Antagonism "between trans folk and those with disabilities" is, here, in the mind of the beholder.

I don't believe any and all requests for accommodations from disabled persons are justifiable (in terms of expense and disruption) and the same goes for accommodations for trans people. As I said, if a bathroom or locker room can be neutered with a change in signage, fine. If it takes a large construction project to produce a neutered bathroom or locker room, then... maybe one or two trans people don't get one.

The issue I've described doesn't attempt to hammer a preferred definition onto a word. — Hanover

Hm. The thread's title is 'What is a "Woman"', but it's not about definitions.

Ok.

No comment as yet on the article. I look forward to your response.

Just pointing out that such issues ought not be framed as an either/or.

You're in the US? From what I've seen, you are right that there is no where enough support for those with a disability over there.

How do you propose that we can make "fairness" a principle in any competitive sport, which by its very nature is immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

As you note, competition is not immoral. It has benefits and I think it's a fundamental part of human nature. It doesn't have to be taught. Little kids playing non-competitive soccer argue fiercely over who won.

How do you define "fair" in a competitive sport? Is it a matter of following the rules? How do we know if the rules are "fair"? Consider Mark S 's thread on the science of morality. There, morality is defined by cooperation. But competition is directly opposed to cooperation. So we have a big problem right off the bat. Competitive sport is fundamentally immoral according to the science of morality. How do you propose that we can make "fairness" a principle in any competitive sport, which by its very nature is immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

I hope you don’t mind me entering your conversation, but I disagree that anything in the science of morality would necessarily classify competition as immoral.

The function of cultural moral norms and our moral sense is to solve cooperation problems. The rules and ideas about fairness we establish regarding competition are cooperation norms. Competitors who violate those rules are thought to deserve punishment. Violators deserving punishment is the mark of a moral norm. That is, we have moral norms that enable us to cooperate to sustainability obtain the benefits of competition.

Competition is not inherently immoral. What is immoral is violating the rules people established to sustainability obtain the benefits of competition, whether that competition is in sports or in economies.

For example, it would be immoral for one competitor to trip another in a foot race, and (I assume) there are rules against that. Or it would be immoral for one business to steal the intellectual property of another business.

Deficiencies in services for the elderly, the disables, the mentally ill, the chronically (physically) ill, the poor, the addicted, unemployed, etc. are a feature of neoliberal economics. Eliminate or privatize public services; if the private sector can't make a profit in social service, well, too bad for the customers.

Really, it's entirely their fault. If they had worked harder, saved more money, had not used the products of some Fortunate 500 companies, if they had been more disciplined, studied harder, eaten healthier food - which they couldn't afford, and exercised more - which they were too tired from work to do, they wouldn't have all these problems. So fuck the who lot of whining cry babies!

Yep - sad but true. :broken:

Really, it's entirely their fault. — BC

It's either the fault of the individual for his situation or the fault of another. If only the individual hadn't been so lazy, expecting others to assist versus if only the other individuals hadn't been so heartless, refusing to share.

It's all how you wish to cast the characters in your narrative.

The thread's title is 'What is a "Woman"', but it's not about definitions — Banno

It is about definitions. The word hammer is meant to indicate i'm not forcing definitions, but looking to usages and noting varying uses and the confusions created by different users using terms differently and then imposing their norms on those meanings in inconsistent ways.

No comment as yet on the article. I look forward to your response. — Banno

I appreciate that reference and read through some of it and intend to respond. I debated whether to place this thread under the language or current events category, opting for the latter, but thinking this has more to do with language to me in the emotionally divorced way I'm trying to analyze it.

forcing acceptance of transgender people's demands down the throats of the other 99.5% of us is not an effective way of keeping trans people safe. — T Clark

I'm not in your 99.5% and neither are a huge number of others who find the idea that a simple thing like a trans woman using the woman's lavatory should not be an issue in any reasonable society. That's all I've got to say about it. Peace.

It said it was a 21 minute read and I beat that substantially, so if I muddle something, I'm sure you'll correct me.

I don't dispute the claims against essentialism, meaning I don't suggest to be a "woman" there is one particular criterion that must exist else you cease being a woman. My position has not been XX is necessary for all womanhood. In particular, I do consider an XY female gender identified person to be a "woman."

As to the family resemblence argument, that is obviously well known and it's not entirely clear to me what that specifically means other than to say that if things look sort of enough alike then they are sufficiently similar for naming purposes. Obviously it is not limited to how things look, but as to all the things about them, including what they do, how they behave and so on.

Nothing I have read in the article has given me pause to think I've violated any of the principles she's identified, and everything I've said can be described in ways that would be consistent with her primer on lingusitic philosophy. That is, we have a good number of folks who identify as "woman" and we have some dispute among those in the language community as to how the term "woman" is to be used. The author asserts this dispute is contrived by those with a political agenda because it should be clear within the whole language community as to what the resemblance of all the folks claiming themselves "women" to be and that the reference to XX and XY are diversions designed to trounce upon the rights of transsexuals.

I don't agree with this, largely because XY chromosomes, as well as the testosterone that comes from it, the musculature that comes from it, and all the primary and sexual characteristics that come from it, result in a being with a certain resemblance that is of critical enough variance that it does not fall within the resemblance of those with XX composition. It is also obvious that the genetic differences lead to different behaviors, both in physical strength and in emotional reaction. We can debate the extent to which societal factors affect the emotional responses of individuals, but we cannot as to the physical strength issues. I do not believe it ought be controversial that men and women respond differently emotionally due to genetic differences as well, but I expect more dispute in this area than with physicality.

When we wish to use the term "woman" we therefore must do so within the context we're in. To the extent there are irrelevant differences in family resemblance, we can disregard them and refer to them all as women. Such is the case if a female gender identifying XY were working at my office. It makes no difference that she might look or act slightly different from a CIS female because the resemblance would be sufficient enough to refer to her as a woman and afford her whatever rights we typically afford a woman in her situation, including how to dress, how to speak, and so on.

On the other hand, if we're having tryouts for the women's soccer league or allowing certain members into bathrooms or locker rooms, the actual physical appearance and functionality of the person is relevant. At that point, the transsexual "woman" and the CIS "woman" no longer share a family resemblance in the manners relevant to this context. If we do choose, however, to call them both women for politically demanded reasons, we may, but we need not then confuse ourselves that the two are the same for the purposes of affording them the same rights of entry into the same previously separated spaces.

If there were a magic pill that a man could take to transform himself into a perfectly appearing woman with all behavorial aspects of a CIS woman yet the XY were maintained, then I would allow that person full access to the CIS women spaces. This extreme hypothetical is offered to acknowledge that it is not the XX/XY designation that is essential for the CIS definition, but it is the manifestation of that genetic composition that we're looking at. I think it's just a scientific fact that genes are determining these things, and so it's easy enough to refer to the genes as a representation of expected behavioral characteristics, and thus how they will look and act (and what they will therefore resemble).

All of this is to say that XX female gender identifying folks are different from XY female gender identifying folks in certain contexts, enough so that offering them differing labels in is order. Calling them both "woman" results in an imprecise language in certain limited but important contexts, resulting in offering them priviledges not properly due them, and then leading me to ask for a more proper A, B, C, D designation system be used when needed.

And I do realize we can eliminate some of these concerns by building more walls in the bathrooms and gym lockers and perhaps doing away with contests of strength and maybe even stigmatizing those men who insist upon only dating CIS women so we can avoid this dispute. I have misgivings about such a solution, which is a different conversation dealing with pragmatics and the how the rights of the entire community ought be respected, not just a particular minority. I leave that as an aside for the moment, though, and focus just upon the language issues you've brought up.

I'm not in your 99.5% and neither are a huge number of others who find the idea that a simple thing like a trans woman using the woman's lavatory should not be an issue in any reasonable society. — Baden

This disputes what the outcome of what the vote would be, but do you dispute that it should be a matter decided by vote?

should not be an issue in any reasonable society. — Baden

Of course I don't think you should have a national or local referendum on every issue of social policy, large and small, as sometimes moral leadership is necessary. E. g. The Southern states would have overwhelmingly voted against the civil rights act, presumably out of ignorance, fear, and simple racism. In any case, my claim is that a society that would vote to exclude trans women from using women's bathrooms would be an unreasonable and transphobic one.

The reason I claim this is there is no evidence-based justification for taking such a position, the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, @unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, whereas the truth is that trans women are the ones under threat from stigmatization and verbal and physical abuse, not just in bathrooms, but everywhere.

To sum this up, yes, lies, ignorance, and irrational fears should not lead social policy, regardless of their popularity. Compassion, intelligence, and understanding should. There's a simple dichotomy here, scaremongering and ignorance wins or we take an opportunity to show a very vulnerable group that society cares about them, starting with trans kids at school who have enough problems as it is.

Anyhow, I don't hold animus to those of you who disagree. I think you will come round as will society as a whole. My position on this has developed a lot in recent years, particularly after some conversations with my wonderful sister (who is currently writing a TV series about a group of women fighting the patriarchy. ... hey, un ).

the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, — Baden

Just because it's the only argument you're willing to consider doesn't mean it's the only argument or the main one.

The reason I claim this is there is no evidence-based justification for taking such a position, the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, whereas the truth is that trans women are the ones under threat from stigmatization and verbal and physical abuse, not just in bathrooms, but everywhere. — Baden

The problem with your argument is that you're not making an argument about trans' folks and bathrooms, you're making an argument just about bathrooms. That is, nothing you've said suggests that all bathrooms shouldn't be unisex and that I shouldn't be allowed to enter a woman's bathroom if I wanted to. It's not like I wouldn't shut the stall door, and what difference does it make if I'm just washing my hands next to a woman? And even if we still have a urinal, it's not like a woman is going to look around the corner to see me, right?

So why don't you just eliminate male/female bathrooms?

But enough of this easier issue. What about gym lockers and sports teams? That's a problem, right?

Of course I don't think you should have a national or local referendum on every issue of social policy, large and small, as sometimes moral leadership is necessary. — Baden

I'm not suggested direct democratic voting, but I can allow for a representative democracy. My point in asking was only to see if you thought it was a matter for people to decide or if you thought it was a matter of civil rights, that it violated some inherent principle of fairness not to afford trans people the exact rights of CIS people in all instances.

To sum this up, yes, lies, ignorance, and irrational fears should not lead social policy, regardless of their popularity. Compassion, intelligence, and understanding should. — Baden

I have compassion for those women who don't want a pre-op transsexual (and post-op as well probably) in the gym locker with them and I have compassion for those women who can't compete in sports against transsexuals. I also have compassion for children who might be being subjected to questionable medical treatment. This is not fear mongering, but areas of legitimate concern.

I'm just wondering where we're drawing the line, if at all. We can quibble about which doors we'll open to transsexuals, but I'm trying to figure out if you're opening them all or leaving some closed. The problem with closing some is that you slip into my camp because at that point, you're going to have to explain why some women are not women like other women in the very way I've pointed out.

Anyhow, I don't hold animus to those of you who disagree. — Baden

No, you just think I've not caught up with the times, sort of like in the 40s and 50s when everyone was openly racist, but now they've realized that was wrong.

When we're both 100, still pissing around in the Shoutbox, we'll be able to look back and one of us will be able to tell the other "I told you so."

Just because it's the only argument you're willing to consider doesn't mean it's the only argument or the main one. — T Clark

Indeed. Here's a scientific take.

Here's a scientific take. — wonderer1

I'll take a look. Thanks.

Is it really a huge deal for a trans woman to use the men's room? Why?

One wonders how different the issue would be if the pictograms on bathroom doors were penises and vaginas.

I have compassion for those women who don't want a pre-op transsexual (and post-op as well probably) in the gym locker with them and I have compassion for those women who can't compete in sports against transsexuals. I also have compassion for children who might be being subjected to questionable medical treatment. This is not fear mongering, but areas of legitimate concern. — Hanover

I haven't made any arguments about any of those things. I've only done what you directed us to do in the OP.

Let's talk about women's bathrooms: — Hanover

I've nothing against making all bathrooms unisex btw. I said that already. But we need to deal with reality as it is now. Sometimes the choice for a trans women really just is binary.

When we're both 100, still pissing around in the Shoutbox, we'll be able to look back and one of us will be able to tell the other "I told you so." — Hanover

:100:

haven't made any arguments about any of those things. I've only done what you directed us to do in the OP. — Baden

Alright then, what's your position on those things?

I didn't sign up to this OP to talk about that stuff but...

On locker rooms, I don't know. Hadn't honestly thought about it until it came up in this thread. It is tough because any basic rule you apply seems like it could put someone in a position of being in the wrong exposed-genitalia-environment. Therefore, as @Banno suggested, maybe more partitions or something. In sports, hormone testing is the way to go, I guess. As for medical treatment of kids, there has to be major safeguards in place. There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. I'm no expert on that. Maybe e. g. @frank knows more (at least I think he's in the health industry).

Is it really a huge deal for a trans woman to use the men's room? Why? — frank

That probably isn't, unless he tried to use a urinal and failed.

In case anyone wondered, here's an unscientific, non-philosophical, unsophisticated POV:
In my last year of high-school, I had a summer job in a bowling alley that included janitorial duties. I.e. cleaning the bathrooms.
The woman's was routine: soap scum, bits of paper towel and toilet paper stuck to the floor, maybe a splat of gum or cigarette butt, the odd humorous message in lipstick or eyebrow pencil on the walls. Scrub the sinks, mop the floor, polish the mirror, empty the bins and fill the dispensers.
Then take eight or nine deep breaths, steady yourself on the wall, take a good grip on the mop handle and... approach... yes, you have to actually open the door the and enter ... the men's. Which was usually a nightmare. Some of the users had evidently not been house-trained. And this was back in the 1960's when a lot of people still ate with a knife and fork, crossed at the traffic light and wrote comprehensible son lyrics.

I'm comfortably cis, but if I shudder at the thought of going into a public mens' room, I'm sure a lot of people who were born with what looked like a tiny penis and female sensibilities would, too.

I'm comfortably cis, but if I shudder at the thought of going into a public mens' room, I'm sure a lot of people who were born with what looked like a tiny penis and female sensibilities would, too. — Vera Mont

Yay. A new argument. It's not right to send trans women, any woman, into men's bathrooms because men are disgusting.

Is it really a huge deal for a trans woman to use the men's room? Why? — frank

Apart from the fact that they are women so they shouldn't have to no matter what size deal it is, there's also e. g. higher risk of abuse, assault etc.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/

On locker rooms, I don't know. Hadn't honestly thought about it until it came up in this thread. It is tough because any basic rule you apply seems like it could put someone in a position of being in the wrong exposed genitalia environment. Therefore, as Banno suggested, maybe more partitions or something. In sports, hormone testing is the way to go, I guess. As for medical treatment of kids, there has to be major safeguards in place. There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. I'm no expert on that. Maybe e. g. @frank knows more (at least I think he's in the health industry). — Baden

Try not to panic chaps, pregnancy rarely results from eye contact with genitalia. Being as how we are all so enlightened and scientific these days, why not let's dispense with the taboo on nudity altogether? The fig-leaf thing was a mistake anyway, and it was a long time ago, now. As to sports, I find I am discriminated against because I am a wimpy spastic weakling. Why isn't there a category for me?

why not let's dispense with the taboo on nudity altogether? — unenlightened

Right now? Well, ok then, pass the Zoom link. :fire:

because men are disgusting. — T Clark

I never said that! Over a long life - more at the short end, admittedly - I have found some men very, very far from disgusting. I said some users of public facilities have unhygienic habits, and that in my limited experience, these individuals have displayed their proclivity disproportionately in segragated washrooms.

As to sports, I find I am discriminated against because I am a wimpy spastic weakling. Why isn't there a category for me? — unenlightened

In a sane society, there would be. Everyone would be able to participate in a league of their peers, and nobody would be paid astronomical sums to play games in deadly, life-threatening earnest.
But that's just another silly idea....

As to sports, I find I am discriminated against because I am a wimpy spastic weakling. Why isn't there a category for me? — unenlightened

There is. You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men.