An interesting bit from that video that relates to a thought I’ve had during this thread:
It sure seems to me that identity is increasingly being applied not just to gender but sex. One of the transwomen in that video (2:22) explicitly says just that: “we also now think that sex is socially constructed … I use sex slash gender and run them together”.
If so–what was the point to the gender distinction in the first place? Although I don’t quite “get” gender identity at an intuitive level, I at least can understand it intellectually. Brain states do not have any inherent reason why they have to match physical reality, so there is some logic to making the distinction between the two.
But that’s not enough for some; sex apparently is also a social construct. Even without getting into how sensible an idea that is, it destroys the very reason for the gender distinction in the first place. All the hard work to establish the idea is worthless if it was always sex that was the social construct. Why is it important to (some) transfolk that not just their gender but their sex is recognized as matching their internal identity?
If they are still open questions then why are we erring on the side of including people who may well have an unfair advantage? Especially when it comes to world records.
Did any of the trans athletes now winning competitions and breaking records in women’s sports do as well in the men’s competitions before transitioning?
I think what we’re seeing is the internal divide that exists within the trans community. There are two leading viewpoints that actually oppose one another, but often you’ll find them being expressed and defended together in double-think fashion.
Viewpoint #1: Sex is what the body is; gender identity reflects what your brain is. Gender dysphoria arises because there is a mismatch between the body and mind. Cross-sex hormones and surgery help reconcile body with mind. Transistioning refers to this process of reconciliation.
Viewpoint #2: Sex is a social construct. Binary is a myth. The existence of intersexed people means there is no real distinction between biological males and females. There is no way you can know who is male or female just by looking at them. The only thing that matters is the gender someone identifies as because biology is “messy and complex”. A penis can be as much female as vagina. A penis is female when its attached to a person with a female gender identity…
These viewpoints cannot both be true. If Viewpoint #2 is true, then “transgender” and “cisgender” are meaningless. If there is such thing as female penises and male vaginas, the concept of “biological male” and “biological female” are meaningless, too. Transitioning can’t occur either, if gender identity is the thing that determines one’s sex rather than the body. The inescapable conclusion is that either everyone is “trans” or no one is.
If Viewpoint #1 is true, then “girl dick” is an oxymoron because the body is what determines sex and a mental gender identity doesn’t trump that. The body’s sex is integral to the concept of transgender; without it, a person couldn’t even be trans. Transgender people are distinct population, and it takes more than saying”I’m trans” to be one.
It would be one thing if the existence of these two contradictory philosophies was acknowledged and properly named, just as we do other divergent schools of thought within a theory. But not only they not acknowledged or named, they are part of the same arsenal of ideas lobbed at anyone who is critical or questioning. You don’t have to look very hard to find the double-think in this thread.
That’s an excellent breakdown. I agree; even before getting to the point of arguing against #2 (and there are many arguments against it), we should at least agree that it is a distinct viewpoint, at odds with #1, and switching views mid-stream just to counter some particular point shouldn’t be acceptable in honest debate.
I don’t necessarily think any of this is done deliberately–it’s likely just arising from sloppy thinking–but it should still be called out.
It seems to me that women’s rightful concerns have not just to do with being attacked in female dressing rooms, but just even being scene in various stages of undress by penis-havers. This is a legitimate concern, and there is no amount of changing booths within a female dressing room that is going to change that. A third (or fourth) space is really the only fear option, although it undermines the whole “trans women are women” argument, and by extension, “trans men are men,” though that second one seems to get a lot less attention in this thread.
YWTF and Monstro tried to bring it up. I get the impression that most of the posters here regard a desire for privacy or not to see random penises as some sort of personal flaw we are supposed to get over. How they square that with laws against exhibitionism and voyeurism I still don’t understand, when they believe any flasher or upskirter willing to exchange their dirty mac for a dress (or maybe not even that is required) should be allowed to enter the women’s locker room.
I’ve seen a lot of denial about what the real effects of this legislation would be, most from people who have done no research and don’t even live in the same country, but for some reason assume they know better than JKR. It’s very disappointing. At least the discussion here has remained civil, which is more than you could expect on most message boards.
I think it was useful that it was mentioned that the two types of trans concepts are trying to exist together: Aligning the body and gender vs gender is arbitrary. I think it’s okay to have those two views, but it depends on the context. If your coworker wants to be called by specific pronouns, that’s fine regardless of what they look or act like. But when someone wants to enter into a space or realm that is highly segregated based on gender, then it’s really important to pin down what is meant by gender.
This is why I think TWAW is counterproductive rhetoric.
If establishments renamed the women’s locker room to the “vagina-haver locker room”, then there would be no room for interpreting this to mean unaltered trans women belonged. It’s only because a concerted effort is being made to decouple “woman” from biology (viewpoint #2 from my earlier post) that penis-having people increasingly feel entitled to a space reserved for the vagina-having half of the population.
Well they could do that, but I suspect for many women the concern is having men in their locker room, rather than (or in addition to) having penises in their locker room.
Also, it’s kind of impolite to sort people by what’s inside their pants. Most people – especially those whose outer appearance doesn’t match – would usually prefer to keep that mysterious to the public at large.
But that’s exactly what we’ve done as the norm for a long term and it doesn’t seem to have been a problem until recently. I can’t think of a better way to sort people as far as washrooms and change rooms are concerned apart from what’s inside their pants. That’s kind of a main point of this thread.
I’m willing to bet the majority of women haven’t decoupled penises from “man”. So when they say they don’t want penises in their space, what they mean is they don’t want men in their spaces. The concept of “penis-having women” is gender ideology stuff that flies over the head of the average person.
Also, it’s kind of impolite to sort people by what’s inside their pants. Most people – especially those whose outer appearance doesn’t match – would usually prefer to keep that mysterious to the public at large.
You may consider it impolite to sort people by “what’s inside their pants”, but ignoring biology when deciding who is male or female is dangerous and antithetical to science. I would rather us be “kind of impolite” than that.
That’s not true, though. Trans individuals – at least, those who pass, even without surgery – have been using the restrooms of their preferred genders for about as long as public restrooms have existed. To do otherwise would be to out themselves and, until recently, risk their lives.
Indeed, but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation. If a man shows up in the women’s locker room, I doubt “but I have a vagina” is going to placate most of the women inside.
I don’t understand what this means. Can you clarify?
It’s the logical consequence of allowing in anyone who says they are a woman, which I believe most people in this thread have endorsed. We wouldn’t want to be so impolite as to enquire what is in their pants, would we now?
That’s kind of the point of having separate washrooms and changing rooms, too. It’s not a person’s gender identity you see when they take off their clothes. The existence of trans people means some kind of compromise is required, but that doesn’t mean they should get to unilaterally change the rules for everyone else.
They wouldn’t be placated if they doubted this person was actually a female (e.g. had a vagina). If they coded him as a man, their concern would be this is a male (penis-haver) who has bad intentions being in a space where he doesn’t belong. This is exactly what I—a woman—would think if I saw a man in a women’s locker room.
Read my post outlining the two (opposing) viewpoints that exist within gender ideology. Whether you’re aware of it or not, viewpoint 2 is the one that you’re leaning on when you argue that males who identity as women have as much claim to female-restricted spaces as biological females do. In other words, you think women should see a penis as female genitalia when it is attached to a male who identifies as female.
This is dangerous viewpoint because it destroys concept of “biological females” . Destroying that concept means it suddenly becomes fair and square to compete male athletes with female ones. It means the half of the population whose bodies and lives are impacted because of its reproductive role loses the ability to have meaningful language (i.e. female) to describe this biological reality, and it loses the need for special accommodations (like restrooms reserved for persons equipped with uteruses that fucking bleed every month). The ability to sue for sex-based discrimination suddenly disappears, if “female” because a feeling rather than biological state of being. Female oppression stops being recognized as a phenomenon targeted against with female biology, and starts being spun as an attack on someone’s gender expression (which is another way of blaming women for the rapes that happen to them).
All of this badness flows from the idea that sex = gender identity.
Sex as social construct: In social sciences and humanities, it sometimes happens that people argue that because twilight exists, there is no such thing as “night” and “day”; The presence of ambiguous cases invalidates whole categories. It’s perennial and doesn’t seem to pose much of a problem. I’m quite willing to bet $100 that a decade from now, this will still be a fringe opinion.
Questioning the way we think is useful even if, in some cases, it won’t come to much. Just getting people to think about what, exactly, differentiates male and female could be beneficial.
As for what motivates it, perhaps one-up-man-ship or seeing the male/female categories as a potential threat and wanting to counterattack it or genuinely making the mistake of thinking that twilight means there’s no such thing as night and day.