Post New

Thanks to albaby, I'd admit that race dysmorphia is not a thing whereas gender dysmorphia is, so we should acknowledge that a biological man can genuinely claim to be a psychological woman. Call him/her a trans woman.

Why should this trans woman be accepted as a woman (no qualifiers)? Her (see, respectful!) biology is different.
Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?

Yes, I also acknowledge (because I acknowledge reality) that she would very likely be subjected to violence in men's prison (as are biological men, BTW) and somewhat likely in Mens' restroom. Never mind that everyone should be protected by the state against violence, especially the vulnerable like women, children, physically and mentally challenged AND this trans woman. She is not special in that respect. But we will bend over backward, because we are nice heterosexual men and women, and put her in her own prison wing, and let her have her own bathroom (or temporally exclusive use of men's room). Not have her compete with bio women and not call her a woman without qualifiers. No she can't use bio women's facilities like restrooms and gym showers. Fair?

Yes, I also acknowledge (because I acknowledge reality) that she would very likely be subjected to violence in men's prison (as are biological men, BTW) and somewhat likely in Mens' restroom.

In the Philippines they set up housekeeping for the local boss, etc., in prison and pretty much fulfill being a woman.

knighttof3: But we will bend over backward, because we are nice heterosexual men and women, and put her in her own prison wing, and let her have her own bathroom (or temporally [sic] exclusive use of men's room). Not have her compete with bio women and not call her a woman without qualifiers. No she can't use bio women's facilities like restrooms and gym showers. Fair?

Um, no... none of that is correct.

First, we're doing the exact opposite of bending over backward to accommodate transgender individuals. Twenty states have a law or policy banning gender affirming care.

Nearly 1 in 5 of any type of hate crime is now motivated by anti-LGBTQ+ bias.

In California, inmates have filed at least 321 requests for transfers based on gender identity since the law, SB132, took effect, but the Corrections Department has granted only 46 of those requests.

As for athletic competition, upthread we established that 50 out of 480,000 college athletes are transgender and 15 transgender athletes compete in high school sports. And World Athletics (WA), the governing body for track and field and other running competitions, announced in March that transgender women who went through male puberty can no longer compete in women's events at international competitions.

WA also ruled that to compete as a woman, athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD), who have congenital conditions that cause atypical sex development, must have a testosterone level below 2.5 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) for at least 24 months before an international competition.

But is there a scientific consensus about how trans athletes actually perform compared with cisgender women?

No.

States are passing laws that ban transgender students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, including Oklahoma, North Carolina, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, and others.

Hardly bending over backwards in favor of the transgender community.


https://www.science.org/content/article/world-athl...

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/transgender-in...

knighttof3: But we will bend over backward, because we are nice heterosexual men and women, and put her in her own prison wing, and let her have her own bathroom (or temporally [sic] exclusive use of men's room).

I am not sic :)

"Temporally exclusive" was my shorthand for saying either men or trans women can use the restroom but not simultaneously.

BTW this is what Boy Scouts do now. Either kids or adults can use a shared restroom, but not simultaneously (even if it has multiple urinals and stalls). Not a perfect measure, but better than nothing.

"In California, inmates have filed at least 321 requests for transfers based on gender identity since the law, SB132, took effect, but the Corrections Department has granted only 46 of those requests."

These stats prove nothing. Maybe the other 275 that were denied were posers. They are criminals.
In any case, California should have granted zero such requests, and instead moved the trans women to their own cells. Or two to a cell, as the policy may be.

"As for athletic competition, upthread we established that 50 out of 480,000 college athletes are transgender and 15 transgender athletes compete in high school sports."

That doesn't make it right. If you will trample on my testicles only for 3 seconds, it will still be painful.
How many George Floyds were killed compared to the population of all Black men in US? Numbers are not the issue here.

"States are passing laws that ban transgender students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity,"

Good. Some common sense.
Having said that, the bathroom issue is a minor one because bio women go in pairs :)

The real problem with the bathroom is potential misuse by "normal" (sorry, sorry, men-like-appearing or whatever TF youy want me to say) men to sneak into women's bathroom and claiming to be trans. Especially teenage students.

BTW are all trans women gay (or straight, WTF do you want me to call a cross dressing man who likes other men)?
Can they be trans and still like bio women? IN which case, giving them free access to Ladies' restroom is asking for trouble.

As for athletic competition, upthread we established that 50 out of 480,000 college athletes - comonone

---------------------

Even if there are only fifty, their impact is much greater and growing.

There are many biological women victims who have spent their lives training to be the best in their chosen sport who now find themselves relegated to a second or third place finish at best. Plus how many young biological women drop their aspirations due to the futility of it all.

Lots of examples, just like this one. We need a third category but that likely would lead to a requirement to have a trans wrestling team if you have any cis wrestling teams and provide it with equal funding.

https://www.newsfromtheperimeter.com/home/2021/2/2...

There are many biological women victims who have spent their lives training to be the best in their chosen sport who now find themselves relegated to a second or third place finish at best. Plus how many young biological women drop their aspirations due to the futility of it all.

And that's the damn shame of it all!!!!!!

Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?

I'm not sure why you're using that phrasing, if you're starting from the point of acknowledging trans identity. We don't ask why she should be "allowed" to have the same rights and privileges as other women; we ask if there's any reason to prohibit her from being treated like any other women.

For nearly all circumstances, the answer is "no." There's no reason for treating a trans woman differently than any other women - in the workplace, in a restaurant, shopping, anywhere. You've focused in on the small handful of contexts where biology plays somewhat more of a factor than other place. But even then, there's no reason why trans women can't use the ladies room. There's probably no reason for them to not be housed in women's penitentiaries. In both milieu, the negative consequences of sexual violence are almost certainly higher if you forbid trans women from using the female facilities.

Athletics is a slightly more complicated case - but as has been pointed out, the frequency of participation by trans athletes at the levels where this is high enough to matter is so low that the weight of interests probably leans towards not prohibiting them from competing in their identified gender. Yes, there will probably exist at least one situation where a trans athlete actually places in the top tier, and their genetics and biology might end up being a determinative factor. But again, not only is that going to be an extremely rare occurrence, but that sort of thing happens all the time in competitive sport. By the time you get to the podium level, the athletes who are winning aren't there just because they trained harder or wanted it more - it's because they have genetics and biology that are very close to the optimal for their sport. For example, if you're 5'9", someone like Michael Phelps (6'4") has an enormous advantage over you based solely on his physiology - you're never going to be able to beat him in a race, no matter how hard you work or how hard you train.

Given the harms caused by discriminating against trans women, the balance of interests likely leans towards not prohibiting them from competition in women's sports. If (as BHM suggests) that changes dramatically going forward as trans women encounter less discrimination in society, we may need to revisit it. But right now, with such trivial levels of even participation, that seems like a policy in search of a problem.

But right now, with such trivial levels of even participation, that seems like a policy in search of a problem. - albaby

--------------

You are being too dismissive of the unfairness being experienced by all the biological women who have worked for years to become elite only to lose out to a trans woman. These athletes and the parents who spent years supporting their daughters in these sports would disagree with you, as do I.

It is simply unfair and places the "feelings" of the trans woman athlete superior to the "feelings" of the biological women who are forced to endure the unfairness.

You are being too dismissive of the unfairness being experienced by all the biological women who have worked for years to become elite only to lose out to a trans woman.

From the data, this almost never happens. To be sure, it will happen - but very, very infrequently.

Far less frequently than the instances of all the biological women who work for years and years to become elite, only to lose out to a cis woman who's an inch taller or has slightly wider hands or slightly more efficiently configured muscles.

It is nature of athletics that at elite levels, a lot of what happens on the podium is due to genetics and body shape - not just training or skill. Right now, all the evidence is that the delta added by including trans women to that existing genetic "happenstance" will be trivial. Not non-existent - but small enough that there's a pretty good argument that for now, balancing the equities leans towards inclusion, not exclusion.

Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?

albaby:
I'm not sure why you're using that phrasing, if you're starting from the point of acknowledging trans identity. We don't ask why she should be "allowed" to have the same rights and privileges as other women; we ask if there's any reason to prohibit her from being treated like any other women.

Because these are not the only choices. "trans woman" is just a phrase, it doesn't mean he/she/they are a "woman". I could call them "intersex" or "drag queen" or something else. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

I think "narrow-minded" people like me want to acknowledge that (a) trans women are not men, and are exposed to danger if forced to use men's restrooms at the same time as men, and even more so when housed with male prisoners, BUT, (b) trans women are not women either, and pose a small danger if using women's restrooms and a slightly larger if housed with female inmates, and absolutely should not participate in women's sports and most importantly (c) overly broad accommodations for genuine trans women leaves the barn door wide open for men (and teenage boys) to pretend to be trans and victimize women and girls.

BTW in California AFAIK a trans woman does not have to dress or look like a woman. Anyone can declare they are trans (actually no one asks). Any man can use any woman's restroom at any time. This has gotten to the point that a lot of commercial establishments in Northern California have eliminated any restrictions on restroom use. I can't tell you how awkward it is to share a .... let's say long bathroom break ... with a woman in the next stall.

Because these are not the only choices. "trans woman" is just a phrase, it doesn't mean he/she/they are a "woman". I could call them "intersex" or "drag queen" or something else. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Ah. I understand.

Well, I think then that makes it even more clear that the answer to your question lies in the question. If you start from the position that a trans woman isn't a woman (or more broadly are unaware that "intersex," "drag queen," and "trans woman" are specific terms that refer to very different types of people), then you're going to be puzzled by why non-discriminatory policy efforts lean towards inclusion.

But the answer is pretty simple. Most folks drafting inclusionary policy start from the premise that trans women are women. So if you ask, "Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?" the simple response is, "because she's a woman, and that's what women do." Unless there's some specific, compelling reason to exclude these women from engaging in activities that all other women get to engage in, we don't exclude them.

Many facilities that involve very private functions (like bathrooms) have been designed for convenience to be communal facilities divided on gender. In such circumstances, wherever a trans person goes may cause discomfort or confusion - people may be confused and uncomfortable if a trans man goes into the woman's room (because it looks like she's going into the "wrong" bathroom), and people may be confused and uncomfortable if that tran man goes into the men's room (because he may not have male genitalia). The absence of a clear and compelling reason to prohibit a trans man or trans woman from using the restroom that matches their identity means we don't prohibit them from doing it, in places that are willing to take steps to avoid discriminating against trans people.

Because these are not the only choices. "trans woman" is just a phrase, it doesn't mean he/she/they are a "woman". I could call them "intersex" or "drag queen" or something else. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Ah. I understand.

Well, I think then that makes it even more clear that the answer to your question lies in the question. If you start from the position that a trans woman isn't a woman (or more broadly are unaware that "intersex," "drag queen," and "trans woman" are specific terms that refer to very different types of people), then you're going to be puzzled by why non-discriminatory policy efforts lean towards inclusion.

But the answer is pretty simple. Most folks drafting inclusionary policy start from the premise that trans women are women. So if you ask, "Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?" the simple response is, "because she's a woman, and that's what women do." Unless there's some specific, compelling reason to exclude these women from engaging in activities that all other women get to engage in, we don't exclude them.

Many facilities that involve very private functions (like bathrooms) have been designed for convenience to be communal facilities divided on gender. In such circumstances, wherever a trans person goes may cause discomfort or confusion - people may be confused and uncomfortable if a trans man goes into the woman's room (because it looks like she's going into the "wrong" bathroom), and people may be confused and uncomfortable if that tran man goes into the men's room (because he may not have male genitalia). The absence of a clear and compelling reason to prohibit a trans man or trans woman from using the restroom that matches their identity means we don't prohibit them from doing it, in places that are willing to take steps to avoid discriminating against trans people.

Not speaking to the legalities of this, but I tend to agree it is unfair to biological women. I think a third category of competition should be created. Maybe not ideal, but it's the most fair thing I can think of.

The absence of a clear and compelling reason to prohibit a trans man or trans woman from using the restroom that matches their identity means we don't prohibit them from doing it, in places that are willing to take steps to avoid discriminating against trans people. - albaby

-----------------

Is the operative word here "willing" in the sense a business or organization has a choice to treat a trans woman as identical to a real woman. e.g. putting up a sign to the effect that we respect trans women here and your young daughter may see a penis if you choose to enter our facilities. I am sure a real sign would be less graphic but you get my point.

A business or organization having the option to observe equivalence makes this issue more palatable than if the power of government is used to coerce equivalence.

Is the operative word here "willing" in the sense a business or organization has a choice to treat a trans woman as identical to a real woman. e.g. putting up a sign to the effect that we respect trans women here and your young daughter may see a penis if you choose to enter our facilities.

I was actually trying to distinguish between different government jurisdictions - those were the "places" I was thinking of when I wrote that. California is willing to adopt anti-discrimination laws that require equal treatment of trans people. Florida is not (and indeed has taken some steps in the other direction).

So in jurisdictions that are willing to adopt protections against anti-trans discrimination, those jurisdictions are generally willing to have extend those protections to give trans men and women the right to enter bathrooms matching their identity. The reason they don't carve bathrooms out of those anti-discrimination protections is because there's no clear or compelling reason to do so.

Albaby

Actually, the bathroom thing has always confused me a bit. It seems that one should go to the one that matches your plumbing, not your psychology or DNA. If you're transitioning, but still have -for example- a penis, go to the men's. If you are post-penis, go the women's.

It also confuses me why such a fuss is made at all. I can't speak conclusively for the women's room, but in the men's room no one is walking around with their penises out. It's obscured by partitions (both urinals and commodes). I'm assuming women don't walk around their room half naked. There are stalls. So what does it matter if both genders are in the same room? Just recently I was at the mall and a female attendant was cleaning the sinks. There were a few men in their doing their business, and no one cared. As -IMHO- they shouldn't. The US seems to be very immature when it comes to stuff like this.

Actually, the bathroom thing has always confused me a bit. It seems that one should go to the one that matches your plumbing, not your psychology or DNA. If you're transitioning, but still have -for example- a penis, go to the men's. If you are post-penis, go the women's.

The main reason is safety. If a trans woman goes into the men's room wearing a dress, heels, make-up, and other gender normative female clothing and accessories, she's at serious risk of getting her a$$ kicked by the men in there. If Laverne Cox walked into a mens room, it would cause a serious</> problem. Similarly, if a trans man - wearing men's clothing, perhaps a beard or other facial hair - goes into the female bathroom, she's likely to get turned into management or the authorities by people who are upset that a man has gone into the ladies room. You end up with a horrible situation for the trans person.

And you're not making things any safer. You're not avoiding any harms compared to the other situation. When trans women go into the ladies room and trans men go into the mens room, it almost invariably results in....nothing. No one notices, no one pays any attention. A person who has the external appearance of a woman goes into a ladies room stall and does her business; a person who has the external appearance of a man goes into a men's room stall and does his business. Far less risk, danger, and disruption to the social order for all concerned to let people use the bathroom of the gender identity they've transitioned into.

Albaby

So what does it matter if both genders are in the same room? - 1pg

----------------

Think locker rooms and shower facilities, not just bathrooms. Then think about your young daughter in that environment.

Good point. I could very well have been in the same room with a trans-person and not known it. Wouldn't be a big deal to me either way. As I said earlier, at least in men's rooms, no one is walking around half naked.

BHM does raise a good point about locker rooms. Not a lot of privacy there. Don't know how one could address that if there was a conflict between the outward appearance and the apparent biology.

But the answer is pretty simple. Most folks drafting inclusionary policy start from the premise that trans women are women. So if you ask, "Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?" the simple response is, "because she's a woman, and that's what women do." Unless there's some specific, compelling reason to exclude these women from engaging in activities that all other women get to engage in, we don't exclude them.

OK, I understand the DEI people's viewpoint now. (DEI = diversity, equality, inclusion).

IMHO the DEI czars in companies and government bodies are calling a tail a leg, and like Humpty Dumpty they think the question is, which is to be the master (i.e. whose definitions should prevail). I have to agree to disagree completely.

I admit I don't know the difference among trans women, drag queens and intersex (and yes I read the 89 definitions of "third sex" that someone had linked to.) Let's just say they are not heteronormative / cis / (whatever word will piss off the least amount of those on the left and the right) men or women. A third separate category whose biology does not match their internal gender identity.

If they have a penis, they are not women. They may be more woman than man, but far away from the two peaks in the bimodal distribution of gender.

But the answer is pretty simple. Most folks drafting inclusionary policy start from the premise that trans women are women. So if you ask, "Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?" the simple response is, "because she's a woman, and that's what women do."

First, let's agree that gendered bathrooms are unnecessary. Also, there is no reason why we couldn't established non-gendered athletic competitions while retaining gendered competitions as well. There are ways to do inclusion that don't require forcing square pegs unto round holes. Insisting on claiming that trans women are women and not what they are--trans women--evacuates the concept of women of any meaning. In this trans world, gender just becomes a preference within the gender/sex dichotomy. A preference that rejects that biological foundation of gender distinctions in a culture without rejecting the gender patriarchy itself. However contradictory, it also retains the biological determination of gender by arguing that the trans condition is rooted in some gender dysphoria in which the impulse to express oneself through gender is at odds with ones nature.

It would be better to dispense with gender altogether and just accept people pursuing self expression in any manner they please, except that to do so within the construct of gender is to reproduce the gender patriarchy with all its sexism, violence, misogyny, a discrimination against women. I'm sorry, but you can't have a penis and wish to enter the world of women as a woman without this presenting a problem for women. Until the cultural distinctions between men and women expressed through gender are transcended by the humanity of us all, and patriarchy is superseded by a post-gender equality, gender cannot be negated simply by moving from one pole to the other.

Not speaking to the legalities of this, but I tend to agree it is unfair to biological women. I think a third category of competition should be created. Maybe not ideal, but it's the most fair thing I can think of.

Yes. I think it's unfair and as I said previously, my friend whose partner is trans thinks it's unfair too. But commonone pointed out there's only two in the US so far. So-

I was thinking we could let them train and run locally in competitions, but we pool countries to get a larger field. Ten just run the competitive times against each other and declare a winner, with trophies, etc., and have at least one meet a year. Try and give them as much a sense of competition as we can.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.