I don’t think sex is a social construct, but I also would not deliberately misgender a transman by informing him that he’s a woman. Not just female, which is a biological designation, but a woman with all the social implications therein.
As a biologist, I can’t help be see “woman” as every bit a biological designation as female is. “Women” is just a more humanizing way of referring to female people; no more and no less. It’s only our imaginations that try to make it be more complicated than that. And since imaginations can be influenced by sexism and misogyny, it’s strikes me as dangerous to let imaginations dictate how something like “woman” is defined.
I don’t know what you mean by “social implications therein” of a woman.
I feel that there are social implications to bring a “woman.” We experience life a bit differently from men. Someone who is male presenting and “passing” no longer faces the same social and professional challenges.
My friend- I’ll call him Brad, though that’s not his name- is a “woman” and thus should be eligible for any honors bestowed on women in his field. Sure, he looks like a a man, he doesn’t face sex based discrimination of the type that his female coworker does- but give him the Outstanding Women Business award?
I’m not a biologist, and I don’t see man and woman as biological designations, but rather social ones. Gender, not sex.
I have a question: some transwomen are afraid of male violence if they use men’s toilets or changing facilities. Does ‘Brad’ feel safe changing in the men’s locker room or is that also a concern for him?
The core problem here is that humans use words to describe concepts that don’t have strict definitions. We could be having these same long discussions about words like warm, car, chair, sandwich, etc.
They express concepts and are not strictly or well-defined. Is a bean bag chair a chair? Is a hamburger a sandwich? If I say the water is warm, that doesn’t mean the water is within a strictly defined and well-known temperature range. For the most part these are more philosophy questions rather than things which need to be resolved. Rarely is someone’s identity tied up in something like whether a station wagon is a car.
As for “man” and “woman”, there are times where it doesn’t matter what someone is called and times where it does. If a coworker wants to be called him or her depending on the day of the week, go for it! But if that coworker wants to workout at the onsite gym and change in the locker room, then it really matters what they look like and what the other people in the locker room think. Of if they want to join groups which try to address gender-specific challenges in the workplace, it matters if they really lived as that gender and faced the same challenges.
I think it would be beneficial if there were different criteria depending on what was trying to be defined:
Gender-specific spaces (e.g. locker rooms): Someone who is cis-gender or highly matches typical cis-gendered people.
Gender-specific organizations (e.g. women in STEM): Someone who is cis-gender or has lived as that gender their whole life
Gender-specific benefits (e.g. scholarships): Someone who is cis-gender or has lived as that gender their whole life
Sports: Cis-gender
Non-gender specific environments: Whatever
If we could agree on something like this, it would help avoid the controversy surrounding “I’m a gender if I think I’m a gender and should have all the rights and benefits of gender”.
Brad isn’t a transwoman, and uses the men’s room. But as he is a woman, I guess he should switch to the ladies’?
This makes a great deal of sense to me.
Though to more directly answer your question- I’ve never asked him about locker room privacy
In any detail. He doesn’t have a penis to flop about, and when I asked my husband about his experience in men’s locker he said almost no penis was visible. Mostly tighty-whiteys.
He could experience sex-based discrimination if people know he’s female. If he’s experienced pregnancy and then had to deal with a boss that thinks pregnant people don’t belong in the workplace, then this would be a case of him experiencing the same kind of discrimination women deal with. If he has problems with his periods (like endometriosis) and has experienced dismissiveness by healthcare providers think “female conditions” are usually psychosomatic, he will have experienced the same kind of discrimination women deal with. His gender identity would not save him from these issues.
Prior to transitioning, he would not have been immune from anti-female discrimination either. He probably encountered it growing up in school, like most females do. Girls are often steered away from activities and vocations that are associated with tough and domineering personalities; the business world is one of those vocations. It is unlikely that “Brad” would’ve been untouched by this socialization. If he overcame that socialization and went on to be successful, that’s wonderful.
I would have much less problem with “Brad” getting an Outstanding Woman Business award than a male who transitioned late in life, decades after making a name for themselves as a man, presenting as a male and having the advantages that come with being a man encouraged to have a domineering personality.
Can we be honest, though? “Brad” would never want to claim an Outstanding Woman award, and we both know this. Brad wants to be seen as a man, not a woman. If calling him a woman is supposed to be a traumatic experience, then I’m having a hard time envisioning him getting up on stage to accept an award that calls him one. It is rather irritating that trans men keep being used as pawns in this debate, using unrealistic scenarios.
Is “girl” a social designation too? Or does it this only apply to females who are adult?
I understand that, I wondered if it was also a concern for transmen. I would not, for example, support putting transmen in a men’s jail, at least in general, and I wondered if at least some transmen would prefer a third space for safety reasons. But maybe in locker rooms it is possible to be discrete.
I don’t think there is really a satisfactory solution for changing rooms and showers. In general I agree with Filmore there should be different rules for different situations. I’d like to avoid laws that produce absurd cases, for example forcing fully passing trans men and women to use the toilets of their birth sex, or forcing women and businesses to accept having the ‘transwoman’ YWTF linked to use the women’s toilets. I do think for schools trans kids should be given a place they can change in privacy, and staff should have some discretion in requiring eg a diagnosis from the doctor before allowing pupils to use toilets of the opposite sex, just to avoid kids abusing the rules.
If there was a mixed sex changing area, would you and your friends all be happy to use it?
No, Brad wouldn’t want the award. We do both know that, any more than my cisgender husband would want it. However, my point is his eligibility. He may suffer some biological issues specific to females, and previously experienced discrimination based on AFAB. He doesn’t now. Now, of course, he does have to worry about trans-specific discrimination.
There are more transmen who are passing than male presenting female identifying, yet it’s somehow ridiculous to address how this issue affects them. Instead we have this entire thread talking about what if they look like a guy but say they’re a woman?
And I don’t usually call a grown woman a girl. In some informal situations I might, but for some random woman I don’t know? Not likely.
I don’t get the hand wringing over considering him eligible. He’s a person who is biologically female, he likely had to overcome some of the challenges that women face in the business realm. The likelihood of him getting an award like this is ridiculously slim, but if it happened, it’s not as though it would be a complete travesty.
But yes, it would probably be more fitting for him to receive a trans-specific award, because of trans-specific discrimination. I feel the same way when it comes to trans women. Instead of allowing them to fill spots reserved for females, I believe there should be spots created for them.
I don’t know what you’re saying here. This thread has been primarily focused on the implications of allowing women’s spaces to be occupied by males who identify as women. Not only are trans men female (and therefore are not male and or thus, not a concern), but it’s unlikely they will be trying to enter women’s spaces. If we created mix-sex spaces as I’m proposing we do, then why would trans men need to be an issue in the women’s locker room?
I’m not asking whether you would refer to a woman as a girl.
“Girl” is the word we use to refer to juvenile females.Is your concept of “girl” the same as it is “woman” (i.e. a social designation rather than a biological one)?
I remember reading a thread on reddit about this very topic. Most of the trans men who responded said they would not want to be housed in a men’s prison, because the risk of rape is too high.
[quote=“YWTF, post:1872, topic:855795”] is
“girl” a social designation too? Or does it this only apply to females who are adult?
[/quote]
I interpreted this as referring to applying the word
“girl” to adult females.
I haven’t given much thought to girl as social designation vs biological. I think I would be inclined to put it in the social category as well, but I don’t feel strongly about it.
I’m not sure if this tells us much - I have a feeling most cis men would prefer not to be housed in a men’s prison either. No one wants to be housed in a men’s prison.
My daughters are girls because they are juvenile females. Whatever social role someone imagines they inhabit on the basis of them being “girls” is purely imaginary.
It is no different with “women”.
I would guess that some cis-men would be at higher risk of rape or assault than some trans men depending on things like physical features, the type of prison, what crimes they committed, and so on. Being trans is likely something which increases the risk, but I wouldn’t think it would automatically mean they have the highest risk of the prison population. In any case, prisons have protections in place for high-risk or vulnerable inmates.
But I don’t know her. I might not want her to use the ladies restroom out of fears she might terrorize and rape me.
You say she’s a friend of yours. Ask her. Ask her if she would mind using the men’s room every time she has to pee, just until “we get this all straightened out”. Try to explain to her that my fears of being assaulted by her are valid, while her fears of being assaulted if she enters the men’s room at , say, Yankee Stadium, aren’t.
I don’t dismiss the views of people that disagree with my position out of hand. I do try to listen with respect.
I saw a wedding planner interviewed that was against non-discrimination with regard to working gay weddings because she genuinely thought she would be required to watch male nudity and public sex acts.
I saw a woman that was genuinely terrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency because she genuinely believed he was an Islamic terrorist.
Not too long ago, there were women that were genuinely afraid of being in proximity to black men because they thought they were animals that couldn’t control their sexual impulses.
I had a friend that literally believed the government was going to incarcerate conservatives in Walmarts that had been converted to prisons and connected ny underground tunnels. And he, in his own words, was so scared he almost crapped himself.
I have no doubt that in all these cases their fears were genuine. But they were also completely baseless.
I don’t like taking a position that negates someone’s very genuinely felt fears . But I cant give them credence. All I can do is say “You’re wrong” even though it falls on deaf ears.
And I keep saying “You’re wrong” even as they mine the internet for cases of a lewd gay wedding or Obama talking to someone that later said something bad about America or stories of black men attacking white women or eyewitness accounts of the government digging 500 mile long tunnels.
And I know they don’t get it, but all I can do is keep saying “You’re wrong”. And that’s how I’m going to leave it.
This tells us a lot, actually.
If one of your daughters (at whatever age) came to you and confessed gender dysphoria, and requested that you treat them as a boy, would you tell your child they are still a girl, or a woman if applicable, and there’s nothing they can say to change that immutable fact? That they just aren’t a boy, so you will continue to refer to them as girl, woman etc?