.

But then, you don't think there's a case to explain to anyone that someone with a penis isn't a man, so you wouldn't, would you?

And to try to it on the basis of something that is both moveable and cannot be defined seems horrific to me. And yes it is my opinion, but then that's all it would seem we have so what makes the other opinion more valid and why should women be endangered because of that opinion?

Are they endangered? By contrast, we see that non-conformist people who adopt transgenderism often do so to escape danger they feel because they aren't living their lives how people around them expect.  And, when it's known that they're transgender, they are more often in danger than the rest of the populace then, as well.  If we're looking to reduce harm, then acknowledging and accepting transgender people and ensuring their safety is a big step forward.

Yes it's a moveable feast, yes it's messy and open to potential abuse and misunderstanding, but what are the alternatives?  To leave people suffering who don't need to, or  at least don't need to suffer as much.  This is real life, this is messy and lacking in clear definitions and nice delineations, but it's what we've got, and to try to force people into boxes because it's a cleaner definition... that definitely feels regressive to me.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Different use of medical - not my best moment, but still - medical in the sense of biological checks vs medical professionals in the form of psychologist and psychiatrists.

But then, you don't think there's a case to explain to anyone that someone with a penis isn't a man, so you wouldn't, would you?

Are they endangered? By contrast, we see that non-conformist people who adopt transgenderism often do so to escape danger they feel because they aren't living their lives how people around them expect.  And, when it's known that they're transgender, they are more often in danger than the rest of the populace then, as well.  If we're looking to reduce harm, then acknowledging and accepting transgender people and ensuring their safety is a big step forward.

Yes it's a moveable feast, yes it's messy and open to potential abuse and misunderstanding, but what are the alternatives?  To leave people suffering who don't need to, or  at least don't need to suffer as much.  This is real life, this is messy and lacking in clear definitions and nice delineations, but it's what we've got, and to try to force people into boxes because it's a cleaner definition... that definitely feels regressive to me.

O.

I have a friend who is in the psych profession. I'm not going to go into more detail than that who won't put out any public pronouncement on this subject because they fear being hounded out of the profession. I linked to a thread earlier from Twitter into the tribunal hearing about her sacking for arguing that men cannot become women. I'm not sure I trust any 'expertise' here given that sort of approach

I've seen various stats on both sides here in terms of danger, it's not clear to me that you can claim that women aren't endangered and given the reason for sex segregated prisons is in part based on that assumption of danger, you need to me to show that you aren't increasing danger, and that's before you get to possibly causing trauma to rape victims.

Until you have evidence that it is safe, the only approach that seems to work to me in terms of prisons is trans prison wings. And saying that men cannot become women and enter sex based safe spaces is not saying anyone shouldn't be able to  live the way they want. It looks like women are having there safe spaces removed because male violence - one of the reasons to have those spaces - cannot be controlled. And any safeguarding is actively being campaigned against by some TRAs

[Outrider]

Until you have evidence that it is safe, the only approach that seems to work to me in terms of prisons is trans prison wings.

That would be a workable solution - I don't see any of the parties in the upcoming election putting up the money for it, though.

And saying that men cannot become women and enter sex based safe spaces is not saying anyone shouldn't be able to  live the way they want. It looks like women are having there safe spaces removed because male violence - one of the reasons to have those spaces - cannot be controlled. And any safeguarding is actively being campaigned against by some TRAs

There are extremist nutters out there, I'm not arguing there aren't.  It's an area where we're developing the rules on the fly to an extent, and whilst that's a recipe for mistakes, it's prompted by the very real fact that there are people suffering in the current understanding - change is going to happen, one way or another, and the best we can do is look at the situation with the best of intentions and try to make decisions that will  minimise the harm done whilst educating everyone that we're all people trying to make our way through a complicated life.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That would be a workable solution - I don't see any of the parties in the upcoming election putting up the money for it, though.

There are extremist nutters out there, I'm not arguing there aren't.  It's an area where we're developing the rules on the fly to an extent, and whilst that's a recipe for mistakes, it's prompted by the very real fact that there are people suffering in the current understanding - change is going to happen, one way or another, and the best we can do is look at the situation with the best of intentions and try to make decisions that will  minimise the harm done whilst educating everyone that we're all people trying to make our way through a complicated life.

O.

The problem is the extremist nutters seem to be driving the push for self ID, and they seem to be winning. If you want to make changes to women's rights to accommodate transwomen then it needs to be done a more evidentiary basis than what seems to be the current approach to me. Another friend asked the Lib Dems if they could be in the part and be gender critical and were told no. The Greens regularly proclaim the mantra Transwomen are Women, and Partick Harvie regularly retweets and has made speeches attacking 'TERFS'. Labour has allowed transwomen on all women shortlists - shortlists set up tpo deal with a sex based exclusion. There SNP has office holders who regularly attack Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry, demanding they are thrown out the party because of their views on gender. Meetings held by women to discuss how they approach it, and how they accommodate trans rights with trans speakers are regularly blocked, or picketed. The strand that is pushing this seems to be the ones in control

[Outrider]

The problem is the extremist nutters seem to be driving the push for self ID, and they seem to be winning.

We are in a society where whomever shouts loudest seems to get their way, at the moment, and I don't agree with the entirely self-ID concept (as much to protect impressionable people as anything else) but I don't think we need to roll everything back, either.

If you want to make changes to women's rights to accommodate transwomen then it needs to be done a more evidentiary basis than what seems to be the current approach to me.

I don't think we can appreciably slow the movement that's happening, we can just try to steer it.  That said, I'm not convinced that it's moving unnecessarily fast at the moment - we're implementing changes because we identifiably have people being harmed as things stand; I'm sure I can justify saying 'we should stop' on the possibility that some people might take offence.

Another friend asked the Lib Dems if they could be in the part and be gender critical and were told no.

'Gender critical' - is that where you hold to the idea that gender is an irrelevant new-age construction that should be ignored?  If so, I'd agree with the party.  Additionally, at the moment, where they are still struggling to overcome the toxicity they were smeared with during their coalition days, they're trying to ensure they have consistent messages throughout and are sticking to a party line fairly strictly - that doesn't make it right in itself, it simply explains why they're a somewhat narrower church than they have been historically.

The Greens regularly proclaim the mantra Transwomen are Women, and Partick Harvie regularly retweets and has made speeches attacking 'TERFS'.

Trans women are women, they're just not female ones.  I don't know Patrick Harvie, but if you wanted to identify a group that shouts louder than its content might warrant, TERFS fit the bill.

Labour has allowed transwomen on all women shortlists - shortlists set up tpo deal with a sex based exclusion.

Again, I'd define a political shortlist as a gender-based exclusion - I'm pretty sure no-one's going to be expecting DNA or blood tests to prove sex in order to take part.  Whether those electing a candidate feel that a trans-woman has the lifetime of experience to adequately represent them and elect them is down to the electorate, but that they are women is fair enough.

There SNP has office holders who regularly attack Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry, demanding they are thrown out the party because of their views on gender.

And there are special interest groups demanding all sorts of people be thrown out of all sorts of parties - I don't agree with it.  How they express their ideas might be a justification - and I've not been keeping up with Scottish politics to know - but just holding to the idea which doesn't seem to me to be fundamental to Scottish Nationalism shouldn't be enough to have them thrown out.

Meetings held by women to discuss how they approach it, and how they accommodate trans rights with trans speakers are regularly blocked, or picketed. The strand that is pushing this seems to be the ones in control.

That just doesn't make any sense, to me - why block that, it's your chance to make your case and get involved.  Even if you can't actively take part, you can send information, submit a written statement... to shut down discussion is never the answer.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't have time to deal with Outrider's last post while on phone but to go back to the subject of toilets, here is one of the reasons why single sex toilets are needed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html

[Outrider]

Don't have time to deal with Outrider's last post while on phone but to go back to the subject of toilets, here is one of the reasons why single sex toilets are needed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html

That's an article talking about the need for schools to have toilets for girls and women, which I'd agree is needed.  Doesn't really cross over with a perceived need to keep transgender women out of women's toilets, that I can see, but I only had the chance to skim it before I leave work.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That's an article talking about the need for schools to have toilets for girls and women, which I'd agree is needed.  Doesn't really cross over with a perceived need to keep transgender women out of women's toilets, that I can see, but I only had the chance to skim it before I leave work.

O.

Single sex not single gender

Oh and watch the video in this link and tell me that the girl who is upset just needs to be convinced.

https://www.dailyherald.com/amp-article/20191114/news/191119456/?__twitter_impression=true