Because it’s not going to help anything to answer the question. even sven and others would like it if I accepted their definitions.
Nonetheless -
Okay, then Yes. But it’s not going to help, because the student in the OP is not a transwoman as I understand the term, and therefore is not a woman. And the question remains why I should accept his/her definition instead of the generally accepted notion that a woman doesn’t have a penis.
Regards,
Shodan
So, just to clarify, what is a “transwoman” as you understand the term? I would like to know why the student in the OP doesn’t qualify.
Cheers, mate, thank you.
I think that’s a problematic definition on many levels.
I’m suspecting that he’s focused upon the penis, and nothing but. Which if true, is an unfortunately ignorant of the realities of the transition process and the quality of life issues.
Back in the bad-old-days, the standard practice was the “real-life trial” before any hormones or surgery were approved. Generally speaking, the transgender person would have to upend their life and start dressing and working and playing and everything else as a woman. After this trial (which some psychiatrists demanded encompass years) then hormones would be prescribed, and surgery would come later. But it was traditional that one must live as a woman for a very long time without treatment.
In the late 1960’s the trends changed, and hormones were now available as part of the real-life trial on occasion. And as time has passed, psychologists have determined that early hormone use yields much better mental and physical results, especially when it comes to quality of live. This has helped things tremendously, as it allowed the transgender person to begin to experience the positive effects of having the correct hormone balance for them, both in mind and body. Surgery might come 2-4 years later. Nowadays, we have stricter counseling and even better understanding, and some can receive a letter for surgery in a year - and if they have a diagnosed intersex condition, almost immediately (raises hand).
Surgery has always been a high barrier, mostly due to the cost and the toll on one’s body. And the availability of SRS surgeons who could give good results was quite small, until the so-called “Biber revolution,” where Dr. Stanley Biber in the 1980’s started to introduce other doctors to new techniques and to actively train them.
So traditionally it was normal for transgender persons to have their penis for some time after transition. If one is solely focused upon penii, then they could say in their mind that a transgender woman is not a woman. Unfortunately, the medical establishment disagrees with their laypersons phallocentric idealism.
Even in 2015 most health plans don’t cover transgender surgery, or if they do, there is a waiting period of years involved sometimes. I’m incredibly lucky, in that I am upper-middle-class and kept my career after transition. My surgeries were no financial burden to me. But a very large percentage of the transgender community is desperately poor, unemployed or underemployed, and for them even a $17k Thailand option is as unlikely as buying a new Ferrari. In the US and Canada, fees run from $22k - $40k for transgender women (depending upon what they need done). For transgender men…I’ve met some who spent over $70k in total - out of pocket - for their phalloplasties.
And some women and men are prohibited from surgery due to health reasons. I know several for whom no surgeon will work on them due to poor physical health. The surgeries take a lot out of you.
Defining a woman as “she who shall not haveth a penis” has historical basis; it would be ignorant to not admit that. But we need not be slaves to history. Recognizing that a transgender person may have financial or health reasons for being prohibited from sex reassignment surgery, to set the bar of womanhood as having a vagina is cruel, almost vindictive.
So the WPATH standards today do not require surgery for a woman or man to be considered “transsexual,” and they certainly don’t require it for a the broader term of “transgender.” This is not even a matter for debate, and I believe the APA, AMA, and others back this up. Some transgender women change their names, their gender markers, work, play, love, and live while still keeping a few ounces of flesh - which for many of us stopped working sexually after a couple of years on hormones anyhow - until they have the resources to get rid of it.
And yes, not all transgender women do get rid of it, even those with money and in good health. Some keep it simply because their mental status is so much better, they can ignore their genitals and just get on with life. A significant number of us are asexual, and would never be in a position to display their genitals to anyone other than a doctor. Said one transgender person to me, “I’ve been transitioned socially and legally for 5 years. I have a great job. Everyone treats me as a woman. My spouse doesn’t care what genitals I have. I have lots of friends and my family backs me. Why would I want to spend $28k for surgery, undergo a lengthy and painful recovery, and then have daily maintenance? I can ignore what’s down there for now.”
If some would like all transgender women to no longer have penii, guess what, that’s what most (but not all) of us want too. It’s also a position not backed in WPATH and other transgender standard practice. The reality of the situation is that in order to have a greatly improved assimilation into society, a transgender woman needs to have some significant length of time living as a woman while on hormones, so they can be certain surgery is what they need. In fact, I recall being debated in other threads where some claimed surgery was such an extreme step that it should be prohibited for transgender persons. It’s sort of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t.
And as I’ve expressed before, I would reckon that most people who are skeptical, uneasy, or even hate people like me have never actually met one of us and spent some time talking with us face to face, nor actually looked hard at the numerous barriers society has placed in our way. Paraphrasing Julia Serano, I had the entire weight of my family, peer groups, schools, churches, employers, and even Society itself cracking down on me, every hour of the day, trying to force this round peg into a square hole. And despite all that crushing pressure to conform, my gender identity stayed constant and led me to this place. A place I would rather die than leave.
So, just so we’re clear here, the anti-discrimination laws, as they have been enacted/proposed thus far, would not allow a male who was born male and has historically identified as a male to loiter in a women’s restroom/locker/etc. for prurient purposes and exempt himself from punishment by claiming at the time of arrest that he was transgender, right?
Because if this is a situation that the proposed laws wouldn’t even permit in the first place, then it seems that a great big chunk of this argument is moot to begin with.
Some states have laws explicitly stating that female facilities are only meant for women. However, in most (all that I’ve seen or researched?) cases no mention whatsoever is made for transgender or transsexual women, nor intersex persons. Normally, the authorities are supposed to go by what the gender marker on your state-issued or federal-issued ID says.
In most states, you only get that gender marker via proof of surgery or proof of being a transsexual, or a court order (which requires the aforementioned proof be shown to a judge), or both. However, some states place such a high bar to changing gender markers that even transsexuals who have had full surgery have difficulty changing their marker. But it’s getting better, and quite rapidly.
I know of no laws on the books nor proposed which allow a male who identifies as a male to present a defense that they are suddenly transgender and should use a women’s bathroom or locker room. I would imagine the first thing the prosecutor would ask for is the name of the psychologist they worked with, a carry letter, or some other clearly compelling evidence that shows they in fact were honestly transgender. Obviously, if they’re not, then they should be subject to the penalties of law. IANA prosecutor, but I have worked with several who have said that is exactly what they would do.
But here we’re sort of speculating.
::sad face:: <—!
About the reason you give for having to edit your post. I hear you, my hermaphroditic overlord. I got jumped on a couple of days ago by a trigger-happy grammar Nazi when my iPhone auto-corrected “rein” to “reign” and I failed to notice it. Would that I were a Mod, and such jumping-on would have the kindness and humour of Frank’s.
I’m not a lawyer so I will get some areas of the law wrong. That said, I’ll qualify my statements to read that I believe that what the school is doing by singling her out would be fodder for a lawyer because I believe that the case is similar enough to the whole separate-but-equal fiasco that an easy case can be made. Looking at how far and fast gay rights has progressed, I’ve no doubt that public perception is rapidly moving towards inclusion rather than exclusion, and soon, if not now a case can be won for transgender rights that will force the school not to single anyone out for transgender reasons. I don’t think what I’ve said is easily refutable as I’m mostly arrogantly speculating on the ease of which a case can be won, with good reason I think, based on how fast we were able to get gay marriage legalized since it became a hot button issue.
Perhaps. But what is not an assumption is that the school offered to accommodate. Its reasonable to assume that since they did that, they do not outright reject her identifying as a transgendered female. My response is based on that acknowledgement.
So too can they accommodate her by allowing her to use the girls’ locker. As you said, sometimes it comes down to money. It will cost the school nothing to allow her to use an existing locker room. And where rights are concerned, comfort and perceived safety mean little. White people’s discomfort towards blacks doesn’t mean it wasn’t a violation of their rights to make blacks use different water fountains. The outhouse example was a bit hyperbole I admit. But nobody’s being asked to build anything new. Given that we have examples in the past where such things have been deemed civil rights violations, I’m confident it will be here as well
First of all, don’t trust a rag like the Daily Caller. They can’t even be arsed to call him by the correct pronoun. Second, I did some research on that case. It seems that Seamus Johnston had not yet met the qualification of transitioning in the state when he decided to request access to the men’s locker room. Despite what people who don’t want transgendered people to have rights believe, people who support them also do not like or want instances where false claims are enabled in the name of rights. If Johnston did not meet the standards of transition, then I would be more hesitant to grant him full rights. In the post by the OP, I assume the girl has done enough. Find me a source that says she hasn’t and I’ll change my position.
Not wrong. This case hasn’t gone to trial. If and when it does, I predict an easy victory.
Are different schools for black and white kids equal?
Do you mean “that have” male brains? I don’t understand.
And if there are people who have an issue with that, who do you side with?
I think he meant “women would feel more uncomfortable around male anatomies than male brains.” Which is patently ridiculous. You leave a male brain lying around a women’s locker room, nobody is going to want to go in there.
I’m not sure what basis that assumption has.
The girl in the OP attends school in Cook County, Illinois.
Like Pennsylvania, Illinois requires gender reassignment surgery in order to legally change gender:
This is virtually identical to the Pennsylvania law which governed the Seamus Johnston case.
The two cases are not, however, factually similar. Johnston is a legal adult, and perhaps some justification can be assigned to the requirement for surgery (although as an aside I will note that it is a hugely expensive undertaking and seems manifestly unfair to place such an obstacle in the way – but that’s another post’s discussion). For now, the fact is that both Pennsylvania and Illinois law require similar predicates, but even the bare justification that one might argue for Johnston’s case isn’t available here: as a minor, the girl is simply not in a position to procure gender reassignment surgery in the same way an adult might. She can’t. To require that she does is to place an insurmountable obstacle in her way.
So returning to your assumption: I doubt that she’s legally transitioned, under Illinois law, inasmuch as that legal transition requires surgery. Therefore, I doubt your conclusion that she has.
More tellingly, though, I doubt that the current state of the law in Illinois is the right one – by requiring gender reassignment surgery, whatever the marginal merits of such a rule might be for adults, effectively blocks minors from gender reassignment recognition.
I know, YogSosoth, that you’re in agreement with that last point – you don’t think the law should hinge on surgery, I’m almost certain. But you rested your argument on her legal status in Illinois.
I have quoted a supposed expert in this field stating she thinks that is essentially how this should work. So you if you want to have some detailed, explicit framework that is more complex and nuanced, please present it. Otherwise, stop saying such a thing cannot be a sudden pronouncement because that’s exactly the minimum standard that exists if all you require is self-identification. Yes, in the vast majority of cases people will do more to transition, but if it’s not required, then your critique is moot.
Point out where ANYONE said this was a huge worry ASSUMING you have significant barriers of entry and sufficient scrutiny? The issue is that multiple people KEEP arguing all that should be required is a sincere conviction and perhaps a doctor’s note. That’s nonsense. And that’s only addressing the more straightforward case of someone transitioning from one gender to another. What should be done about bigender people who sincerely feel they should be able to use whatever facilities they choose based on their sincerely felt gender at the time? Now since I have asked this question at least twice before and your side has chosen to ignore it, please don’t bother responding without answering it with a proposed solution that makes sense.
I have a fairly hard time considering anything that family does as completely genuine, but I fully believe Jenner is sincere generally speaking. I don’t think it’s some kind of stunt or ruse if that is what you are asking. However, I think Jenner’s conduct is such that it, at least in her case, radically undercuts this idea that identifying as your former gender is always an act of abject cruelty as you seem to be suggesting. She has no problem applying to a country club as Bruce, which strikes me as a bit disingenuous given the stakes you guys suggest are ALWAYS at play.
A women who has no issue using her former male identity when it suits her is, in my opinion, less than completely sincere. No necessarily about the desire to become a woman, but at least in the need to live as a women all the time as a matter of mental and physical well being. I wouldn’t extrapolate her behavior to include every transgender person obviously, but her case highlights why accommodation in my mind cannot just be based on a personal declaration and a doctor’s note.
You missed the point. The point is that IME, when transgender people transition, they usually switch to a gender typical name in accordance with tradition despite doing something completely nontraditional. It’s not a knock on Caitlyn. I just find it mildly humorous that many people would be more comfortable with accepting someone changing genders than calling a woman Bruce.
That is a wild oversimplification of the “model”. Intersex people and those with ambiguous genitalia have existed for a long time, so you are wildly overstating your case. The only revelation has been the mounting evidence that, to put it succinctly, some biological women/men have typically male/female brains. That’s hardly support for your claim, particularly if you expand it to include the dozens of gender identities there apparently are. The latter conclusion which you have just assumed to be true is that maleness and femaleness colloquially speaking as based on the brain rather than anything else.
I mean that outside of a closed environment like a high school, almost no scrutiny is made on a situation to situation basis. As I said before, if Caitlyn Jenner, RuPaul, and Jon Hamm walk into a woman’s gym locker room naked, how would some bystander know only one of them potentially belonged? What should some woman who is uncomfortable do in any of those three scenarios? Should we ask transgender people to identify themselves? That hardly seems fair. It also doesn’t seem fair to discourage anyone from asking why someone is in a place they don’t seem to belong. What is that balance in a situation like that?
No, it’s not. They are correlated and generally overlap, but that is far from a given. For example, see this family. Same heritage, almost certainly different perceived racial categories.
Why then are restrooms designed around anatomical sex? Do you see any urinals in women’s bathrooms?
Even if you grant that accommodation given most bathroom usage is in the relative privacy of a stall, the same is not true for most locker rooms.
And you would likely be wrong. Did you read the comments of the judge?
Okay, but why are you anchored to complete accommodation as the most desirable or fair outcome when the only side seemingly willing to compromise?
Hah! You realize you are basically saying, “hey if we have to trample on someone’s right because of money, that makes sense, but real people’s concerns, comfort, and perceived safety mean nothing”. You have a very odd way of valuing money and human emotions.
Again, this issue and race have little overlap despite you sadly clinging to it.
Your confidence is largely misplaced and based on very little.
Nor do I , but the content seems accurate based on other cites I read.
Actually, I think the prudent thing would be to demand or find proof she has rather than asking for proof of a negative.
Are you dense? The case was rejected. Easy victories don’t generally arise from cases that can’t even make it to trial. Further, read what the judge said:
So basically as I argued before that the basis for segregation is both sex and gender. She continued:
Note the basis for segregation based on SEX has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. Now if you want to argue that will change based on whatever, so be it. However, I think this will be an issue in the vast majority of cases where transgender people have not undergone SRS.
Historically no. That’s WHY they were outlawed. It’s also why, single sex schools are often legal.
A minor typo really hindered your understanding of the point?
Depends on the circumstances. That has been my issue all along. Everyone deserves to be heard in a case like this. That doesn’t mean some genuine bigot’s opinion is held in the same regard as a doctor’s or the student’s, but it does mean the process should be a meeting of the minds to determine what the best solution is. Furthermore, that solution needn’t always be a complete acquiescence to the preference of the student appealing for relief in order to be just or humane.
My apologies. Please forgive me. :smack:
Correct. I expect, and advocate, that school administrators informed of a transgender student’s request to start using a different restroom take the requisite steps to confirm that the student’s transgender status is being professed both sincerely and accurately. Una has already given us a detailed description of the quite rigorous evaluations transgender people generally have to go through before getting a diagnosis of transgender identity, and I have no problem with school administrators requiring some such formal diagnosis before agreeing to change a student’s official gender classification and designated restroom.
Mind you, I also hold that there are many other social circumstances in which a mere declaration by the individual is all that’s required to establish the individual’s transgender status, as far as those particular circumstances are concerned.
For instance, if (generic) you happen to meet in a casual social or professional setting a person you used to know some time ago, and they are presenting as a different gender from when you previously knew them, it’s your duty as a civilized human being to treat them as the gender they’re currently presenting, simply because they claim to be that gender. It would be extremely rude and intrusive to demand any kind of corroborative evidence or official diagnosis of their transgender status in those circumstances.
Una Persson already explained to you in detail why your trivializing and misleading interpretation of what constitutes a “doctor’s note” in the case of evaluating and diagnosing transgender status is inaccurate. If you keep insisting on that misleading interpretation in preference to the actual facts, there’s not really anything I can do to change your mind.
You apparently misunderstood, again. Just because I noted that genetic heritage is the biological component of socially constructed racial categories doesn’t mean I’m claiming that racial category is always a reliable indicator of genetic heritage. In fact, as you point out, there are many cases where two people with similar genetic heritage will fall into different racial categories.
Analogously, the fact that anatomical/chromosomal sex is the biological component of socially constructed gender categories doesn’t mean that gender category is always a reliable indicator of anatomical/chromosomal sex. In fact, there are numerous cases where two people with the same anatomical/chromosomal sex will fall into different gender categories.
I don’t see any one-foot-high toilets in (western) women’s bathrooms, either. Does that mean that, say, a woman with extreme dwarfism who has difficulty using standard toilets shouldn’t be considered a woman, or shouldn’t be allowed to use the women’s restroom? How can she claim to be entitled to use a women’s restroom when women’s restroom design is obviously unsuited to her anatomy in a very significant way?
The thing is, see, standardized restroom facilities are designed and calibrated for the convenience of the typical user, not to serve as some kind of universal criterion that must be applied to all users.
There are no super-low toilets in women’s bathrooms because the vast majority of women are not super-short, just as there are no urinals in women’s bathrooms because the vast majority of women don’t have penises. But that unremarkable fact is NOT a valid justification for trying to disqualify the rare women who ARE super-short, or who DO have penises, from using the women’s restroom along with other, more anatomically typical women.
The detailed framework was laid out in post 161. My own prior posts explained why Una’s prior concededly overboard statements were indefensible as written (as well as speculating on why she may have done so); she responded by more clearly and defensibly laying out the argument.
You have chosen to continue to focus on those prior statements, which now represent a strawman argument: no one in this thread is claiming that high school locker room use should be conditioned on mere self-identification, with no further corroboration. To the extent that anyone did, they have modified that position.
Do you acknowledge this?
To aid in your recollection, here is post 161:
That was not stated. What was stated is that the humiliation would likely be worse if they were exposed in front of boys and subject to the same harassment.
No, this specific statement was about the hypothetical case of unisex bathrooms.
Did you read the article? She was offered the use of private restroom and showers. She wants to change with the other girls on her team, not alone. That’s a different issue. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, just a different issue.
Isn’t this a false dichotomy? You are only considering the girl change with boys because she has a penis or with girls. But what about the option of her changing in the separately provided teacher’s lounge showers? Not ideal, but it is a third option. And if your argument is “the greater good”, then it serves the greater good by protecting this girl from all kinds of embarrassment by not looking like a boy or a girl. And it protects the other girls from being around a penis. (Because apparently penises are scary. I know I don’t want to be around any others.)
Excellent post.
Is the other person claiming to be a girl, or a boy?
Yes. While the racial terms are “White” and “Black”, skin pigmentation is only part of the attribution that determines the race.
Agreed, self determined gender identity may not be the only basis for a fair social decision. But it takes more than just saying so to be convincing.
At a bare minimum. Doctor’s diagnosis, school administrative consultation, and the handful of other things typically required to make a legal transition in the eyes of the state.
[/QUOTE]
Right, but it takes more than just saying so to be convincing.
Why? That is your position, but if you’re trying to convince others to accept it, you have to actually give arguments, not just state your position.
Okay, but that doesn’t address the argument that part of the reason for segregated bathrooms and changing rooms is sex organ determined.
Why? Your stating it doesn’t make it true by fiat.
Now you’re getting somewhere.
Not bringing it up before the initial meeting is fine, but I sure hope it’s something that comes up before clothing comes off.
This is definitely a case where our social structures and culture are not in synch with the growing modern understanding of sexual identity and gender. Perhaps it is time reevaluate as a society what we are trying to accomplish by gender segregating our bathrooms and changing facilities. Unfortunately, it seems we are going about this in a haphazard drunken stumble rather than a reasoned consideration of the issues. But that’s par for the course of being human, I guess.
Una has already posted in this thread a clarification of her remark about what she means by a “doctor’s note”. Your continuing to represent her statement in this manner is flat out wrong, and it appears deliberately so.
So Caitlyn has complicated identity issues. Why is that an indictment of people arguing for transgendered rights?
I’m no expert, but I imagine it comes with carving out a new identity that they are this new person with a new gender. It’s not just so others will think of them as changed, but to acknowledge the change to themselves, finding their new identity and embracing it.
Una has also written that there is a strong urge to write off and distance themselves from their past, to be taken as fully woman or fully man, which is hard when everyone sees them as the gender they were. Even after operation and hormones, there’s a stigma to being trans that they wish to distance themselves from.
Una has already provided such in this thread.
False. Una has clarified her position in this thread. Your continued statement to this effect is complete misrepresentation of Una’s position. It’s hard to take you seriously when you continue to repeat this in the face of Una’s posts 161 and 162.
This is not just hypothetical. Houston is currently debating an equal rights ordinance that is currently on the November ballot. One strong item for opponents of the equal rights ordinance is the fear this ordinance will allow sexual predators to dress up as women to go into restrooms. Similar ordinances in Austin, Dallas, and El Paso have provided no such upturn in sexual predators in restrooms.
And 12 more states with the same response, there is no uptake in sexual predators or rape from equal rights ordinances that protect gender identity.
The school has already acknowledged her status by letting her participate on female athletic teams. That is part of the justification for use of the female locker rooms - so she will be with her teammates, who already accept her as a female since she participates in athletics with them.
The two of you are discussing different cases. You are discussing the one that went to trial, YogSosoth is talking about the case from the OP.
I think it’s the responsibility of any man who doesn’t want to be intimate with a transwoman to make his preference clear at some point “before clothing comes off”. It’s not a transwoman’s responsibility to volunteer information about her transgender status unasked.
I do agree, though, that if a transgender woman is dating a guy who makes it clear that he doesn’t want to be intimate with a transgender woman, she should immediately dump the dude, rather than hiding or denying her transgender status in the hope that he’ll change his mind. He almost certainly won’t, and she deserves better than a guy who’s only dating her because he believes something about her that isn’t true.
…
I guess I didn’t really address that in my prior reply because I didn’t really consider it a great alternative. One of the goals of transition among youth is to try to integrate them (I call it “mainstream” them) into peer groups of their gender. And having been in the position to be forced to use a “separate but equal” bathroom on a couple of occasions, it felt…really not very good.
Transgender dating is a huge can of worms. I’ve posted about it before, but to summarize some of the issues and my opinion…in my opinion, in perfect Una Land, every transgender woman would voluntarily mention it on the first date to any cisgender person who they do not already know is trans-accepting.
This opinion of mine is at odds with many in my community, but it is driven solely by the fact of violence. I’ve seen the results, up close and personal, of what cisgender men can do to a transgender woman when they find out the girl they were dating wasn’t raised a girl - or worse, hasn’t undergone full transition. A significant number of transgender murders are the result of a revelation of transgender after dating has been in progress.
I’ve posted before about the despair which drives some in my community - transgirls who desperately need someone to love and someone to love them, who are willing to take the risk and hide their past in the hopes that if they can get their proverbial foot in the door, then they could overcome any bigotry in the man. IME, that just isn’t the way it works out.
But it’s getting better. I cannot pin down why, but I suspect that just in the last 5 years there seems to have been a much greater “pool” of cisgender straight men and women who are willing to date a transgender person with full knowledge of their history. It’s just my opinion and not a scientific poll, but I do think it is slowly getting better.
I have. They’re not common (at least not in the US), but I used to work in a building that had “female urinals” in one of the women’s bathrooms.
Yeah, I’m a little confused by his strategy in this thread. Seemingly positing acceptance and sympathy while at the same time not so much.
And yes, you have it correct. There is a very strong urge to move past the, well, past, which was filled with pain and angst, and start over. And this doesn’t just stay with the individual - several times I’ve been taken aside by well-meaning transgender people who “advise” me that I should stop being so open about being a transsexual woman.
The new girl I met last night wouldn’t even tell me her boy name (sometimes referred to in the community as “slave name,” a term I do not condone). Not even to me, she was so ashamed of even admitting she was anything other than a girl. I had to drag it out of her because I’m trying to find a job for her and I needed to see her resume (job placement is another one of my side jobs for my community, which is another reason I sleep about 4 hours a night…), but she didn’t make it easy. She was willing to lie on her resume and risk being turned down by pretty much any employer, rather than write that offensive boy name. I leveled with her, transperson to transperson, and convinced her that it was OK, it’s just temporary, and I was there for her. And when she gave me her boy name, she cried because it was so painful. 
