What I'm saying is that if gender and sex are not the same thing, the discussing intersex is off-topic. — Harry Hindu

It's not off topic. It is perfectly consistent to accept both of these:

1. Gender and sex are distinct
2. Bathrooms ought be separated by sex, not gender

The problem, however, is that intersex people exist, and so how do we maintain (2)? To say that trans women can't use women's bathrooms because they're not biologically female but that intersex people can use women's bathrooms even though they're not biologically female is special pleading.

If women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females, and vice versa for males, then your argument would allow animals to use the public restroom. — Harry Hindu

Jesus, this is absurd. You sound like Mike Johnson:

Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone. Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.

Those roles are sexist, gender-based stereotypes. Is that not clear to you? — Harry Hindu

That is something more people are realizing. It's ok to be a butch woman. It's ok to be a feminine guy. What activists were doing in both the US and the UK was putting every child who explored gender onto a path toward transition. Next, a "social contagion" appeared in the form of internet social media. Suddenly thousands of young people, particularly adolescent girls, were saying they might be trans, and the activists basically engineered a disaster. The trans activists fucked up.

The backlash is forming.

It's not off topic. It is perfectly consistent to accept both of these:

1. Gender and sex are distinct
2. Bathrooms ought be separated by sex, not gender — Michael

Exactly. 1 and 2 establish that it would be off-topic to discuss bathrooms in a discussion about gender. You're making my argument for me.

The problem, however, is that intersex people exist, and so how do we maintain (2)? — Michael

Again, what does intersex have to do with gender?

Jesus, this is a absurd.

You sound like Mike Johnson: — Michael

This isn't anything like what I am saying. You are the one claiming that women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females. I'm asking how that does not prevent anything from using the public restroom. You seem fine with stopping with trans-people, but why if sex and gender are separate? I pointed this out already but you would rather play the intellectual dishonesty game.

That is something more people are realizing. It's ok to be a butch woman. It's ok to be a feminine guy. — frank

This is a point I made 6 years ago. Nice to see you're finally catching up.

This is a point I made 6 years ago. Nice to see you're finally catching up. — Harry Hindu

You're a genius Harry. Sorry we ever doubted you.

Please, don't say that. I participate on this forum to be doubted. I participate on this forum to have my arguments criticized - logically - that I might learn and evolve. It seems that a lot of people on this forum are not here for the same reasons.

Please, don't say that. I participate on this forum to be doubted. I participate on this forum to have my arguments criticized - logically - that I might learn and evolve. It seems that a lot of people on this forum are not here for the same reasons. — Harry Hindu

:smile:

Exactly. 1 and 2 establish that it would be off-topic to discuss bathrooms in a discussion about gender. You're making my argument for me. — Harry Hindu

No, because many disagree with (2). They will claim that bathrooms ought be separated by gender, not sex.

Again, what does intersex have to do with gender? — Harry Hindu

I explained it quite clearly. To say that trans women can't use women's bathrooms because they're not biologically female but that intersex people can use women's bathrooms even though they're not biologically female is special pleading.

You are the one claiming that women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females. I'm asking how that does not prevent anything from using the public restroom. — Harry Hindu

The same thing that already prevents them (or doesn’t, in those cases where a stray cat or bird enters a bathroom).

You’re not making any sense.

We could say that everybody who has an identified biological sex goes to the restroom that aligns with that. People who don't have a biological sex go wherever they want. It's not a logical problem, not that human life is usually governed by logic.

We could say that everybody who has an identified biological sex goes to the restroom that aligns with that. People who don't have a biological sex go wherever they want. — frank

We can say anything we like, but what's the justification behind this decision? If it's acceptable for someone who is intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom then why isn't it acceptable for someone who isn't intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom?

We can say anything we like, but what's the justification behind this decision? If it's acceptable for someone who is intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom then why isn't it acceptable for someone who isn't intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom? — Michael

In a democracy, it just comes down to what the community wants. You can argue against the prevailing view, but I would pick something more persuasive than what about intersex people?

What concerns me more is the safety of any LGBTQ person using the men's restroom. And that comes from working in the emergency room and seeing what crazy men do to people like that.

There's a limit to what the police can do to protect people. To some extent everyone needs to be thinking about what they need to do to keep themselves safe. It's just the way it is.

In a democracy, it just comes down to what the community wants. You can argue against the prevailing view, but I would pick something more persuasive than what about intersex people? — frank

If someone’s opinion on who should use which bathroom stems from a flawed understanding of biology then being educated on the existence of intersex people is relevant, and if they can understand what it means for an intersex person to nonetheless identify as being male or as female then perhaps they can better understand transgender men and women. Maybe then they will reconsider their opinion on who can use which bathroom (as well other issues related to transgender people).

Maybe so. You can definitely work on raising awareness of that issue.

From what I can glean here, I would say that those reasons can't be instantiated in law. They are social conditions. The entire point of policy is to be as neutral as possible. Whether you're in poverty or not, don't fucking kill people. — AmadeusD

Ergo, other approaches are required. If the law or public policy does not allow us the tools with which to continue a reduction in certain class based criminal statistics then further social engineering is required.

Not sure what you're getting at - but yeah, policies should do their best to reduce harm to zero as balanced against rights to Freedom (which is an entirely different discussion. These are just formal observations, not details). — AmadeusD

Balanced. . . or weighed as we could in matter of fact have stripped populations as well as people of certain rights when conditions have been met which require stricter ruling on it. A quick cursory look over when this has occurred can concern everything from constitutional rights, civil rights, or even procedural rights.

Stronger than...? They have been strict across most of history. Only recently has that back-slid to a point we may need to implement more. It's the over-relaxing of those segregative policies that has caused the issues. Harm abounds - but those relaxations have increased as against "traditional" policy (notice that this doesn't touch the in-home abuse which is obviously rife. It's a different beast). — AmadeusD

As well as a dramatic increase in personal freedoms which we've hoped in a rather short period of time, or at least a generation or two, that this would equilibrate. In certain cases it has not and those issues persist in other fashions.

That doesn't seem true, but I have not a lot else to add. — AmadeusD

If you leave it in the state it already is in then it's a fairly short conclusion that the statistics might remain the same. Even if they do eventually decrease by just letting it be we have to weigh that time allotted for it to even out against the harm that resulted in that allotted time or could potentially have.

1. What, in your own words, is the exact problem that is in question? — AmadeusD

That legal and certain forms of public policy may not be approachable when it comes to settling certain class conflicts. Especially since we live a democratic nation therefore there is no universal ruling that is bound to happen as rather we'd probably have various states differ on to what degree they meet the requirements we desire. Inevitably, continue to have in some fashion the same compounding issues because there is no rigid line drawn.

Abortion is classic example of this as only a handful of states outright ban it or put no limits on it while the majority of the rest differ on gestational minutia.

2. What, in your own words, is the exact solution to it? (this one i realise probably wont be exact - I just want to avoid prevarication). — AmadeusD

Roll backs, general government mandated population educational programs and awareness, or grassroots movements in general.

If we have advocated for diversity training and inclusion in businesses or government positions then we can obviously roll back on that if not actually advocate forms of exclusivity if that helps our cause. There is nothing stopping us from rolling back on it and I'm not talking about merely removing those programs but replacing them.

Another would be to have a government hand in properly rearing the public through mandated public educational programs. The current office has done so for sex education in certain areas so they can clearly influence what is to be added in or removed from that curriculum. Ergo, if there is something that you felt to be missing from these curriculum then it could be forced into including just that.

Aside from businesses which attempt to have this sort of initial educational curriculum when entering a job for the first timeI don't really know of any particular social outreach that is intended for older adults. As if the legal system is supposed to be their teaching tool alone which is a rather poor teacher.

This is sort of also where grassroots movements can take hold if you don't want the government hand in any of this then the public has to do this all on their own. State by state; community by community. This is difficult because part of the reason we have many of the issues do stem from the faulty ability of our current nation to fully support any or all possible family's in terms of community or economic stability. There's only so much that one can provide in terms of social welfare programs while missing out on community involvement or self-policing. This is a popular talking point about both sides which is the death of communities in general which have felt splintered with no real public space to call their own.

You could name a majority of faults for this:
- Decline of the 'nuclear family'.
- Economic increases and a lack of equal monetary gains to support family's.
- Lack of communities and an over emphasis on wide sprawling car centered landscapes that our cities our centered around.
- Lack of connective guiding identity. You could call this the specter of 'secularism'.

These are some of the things I've seen conservatives and liberals alike complain about as part of why we are in the state that we are in. Of course, we could just hyper-focus on exclusivity projects as that is rather simple and easy to do. In hind sight, enough literal space and separation can suit us in a variety of these situations. Everything from removing simple mixed sex spaces to literally enforcing it upon businesses that they split up their offices this way if it isn't already and everything in-between.

The fact that people are becoming more nationalistic means they are scrambling for an identity to call their own with which to guide themselves as well as their communities. Conservatives seem to favor or at least imply theocratic approaches to particular religious denominations and I can't say I know of an immediate solution to counter that which isn't just asking the public to lean into their political identities. Which is also the reason we are in the hell we are in right now any way. Though, there has been a growing non-secular spiritual trend of Americans who have split off away from popular religious identities.

Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. And it has been relatively clear that most bodies want "male" and "female" to be defined classes with a range of attributes that are biologically typical. So far, so simple. — AmadeusD

That's fine. I have some sympathy with your position when we're dealing with transgender issues. But the same arguments have been used for dealing with sexual orientation and race issues. At times, and sometimes still, most bodies want gay and black people to be classified as biologically, or at least socially or morally, atypical not to mention inferior. It's a bad argument in terms of what's right and wrong, but it's right politically - don't try to ram your values down your fellow citizen's throats. There are years of patient groundwork that has to accomplished first if you want to succeed in those kinds of social changes.

I'm still trying to analyze why I find it peculiar and troublesome this line of thinking beyond some naïve liberal pearl clutching.

Maybe its the almost arbitrariness with which is applied in one rather specific social cases but not really in many if any others. Usually its bolstered by utilitarian arguments to the form of weighing the statistical harm caused to one compared to another. Obviously, this arises rather frequently so shouldn't we make this line of justification common among all those other situations as well?

However, there are other possibilities besides an immediate utilitarian benefit which could imply momentary harm/inequality for long term benefits. Some of these social concerns went through rather heavy troubling times before enough of a social change forced a point of view to stick and these class conflicts rapidly decreased. In the short term, though, there would have been a plethora of class conflicts if not more because we allowed extensive freedom for either side to express themselves as well as be in close proximity.

There is a more. . . taxing. . . form of counterfactual utilitarianism which is more muddled. The only example I can think of is that of those argue for a form of white replacement theory. These individuals, bigoted as they are, are worried about some possible but not current overhauling of the demographics of our nation which would trickle down into who more easily obtains political power or who holds greater social strength to dictate the culture they want. They would argue this would be a net harm to the nation overall so while its not overall present now (they would disagree on this point but I'll put that aside) we should pay mind to how open we are to other cultures given this potential danger.

So are we supposed to prefer always immediate utilitarian concerns or delayed ones with greater reach? What about counterfactual ones not necessarily concerning criminal harm alone?

, I remain puzzled as to why other folk should have a say in which loo someone chooses to use at all.

The reasons given so far are peripheral.

I remain puzzled as to why other folk should have a say in which loo someone chooses to use at all. — Banno

I guess the "other folk" think they can make whatever laws they like, and up to a point, they can. In the US, the SCOTUS said the right of trans people to use the loo that aligns with their gender is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Someone might question that in the future, but right now, local governments can't do what the UK did.

Don't you find it unsettling that this issue needed to go to your highest court to be settled?

Might have been simpler if folk just butted out of other people's business, don't you think?

Don't you find it unsettling that this issue needed to go to your highest court to be settled?

Might have been simpler if folk just butted out of other people's business, don't you think? — Banno

Definitely simpler.

Definitely simpler. — frank

Cost a lot less?

Taken up less time?

Been less of an embuggerance?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that in "our" culture, issues of manners are taken to the highest court?

Why this lavish interest in the contents of other people's underwear?

Why this lavish interest in the contents of other people's underwear? — Banno

Apparently it came up in the UK due to Scottish women not wanting trans-women in their loos. This led to the UK government declaring that "woman" refers to biology. This whole issue goes back to the 1950s when John Money, who had little in the way of mental health, declared that gender and biological sex are not the same thing. The UK just said: yes they are.

not to lear — Banno

Same question: puzzling that other folk should have a say in which loo someone chooses to use at all.

I blame urinals. They are the reason the cue is so much shorter for the men's, but one needs the appropriate equipment to use them.

Ban urinals, I say! More space for cubicles, no need to differentiate rooms on the basis of the contents of folk's underpants.

And teach people not to leer.

And teach people not to lear. — Banno

:lol:

Why are you guys so focused on the issue of bathrooms, when the issues of locker rooms, prisons and sporting competition are so much more significant?

We don't have real evidence of trans people causing problems for anyone in bathrooms, to my knowledge? We do have lots of evidence of self-identified trans people causing severe problems in change rooms and prisons. Happy to provide sources, which seem lacking in this debate.

You guys know about the Cass report? How the 'gold standard' affirmative model has been subsequently rejected by the initial proponents of affirmation? How the demographics have shifted substantially, from roughly two thirds of trans children being boys to the current reversal, in which females are suddenly more likely to be trans? How this is unprecedented throughout human history?

Serious lack of actual facts in the philosophical debate here. Both are essential.

And of course the premise that hormone therapy levels the sporting playing field is just dumb. The source on this is the IOC. Anyone here trust the IOC? No? Good.

It feels to me as if epistemic arguments here sort of miss the point, or at least, fail to come up with answers timely enough to matter.

Some history.

In short, the affirmative model became the gold standard for treating young people with severe gender dysphoria in the 90s. These were highly self-selected young people who were adamant about their dysphoria, and demonstrated this throughout their childhood.

Four out of five gender questioning children will ultimately accept their 'assigned' gender, the majority being gay.

The 'gender affirmation' model worked for people considered 'trans' historically. For all of recorded human history, across cultures, trans people have existed. Anthropology is great for issues like this.

But, all of a sudden, trans people are suddenly completely different than they have ever been, historically, culturally?

So many people writing courageously on this right now.

You guys know that people like Jesse Signal get attacked for simple reporting, right? You know who Signal is, right?

Here's a lesser known critic of the subject with some smoking insights.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/embodiment-goals

Philosophical arguments for a trans affirmative stance are interesting, conceptually.

But practically? If you care about trans people, and gender-questioning kids, affirmation-by-default is objectively more harmful than helpful.

The premise that every person who asserts some sort of gender-questioning identity is trans is stupid, and, if I might say this as a lay-philosopher newly on TPF, contrary to the philosophical project.

Detransitioners are real, and sooner or later, they are going to start suing, and winning huge sums, from doctors with a default woke stance.

...the issues of locker rooms... — Jeremy Murray

Yes! Poor locker room design is the issue. Why do we have locker rooms that force us to differentiate on the basis of our genitalia? If the issue is modesty, why not have individual cubicles?

I'm still trying to analyze why I find it peculiar and troublesome this line of thinking beyond some naïve liberal pearl clutching. — substantivalism

What I posted was a specific response to what I see as the flaws in @AmadeusD's comment on gender identity issues. I don't see the relevance of what you've written to that.

What I posted was a specific response to what I see as the flaws in AmadeusD's comment on gender identity issues. I don't see the relevance of what you've written to that. — T Clark

. . . but isn't most of what he is doing just a form of utilitarianism combined with a focus on specific segregation tactics so why can't we extend this in the direction of utilitarianism but as regards ideologies and definitions?

If a series of concepts suits the better intellectual benefit of the many then why not adopt them and dictate it as such as its already been done in legal language as regards sex?

Philosophical arguments for a trans affirmative stance are interesting, conceptually. — Jeremy Murray

Philosophically I don’t think anyone can jump the gap of their sex and become the opposite gender or non gender. The sex of a person is there for everyone to see unless there is significant surgery and synthetic hormones used.
I have no issue with someone adopting the stereotypical norms of the opposite gender but that is cosplaying and does not reflect the reality that men and women can be whoever they like to be.
If there were no imbalance physically and socially between the sexes then there would be no need for any restrictions on men being allowed in women’s spaces.
However, there is an imbalance so restrictions are necessary until through massive social engineering these imbalances are eliminated.
The trans rights advocates seem to ignore or not see issues that women face despite the many many advances that have been made both legally and socially over the decades.
I assume even the most radical trans advocate has acknowledged that female sports is not a place for trans women.
I have no idea why the subject is seen as complicated. It isn’t.

There is no fucking risk. — AmadeusD

I can't be bothered talking about it any more for now. It was a fun chat.