The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[krypton iodine sulfur]

[Now, it doesn't really matter why it wasn't mentioned again. Irrelevant to the case probably, as it wasn't a man, in the tribunal's eyes, complaining about the policy.

The characteristic relevant to the complaint was gender identity and expression.

But if the tribunal finds no material difference in waxing cis women's arms versus a trans woman's arms, I wonder why it would not also say there isn't a material difference between men's arms and women's arms.

Because it is out of scope for what is relevant to the complaint and the tribunals aren't a forum for tribunal members voicing irrelevant opinions.

But I can't speak to that tribunal member. I'm interested in the opinions of people on the message board, which is why I ask questions.

What you did was make implications about the tribunal and the applicability of the law in BC. You also asked questions of the board.

So every single business in BC that waxes women's arms but not men's are violating human rights, as far as BC is concerned?

Unless there is a bona fide rational for serving one group and not another. That would depend on the particulars of a given case. I strongly suspect it would be deemed discriminatory to refuse to wax men's arms if arm waxing was a service offered as a general rule.

And these businesses aren't routinely shut down? Why not?

I don't think many businesses advertise themselves as women's-only. If they did, I am not sure many men would seek their services. If they did and were denied, even less would be likely to file a complaint. There is no investigative agency I am aware of which seeks out discrimination cases in this manner on the people's behalf.

I think if a business is violating human rights it should be shut down, whether there's a complainant or not.

Mechanically it is probably inefficient and impractical with rare exceptions. Even in this case, Yaniv targeted small businesses, at least some of which were operated by people working from their own homes. They were advertised through facebook marketplace, so we aren't necessarily talking about businesses with a lot of visibility, and it's possible none of them actually advertised as women's-only anyway. We're not going to send investigators to look at every potential way discrimination might be occurring. Alternatively, it doesn't make sense for the tribunal to file complaints against people whose cases are being heard. Who would the complaints be on behalf of? The government? The tribunal itself? The tribunal needs to deal with what is material to the complaint at hand.

 

[Metaphor]

Mechanically it is probably inefficient and impractical with rare exceptions. Even in this case, Yaniv targeted small businesses, at least some of which were operated by people working from their own homes. They were advertised through facebook marketplace, so we aren't necessarily talking about businesses with a lot of visibility, and it's possible none of them actually advertised as women's-only anyway.

Many places in Australia advertise as 'exclusively for women' or 'women only'. And from a quick google search, there do appear to be 'women only' beauty/waxing services in BC.

We're not going to send investigators to look at every potential way discrimination might be occurring. Alternatively, it doesn't make sense for the tribunal to file complaints against people whose cases are being heard. Who would the complaints be on behalf of? The government? The tribunal itself? The tribunal needs to deal with what is material to the complaint at hand.

Yes, the complainant would be the government. Just as when somebody is prosecuted for a criminal offence, the person bringing the action is the State, not the person who was offended against.

But, I'll make my position clear. If waxing salons in BC discriminate against men, I do not regard that as a human rights violation and I think it is ludicrous that it would go to a human rights tribunal if somebody complained.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

there do appear to be 'women only' beauty/waxing services in BC.

So there are. Perhaps one day one of them will face a complaint and the matter will be settled.

 

[ruby sparks]

Do you think it's reasonable that salons should be forced to wax the arms and legs of men if they don't want to?

So now I can answer your question. I suspect you may not especially like the answer but here it is.

It is too general a question to have a simple, blanket answer, imo, and I’m not even talking about legalities, which are probably infernally complicated.

At first blush, I might say no. In principle, I don’t think they should. But my guess is that it would depend on a number of things, some of which would likely include the relevant facts and factors in any one instance.

So, you appear to lean towards saying "no, salons should not be forced to service men for arm waxing if they don't want to".

Should salons be forced to service trans women for arm waxing?

Yes, as regards your first question, that is the way I would tend to lean. But I included important caveats.

My answer to your second question there would be similar.

In principle I would tend to lean towards saying that businesses should not be forced to serve, or service, or have as a a client, anyone that they do not want to, unless there are allowable reasons to insist that they should.

 

[Playball40]

(huh, while posting this just discovered another little internal bias there i wasn't aware of - i don't seem to have this issue with trans men. i guess that's kind of like the whole 'punching up' thing about what groups it's OK to target in comedy for mockery)

Transmen represent no risk and no threat to cis-men. If a transman uses the men's restroom, they're probably going to use the stall unless they've surgically transitioned. It they have surgically transitioned and use a urinal... well, men are raised and conditioned not to start at other men's junk, and probably aren't going to give it any notice. At best, they'll perceive a small man, or an effeminate man. But they're not going to comment on it, and they're not going to feel threatened by it. The implied threat of being leered at in a sexual way, or of potentially being assaulted or raped, just isn't there. A person with a female physique just isn't likely to be a physical threat at all. Same goes in locker rooms. If there's an intact transman in the men's locker room, they're much more likely to get lecherous looks (boobs!) than the other way around. In fact, they're much more likely to be assaulted or raped than the other way around.

If a transman gets placed in a men's prison, they don't represent an increased risk of rape to the cis-men housed there. Rather, they themselves face increased risk of rape - especially if they haven't surgically transitioned.

If a transman wants to compete in a men's sport, they're unlikely to be competitive. And if they are, then that's incredibly impressive all around. But given that they have the skeletal structure, muscular attachment points, and physiology of a human female, the likelihood of a transman dominating a men's sport is infinitesimal. If it's high school or college sports, where scholarships are on the line, there no feasible chance that a transman will win a men's sports scholarship. If a transman competes in the Olympics in a men's sport, they're unlikely to win or even to place... and the chances of them smashing a record so thoroughly that a cis-man stands no likelihood of ever coming close to it pretty much nil.

Transmen don't dilute the privileges of men, nor do they threaten any hard won progress. They don't reinforce social biases that hold men back from success, independence, and status. Transmen aren't realistically in competition with cis-men for limited opportunities.

And lastly, transmen don't enter the world of men with a feeling of entitlement, and with the expectation that their desires and needs will be met by society as a whole. They don't transition by demanding that they are every single bit as much of a man as a person who has a prostate or a person who has organic testicles capable of producing sperm, or a person with the capacity for impregnating a human female, or a person with an adam's apple... and they don't demand that the term "man" must always refer to them, and if it's used in the traditional manner of referring to a human male, they don't view that as being intentionally and unforgivably exclusionary.

I so wish this were true in the high school restrooms. Sadly, it's not

 

[Toni]

So, you appear to lean towards saying "no, salons should not be forced to service men for arm waxing if they don't want to".

Should salons be forced to service trans women for arm waxing?

Yes, as regards your first question, that is the way I would tend to lean. But I included important caveats.

My answer to your second question there would be similar.

In principle I would tend to lean towards saying that businesses should not be forced to serve, or service, or have as a a client, anyone that they do not want to, unless there are allowable reasons to insist that they should.

So you’d be ok with soda fountains or bars or restaurants not serving black people? Mexicans? Catholics? Irish? Gay people?

OTOH, I can understand why some businesses which provide some types of aesthetic care might limit their services to a particular clientele. For instance, It would be wrong for my husband’s barber to refuse to cut my hair. It would be wrong —and stupid of me to expect my husband’s barber to cut my hair the way my stylist does or to give me highlights. It’s a different skill set and different products, etc.

 

[ruby sparks]

So you’d be ok with soda fountains or bars or restaurants not serving black people? Mexicans? Catholics? Irish? Gay people

That is just such an over-reaction to what I said and does not follow from it. As such I just find it completely baffling that you even felt the need to include it. Wtf, basically.

Your second paragraph gets slightly more into the nuance and detail of a particular type of situation.

 

[Emily Lake]

For thinking about...

It can be misused towards those ends, but it doesn't actually do any of those things in itself. It just acknowledges scientific reality that the brain shows different patterns by race, and that the mind isn't magic, it's a brain byproduct. It doesn't deny that many and possibly all aspects of racial stereotypes are either socially constructed or at least reinforced, or that there is variability within each group. Also, if blacks and whites are clustered around psychological qualities A and B respectively. Society can shape those qualities into X and Y respectively, such that blacks and whites are not naturally X and Y, but they are different in some way that with social influence produce X and Y tendencies.

I realize that some civil rights activists do have an issue with this and unfortunately sometimes deny the science because of how it's misused. But that's misguided. The core goals of civil rights activism can still be achieved by acknowledging these realities. And without accepting these realities, racial equality does become a kind of delusion, b/c it means there is no such thing as being born anything but a human and melanin level is the only innate dimension, and race is nothing but a choice or something people can be socialized into (and thus socialized out of if it doesn't fit the norms). It puts blacks into the same position homosexuals were put into by centuries of insistence that heterosexual attraction is the only innate impulse and anything else was an arbitrary "choice".

There's an interesting phenomenon at play, in which well-intentioned people will disregard any studies that look at differences by race, and consider them profoundly unethical and consider them to be agenda driven and evidence of racism. Those same people, however, will frequently cite scientific studies to uphold their view that women are different psychologically than men, and that women have different innate tendencies than men, as well as different evolutionarily ingrained behaviors. Those same people don't view that as being unethical or agenda driven, but view it as a justifiable explanation for the different ways that women and men are treated by society. Those same people, intentionally or not, tacitly uphold gender barriers that prevent women from success and independence.

 

[Playball40]

Just a small interjection here. Anorexia actually IS a brain-based illness.

Ron,

If it can be shown that a very small portion of transgender people came to be (what at surface looks to be) trans for reasons not related to deep brain regions as you described...

But rather from other causes, similar to anorexia, or a self directed fetish what would that mean?

Anorexics don't have choice, nor do cross dressers who are aroused by dressing as women to head you off at the pass. I don't think people will say that there is an anorexia or cross dresser center in a dedicated region of the brain.

There a couple videos by cogent youtubers that are excellent for opening up this debate

First is a transman talking about extreme dysphoria from having periods


I have a lot of respect for Jammi to be able to be so public about this. Actually, Jammi seems to be a top end highly functional person.

The second is a very effeminate gay man rightly or wrongly concerned that gay boys like he was a child may be sent down a transition pathway now


I think making the gender to sex behavior binary extremely rigid might do that in a few cases of kids with other problems. Letting people be cool with early Bowie, Grace Jones and Boy George androgyny and NOT asking them all the time will they transition seems for the best. People on social media are asking this of the new "Boy Georges" all the time now. It is wearing them down.

Social media is cool in small doses for fun and cute stuff and as an RSS news feed, but the negative social effects can be devastating



Having your gender and orientation being scrutinized by thousands of strangers, even if well meaning, is not a good thing

 

[ruby sparks]

For thinking about...

It can be misused towards those ends, but it doesn't actually do any of those things in itself. It just acknowledges scientific reality that the brain shows different patterns by race, and that the mind isn't magic, it's a brain byproduct. It doesn't deny that many and possibly all aspects of racial stereotypes are either socially constructed or at least reinforced, or that there is variability within each group. Also, if blacks and whites are clustered around psychological qualities A and B respectively. Society can shape those qualities into X and Y respectively, such that blacks and whites are not naturally X and Y, but they are different in some way that with social influence produce X and Y tendencies.

I realize that some civil rights activists do have an issue with this and unfortunately sometimes deny the science because of how it's misused. But that's misguided. The core goals of civil rights activism can still be achieved by acknowledging these realities. And without accepting these realities, racial equality does become a kind of delusion, b/c it means there is no such thing as being born anything but a human and melanin level is the only innate dimension, and race is nothing but a choice or something people can be socialized into (and thus socialized out of if it doesn't fit the norms). It puts blacks into the same position homosexuals were put into by centuries of insistence that heterosexual attraction is the only innate impulse and anything else was an arbitrary "choice".

There's an interesting phenomenon at play, in which well-intentioned people will disregard any studies that look at differences by race, and consider them profoundly unethical and consider them to be agenda driven and evidence of racism. Those same people, however, will frequently cite scientific studies to uphold their view that women are different psychologically than men, and that women have different innate tendencies than men, as well as different evolutionarily ingrained behaviors. Those same people don't view that as being unethical or agenda driven, but view it as a justifiable explanation for the different ways that women and men are treated by society. Those same people, intentionally or not, tacitly uphold gender barriers that prevent women from success and independence.

Do you think that the people who recognise differences (racial, gender or otherwise) necessarily do the part in bold? I would not have thought it was necessarily the case (and I don't see the poster whose post you cite doing it). As such I might question whether it is, in fact, a 'phenomenon in play' here. What should we all do, pretend there are no relevant differences, if there are? I wouldn't favour that, I don't think.

ETA: I might even throw in, is it necessarily wrong to treat people differently because of actual biological/physiological differences (including regarding brain biology/physiology) where they exist, or does it depend (on a number of things)? I would be inclined to say the latter.

 

[Emily Lake]

The assignation doesn't refer to biological characteristics. It refers to that little 'm' or 'f' civic classification which is what, historically, we've used to steer people socially down a path of gendered social constructs. When gender identity is taken into account, that 'm' or 'f' may not fit for civic and social matters. That 'm' or 'f' was not specified by the individual it describes (a baby with the obvious lack of ability to do so); it was ascribed to them by whoever filled out the information for the birth certificate.

It isn't as if biological sex is just a fallacy with no relation to reality. It's as if a birth certificate is not a medical document or a meaningful biological profile. Because it isn't. And it's not used as such.

Personally, when people first adopted the 'assigned as..." language, I wasn't that fond of it. But the alternatives tended to be worse, I didn't have more useful suggestions, and of all the concerns and considerations I had, this wasn't a hill I wanted to die on.

Aye, there's the rub.

I, as a cis-woman, do NOT want to be "steered" down some social path that insists that "women" are supposed to behave in this way, and be interested in those things, and work in that kind of job. I DO NOT want that, and it doesn't fit me at all! Those social constructs are absolute bullshit for a LOT of cis-women. They're a barrier. They're a limitation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting, so you saying there is 1, 0 and something in between, but it is binary. Are we talking like a quantum binary?

Interesting thought. Does the existence of congenital twins mean we can't say humans have one head? Does the existence of polydactyl people mean that humans we can't say that humans have ten fingers and ten toes?

The issue isn't the statement of humans having one head or ten fingers and ten toes. It's when you see a baby born with an extra digit (which, if memory serves, in some cases is a genetically dominant trait), you don't say "Well, it's not actually a human" or "well, it actually has ten fingers and toes". You don't make the mistake of letting generalized characteristics override what is right in front of you.

And yet... we want to override what is right in front of us and insist that a person with a penis is a woman if she so chooses, and a person with a vagina is a man if he desires to be.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just a small interjection here. Anorexia actually IS a brain-based illness.

Yeah.

Are you saying you think being transgender is too? Is an illness I mean.

If you are, I'm not going to say you're necessarily wrong. What things are labelled 'illnesses' or 'disorders' (and what aren't) often have complicated, sometimes controversial and often sociological factors influencing the choice of labelling.

 

[ruby sparks]

As with Emily’s example of her epilepsy, I have for most of my life had a ‘condition/disorder’, namely chronic depression (now successfully controlled by medication, thankfully).

I don’t think many would say that epilepsy and depression are not disorders (or illnesses, or flaws or what have you, or even just the more neutral ‘conditions’). But saying that being transgender is a disorder........would anyone get away with saying that nowadays?

Depression seems to me quite an apt comparator, in some ways (for, let’s say, growing up transgender, before you’ve resolved the matter, while you feel you’re in the wrong body I mean). First, the suffering is more or less ongoing rather than intermittent or episodic (chronic and persistent in other words) and second, a component of the suffering has to do with the attitudes of others to the ‘condition’, which can involve negative judgements and dismissals.

One big difference with being transgender is that those who are or become happy with it arguably don’t have a ‘disorder’.

Which of course begs questions about the label, that the same condition can go from being called a disorder to not being one.

I am not trying to change the topic to depression any more than Emily was trying to change it to epilepsy, which she wasn’t.

 

[repoman]

Just a small interjection here. Anorexia actually IS a brain-based illness.

Yeah.

Are you saying you think being transgender is too? Is an illness I mean.

If you are, I'm not going to say you're necessarily wrong. What things are labelled 'illnesses' or 'disorders' (and what aren't) often have complicated, sometimes controversial and often sociological factors influencing the choice of labelling.

Are people born anorexic?

 

[ruby sparks]

I don’t think so, no.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok so, speculation, hypotheticals and mind-reading aside, based on and regarding the facts of the case being discussed, you had no strong reason to ‘go off on one’ or conclude what you did.

Good god. There was no mind reading. The Sikh woman made it clear that she did not serve male-bodied people, which includes cis-males and trans women. Do you think it is unreasonable to conclude that she did not serve men, when she openly admitted to such?

It's been a while since I looked at the details around that case, but IIRC, part of the issue was also that she is forbidden by her religion from touching the bodies of other men.

 

[Emily Lake]

For thinking about...

It can be misused towards those ends, but it doesn't actually do any of those things in itself. It just acknowledges scientific reality that the brain shows different patterns by race, and that the mind isn't magic, it's a brain byproduct. It doesn't deny that many and possibly all aspects of racial stereotypes are either socially constructed or at least reinforced, or that there is variability within each group. Also, if blacks and whites are clustered around psychological qualities A and B respectively. Society can shape those qualities into X and Y respectively, such that blacks and whites are not naturally X and Y, but they are different in some way that with social influence produce X and Y tendencies.

I realize that some civil rights activists do have an issue with this and unfortunately sometimes deny the science because of how it's misused. But that's misguided. The core goals of civil rights activism can still be achieved by acknowledging these realities. And without accepting these realities, racial equality does become a kind of delusion, b/c it means there is no such thing as being born anything but a human and melanin level is the only innate dimension, and race is nothing but a choice or something people can be socialized into (and thus socialized out of if it doesn't fit the norms). It puts blacks into the same position homosexuals were put into by centuries of insistence that heterosexual attraction is the only innate impulse and anything else was an arbitrary "choice".

There's an interesting phenomenon at play, in which well-intentioned people will disregard any studies that look at differences by race, and consider them profoundly unethical and consider them to be agenda driven and evidence of racism. Those same people, however, will frequently cite scientific studies to uphold their view that women are different psychologically than men, and that women have different innate tendencies than men, as well as different evolutionarily ingrained behaviors. Those same people don't view that as being unethical or agenda driven, but view it as a justifiable explanation for the different ways that women and men are treated by society. Those same people, intentionally or not, tacitly uphold gender barriers that prevent women from success and independence.

Do you think that the people who recognise differences necessarily do the part in bold? I would not have thought it was necessarily the case (and I don't see the poster whose post you cite doing it). As such I might question whether it is, in fact, a 'phenomenon in play' here. What should we do, pretend there are no relevant differences, if there are? I wouldn't favour that, I don't think.

ETA: I might even throw in, is it necessarily wrong to treat people differently because of actual differences, where they exist, or does it depend (on a number of things)?

In this thread, no I haven't explicitly seen that argument being made. It is, however, an outcome of those arguments. And even if it doesn't show up in this thread... consider the times that people have expressed that there's no difference in the pay that women receive, or the promotions that women get... it's all just the choices that women make because they really just want to stay home and make babies...

There are many people who will be fairly objective when it comes to physical differences. They might, for example, cite that there's a difference in torso length relative to leg length between white people and black people. They might even go so far as to credit that physical difference for the higher proportion of black long distance runners in the olympics (or whatever). But if one suggests that black people and white people's brains are naturally different, and that those differences drive behavioral differences, that's a completely different discussion all of a sudden, isn't it?

I think all of us are smart enough and pragmatic enough to recognize that there are actual physical differences between men and women. I don't think any of us a re dumb enough to pretend that those differences don't exist.

But there's an entirely different discussion that happens when we're talking about sex and gender, in which the brain suddenly becomes an integral part of the discussion. We end up discussing how men's and women's brains are different. And we end up talking about how they're innately behaviorally different. And nobody bats an eye at the implication of that approach. Nobody seems to step back and say "hold on a minute... that concept ends up supporting the continued disadvantages for women, because now we're treating it as biological and scientific differences rather than social constructs".

And for the record, just to be clear, I am NOT saying that I think there are material or meaningful differences in the brains or psychology of black people versus white people as a matter of nature. Similarly, however, I don't think that the differences in brains or psychology between men and women as a matter of nature either. There might be differences, sure. But they're neither material nor meaningful ones.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

And yet... we want to override what is right in front of us and insist that a person with a penis is a woman if she so chooses, and a person with a vagina is a man if he desires to be.

Not really. When we're talking about recognizing gender identity as a valid and meaningful phenomenon, we're not talking about 'chooses' and 'desires'. It's more 'well, this is the situation we're in; what the fuck can we do about it?' Physically, only so much, and of the options available and the compromises they entail, not every transgender person can or wants to pursue that compromise. In terms social and civic matters? That's differrent.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But there's an entirely different discussion that happens when we're talking about sex and gender, in which the brain suddenly becomes an integral part of the discussion. We end up discussing how men's and women's brains are different. And we end up talking about how they're innately behaviorally different.

The discussion on the likely neurological root of gender identity does not necessitate discussing behavioural differences in men and women through a lens of differentiated brain structures. While your milage may vary, ordinarily I no longer find the discussion of the former tends to lead to discussion of the latter. It need not. In this thread, I am not sure that it has.