not sure why this point was made then. Whatbehaviour are you referring to in relation to trans? — Tom Storm

A transexual and CIS woman both choose daily whether to wear male or female clothing for example.

A heterosexual and homosexual both choose who to have sex with.

The word "prefer" doesn't appear in these statements, meaning what they prefer is set, what they do is a choice.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.

I do believe that in many of these instances XX and XY accurately describe what the speaker meant when he hung the sign, not what the word eventually evolved into and what it was meant to protect. — Hanover

Maybe that's true of the person who hung the sign (assuming they have a basic understanding of biology), but our use of the words "man" and "woman" and our separation of bathrooms and locker rooms long preceded our discovery of sex chromosomes in 1905.

At the most you could argue that the words and separation was determined by phenotype as historically there was no means to distinguish between a typical XY male and someone with XX Male Syndrome, and so it's a stretch to argue that genetics had something to do with the conventions of our language use, even if there is a strong correlation between genotype and phenotype.

But your response doesn't really address my questions. Should someone who has physically transitioned use the bathroom associated with their sex chromosomes? How would anyone know what someone else's (or their own) sex chromosomes are? What about people who are neither XX nor XY?

I think practical considerations are far more important than the intentions of the person who painted a sign on a door, so your argument is a red herring.

If the rational basis for maintaining the historic distinction is comfort or perceived safety of the vast majority of users, that seems sufficient to me — Hanover

It's not a rational basis as has been explained. Without evidence to show trans women are more of a threat in bathrooms than cis women, it's simply transphobia.

Just as part of the "rational basis" for keeping black women out of white women's bathrooms during Jim Crow was the false narrative that black women would spread diseases to white women. It wasn't sufficient then either, it was just racism.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwao.12545

[Edit] Should have included issues with sports teams. — T Clark

Sports, in general are very problematic. This is probably because sport is an entertainment based industry, and activity. And the inclination to entertain may lead the mind of the actor in many strange directions. Some of these directions are demonstrably unhealthy and that's why censorship is a real feature of the entertainment industry.

The boundary between healthy and unhealthy is ill defined, and we still allow people to make unhealthy choices until it becomes a burden on the welfare system, or has a noticeably bad effect on others, as the freedom to smoke cigarettes demonstrates. When the unhealthy choice affects others, second hand smoke, not wearing a mask in a pandemic, etc., restrictions are enforced. In the entertainment industry such restrictions occur as censorship.

Sports are generally viewed as healthy entertainment, censorship not required. But, there is another feature of sports which complicates the issue, competition. This produces another requirement for restrictions, the need to create fairness in competition. Now sports has two incompatible principles for restrictions, the requirement of healthiness, and the requirement of fair competition. This is because natural healthiness is not conducive to fair competition, and this is at the base of evolutionary theory. So sport is a very complex psychology and not something one can just wade into.

Women are not permitted in men's restrooms even should they feel safe being there. The regulation isn't entirely safety related.

The comparison to African Americans would elevate the scrutiny under which a law is evaluated, but by making that turn, you now have to explain why you've elevated that class of people over others.

African Americans are afforded special status (as are others) due to specific laws and court decisions based upon historical discrimination. You must now explain how the transsexual experience is sufficiently similar to blacks should you want both to be subject to the same sorts of protection.

Those arguments have been made, with some positive and negative responses, some of the negative coming from the African American community, but it certainly was not a unified position.

Women are not permitted in men's restrooms even should they feel safe being there. The regulation isn't entirely safety related. — Hanover

Let's take it step by step. We presumably agree that if there is no evidence trans women are more of a danger then cis women in bathrooms then excluding them on that basis is irrational. What is the next consideration for excluding them then and we can discuss that.

The comparison to African Americans would elevate the scrutiny under which a law is evaluated, but by making that turn, you now have to explain why you've elevated that class of people over others.

African Americans are afforded special status (as are others) due to specific laws and court decisions based upon historical discrimination. You must now explain how the transsexual experience is sufficiently similar to blacks should you want both to be subject to the same sorts of protection.

Those arguments have been made, with some positive and negative responses, some of the negative coming from the African American community, but it certainly was not a unified position. — Hanover

This seems like a non-sequitur. The purpose of the comparison was simply to make the point that both in a transphobic and racist society, false justifications relating to public health and safely will be used to maintain the status quo.

It's interesting that no one ever raises the issue of female to trans-male. No one seems to care and perhaps this says something about attitudes to women more generally. — Tom Storm

I blame the patriarchy.

Because property, status, name and title are passed down the male line, and because patrilineal is not self evident the way matrilineal is, Men require to control the sexuality of women. Are you bored with this yet, I do keep saying it?

Rape and the fear of rape is an important part of the control of women's sexual freedom, along with body shaming.

Or is "modesty" a proxy for some other problem, unaddressed?
— Banno

You have no idea about the darkness that lies within. — Hanover

The threat of sexual deviance is a threat to the deepest fabric of society, the basis of property and privilege, and heritage itself, including nationality ethnicity etc. The male fear is that another man might have sex with my woman and my child not be mine. Even the women's toilets are not safe, and we must patrol them!

There is no issue with a female to trans male individual for the same reason that female prostitutes are no threat – we don't care who the father of their child is. Wives and daughters have to be controlled though.

Let's take it step by step. We presumably agree that if there is no evidence trans women are more of a danger then cis women in bathrooms then excluding them on that basis is irrational. What is the next consideration for excluding them then and we can discuss that. — Baden

Assuming the only basis for gender seperation is safety and that it has nothing to do with discomfort related to sexual tension, attraction, or just a desire not to unclothe in the presence of the opposite sex (which is why I'd prefer not to use the women's locker room even if invited, despite me being in no fear of assault)

I recognize that MtF transsexuals are at higher risk in male restrooms than they'd be in female restrooms, but I've not suggested (and have stated my opposition to this) that MtFs be forced into mens locker rooms. Allowing them access to a seperate facility seems fine by me, but I don't think that equates to permitting them into the women's restroom. That is, we can protect their safety without subjecting them onto the unwilling woman population simply because women aren't as violent as men and will tolerate the transsexuals without presenting safety issues, although I would expect many to speak out.

I would assume that if I walked into the women's gym locker and began disrobing, I would face hostility from the women, even those not in fear of assualt, but just pissed off that I invaded their space and exposed myself to them.

This seems like a non-sequitur. The purpose of the comparison was simply to make the point that both in a transphobic and racist society, false justifications relating to public health and safely will be used to maintain the status quo. — Baden

I was actually reciting the way American jurisprudence treats this topic.

For example, and this references @Michael's comments:

If I pass a law that regulates the speed limit on Hwy 10 at 60 mph, but it can be shown that certain stretches are safe at 70 mph, that certain cars are safe at 75 mph, that older drivers are safe only at 50 mph, that on certain curves it is safe only at 55 mph, that at night it's safe at 57 mph, at low traffic times it's safe at 80 mph, etc, then you might have an argument that my general safety justification isn't valid in every instance. The reason this law would pass muster is that all I need to do is provide any rational justification for it and I wouldn't need to strictly scrutinize the rule because the class affected (i.e. motorists) isn't one that is particularly worrisome in terms of being discriminated against.

On the other hand, if I pass a law that seems to disproportionately affect blacks, then that law will face an entirely different type of analysis, where it will be subjected to very strict scrutiny, looking at whether there is any better way to acheive my objectives instead of attacking this historically discriminated against class.

That is why I asked whether we should treat transsexuals as more akin to blacks or to motorists. If the latter, then we are well within our rights to do what we want without paying special attention not to impact that group. I do think we've taken an overly expansive view of affording rights to more and more classes of individuals, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to add transsexuals to that mix. I can see why some might take a different stance though or to at least offer a heightened level of scrutiny to laws affecting transsexuals even if not as heightened as to other minorities.

The threat of sexual deviance is a threat to the deepest fabric of society, the basis of property and privilege, and heritage itself, including nationality ethnicity etc. The male fear is that another man might have sex with my woman and my child not be mine. Even the women's toilets are not safe, and we must patrol them! — unenlightened

How would sexual deviance threaten to cause my wife to be impregnated by another? She'd be just as likely to get preggers whether the sex was vanilla or a total freak show.

And why am I now being accused of not being a sexual deviant? Have you not read the shit I've posted in the Shoutbox? Ten years of trying to establish a reputation down the drain with this thread I guess.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. — Tom Storm

You indicated that I took the position that transsexualism was a matter of personal choice. I denied that. You then provided a quote you felt contradicted my denial. I pointed out that the quote you provided didn't indicate a prior statement by me that transsexualism was a matter of choice, but that behavior was a matter of choice.

I then offered an explanation for that, describing how my heterosexuality, for instance, was not a matter of choice, but my decision who to have sex with, if anyone, was a matter of choice. That logic applies to homosexuals as well in terms of who they choose to have sex with and transsexuals in terms of how they wish to present themselves to the general public.

What we each prefer is not a matter of choice. What we each do is a matter of choice.

Should someone who has physically transitioned use the bathroom associated with their sex chromosomes? — Michael

Not if it's unsafe, nor should they use the opposite bathroom if it's unsafe or causes discomfort among the others in that bathroom. If there were someone who transitioned so completely that it was unknown by the others that the person was of the opposite sex, then it wouldn't matter because no one would know.

That XY who looked XX got away with the crime of using the XX bathroom I guess. It's sort of like when the kid eats at the 12 and under price but he's 13 even though he eats like a 12 year old anyway.

Not a great example, but an example nonetheless.

It's not a rational basis as has been explained. Without evidence to show trans women are more of a threat in bathrooms than cis women, it's simply transphobia. — Baden

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I claim that transwomen aren't women, you'd think I'm transphobic?

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I claim that transwomen aren't women, you'd think I'm transphobic? — frank

I think this goes directly to my OP, which is the attempt at the disambiguation of the term "woman." There are XX women and XY women, both rightfully called "women," but two different groups. Claiming that XX individuals are not women because they don't gender identify as women seems as dogmatic as claiming that XY individuals who gender identify as women are not women.

An entire political debate centers around an equivocation fallacy where we then impose ontological status to all women regardless of whether they're XX or XY because we assume "woman" always has the same referent. From there all women play sports together because they are, afterall, all "women." Except they aren't the same type of women.

I would assume that if I walked into the women's gym locker and began disrobing, I would face hostility from the women, even those not in fear of assualt, but just pissed off that I invaded their space and exposed myself to them. — Hanover

Well, sure, but I understand @Michael received applause that one time he did it by mistake.

At this stage, he avoids using the bathrooms at all costs, to the extent of not eating or drinking during the school day. — Baden

This is horrifying. Here's a genuine problem that needs to be dealt with.

There is an odd point here though, in that if this student identifies as a girl and wants to present as a girl (I presume) and be allowed to use the girl's restroom, that would be some kind of solution for her at least -- before we even get to the question of how other girls would react.

On the other hand, there is no solution for a boy who has been branded as a "sissy" -- whether he's gay or not.

I do not believe the genuine danger faced by boys and girls at the hands of other boys is a necessary (you know, biological) feature of our lives, but a result of fucked up parenting and fucked up ideas about what being a man is.

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I claim that transwomen aren't women, you'd think I'm transphobic? — frank

Firstly, to give some context, I think society in general is transphobic and many intelligent and genuine people will unknowingly reflect transphobic attitudes. For those whose positions are based on bad information, misunderstandings, and misguided fears, I don't think the label transphobic is always helpful or appropriate. Plus, there is complexity as @Hanover is pointing to. Taking all that into consideration, I'd personally want to approach individuals charitably re that claim. However, in a more generalised sense, I do think a blanket denial of trans womanhood that simply designates trans women as men who "like to wear dresses " or change their bodies to look like women is transphobic, though not necessarily ill-intentioned (this seems to be @NOS4A2's stance). Going beyond that then you have hatred, mockery, and disgust which is unambiguously transphobic and needs to be pushed back against firmly.

I do not believe the genuine danger faced by boys and girls at the hands of other boys is a necessary (you know, biological) feature of our lives, but a result of fucked up parenting and fucked up ideas about what being a man is. — Srap Tasmaner

:100:

I think this goes directly to my OP, which is the attempt at the disambiguation of the term "woman." There are XX women and XY women, both rightfully called "women," but two different groups. Claiming that XX individuals are not women because they don't gender identify as women seems as dogmatic as claiming that XY individuals who gender identify as women are not women.

An entire political debate centers around an equivocation fallacy where we then impose ontological status to all women regardless of whether they're XX or XY because we assume "woman" always has the same referent. From there all women play sports together because they are, afterall, all "women." Except they aren't the same type of women. — Hanover

Apparently people on social media are attacked for rejecting the equivocation. It's silly, and I think it will go away eventually.

Firstly, to give some context, I think society in general is transphobic and many intelligent and genuine people will unknowingly reflect transphobic attitudes. For those whose positions are based on bad information, misunderstandings, and misguided fears, I don't think the label transphobic is always helpful or appropriate. Plus, there is complexity as Hanover is pointing to. Taking all that into consideration, I'd personally want to approach individuals charitably re that claim. However, in a more generalised sense, I do think a blanket denial of trans womanhood that simply designates trans women as men who "like to wear dresses " or change their bodies to look like women is transphobic, though not necessarily ill-intentioned (this seems to be @NOS4A2's stance). Going beyond that then you have hatred, mockery, and disgust which is unambiguously transphobic and needs to be pushed back against firmly. — Baden

There's a judicial sound to this post, or did I read that in?

I mean, I respect your opinion on this, and your right to forcefully advocate for it. I don't see you as a judge on this issue, though.

Going beyond that then you have hatred, mockery, and disgust which is unambiguously transphobic and needs to be pushed back against firmly. — Baden

"Disgust" I think is the key word here.

It's been mentioned a couple times that FtM transitioners are of much less interest in the debate. For the anti-trans activists, they're sort of a curiosity, but MtF -- these are men who are shirking their sacred duty, cowards and weaklings, worse even than gay men, who, it turns out, can still fight and play sports and stuff --- aarrrggghhh -- even though they have, let's say, a hobby that's weird and kinda gross. At least some of them, maybe even most of them, are still men in some of the ways that count. (Hitting stuff and/or people.) Not 100% real men, but pretty close in some cases. But those men that want to be women? That is literally like being a traitor.

NOTE: everything after the italicized phrase is written from a point-of-view not mine.

"Disgust" I think is the key word here. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm guessing you experience this yourself. Do you think society should "push back" against your feelings here? Or just let you express how you feel?

I'm guessing you experience this yourself. — frank

Um, no.

I really thought the italics would do it. Adding a note now.

Um, no.

I really thought the italics would do it. Adding a note now. — Srap Tasmaner

What makes you think "disgust" is the keyword then? Do people express this to you?

Have you been living under a rock?

I'm not testifying here, but offering an explanation for why an "issue" that affects almost no one, that need not even be thought of as an issue at all, is sucking up so much oxygen these days. Disgust, moral revulsion, what have you, these can produce outsize responses, and we have beyond question one of those here.

Do you disagree? Do you think where some kid pees is an important issue that adults should be talking about all the time, holding press conferences, making speeches, arranging panel discussions and debates, proposing and passing laws about?

There's a judicial sound to this post, or did I read that in?

I mean, I respect your opinion on this, and your right to forcefully advocate for it. I don't see you as a judge on this issue, though. — frank

Not judicial, but judicious I hope. I gave more context on my opinion because I want to be nuanced. What exactly constitutes transphobia isn't clear cut.

What exactly constitutes transphobia isn't clear cut. — Baden

Agreed. One of the original TERFs, Kathleen Stock, is all for gender-affirming care and also for excluding trans women from traditional women's spaces. Is it helpful to label her transphobic or not transphobic? I'm not seeing it.

What exactly constitutes transphobia isn't clear cut. — Baden

I think one way you can approach it is empirically, in other words, don't try to read people's souls. You don't have that ability. Plus if you ride in like the Knight of Wokeness, you'll end up creating a problem that wouldn't have been there if you just stay in your office chair tapping your finger tips together.

If someone proposes that it should be illegal to be trans, or spouts violent rhetoric, you have a transphobic on your hands. If they tell you they respect the humanity of trans people, but deny that a transwoman actually is a woman, or that a transman is a real man, that's not transphobia. It's definitely in opposition to certain woke party lines, but it's not transphobia in and of itself.

Don't try to do social engineering with your political views. That's just going to create tension that makes the topic harder to talk about.

Have you been living under a rock? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but it's mostly made out of cement and little sticks I found. There's a snake in here. I named him Leggy.