Do you believe Scales should be able to get a GRC without requiring any medical evidence and be legally recognised as a woman?
Not based on what little I know of this person. I’d certainly be willing to listen to case as to why they should be able to get this GRC, if there’s someone making such a case.
And here is where you are wrong and where your arguments are the same as a homophobe’s. The same argument was used against gay marriage by saying that it will negatively affect or even erase heterosexual marriage. And obviously that was bullshit and so is the idea that giving us equal rights to cisgender women will take away rights.
Right now ‘she’ can’t, but if she moves to Scotland she soon will be able to. No one needs to make a case for Scales, when it’s no longer a requirement for anyone. That’s the point of these reforms, and what triggered JKR and caused her to speak out.
But they were wrong about that. Obviously wrong, because the mere existence of one group can’t change anything about your own group. But letting people who went through puberty with male hormones into sports with people who didn’t has a dramatic real-world effect, including an impact on physical safety.
It doesn’t. Whatever physical advantages I had when I was male are gone now after years of Hormone Replacement Therapy and physically I am very similar to my cisgender women friends. There are some differences that linger like bone density, but there is not enough difference to matter. Here is a good article I found on the research on trans athletes and how they compare: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/scientist-racing-discover-how-gender-transitions-alter-athletic-performance-including?fbclid=IwAR2owxj5TZwV8EKk0aTXoDi_hGpb4CyFZaL18N5EoCezF7ZVlDsXhhpb3sE#
Marriage is more of a binary institution, while transgender is much more vague. One thing I think would really help is if you could clarify the details of what you mean by a transgender person and when you think that person should have the rights and privileges of that gender. Much of this thread has been trying to nail down these specific details. For example, say that at this moment I, a cis-man, realize that I am a woman. Assume I am sincere in this belief. At what point do you think I should be able to enjoy these gender aspects that we are trying to nail down:
- Be referred to as she
- Shop in the women’s sections
- Go into the women’s bathroom
- Go into the women’s locker room
- Join women’s sports teams
- Apply for women-specific scholarships
- Join women-specific advocacy groups
At the moment I look and act like a typical cis-man. Should I get all these rights and privileges the moment I declare I am a woman, or is there some kind of criteria that should be met for each one before I should be able to get it?
No one believes it. No one believes the mantra “people are what they say they are” either. No one in their right mind would advise their daughters to not give a second thought to a person like Anthony Scales stepped into the locker room. So why can’t you see how disingenuous it is to insist on saying transwomen are women?
You don’t have the basis to reject Scales’ gender identity. You might question it, but there is no evidence that would enable you to refute it. This is the reality for all transgender people. Whether you believe them to truly be their stated gender boils down to whether you believe they are honest and non-delusional about themselves. No objective criteria defines them.
If you’re going to call time out on TWAW when the person in question is Anthony Scales, then you can’t really fault someone for not accepting TWAW at all. The only difference between you and me is that I don’t believe in saying something unless I really believe it; you seem to be okay with a little fine print fudgery if it sounds nice.
As far as the definition, I’m speaking of the social definition, not biological. I don’t believe trans women are men, so there is no conflict there.
What does it mean to have a “social definition” of woman? This only makes sense if you think “woman” is a role that people perform. Like a character in a show or something. Is Anthony Scales playing that role? Is Rue Paul? Alex Drummond? What are they doing socially that a man cannot?
As long as you are at least making an attempt to live as the gender you say you are, I’m fine. I’m not going to lay down any criteria other than that for me.
My own experience was that I was afraid to just appear as my true self all at once because of my anxiety and fears, so I did it gradually and for a period of time before the hormones kicked in I just looked like a man wearing women’s clothing, but I was still a woman and gradually started using women’s facilities as I became more comfortable being in them.
You may not be satisfied with the idea of man/woman being a social identity instead of a physical one, but the reality is that many, many people do believe in this and it is evident that it is becoming the predominant viewpoint in society. I may not agree with @iiandyiiii on a lot, but I agree that you are being blind to the evolution of language. You can’t insist on maintaining a strictly biological sex-based definition for man/woman when the majority of people want to also use it for sociological groupings. From a sociological standpoint, I believe trans women are women, and I think most reasonable people these days would too.
Just because the definition of “trans woman” from a sociological standpoint may be difficult, or potentially impossible, to strictly define, that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. It’s basically the “what is a heap?” problem (or perhaps the continuum problem also mentioned on that page) - how many grains of sand does it take for it to become a heap of sand? People can readily recognize that a few grains of sand does not make a heap, but even if you can’t say really at what point adding or subtracting one grain creates a heap of sand, you know a heap of sand when you see one.
Similarly, I think most people would agree that simply declaring yourself to be a trans woman does not make you one. A lot of people seem to suggest that “feeling like the other gender” is far enough along to spectrum for someone to be considered trans, but as it is impossible to prove to others what you are feeling, I don’t consider that to be a sufficient determiner of trans status either, as without any other changes to your external behaviour or presentation it is impossible to distinguish someone telling the truth from someone lying. However, on the far side of the spectrum, those who get gender reassignment surgery, for example, are clearly demonstrating that they feel seriously enough about their identity that they are willing to undergo serious medical procedures to align their body to that identity. Similarly, those who change their gender presentation and take HRT are showing a significant commitment. Ultimately, even though gender presentation is based on stereotypes, there is a “you know it when you see it” understanding of gender presentation among society that allows for gender as a social construct to function smoothly. Maybe in the future that will break down if non-binary genders become the dominant choice for most people, but in today’s society, divisions based on a social gender binary is appropriate for many situations as opposed to divisions based on biological sex. That being said, I think many of the situations mentioned in this thread (sports, prisons, health care) are areas where third spaces and division based on sex are more appropriate than gender division.
I do find myself wondering about how to consider trans people who have transitioned not because they have an innate feeling that they are the other gender, but because they are trying to avoid persecution or disadvantages of being their birth sex (ie. Iranian homosexuals transitioning to avoid being persecuted, or females transitioning to avoid misogyny). ISTM that these people would NOT transition if they lived in a fair society, and I think rather than encouraging them to transition we should be working towards making a fairer society. TBH that is what I feel JK Rowling was looking to highlight, and while it is unfortunate that she used language that many people found offensive, I don’t read her underlying tone to be hateful. I also don’t see people like @RickJay and @YWTF as being hateful, even if they are using insensitive language. To me, their arguments sound similar to an argument that animals can’t be treated “humanely” - animals are not people, therefore it is nonsensical to consider animal ethics to be on par with human ethics. Arguing that animals aren’t people doesn’t mean that you hate animals, are advocating for the harm of animals, or denying that animals can be sentient and can suffer. Similarly, I can understand how RickJay and YWTF can sincerely believe that they are not denying anyone’s humanity even if they deny the concept of trans people. It would be like denying that an adopted child was ACTUALLY the child of the adopting parent - using a strictly biological definition of parent, the child is not theirs; but it is hurtful to imply that - and I hope that RickJay and YWTF can see how their words are similar. I don’t think someone who says that an adoptive parent is not a real parent is hateful; I think they are misguided and insensitive. Similarly for those who deny the concept of trans people (at least those in this thread; there are certainly people out there who properly hate trans people).
I value your voice as a trans woman and hope that you will continue to participate in this thread. I do wonder, from your perspective, is gatekeeping the concept of “woman” an important thing to do? Do you think that simply stating that you are transgender is sufficient criteria to define yourself as a person of that gender, or do you feel like there is more needed than that? Do you see people like Alex Drummond mentioned above as trans women? There definitely don’t seem to be any easy answers to me when it comes to defining who qualifies as a trans woman.
That absolutely follows.
Note, I wasn’t taking a position, just outlining the way in which people are continuing to talk past each other, and why no one is going to come to agreement. All these disagreements about bathrooms and sports only follow from a disagreement about whether trans women are women and trans men are men. And without agreement on that issue, I don’t see why anyone would agree to the opposing opinions about bathroom use.
We don’t have evidence that the majority of anyone supports redefining these terms to allow “social definitions”. Progressives seem to think this is a settled issue, but it certainly is not. People in the UK and Scotland are largely against altering the definition of woman to mean something other than an adult biological female. There is no reason we should be assuming the US looks any different.
In a casual setting, I think that kind of requirement is fine, but it’s too vague to be enforceable. If we could really trust that everyone was sincere, we wouldn’t need laws or anything. But I just don’t see it working if we don’t have some definitions of what it means to be trans or a woman in order to get access to traditionally women-only spaces. My desire to pin down the specifics is to to ensure trans rights, since it allows the situation to be clear and well understood and legally enforceable. When typical man-looking, genetically XY person is in a traditionally women’s only space, how do we tell the difference between a sincere trans person who should be allowed there versus a creep who is violating women’s privacy? Or when an XY person wants to join a women’s sport with high prize money. Or get a big scholarship intended to women in engineering. If there are no requirements or vague requirements, there will be people who take advantage of the laxness.
That’s one fairly narrow study. And it may well be true that in endurance events like half-marathons and 5k races, the differences with hormone treatment are small enough to ignore. But there are other sports, like rugby (@YWTF posted this earlier):
People who went through puberty on male hormones are taller and heavier than people that didn’t. I don’t think that even years of HRT can change this. As such, it seems likely that they will pose a danger in any contact sport.
It’s not disingenuous. I really believe trans women are women, in the sociological and social sense. But I believe it’s possible for someone to lie about their gender identity, and thus simply saying it isn’t sufficient to be certain of their gender identity.
As far as the social and sociological “role” of women, I hadn’t thought of it exactly that way. I suspect that the overall misogyny and patriarchal nature of our society is tied into how we are divided and categorized by gender (not just biologically, but socially), but I’m not sure exactly how to put that into words. I do think these kinds of social and sociological categorizations in society are somewhat fluid and change over time, and in the past, the extreme levels of misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia (which was really more like a kind of fear of the unknown, since transgender and gender identity in general were very poorly understood until recently) rendered even the possibility of an “out” trans person impossible. I think it’s a good thing that this is now possible, and I think it’s a good thing for society, in general (but not necessarily for every single specific thing), to treat trans women as women, and trans men as men. And that’s what I mean by “trans women are women”, and that’s my understanding of how most who believe this see it as well.
As I stated to @filmore, the only criteria for me is that they make some attempt to live as a woman. I don’t agree with strict guidelines since everyone is unique. In the case of Alex Drummond, even though she seems more on the non-binary part of the spectrum (something I admit have had trouble understanding in the past), she considers herself female and she presents as such, except for the beard. So I consider her a woman.
Maybe here’s another way to put it - biology isn’t voluntary, but how we see ourselves, and just as importantly, how we see and treat others, is at least partially voluntary. We as humans with language determine what words and concepts mean. In the past, perhaps there was no separation between biology and sociology for how men and women were identified and treated… but also in the past, we had little understanding of biology. Chances are, there were plenty of XY people seen and treated as women, and likely even some XX people seen and treated as men, long before we had any understanding of chromosomes.
In modern times, I think there has been a split, almost deliberately (and mostly positively, in my understanding) between the biological and sociological identification and treatment of men and women as men and women. The fact that this is at least somewhat purposeful doesn’t make it any less real, since we as humans get to decide how we see ourselves and treat others.
If that makes any sense, anyway.
All of this is true, and I’m all for giving variances to people who fall into special categories. A male who has undergone sex reassignment surgery deserves a variance. An XY individual with testosterone insensitivity is another special case.
But these special cases can be described in statute or regulation. The definition of “transwomen” that is being pushed by gender ideologues cannot be, since under gender theory literally any male can be said to be a transwoman just by saying a few magical words.
Not everyone who says they are disabled is entitled to ADA accommodation or social social benefits. They have to demonstrate that they meet some standards that have been established by the gatekeepers. If there were no standards, the programs reserved for those who need it would become severely degraded. Not just by fraudsters, but also by people who sincerely believe themselves to be entitled to special accommodations or benefits that they don’t really need.
If we don’t have a problem telling some disabled people “no”, I don’t know why we should have a problem telling some transgender people “no”.
I don’t have a problem with expanding the ‘woman’ category so that it includes some males. But I do have a problem with expanding the ‘woman’ category so that is a clown car. We need legal standards for “woman”–standards that are concrete, logical, and not circular bullshit like “women are people who say they are women.” If we aren’t brave enough to come up with standards, then let’s drop the pretense that we care about women and what happens to them.
Can you expand on what you mean by “attempt to live as a woman”? What does that specifically mean?
From looking at my wife and daughters, living like a woman is very similar to how I live. Just like me, women have jobs, wear jeans, t-shirts, make dinner, clean the house, take care of the kids, etc. They may or may not wear make up. Sometimes they have hair longer than mine and sometimes shorter. It’s hard to quantify from an objective standpoint.
Even pronouns are fluid. If I declare, “At this moment, I am now a trans woman who wants to be called Filmore with the pronouns he/him and not make any modifications to my body or hormones”, is there any way to know if I’m sincere in my trans statement or if I’m just faking it so I can get access to traditionally women-segregated privileges?
I read a viewpoint yesterday from a man that really made me think.
He said that many men are emotionally invested in equating transwomen with women because of how they’ve been socialized to see masculinity. The idea goes something like this:
Manhood is seen as an accomplishment. You aren’t just a man: there is a concept of “being a man” that is synonymous with being strong, competent, emotionally resilient…all the traits that are prized in our patriarchal culture.
On the journey to “being a man”, there are penalties for being feminine. Physical and emotional weakness and vulnerability, interest in “girly” things, and other nonconformity yields bullying, harassment, and shame. By the time the average man has made his way to maturity, he will have suppressed these traits or even erased them completely in himself. In their place are codes of masculinized conduct.
Enter transwomen. These are males who also were punished for feminine traits, but unlike other males, they were unsuccessful in learning to conform to masculinity. But they are just like those other males in one important way: they both internalize the message that it is aberrant and wrong for men to be feminine.
Men handle this message by suppressing femininity while transwomen handle this message by opting into womanhood. Because they both believe that men cannot be feminine, they share a common understanding of themselves and each other. They see each other in shades of black and white rather than gray.
They both object to the notion that transwomen aren’t women. It means changing their whole concept of what it means to be a man. When a man comes out of the psychological toil that is youth and claims adult manhood, he wants that to be an accomplishment. He wants that toil to have been worth something. So he uses TWAW to feel more secure about his own masculinity.
I don’t know if I believe this theory 100% but it does make a certain amount of sense. Where it is weak is in explaining why conservative men wouldn’t be just as likely if not more likely to think like this than liberal men.