The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Emily Lake]

I think I agree with most of that. Thank you for explaining. I'm not sure that either of our analogies with glasses is spot on, but I'll temporarily set them aside, as they are only analogies.

So, let's say, for the sake of the argument here, that what you mean by identity is a social construct.*

That would not mean that transgender consisted only of an identity, any more than several other things would, homosexuality for instance (I'm not saying they're the same sort of thing by the way). There's gay and then there's gay identity. There's transgender and then there's transgender identity, and so on.

If that were the case, then the mistake (if it were being made) would be to think that being transgender is only an identity.

I don't think it's only an identity. But I do think it would change the discussion. A lot of the discussion, and a lot of the controversy, is specific to the identity element of it. It's focused around the concept that a person identifies as a particular sex, and that their identification as such obligates other people to accept them as that sex, treat them as that sex, and allow them access to the same spaces and opportunities as that sex.

REcognizing that the 'gender identity' itself is largely a construct would, in my opinion, get us past the hurdle of "Transwomen are Women! Full Stop!". It would get us past the artifice that there is no material difference between a transwoman and a natal woman, and that biology is meaningless... and would let us get to "Transwomen are valued people" so we can actually start fixing the problems.


** Good point re: nurture. And I agree. It's just shorthand because it gets tiring trying to capture all the externalities. Especially because the social construct of expected behavior and roles is a big deal to me, and a real barrier for women. But yes, other environmental factors play a role as well.

 

[Emily Lake]

Noninvasive, even, for hormone replacement, and hey, then they don't have an adult human male puberty at all, if you do it right.

But they won't have a female puberty either.

 

[Emily Lake]

Trans people should use the locker room of their sex, since locker rooms are separated by sex.

I honestly don't think it's as simple as that. If a person is presenting as their identified gender, and is at least moderately passing, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to force them to use the locker room of their birth sex. If they've surgically transitioned, I definitely don't think they should be forced to use the locker room of their birth sex.

It's when it comes to people who haven't begun transitioning, and who aren't presenting as their identified gender, that it gets a lot more murky for me.

 

[Metaphor]

Trans people should use the locker room of their sex, since locker rooms are separated by sex.

I honestly don't think it's as simple as that. If a person is presenting as their identified gender, and is at least moderately passing, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to force them to use the locker room of their birth sex. If they've surgically transitioned, I definitely don't think they should be forced to use the locker room of their birth sex.

It's when it comes to people who haven't begun transitioning, and who aren't presenting as their identified gender, that it gets a lot more murky for me.

Who is going to decide who 'passes'? The trans person themselves?

Most trans people don't have bottom surgery so they retain the genitals of their sex, so a policy based on that would exclude most trans people from using the locker room of their gender. I don't think that's a problem (since I think everybody should be using sex-segregated spaces according to their sex) but trans activists would think so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Reverse sexism! Reverse sexism!

There's no reverse sexism. When people are prejudiced and discriminate against men, it's sexism.

Now, Metaphor et alia are fond of substituting race in for sex or gender in order to logically test their opponents and try to make arguments for hypocrisy. But look what happens when you substitute race in for sex/gender in the J.K. Rowling statements.

Sex and gender are two different things. They do not become one thing because you wrote them with a forward slash.

What a terrible way to completely dismiss everything I wrote without addressing it.

 

[Metaphor]

There's no reverse sexism. When people are prejudiced and discriminate against men, it's sexism.



Sex and gender are two different things. They do not become one thing because you wrote them with a forward slash.

What a terrible way to completely dismiss everything I wrote without addressing it.

Black people can't become white people and men can't become women. We don't have race-segregated locker rooms and nobody is proposing it. Prejudice and discrimination against men is socially acceptable in a way that prejudice and discrimination by race isn't.

But if we did have race-segregated locker rooms, it would then be true that white people should not go into the black locker room and vice versa, even if the white people said they identified as black people.

Women feel no compunction in saying a man walking behind them at night makes them feel nervous, and they feel no compunction in saying men are obligated to change their behaviour (by crossing the road for example) to suit the feelings of women.

But, as you correctly point out, change 'men' for 'black men' or 'black people' and anybody suggesting such a thing would be crucified. Saying black people should change their innocent behaviour to suit the feelings of white people would be regarded as absolutely beyond the pale.

 

[Politesse]

There's no reverse sexism. When people are prejudiced and discriminate against men, it's sexism.



Sex and gender are two different things. They do not become one thing because you wrote them with a forward slash.

What a terrible way to completely dismiss everything I wrote without addressing it.

Black people can't become white people and men can't become women. We don't have race-segregated locker rooms and nobody is proposing it. Prejudice and discrimination against men is socially acceptable in a way that prejudice and discrimination by race isn't.

But if we did have race-segregated locker rooms, it would then be true that white people should not go into the black locker room and vice versa, even if the white people said they identified as black people.

Women feel no compunction in saying a man walking behind them at night makes them feel nervous, and they feel no compunction in saying men are obligated to change their behaviour (by crossing the road for example) to suit the feelings of women.

But, as you correctly point out, change 'men' for 'black men' or 'black people' and anybody suggesting such a thing would be crucified. Saying black people should change their innocent behaviour to suit the feelings of white people would be regarded as absolutely beyond the pale.

The proportion of the population with a mixed racial heritage is even larger than those of unclear sex.

 

[Metaphor]

Black people can't become white people and men can't become women. We don't have race-segregated locker rooms and nobody is proposing it. Prejudice and discrimination against men is socially acceptable in a way that prejudice and discrimination by race isn't.

But if we did have race-segregated locker rooms, it would then be true that white people should not go into the black locker room and vice versa, even if the white people said they identified as black people.

Women feel no compunction in saying a man walking behind them at night makes them feel nervous, and they feel no compunction in saying men are obligated to change their behaviour (by crossing the road for example) to suit the feelings of women.

But, as you correctly point out, change 'men' for 'black men' or 'black people' and anybody suggesting such a thing would be crucified. Saying black people should change their innocent behaviour to suit the feelings of white people would be regarded as absolutely beyond the pale.

The proportion of the population with a mixed racial heritage is even larger than those of unclear sex.

Well, yes.

 

[Politesse]

People like you who want to make laws out of arbitrary social categorizations are therefore numbskulls. There'd be no way to really enforce your desires even if they weren't immoral.

 

[Metaphor]

People like you who want to make laws out of arbitrary social categorizations are therefore numbskulls. There'd be no way to really enforce your desires even if they weren't immoral.

Do you think trans men with vaginas are safe in the violent, toxically masculine hellhole that is the men's locker rooms? What do you expect cis men to do, somehow restrain themselves from raping and killing trans men? Are you really sure that you can trust cis men in this manner?

Or do trans men and trans women both belong in the women's locker room?

 

[Politesse]

People like you who want to make laws out of arbitrary social categorizations are therefore numbskulls. There'd be no way to really enforce your desires even if they weren't immoral.

Do you think trans men with vaginas are safe in the violent, toxically masculine hellhole that is the men's locker rooms? What do you expect cis men to do, somehow restrain themselves from raping and killing trans men? Are you really sure that you can trust cis men in this manner?

Or do trans men and trans women both belong in the women's locker room?

There is no safe place for trans people until we de-stigmatize being transgendered.

 

[repoman]

So, isn't a lot of violence against black trans from black johns who are uptight about getting sex from "trannies" and worried about getting found out?

These black trans women are not going to be able to stably pair off with black men as easily as black cis women.

Add in drugs and an unstable social environment and kaboom.

 

[Jokodo]

@Metaphor in case you still doubt sexual violence and hate crimes against transgender individuals are a real issue,

But I did not claim any such thing. I asked what percent of trans women were assaulted because they were using men's lockers.

here's a systematic review by the WHO. Even if we ignore the lifetime rates in many of those studies, where there could be confounding factors, the picture is clear. For example, Kosciw, 2002, found that in his study group, young people in the US, 31.6% of transgender youths between 13 and 20 had experienced physical assault based on their sexual orientation, and 35.1% based on their gender expression, at school, within the past school year. For cis-gendered male (gay or bisexual) youths, the rates were 23.6/14.2%, for lesbian/bisexual girls 15.8/10.8%.

Or maybe closer to home: Leonard et al., 2012 found that in Australia, 6.8% of transgender females had been sexually assaulted in the last 12 months - two to three times the rate for cis-gendered sexual minorities (i.e. gays and lesbians).

What is a transgender female? Even trans activists don't tend to use the language of 'male' and 'female', but rather 'man' and 'woman'. Do you mean trans-identified men?

Way to demonstrate that you didn't even follow the link.

It's the term used there. Make of it what you will.

For the rest of us, we know conclusively know that you're not interested in evidence and reason.

 

[Jokodo]

[MENTION=103]Metaphor[/MENTION] in case you still doubt sexual violence and hate crimes against transgender individuals are a real issue, here's a systematic review by the WHO. Even if we ignore the lifetime rates in many of those studies, where there could be confounding factors, the picture is clear. For example, Kosciw, 2002, found that in his study group, young people in the US, 31.6% of transgender youths between 13 and 20 had experienced physical assault based on their sexual orientation, and 35.1% based on their gender expression, at school, within the past school year. For cis-gendered male (gay or bisexual) youths, the rates were 23.6/14.2%, for lesbian/bisexual girls 15.8/10.8%.

Or maybe closer to home: Leonard et al., 2012 found that in Australia, 6.8% of transgender females had been sexually assaulted in the last 12 months - two to three times the rate for cis-gendered sexual minorities (i.e. gays and lesbians).

For consideration, the rates of violent assaults, as well as sexual assaults, of females are not significantly different than the rates experienced by transgender people. The reason behind them might be different, but the rate of sexual assault among females is astonishingly high.

They just aren't considered hate crimes. They're just crimes that women face that are part of our everyday lives.

That's just not true.

The rates reported vary widely by study, based on sample group and methodology etc., but when the same methodology is applied to both groups, transgender individuals suffer many times more abuse. In the studies listed, transgender individuals suffered typically about 3 times as much abuse as cis-gendered lesbians - who, on top of facing all that women face as women, are a target of hate crimes. Even more, in many studies gay men suffer more abuse than lesbians - because toxic masculinity has a big problem with apostates from the cult of manlyness.

 

[Metaphor]

But I did not claim any such thing. I asked what percent of trans women were assaulted because they were using men's lockers.



What is a transgender female? Even trans activists don't tend to use the language of 'male' and 'female', but rather 'man' and 'woman'. Do you mean trans-identified men?

Way to demonstrate that you didn't even follow the link.

It's the term used there. Make of it what you will.

For the rest of us, we know conclusively know that you're not interested in evidence and reason.

Funnily enough, I'm often accused of the exact opposite as well: that I demand people engage in reason and I have no compassion.

Trans women experience violence. Trans men experience violence. So, letting them use the toilet that accords with their gender and not their sex is the solution?

If trans women being in men's rooms endangers trans women, then trans men being in men's rooms endangers trans men. That's the ineluctable conclusion from assuming men are psychotic rapists and killers who cannot control themselves.

Trans people experience violence, so they should play sport that accords with their gender, even though sports are segregated by sex?

Trans people have a feeling in their head that conflicts with their sex, so I am legally and socially obliged to use words that clearly contradict the meanings of those words?

I can't collude in this fantasy. I can't volunteer myself into this shared delusional disorder. I can't make myself believe complete nonsense wrapped in homophobia and gender stereotypes.

 

[Jokodo]

It's really quite ironic:

@Metaphor

• claims to advocate for men's rights
• claims that trans women are men

They are.

• ... yet gets off of denying rights to trans women.

Gets off? You think it brings me sexual pleasure?

I "deny" the right of any person to violate sex-segregated spaces, male or female.

It beggars belief that you think an MRA wants men to be able to do anything they want.

Not "anything they want", no. But anyone who deserves the label "MRA" in its literal meaning almost by definition defends men's right to do anything women are allowed to do, as long as doing so doesn't harm anyone. That should be the most important cornerstone, just like the most important cornerstone of feminism is that women shouldn't be barred from traditionally male roles.

If you don't accept that principle but instead attack men who don't feel comfortable with what society expects of them, you're not an MRA in the literal sense of the world, you're an adherent to the masculinity cult.

 

[Metaphor]

Not "anything they want", no. But anyone who deserves the label "MRA" in its literal meaning almost by definition defends men's right to do anything women are allowed to do, as long as doing so doesn't harm anyone. That should be the most important cornerstone, just like the most important cornerstone of feminism is that women shouldn't be barred from traditionally male roles.

Women are not routinely allowed to violate sex-segregated spaces, though obviously some try. But I don't see any problem with preserving sex-segregated spaces, for men or women.

If you don't accept that principle but instead attack men who don't feel comfortable with what society expects of them, you're not an MRA in the literal sense of the world, you're an adherent to the masculinity cult.

I'm baffled as to where this could come from. I'm a (somewhat femme?) gay man who was an effeminate pregay boy. I don't attack men who have gender dysphoria, I just don't think they are women.

 

[Jokodo]

Not "anything they want", no. But anyone who deserves the label "MRA" in its literal meaning almost by definition defends men's right to do anything women are allowed to do, as long as doing so doesn't harm anyone. That should be the most important cornerstone, just like the most important cornerstone of feminism is that women shouldn't be barred from traditionally male roles.

Women are not routinely allowed to violate sex-segregated spaces, though obviously some try. But I don't see any problem with preserving sex-segregated spaces, for men or women.

If you don't accept that principle but instead attack men who don't feel comfortable with what society expects of them, you're not an MRA in the literal sense of the world, you're an adherent to the masculinity cult.

I'm baffled as to where this could come from. I'm a (somewhat femme?) gay man who was an effeminate pregay boy. I don't attack men who have gender dysphoria, I just don't think they are women.

And you don't think that keeping them safe has any value whatsoever and deserves to be taken into consideration during policy design and evaluation.

 

[ruby sparks]

In the case of transgender people, I'm skeptical that the gender identity that is such a cornerstone of it is a truly innate element, or whether it's a reflection of gender being a social construct, and being taken as an identity.

As a caveat, the trans* umbrella has grown fairly large over the last decade or so, so I can't rule out that there are those who gender expression is based far more on social constructs than an intrinsic issue with the relationship between mind and body. When I say 'mind', I'm using that term rather loosely. I am talking about neurological processes one way or the other rather than some abstract philosophical concept. Whether that is due to have a brain which is at least partially feminized/ masculinized, or it's due to some other phenomenon, we're talking about something occurring in the brain.

My dysphoria is a result of mismatch between mind and body. For whatever reason, they don't align, and I have been aware of this from a very very very young age. The idea that there should be some sort of mental mapping to sexual characteristics may seem alien to someone who has never experience this incongruity, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't normally the case for people regardless of gender identity. As a vaguely akin (though not completely analogous) concept, when you open and close your hand, does that feel like a process which takes place wholly in your hand and arm, or do you feel your brain making it happen? Ordinarily, we'd just move our hand without any pressing awareness that our brain was active in that process as well. But perhaps if you suffered from certain types of apraxia, or you were deprived of a limb and experienced phantom pains the broken link would make you far more cognizant of how the brain and hand were mapped together.

Like I said, it's not truly analogous. The point is merely when things are in alignment and working, it's easy to not notice any distinction between mind and body. This idea that one's mind could expect to find different genitals than what are actually there may seem bizarre to someone who doesn't experience it because they ordinarily would feel any distinction between a neurological sense that they should have a penis with the fact that they do have a penis. It would all just feel like having a penis. When mind and body don't align, that ends up being the root of dysphoria. And what is felt in the mind is the seed for identity.

Even if the mind/ body disconnect does form the root of dysphoria, this doesn't mean social constructs are irrelevant. We are social creatures (even the fiercely introverted such as myself). We understand how people are sorted and how pervasive engendered concepts really are. As a transgender woman, when I was a child I understood what my mind told me and how it did not align with not only my body, but with how i was seen and sorted by society. Every instance where I was excluded from things deemed female and every instance where I was included in things deemed male, it called attention to my dysphoria. It also placed distance between me and others because it was like there was this unseeable aspect of my mind which was entirely obscured by my genitals. How that all plays out between a bizarre property of my mind which doesn't properly align with my physiology, and how that all manifests into social constructs is a really complicated thing. Those social constructs do end up have impact on my identity which in turn feeds back into social constructs. But the root of it was less to do with with social constructs. As long as my mind and body couldn't be reconciled adequately, the dysphoria persisted.

Experiences vary amongst transgender people for a great many reasons. Still, it feels like a lot of dialogue is broken because we need to talk in terms of either biology or social constructs. We need to talk in terms of what is innate or learned/ conditioned. But there easily exists a reality where both are relevant not just for transgender people, but for nearly all people. It's just, transgender people have much more of an aggravating factor calling our attention our gender identity that most people in general.

Well-explained. Thanks, especially the last paragraph.

I'm just up out of bed and having my morning cup of tea. I am now wondering, if, half an hour ago, I had unexpectedly woken up with protruding breasts and a vagina, might I be experiencing something that might at least be a bit like some of what you describe? Again, I'm sure that partial analogy is clumsy and wide of the mark. It's basically my earlier thought experiment about cross-dressing taken one stage further. Perhaps now I could throw into the mix that my dressing table is this morning inexplicably littered with all sorts of cosmetics and fragrant lotions, and when I open my wardrobe, there are a number of skirts and dresses in there, and bras and panty hose in my underwear drawer.

But in principle, if there are neurological factors, then up until I fell asleep last night, my brain would have been aligned with having a certain sort of body (one that has a penis and no protruding breasts) so if all that had changed (as if by overnight stealth surgery) was the body, there should be a perceived mismatch this morning. Although by the same token, how could I tell if the perceived mismatch was due to innateness and how much to a prior (male) identity that was at least partly shaped by my experiences (including social ones) since birth?

[Bear in mind that I have not met anyone else or gone out into the world yet, so the immediate, actual social consequences would be limited at this point in the hypothetical scenario, limited to how I might anticipate them perhaps].

I don't expect you necessarily have an answer.

Like you, I tend to think that such things are almost always an interactive mixture of both sorts of factors, and even that they are not easily separated as distinct phenomena and processes, since they could all be described as neurological. I also agree with you that all humans are probably on a sort of spectrum in these regards and that sometimes, incremental distinctions have blurry boundaries.

On a side note, I read of one study done on monozygotic twins which found that there was a significant percentage of cases of both being transgender if one was. To be precise, the term used/studied was transsexual. I can't vouch for the study and I think it had a small sample. It relies on self-reporting.

Here it is, from the Journal of Transgenderism in 2013:

Transsexuality Among Twins: Identity Concordance, Transition, Rearing, and Orientation
https://critorix.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Transsexuality-Among-Twins.pdf

More of what the study calls concordance between male monozygotic twins than female ones, but in both cases more than for dizygotic twins.

Possible explanations would not necessarily only be about inherited/genetic traits, obviously, but the suggestion would be that they are a component.

 

[Metaphor]

Women are not routinely allowed to violate sex-segregated spaces, though obviously some try. But I don't see any problem with preserving sex-segregated spaces, for men or women.



I'm baffled as to where this could come from. I'm a (somewhat femme?) gay man who was an effeminate pregay boy. I don't attack men who have gender dysphoria, I just don't think they are women.

And you don't think that keeping them safe has any value whatsoever and deserves to be taken into consideration during policy design and evaluation.

Keeping them safe? You are already presupposing that they are unsafe in the men's room. So, are trans men safe in the men's room?

And, what of the safety and comfort of women who don't want biological men in their private spaces?