So you feel that these people should be using the women's bathroom:

So what is a female? What is a male? — tim wood

Is this a trick question? Your father was a male your mother was a female. Your mother gave birth to you.

Why would you be so dismissive of difference? — tim wood

How am I being dismissive? All these people are either biologically male or female.

Are we really concerned about where people relieve themselves? Or are we really discussing whether the process of transitioning actually changes a woman into a man?

Indeed, Harry's biological essentialism is a queer ideology.

Are you saying that women have a right to use the bathroom without biological men in the room? — frank

While I can't and won't answer for the particular gentleman, I feel it a point of basic decency to remind you of, and of course introduce into the discussion, the history of women's rights (or rather, more importantly, the lack thereof ie. the entirety of human existence up until recently) and the very real phenomenon of urinary retention from stress as well as the solid scientific documentation of it.

Rights or not, a place that cannot be properly utilized is a waste of not only money and space but purpose. And that, is unacceptable, even to those who find things the average person would have difficulty stomaching as casual and normal.

In the context of this particular argument, if you're not a woman, you simply are biologically incapable of understanding, at least in the way a woman would, and are pretty much just talking to move the air around. Men can relieve themselves standing, and most often do. Women cannot. Therefore, for a female, even the slightest feeling of "having to pee" introduces strong elements and notions of vulnerability into the current mindset. This happens several times a day. It's just not something a male will understand or relate to. As a female, at the slightest notion of having to pee, you will have to: disrobe your lower clothing to beyond the knee (essentially restraining primary mobility/handicapping one's self, albeit temporarily), kneel or squat (a scientifically-documented social and biological position of submission), remain completely focused on urination or the like, while maintaining social awareness of the surrounding environment so as not to fall victim to predators all while in a full state of maximum vulnerability, etc. This is absolutely and unequivocally mandatory at the slightest inkling of feeling the need to relieve oneself, if female.

Meanwhile, a dude literally just unzips his fly and goes wherever he wants and in a few moments is on his way. There is a huge physical, social, and most prudently, psychological difference between male and female alleviation of bodily waste.

The slightest feeling of having to use the restroom in a female subconsciously invokes a need for secure privacy away from predators for a prolonged and unknown period of time. For a male, it just makes you want to pee on a tree or something. There is absolutely no comparison and men should be completely removed from the debate itself as they simply aren't biologically equipped to understand (and therefore participate in) said debate.

(a bit beyond the point but just to quell what I foresee as a likely ancillary counter-argument: yes biological male pheromones have an effect on biological females and probably aren't helpful to have around when a female is doing their business in a place intended to place one at ease and be relaxing for one whilst in a state of forced vulnerability.)

There is absolutely no comparison and men should be completely removed from the debate itself as they simply aren't biologically equipped to understand (and therefore participate in) said debate. — Outlander

That's not entirely unreasonable. But I think it's worth anyone of either sex pointing out in relation to my earlier comment that we're always dealing with layers of culture. There is nothing biologically natural about separating places to urinate and defecate. It's cultural, and we get to decide the cultural norm. The historically recent phenomenon of trans people (edit: as being a subject of public debate) is just another cultural layer that we need to deal with and we get to decide the norm. In fact, we're obligated to do so.

There are different ways to do that and, of course, we ought to be respectful of each other's sensibilities since no matter which way you work it, someone is going to have an ostensibly "reasonable" objection based on their feelings. However, it's disingenuous, I think, to conduct the debate as if layer 1 of contingent sociality (separated bathrooms) is somehow inextricable from our biology such that we can bypass it as an issue for debate. This falsely and covertly positions layer 1 as determined by some biological essence and therefore similarly falsely and covertly positions any compromise taking into account layer 2 (the nascent needs and desires of trans people) as inadmissible.

Layer 1 is culturally sedimented because at some point we made that choice based on the circumstances of the time, which were not a simple matter of biological essentialism as things have not always been that way. And now, a long time later, the circumstances have changed and therefore we need to make another choice, but again, based on social reality. Because that is all that is relevant here. Let's not distract from that.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

So you're saying it's a human right, not yet a civil right. My guess is that the issue will remain in flux for the next couple of generations. Where I think the government should act now is in researching successful and unsuccessful transitions so that people can make informed choices. States should decide how they want their public facilities used. Private facilities (like at a private school or coliseum) will probably be made available in a way that pleases the majority of the population, because that's how capitalism works. It probably won't ever get to the point of establishing civil rights, and that view is coming from pessimism about the outcome of trans activism.

The historically recent phenomenon of trans people... — Baden

It's not even recent.

The galli eunuch priests of classical antiquity have been interpreted by some scholars as transgender or third-gender. The trans-feminine kathoey and hijra gender roles have persisted for thousands of years in Thailand and the Indian subcontinent, respectively. In Arabia, khanith (like earlier mukhannathun) have occupied a third gender role attested since the 7th century CE. Traditional roles for transgender women and transgender men have existed in many African societies, with some persisting to the modern day. North American Indigenous fluid and third gender roles, including the Navajo nádleehi and the Zuni lhamana, have existed since pre-colonial times.

Some medieval European documents have been studied as possible accounts of transgender persons. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus's lament for being born a man instead of a woman has been seen as an early account of gender dysphoria. John/Eleanor Rykener, a male-bodied Briton arrested in 1394 while living and doing sex work dressed as a woman, has been interpreted by some contemporary scholars as transgender. In Japan, accounts of transgender people go back to the Edo period. In Indonesia, there are millions of trans-/third-gender waria, and the extant pre-Islamic Bugis society of Sulawesi recognizes five gender roles.

In the United States in 1776, the genderless Public Universal Friend refused both birth name and gendered pronouns. Transgender American men and women are documented in accounts from throughout the 19th century. The first known informal transgender advocacy organisation in the United States, Cercle Hermaphroditos, was founded in 1895.

Let's call it recent to the public sphere of debate. But, yes, as far as I've heard, the general idea of gender not matching sex is not recent at all. It's just been differently culturally processed. So, yes, thanks for the correction.

I'm pretty sure that science is against you, and that indeed human biology allows for what appears to range — tim wood

You are incorrect. There is no range.

But regardless, technologies of body modification have reached the point where there need be no obvious physical way to determine who has what chromosomes. And even if there were and you were to enforce that, you would be putting trans men into women's bathrooms, many of whom look like the men you supposedly want to keep out of bathrooms because of their physical appearance. So, biological essence really recedes into irrelevancy as a consideration. Woman are not made uncomfortable (if they are made uncomfortable at all) by someone's chromosomes.

I’ve said before, if someone passes then no one is any the wiser. They aren’t women though. There is more to being a woman than looking like one. Not that very many trans women “pass”

Are we really concerned about where people relieve themselves? Or are we really discussing whether the process of transitioning actually changes a woman into a man? — frank

I may be mis-understanding him, but Harry seems to be very concerned. I'm not.

I think there is a bit of Handmaid’s Tale vibe from the dismissive attitude to exclusive women’s spaces.

Are we really concerned about where people relieve themselves? Or are we really discussing whether the process of transitioning actually changes a woman into a man? — frank

Both. Yes, people should be concerned about the erosion of women’s spaces and no, a man can never be a woman and vice versa.
I’m amazed any rational person thinks otherwise.

I'm not interested in trying to brow-beat anyone into changing their definitions. But, seeing as who "passes" is not something that can be objectively policed---e.g. trans men, who, under your biological-sex-first definition, are women, but many of which wouldn't pass for women either in terms of their physical appearance, and so logically you would allow in women's bathrooms without passing physically---I don't see much of a practical difference here.

not something that can be objectively police — Baden

It won’t be policed. It will be fine like it has always been done.

If it won't be policed then everyone effectively has a choice and what choice is taken might vary with time. So, we effectively agree.

Men don’t routinely go in women’s spaces and will be challenged by women if they do. Hopefully, then arrested and prosecuted. Thankfully, most men respect boundaries regarding toilets etc.

I may be mis-understanding him, but Harry seems to be very concerned. I'm not. — EricH

You don't care one way or the other? :up:

Challenged on what basis? Physically, a trans man---who you must want to be in women's bathrooms because you claim they are women due to their biological sex---can easily look more like a man than a trans woman, so it can't be a physical basis because that would contradict your exclusive focus on biological sex.

Google "how out of date are dictionaries?"

I think the problem is that for many, biological sex is a component of the social construct of gender, and I think it's pretty clear that this is true for the majority.

Since gender is a social construct, and therefore fluid to some extent, we might imagine a point where the idea of gender changes so that biology is no longer a part of it. We aren't there, though. The best an activist can do is demand that we should be there.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How does a person transition from one sex to another, say from male to female, without a prior clear, absolute conception of “male” and “female” they must start from?

How can you feel “My body doesn’t match my sense of self?” without some sort of assumption of what it is supposed to feel like to have any particular body and be any particular self?

There is essentialism, objectivity/biology/psychology, and normativity laced all throughout this modern question of gender. We should admit it.

My only policy issue here would have to do with children - let’s let children avoid this mess as long as possible. Let’s keep them out of wondering about this. Because kids just want to know where we are telling them they can go take a pee. It’s up to us to keep it that simple for them and protect their innocence of these questions. We don’t need to experiment with the psychology of all children for the sake of a few children. That’s irresponsible towards all of them.

But forgoing the policy discussion, I’d love to see if we could disambiguate any thing here on TPF. Gender probably should be an easy one.

We should all be able to admit as an objective fact what a male is and normally does with his body, and what a female is and normally does with hers. I think it is precisely because of what a normal woman looks like, acts like, wears, and has for body parts, that a trans man comes to seek some resolution by transitioning to a woman. He wants to be a she - both being clearly distinct to him.

So protecting a clear definition of male and female and man and woman, protects men, trans men, women and trans women. Without men and women first, you can never have trans men and trans women second; and you can’t have a trans man or trans woman first, because then there would be no discussion or thoughts of transitioning.

We need penises to be penises, vaginas to be vaginas, and bosoms to be bosoms first, for it to be any fun to play with all of these body parts.

So we can, and maybe should, admit this is the same as saying we need to protect men qua men sometimes and women qua women sometimes. And today, by protect, I mean disambiguate gender, so we don’t lose sight of men qua men and women qua women, and ruin the future possibility of anyone feeling comfortable in any body.

One step at a time. The designation of male/man and female/woman based on penis and vagina should be basic. The complexity can only be layered on top of that simplicity first. One step in the transition at a time. Solid understanding of “male” and bright line distinction from “female” has to be the first step.

Challenged on what basis? Physically, a trans man---who you must want to be in women's bathrooms because you claim they are women due to their biological sex---can easily look more like a man than a trans woman, so it can't be a physical basis because that would contradict your exclusive focus on biological sex. — Baden

I’m not bothered in the slightest where a trans man goes. Preferably the men’s room. Most of them will want to go to the men’s room. However, if a trans man wishes to use the female restroom they would be allowed as they are female.

There is no person ever that is a bit of both. Not one. Sex is binary.

Well, it's culturally dependent. Where I live---Thailand---we are very much there. The idea of preventing trans women from using a woman's bathroom isn't at all on the radar. I don't think it's an issue in my home country of Ireland either.

I get you in terms of the U.S., but I'm trying to work out on what one could consistently base an objection when biological sex and gender have no necessary connection because they are based on different categories of reality and gender is technologically mutable. Does it mean that objectors want anyone regardless of their biological sex to get arrested if they look too masculine? That, as I said, is inconsistent with wanting to protect biological women from encroaches on their space by biological men because it discriminates on a level, the physical, that now has no necessary connection to the biological in practice and so the objection could be applied to biological women as well as biological men.

How does a trans woman’s womanhood manifest itself?
This is something that I find puzzling. Can anyone explain?