I think the issue doesn’t exist yet because “I’m a woman because I say I’m a woman” has not been codified into law yet. These impostors are easy to spot and deal with. But if “IAWBISIAW” becomes law, then a judge’s hands will be tied if a male defendant upon sentencing says “I’m a woman, therefore you have to send me to a woman’s jail”. The law and definition should be explicit enough so that the judge can disregard that request because he didn’t meet some other kind of significant requirement. Like in your case, going through hormone treatment is an undeniable sign that you are sincere in your stated identity. You should have more rights as a woman compared to someone who just puts an “I’m a woman” pin on their shirt whenever the situation warrants it.
So is the problem that judges won’t be able to send people to jail at all, or that they just won’t send them to the “right” jail?
And, regardless, do you sincerely believe that, if it turns out we run into this situation, once or even more than that, that we literally won’t be able to figure out a way to address criminal behavior by men who lie in order to commit crimes? Like, our hands will literally be tied? Like, “this person says they’re trans, so I guess we can’t prosecute them for installing cameras in the women’s room”? Or, “This person says they’re trans, and, assuming gender is relevant to the crime, I guess we have to throw out testimony from their wife and friends who claim otherwise, because thanks to trans-rights fanatics we’re not even allowed to ask the question.”?
I don’t claim to have a bullet proof answer at the moment, but this idea that society will suddenly be at the mercy of scores of rapists with no legal recourse because trans rights zealots have won is nonsense.
I hate having to post stories like this but the obstinate denial is begging for it. If it’s true there is no loophole then the alternative is believing that Hambrook is an example of gender affirmation policies working just as intended. Which is an insane position that only strengthens my resolve to stop this flawed movement.
When the definition for trans woman is so loose and open to interpretation, you allow perverts to hijack the trans identity. If you don’t mind that, that’s great; do you. But please don’t expect me and other women to allow perverts to hijack our identity by way of yours. It just is not going to go down like that.
I really understand what I’m asking for, I just think the “con” that you all are freaking out about is not valid.
It’s curious, don’t you think, that the same people who are really concerned about men pretending to be transwomen in an effort to commit crimes are the same people who think transwomen aren’t “real women.”
It does seem like justice was served in this case. He was a man pretending to be trans and the shelters didn’t seem to do a good enough job vetting his false claim. I have no problem with suspicious claims being investigated, and it seems like this wasn’t and that needs to change. He tried to hijack trans identity but was found out (unfortunately not soon enough) and is now most likely in a men’s prison where he belongs.
As a person who is very much against it, have you weighed the pros and cons of the proposal? You’ve focused a lot on the cons, but I haven’t heard your thoughts on the pros.
Prisons are a concern but because there are checks and balances, I think the risk of gaming the system is relatively low.
What I’m not so confident about are settings where there aren’t courts and institutional review boards making decisions. Women-only shelters are a good example. They are now facing intense pressure to accept self-identifying transwomen. We can’t pretend this doesn’t put women at risk when incidents like the one below and the Hambrook one occur.
People who believe gender affirmation is a human right pretty much have to ignore the consequences this has on vulnerable populations in order to justify their belief. But this kind of denial is dangerous.
How does one vet a claim of trans?
Shelters have limited funds and when a person in dire straits shows up, waiting for an exhaustive background search before admitting them is infeasible. If I’m intaking transwomen means now these cash-strapped shelters have to do extra vetting, that right there is an indication that this inclusiveness thing is a problem.
Part of the problem is that the term “women” in society has exclusively meant female or genetically XX people for so long that they are used interchangeably. It’s very likely that the intent of the founders of that woman’s shelter was to provide a safe place exclusively for cis-women and they used the generic term “woman” instead of something more specific like cis-women. If their intent was to provide shelter for anyone who identified as a woman, then I would expect they would have anticipated this situation and have designed the shelter with that in mind. And it’s the same with locker rooms and sports. They were given the label “women’s” when the term women exclusively meant genetically XX cis-women and were designed only around that. It does seem a little opportunistic for trans women to demand access to these spaces which were intended and designed for cis-women. I wonder how the trans community would feel if these spaces had been labeled as “cis-women” from the start, like the cis-women’s locker room, cis-women’s sports, cis-women’s shelter, etc. Would they want access to those or would they want their own space?
I am not silly or foolish enough to believe that someone becomes a real woman just by uttering the words “I am a real woman.” How do you feel about being aligned with people who believe craziness like this?
I agree with Duncan, whose Medium piece was cited upthread. I believe some (most, even) transwomen should be treated as women in situations that don’t relate to biological sex (with some very narrow exceptions). But I reserve the right to define “woman” how I want to define it. A lot of transwomen meet that definition. But not all of them do. Not all of them will, especially if we really do turn into a society where children are taught that gender is a mental state that can be experimented with rather than a biological classification that is fixed. I don’t want to have to pretend that anyone is a potential woman and are thus entitled the protections granted to women under the law.
You can call me “indecent” for not being an absolutist like you are. But from my perspective, I’m just being intelligent and self-preserving.
As a person who is very much against it, have you weighed the pros and cons of the proposal? You’ve focused a lot on the cons, but I haven’t heard your thoughts on the pros.
What proposal do you think I’m making? I’ve come up with a couple of alternatives to the proposal you seem so satisfied with (despite not being a member of the gender class that will suffer any of the costs incurred by its implementation…it’s no wonder to me that you are so satisfied).
I’ve spent a lot of electrons laying out the cons of forcing women to accept males into their spaces. Can you come up with the cons for third spaces? Can you come up with the cons of turning men’s spaces into mixed gender spaces? Do you think that the cons associated with third spaces are worse than the cons of the status quo? Or do you just think they are worse than the cons of your ideal? Because in my opinion, the harm caused by third spaces is not as bad as the harm that woman would face having to silently endure all kinds of males strolling up and through their spaces. And in my opinion, the harm caused by third spaces is not as bad as the downsides of the status quo. Third spaces can also benefit everyone, since members of all 58 gender expressions and identities can use them. Third spaces are a great demonstration that “gender isn’t a big deal”. Third spaces fall short of the ideal being pushed by trans activists. But tough titty! No special interest groups gets everything they want.
I’m thinking of the proposal made by trans supporters, the proposal you are against. The idea of TWAW, have you considered the pros of the idea when weighing it against the cons?
If the opinion of a former trans rights activist wasn’t enough to change y’all’s hearts and minds, maybe a transwoman is worth listening to.
A system of gender self-identification would put women at risk
Gender self-identification affects women’s single-sex spaces and political autonomy, especially as regards the right of women as a sex to organise independently their own opposition to sexism and misogyny. Perhaps most profoundly, it affects the right of women to define themselves. Many women do not want to be defined, once again, by the very gender norms that have disadvantaged them from birth: passivity, selfless accommodation to others (especially men), meekness, reserve, being measured by looks rather than deeds and so on. These are norms that constrain and demean women. Many of us insist that, fundamentally, women are members of a sex with shared biology and socialisation. Biological sex is real and is the very foundation of our species.
With the many variants of what trans woman means, I think it’s only fair for you to provide a description of what you personally mean by the TW in TWAW if you want a meaningful answer.
Third spaces suck resources from spaces that are often already in short supply. Third spaces reinforce the idea that trans people are abnormal and are definitely NOT whatever gender they feel they are. It is anti-inclusive by design.
Mixed gender spaces force all men to interact with other genders. I admit that it is primarily men who commit assaults, turning their space into mixed gender space creates the problem seen in the unisex changing rooms we saw before. While I don’t believe there will be a trend of men gaming the system for a chance to assault women, jamming a variety of genders into the room that men are required to use is not how to prevent problems. The baseline TWAW position also includes TMAM, and would direct transmen to the men’s room already.
The spaces could have been dubbed biological female-only and I have no doubt we’d be in the same spot as we are now. It might have taken us a little longer to get here, but it’s now obvious to me that capturing the word “female“ is the end game.
@Kimstu’s proposal for “Team A” was a spoiler.
Yes, that’s the goal, you sure caught us.
I know that less than 1% of humanity are transwomen right now. I know more than 50% of humanity are women. The status quo considers the weight of the second group’s desire to be safe and secure to be a lot heavier than the first group to have their gender affirmed. Because the point of women’s space isn’t gender affirmation. It’s safety and security.
If you change the designated function of women’s spaces so that it’s all about providing warm and fuzzies for a tiny few rather than safety and security of the majority, then guess what? The majority’s attitudes towards that space will change. Their feelings about their safe and security will change, even if the acts of male-inflicted violence committed against them don’t rise to whatever level you deem to be “excessive”. You don’t seem to think that deterioration in the confidence of ciswomen matters as much as the uplift in the confidence of transwomen, but I vehemently disagree. Ciswomen’s feelings matter more because they are the freakin’ majority. They should matter more since transwomen fashion themselves after ciswomen and they would not exist as a sociopolitical group in the absence of ciswomen. And they should matter more since ciswomen are not the privileged class. They don’t have the ability to opt out of their biological realities like transwomen do. They are defined by biological criteria that makes them vulnerable to men. They are the victims of misogyny and sexism no matter how they’re dressed, no matter what pronoun they use. These facts make them deserving of their own spaces. Variances can and should be granted to folks who meet certain criteria. But the doors to these spaces should not be forced open just because a bunch of loud and angry males have decided they want in.
The status quo makes a lot of sense to me. Is it perfect? No. I think trans folks should be able to pee and undress without worrying about violence. That’s why I think third spaces would be a good solution for folks who can’t easily pass as either man or woman. But I only care about affording everyone with plumbing fixtures and changing areas that are safe and free from threat of violence. I don’t care about providing facilities that generate “warm and fuzzies” in everyone. That’s not the current role of government. It shouldn’t be the role of government. Having a toilet reserved for all the possible gender identities out there just isn’t feasible and serves no common interest.
Actually, I didn’t mean to to post that, I have no idea what happened. I thought I abandoned it. But your vicious response speaks volumes.
It is, though. Well, maybe not you personally, but this is already an idea on its way.
I’ve explained this before, but if you’re successful in having “woman” changed to mean nothing in particular, people will just use different words. The distinction between women and men - in the sense those words meant until 2015 or so - is one of the most fundamental characteristics of the human species. If people cannot use “women” and “men” to describe those groups, they’ll start using the next alternative - cismen and ciswomen, male and female, dudes and chicks, guys and dolls, whatever. “Men” and “women,” having no particular meaning beyond old stereotypes, would fall into disuse.
Third spaces suck resources from spaces that are often already in short supply. Third spaces reinforce the idea that trans people are abnormal and are definitely NOT whatever gender they feel they are. It is anti-inclusive by design.
I use the unisex restroom in my office all the time. So do lots of people.
Short supply, my ass. We could simply turn men’s restrooms into unisex spaces. Or hell, eliminate all sex-segregated spaces and turn existing facilities into unisex spaces, while mandating at least one private stall for folks who are really leery about peeing next to people of a different gender. There are other solutions here besides “Let’s tell women they must take males into their spaces and if they don’t like it, we’ll call them TERFs and hope this will be enough to silence them.”
Mixed gender spaces force all men to interact with other genders. I admit that it is primarily men who commit assaults, turning their space into mixed gender space creates the problem seen in the unisex changing rooms we saw before.
So you are admitting that men are scary creatures? So do you agree with me that women have every right to be afraid of these scary creatures coming into their restrooms and locker rooms? How do women keep out the scaries when any male can say they are a woman? How do they keep dangerous men out of their spaces when any male who dares to enter a women’s space should be assumed to be a woman?
I’m curious. Are you OK with women deciding to shower at home because they know there will be naked penis-havers in the common area of their gym’s locker room and they don’t feel comfortable being naked in that situation or undressing in a cramped stall? Does women’s avoidance of spaces designated for them constitute harm to you? Or does this register a big “meh” from you because only transwomen’s feelings are important, not ciswomen’s?
Because in my expert opinion (as someone who quantifies harm for a living), avoidance of a resource like a restroom or a locker room is actual harm. It’s not as bad as being beaten or killed. But it’s harm nonetheless.