Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[ruby sparks]

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/07/...gnition-act-yougov-polling-women-dawn-butler/

Note that the poll is of women, not 'feminist' women, but is also a more radical question than are transwomen women, but support for whether self-ID alone should be enough for a transwomen to change his legally recognised gender.

I'm overall glad to see that you appear to be right. I say that without analysing the survey or the data. The link to it doesn't work. Polls can be potentially misleading at times, depending on, for example, the framing of the questions. I myself agree that trans persons should be allowed to 'self-identify as their chosen gender', which is the wording used in the article.

I'm not sure if the same percentage (57% of women, 50% of all persons surveyed) would support trans women all the way to nothing more than self-ID getting them into women's changing rooms, women's foot races or women's refuges, but I wouldn't expect it to. Possibly also, not all of them might agree with rules that say other people must refer to them by their preferred gender.

In my opinion, not very much about these things is all that difficult, if you are prepared to be reasonable and humanist about it. It can go too far in either direction, yes, but that's true of almost anything.

The context of the survey is the 'self-ID' proposed reforms to the UK's Gender Recognition Act, which would indeed give transwomen all the rights that women have except in exceptional circumstances that can be demonstrated to be exceptional. The current Gender Recognition Act gives transwomen these rights, but only after medical approval, not on 'self-ID alone'.

I don't know why the link doesn't work for you. You can google yougov self identity trans to get a variety of results

If it's as you say then I personally would not be in favour and I am surprised that the majority of women are. That said I am not sure exactly what rights are involved.

ETA:

Here below, I think, are the relevant results in a table. The responses seem mixed (possibly reflecting the complexity of the issue) and some of them surprise me, and I don't think I would have agreed with certain things if asked for an opinion.

As I said before, the exact wording of a 'question' can affect responses. So, the one which effectively asks if trans women can use women's refuges has 'if they are a victim themselves' added at the end of the question (ok, it's a statement). Without that addition, I might say no (disagree with the statement). With it, I might say yes (agree with the statement, but even then I'm not sure at all).



https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

I am not sure if the inserted caveat, "when specified that the transgender person in question had not had gender reassignment surgery" applies to the responses above it or below it? I'm thinking probably below.

 

[ruby sparks]

No. You changed the question to a question I didn't ask.

Let's say I'm a woman who gets nervous when someone enters her bus, but only if that person is black.

Do you feel sympathy for her?

Well, it depends on the context to a large extent. If it's the middle of the day and there are lots of other passengers, I don't think I would feel any sympathy, no, unless the man was behaving in a threatening way or looked aggressive or something.

Let's say I'm a man walking home alone at night, and I hear a man walking behind me and I'm anxious. When I see that the man is black, I feel significantly more anxiety. Do you sympathise with my fear?

What if it's the exact same scenario but it's a woman walking home alone at night?

What if it's the exact same scenario but the women feels relief to find it's a white man behind her, but is extremely anxious if she thinks it's a black man?

All will depend at least to some extent on context, as far as I am concerned. One key consideration in all scenarios, I think, would be any factual basis that I or someone might have for feeling that there is an elevated risk, such as the prevalence of attacks from certain types of persons in certain types of situations for example.

In the first one, if the context were that I am in an unfamiliar, very black neighbourhood late at night where there is a lot of local crime, then I might have some sympathy for the man (if it's me, and I am white). Ditto the reverse scenario. If that's not the context you had in mind, I might answer differently.

In the second one, I might add in that she might be additionally anxious because it's a man, and accord her more understanding, yes.

Even the third one does depend on context, but if you are (which I think you are) in all 3 scenarios, implying that the scenario is 'anxiety based on racial grounds alone and nothing else', then I would not have very much sympathy, no. It's hard to say whether in all possible contexts I'd have none, but I'd tend not to.

The film 'Crash' featured an interesting scene about this sort of thing, the scene where Don Cheadle's character and Sandra Bullock's meet the two black characters who have just come out of the restaurant.

 

[ruby sparks]

On the other hand, the women behind the trans woman are relatively safe in the knowledge that they, being presumably cis women, are in the social majority at the event, and it is the case that trans persons get discriminated against in their lives, so the trans woman might not necessarily be just mouthing an empty mantra. A gay person holding up a placard at a different event somewhere in the world might feel something similar, even if no one was actually threatening them physically.

Do you think that the cis women are protesting because they DON"T get discriminated against every day of their lives?

Cis women are discriminated against by trans women? I honestly hadn't realised that was happening much generally. If it is, fair enough maybe.

 

[Toni]

On the other hand, the women behind the trans woman are relatively safe in the knowledge that they, being presumably cis women, are in the social majority at the event, and it is the case that trans persons get discriminated against in their lives, so the trans woman might not necessarily be just mouthing an empty mantra. A gay person holding up a placard at a different event somewhere in the world might feel something similar, even if no one was actually threatening them physically.

Do you think that the cis women are protesting because they DON"T get discriminated against every day of their lives?

By trans women? I honestly hadn't realised that was happening. If it is, fair enough maybe.

Women are discriminated against every day of their lives.

Full stop.

 

[ruby sparks]

By trans women? I honestly hadn't realised that was happening. If it is, fair enough maybe.

Women are discriminated against every day of their lives.

Full stop.

If it's not generally by trans women then I don't see that as much of a basis to protest against trans women.

ETA: the one way it might be relevant would be if trans women generally were, for example, claiming discrimination against them based on them being women, the sort of discrimination that cis women face and have faced. I am not aware that this is happening, though I would not be surprised if a few trans women do it. 'There's always a few', as they say. If it's widespread or common, then I could understand there being some objections from some cis women.

 

[Jokodo]

Are you under the impression that the word 'advantages' is synonymous with 'magic'?

No. I'm under the impression that you can't change sex, and sports are segregated by sex because males have distinct physiological superiority at sports, compared to females. If they didn't we wouldn't separate sports in the first place.

And a large part of that "physiological superiority" boils down to a hormone induced growth spurt in late puberty. Late prepubescent girls are actually often taller than their male peers. What, exactly, do you think puberty blockers do with that?

 

[Jokodo]

Many cis female athletes do not menstruate. This can happen naturally: https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/womens-wellness-female-athletes-and-their-periods/

VIVIEN WILLIAMS: An elite athlete or some women who exercise a lot, their periods may stop. What is that called? What causes it, and should we be worried?

DR. PETRA CASEY: So that is called hypothalamic amenorrhea, and what that means is that the hormones that are produced in the brain and then kind of cascade down to signal hormones that are produced in the ovary are not produced. So GnRH, the gonadotropic releasing hormone that is produced, triggers the follicular stimulating hormone, and the luteinizing hormone that are produced in the ovary, that signal does not translate to production of estrogen and progesterone, so the woman loses her periods. They may become irregular initially and then they may stop completely.

The trigger for that has been studied, and it’s still a little unclear whether it’s body fat percentage, whether it’s weight, whether it’s cortisol levels that stimulate decrease in GnRH, based on stress and the intensity of workouts. All of that is a little bit unclear, but, at the end of the day, a woman will not have her period if she is too lean, and she may be working out too intensely too long. Many women athletes are trying to actually become quite lean, because, in endurance sports, it’s advantageous to be lighter.

VIVIEN WILLIAMS: And will it come back? Is it dangerous?

DR. PETRA CASEY: Generally, it is reversible once she either decreases the intensity of her workouts, perhaps gains a bit of weight, and generally kind of gets more into what we would consider average weight or body mass index.

VIVIEN WILLIAMS: It's interesting. It's almost like an evolutionary thing. Your body is protecting itself because it could not support a baby.

In addition, some birth control will suppress menstruation.

Not menstruating because you've messed up the hormones that cause it is systematically different to being a sex that cannot and does not menstruate.

Systematically, maybe. But not relevantly.

Not when the question is whether someone is being put at a disadvantage by the mere fact that they're menstruation.

That *was* your argument, remember?

 

[Jarhyn]

You can't even define what 'man' means. Your 'definition' is worse than useless--it doesn't even exist.

Because I don't define "man" in that way. This is like the first week lessons in logical reasoning, different words have different forms of definitions, and the form of definition they have dictates how they may logically be used. You are attempting to use a "cluster concept", but cluster concepts do not create categorical boundaries. The categorical boundaries created by your usage then don't line up with the boundaries which naturally exist around the thing you wish to "bound".

Instead, I apply such gendered language in a fundamentally different way: instead of imprisoning people in it, caging them and stripping them naked, I use it to convey expectations of behavior and gauge my respect.

Oy gevalt. If the word 'man' imprisons people then every word that applies to humans imprisons them. Hell, even words that don't apply to humans imprison them.

The word "man" imprisons nobody in and of itself. It is all in how the speaker means it, and how the listener interprets it based on their knowledge of the speaker. YOU use it to imprison people. I use it to empower them with options and respect.

Whether a word puts someone in a box, insults them, pigeonholes them, depends on the context of it's use. And the context of YOUR use of "man" does that. It says "BORN XY WITH A DICK".

Because you will, absolutely some time in your life, encounter a man who was born with a vagina. And you will probably never even know it. Yes, metaphor would in fact need to physically examine some people's genital regions to know what "sex" they were.

Um, okay. I'll just park that unfalsifiable prognostication here.

You want to start with prognostications? You declared your infallibility in detecting people "born without penises". You refuse to even entertain the idea that you are wrong about this, let alone the much more plausible outcome that you are ridiculously wrong about it.

Instead of filing a doubt in the circular file, maybe you should file it where doubts actually belong: at the forefront of your mind, when it comes to such absolutism.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am not sure if the inserted caveat, "when specified that the transgender person in question had not had gender reassignment surgery" applies to the responses above it or below it? I'm thinking probably below.

That's interesting. Specifics matter, and for the most part, it seems like a fairly reasonable distribution on those questions. People should be able to identify however they like, but self id alone isn't sufficient for legal changes. And a passing or surgically transitioned person can use facilities that make sense, but there's more uncertainty if they haven't transitioned.

 

[repoman]

This may be a bit of me putting the cart before the horse, but this requirement at least partial transition before certain recognitions and rights are given, will it make people who are on the fence about transition commit prematurely to it?

 

[ruby sparks]

I am not sure if the inserted caveat, "when specified that the transgender person in question had not had gender reassignment surgery" applies to the responses above it or below it? I'm thinking probably below.

That's interesting. Specifics matter, and for the most part, it seems like a fairly reasonable distribution on those questions. People should be able to identify however they like, but self id alone isn't sufficient for legal changes. And a passing or surgically transitioned person can use facilities that make sense, but there's more uncertainty if they haven't transitioned.

In a way it makes sense to make that sort of distinction. For example, I can sympathise with J K Rowling (I think it was) who was pulled up for not referring to a trans woman with a beard as ‘she’. On the other hand, it seems wrong to insist that Jackie Green (pic posted earlier in another thread on a similar topic) is a he.

But of course that’s not without its complications. Some trans women might (would) say that it shouldn’t depend on such things, not least because surgery is either not allowed in some cases or prohibitively expensive, or may not be done for some other reason, or in some cases not even wanted (risk of unsuccessful surgery for example).

Which in another way also makes sense.

 

[ruby sparks]

This may be a bit of me putting the cart before the horse, but this requirement at least partial transition before certain recognitions and rights are given, will it make people who are on the fence about transition commit prematurely to it?

Dunno. Do you think a similar thing would happen with gay people and coming out, that more would commit to it prematurely if there’s more recognition and rights?

Emphasis on prematurely, obviously, because there’d be nothing concerning about either more transitioning or more coming out if there was more recognition, acceptance and rights.

 

[Metaphor]

The context of the survey is the 'self-ID' proposed reforms to the UK's Gender Recognition Act, which would indeed give transwomen all the rights that women have except in exceptional circumstances that can be demonstrated to be exceptional. The current Gender Recognition Act gives transwomen these rights, but only after medical approval, not on 'self-ID alone'.

I don't know why the link doesn't work for you. You can google yougov self identity trans to get a variety of results

If it's as you say then I personally would not be in favour and I am surprised that the majority of women are. That said I am not sure exactly what rights are involved.

ETA:

Here below, I think, are the relevant results in a table. The responses seem mixed (possibly reflecting the complexity of the issue) and some of them surprise me, and I don't think I would have agreed with certain things if asked for an opinion.

As I said before, the exact wording of a 'question' can affect responses. So, the one which effectively asks if trans women can use women's refuges has 'if they are a victim themselves' added at the end of the question (ok, it's a statement). Without that addition, I might say no (disagree with the statement). With it, I might say yes (agree with the statement, but even then I'm not sure at all).

View attachment 28578

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

I am not sure if the inserted caveat, "when specified that the transgender person in question had not had gender reassignment surgery" applies to the responses above it or below it? I'm thinking probably below.

I agree, looking at the question set itself, that those questions don't have sufficient context to tie it into the Gender Recognition Act changes (GRA), but pinknews is sure pushing it as if the majority of the population supports the changes. I, rabid transphobe and misogynist, would agree with the first statement myself (people should be allowed to identify how they want), because it's none of my business how you identify.

I note that women across the board are happy for people with vaginas to use the men's toilets, but women overall don't want people with penises to use their own toilets.

EDIT: It's staggering how dishonest pinknews is on this subject. They are using the results to say there is widespread support for the GRA changes, but in fact there is widespread opposition ("it should be made easier...").

But then, what can you say about a 'news' source that had three different articles slamming JK Rowling on the day that three gay men were murdered in Reading.

 

[ruby sparks]

The context of the survey is the 'self-ID' proposed reforms to the UK's Gender Recognition Act, which would indeed give transwomen all the rights that women have except in exceptional circumstances that can be demonstrated to be exceptional. The current Gender Recognition Act gives transwomen these rights, but only after medical approval, not on 'self-ID alone'.

I don't know why the link doesn't work for you. You can google yougov self identity trans to get a variety of results

If it's as you say then I personally would not be in favour and I am surprised that the majority of women are. That said I am not sure exactly what rights are involved.

ETA:

Here below, I think, are the relevant results in a table. The responses seem mixed (possibly reflecting the complexity of the issue) and some of them surprise me, and I don't think I would have agreed with certain things if asked for an opinion.

As I said before, the exact wording of a 'question' can affect responses. So, the one which effectively asks if trans women can use women's refuges has 'if they are a victim themselves' added at the end of the question (ok, it's a statement). Without that addition, I might say no (disagree with the statement). With it, I might say yes (agree with the statement, but even then I'm not sure at all).

View attachment 28578

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

I am not sure if the inserted caveat, "when specified that the transgender person in question had not had gender reassignment surgery" applies to the responses above it or below it? I'm thinking probably below.

I agree, looking at the question set itself, that those questions don't have sufficient context to tie it into the Gender Recognition Act changes (GRA), but pinknews is sure pushing it as if the majority of the population supports the changes. I, rabid transphobe and misogynist, would agree with the first statement myself (people should be allowed to identify how they want), because it's none of my business how you identify.

I note that women across the board are happy for people with vaginas to use the men's toilets, but women overall don't want people with penises to use their own toilet's.

I know, but there are at least a few given reasons for that, even if they’re not bullet-proof. A woman in a men’s facility is just generally less of a potential threat. That’s something that has to be acknowledged. Granted, it doesn’t work at the individual level. A woman could take a sharp knife into the men’s showers and start cutting off exposed penises, or follow men home afterwards, or just leer. So it’s only a general thing.

Anecdote: I have a very good friend who has worked in Women’s Aid refuges for most of her career. She has some horror stories about men getting in, sometimes under false pretences, and doing awful things to women, like stabbing them and other assaults. That’s why I would have reservations about only self-ID being needed.

I agree with you about pinknews and potential skew.

 

[Metaphor]

I agree, looking at the question set itself, that those questions don't have sufficient context to tie it into the Gender Recognition Act changes (GRA), but pinknews is sure pushing it as if the majority of the population supports the changes. I, rabid transphobe and misogynist, would agree with the first statement myself (people should be allowed to identify how they want), because it's none of my business how you identify.

I note that women across the board are happy for people with vaginas to use the men's toilets, but women overall don't want people with penises to use their own toilet's.

I know, but there are at least a few given reasons for that, even if they’re not bullet-proof. A woman in a men’s facility is just generally less of a potential threat. That’s something that has to be acknowledged. Granted, it doesn’t work at the individual level. A woman could take a sharp knife into the men’s showers and start cutting off exposed penises. So it’s only a general thing.

Anecdote: I have a very good friend who has worked in Women’s Aid refuges for most of her career. She has some horror stories about men getting in, sometimes under false pretences, and doing awful things to women, like stabbing them and other assaults.

I don't believe people should need to cite 'safety' in order to justify single sex spaces.

I have an extreme example: I have (a long time ago) attended male-only sex on premises venues. I believe that the men who use this space don't want transmen in them, especially transmen who have not had any surgeries. Men are not afraid of transmen; it should be enough for us to say 'we just don't want them in that space'.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok. But at the same time it seems ok to alternatively cite safety. Perhaps in the case you describe it’s only that the men generally don’t have to, because they don’t feel there are any significant safety issues. That might not be the case in a women-only context.

 

[Jarhyn]

I agree, looking at the question set itself, that those questions don't have sufficient context to tie it into the Gender Recognition Act changes (GRA), but pinknews is sure pushing it as if the majority of the population supports the changes. I, rabid transphobe and misogynist, would agree with the first statement myself (people should be allowed to identify how they want), because it's none of my business how you identify.

I note that women across the board are happy for people with vaginas to use the men's toilets, but women overall don't want people with penises to use their own toilet's.

I know, but there are at least a few given reasons for that, even if they’re not bullet-proof. A woman in a men’s facility is just generally less of a potential threat. That’s something that has to be acknowledged. Granted, it doesn’t work at the individual level. A woman could take a sharp knife into the men’s showers and start cutting off exposed penises. So it’s only a general thing.

Anecdote: I have a very good friend who has worked in Women’s Aid refuges for most of her career. She has some horror stories about men getting in, sometimes under false pretences, and doing awful things to women, like stabbing them and other assaults.

I don't believe people should need to cite 'safety' in order to justify single sex spaces.

I have an extreme example: I have (a long time ago) attended male-only sex on premises venues. I believe that the men who use this space don't want transmen in them, especially transmen who have not had any surgeries. Men are not afraid of transmen; it should be enough for us to say 'we just don't want them in that space'.

People need to justify sexist "single sex spaces" in the first place. YOU need to justify single sex spaces.

Now, you can certainly have your "private club", and everyone in the world is free to identify your "private club" as being full of shitty people that expect people to have surgeries to be accepted; that this is a fundamental shittiness, in fact.

There are ways and rules under which you can make such a private event. It does mean you are afraid of them afraid for some reason of having them in that space.

It is "sex based" discrimination.

And again, I'm going to iterate this yet again: you have no right to the knowledge of what is in someone else's pants unless they show or tell you themselves. I will acknowledge no claimed right to reveal that of anyone else either, short of their consent to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't believe people should need to cite 'safety' in order to justify single sex spaces.

I have an extreme example: I have (a long time ago) attended male-only sex on premises venues. I believe that the men who use this space don't want transmen in them, especially transmen who have not had any surgeries. Men are not afraid of transmen; it should be enough for us to say 'we just don't want them in that space'.

People need to justify sexist "single sex spaces" in the first place. YOU need to justify single sex spaces.

Now, you can certainly have your "private club", and everyone in the world is free to identify your "private club" as being full of shitty people that expect people to have surgeries to be accepted; that this is a fundamental shittiness, in fact.

There are ways and rules under which you can make such a private event. It does mean you are afraid of them afraid for some reason of having them in that space.

It is "sex based" discrimination.

And again, I'm going to iterate this yet again: you have no right to the knowledge of what is in someone else's pants unless they show or tell you themselves. I will acknowledge no claimed right to reveal that of anyone else either, short of their consent to do so.

My justification for a single-sex sex-on-premises venue is "I want one".

I don't need any further justification than that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My first impression was to say 'yes' to the poll. For that matter, I would agree that people should be able to self-identify as a born-again in Christ. But of course, this in no way implies I believe that the self-identifications are true, or even remotely plausible, let alone that I support that laws should be made to accept them as true, or that other people should believe or say that they are true, or refrain from arguing that they are false, unwarranted, etc.

I wonder who many respondents interpreted the question in a similar manner.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you under the impression that the word 'advantages' is synonymous with 'magic'?

No. I'm under the impression that you can't change sex, and sports are segregated by sex because males have distinct physiological superiority at sports, compared to females. If they didn't we wouldn't separate sports in the first place.

And a large part of that "physiological superiority" boils down to a hormone induced growth spurt in late puberty. Late prepubescent girls are actually often taller than their male peers. What, exactly, do you think puberty blockers do with that?

Puberty blockers delay your puberty, but boys and girls on puberty blockers continue to grow, just as any child does. You stop growing after puberty (in all cases except specific growth disorders). So all the people who had a late puberty because of puberty blockers will be taller than they would have been without a late puberty.