Thursday, January 04, 2024

Speaking of False Premises

Back in the comments over here, we have quite a doozy of a comment that warrants a more detailed response, because there are underlying assumptions and beliefs that are encompassed that range from misguided to flat out wrong.  


Wow - where to begin with this?  Let’s start with long standing campaigns to erase transgender people from society.  Those range from accusing the transgender community at large of being “groomers” (coded slang for pedophiles), to denying them access to public washroom facilities, and a plethora of laws being tabled which are clearly designed to all but ban transgender people from accessing needed health care, or even basics like the right to exist peacefully in their communities (and it’s in the order of hundreds of these laws in the US, and other countries like the UK and Canada have similar campaigns but the scope of them isn’t as ridiculously huge for a number of reasons).

Discrimination is an ongoing problem for the transgender community, resulting in everything from being excluded socially to under-employment.  Laws like Canada’s C-16 are helpful in setting the tone and providing guidance to the courts, but they are a long ways from addressing the underlying societal prejudices.  It’s stunning how much discrimination and hatred is claimed in the name of people’s “deeply held religious beliefs” (something I argue is used as a shield for holding “views” that are otherwise reprehensible, especially in the context of what their religion preaches on other matters).  

At its core, the most fundamental of rights - that of being able to move through society without facing a constant barrage of hostility, discrimination, and hatred - is routinely denied to transgender people (and transgender women in particular).  There are clearly those who would round all transgender women up and lock them away in camps (and yes, I’ve seen musings on the part of US anti-trans activists along those lines).


The accusation that “transgender people are lying about their sex” is one of the oldest canards in the anti-transgender arsenal, and it’s based on a deeply misguided understanding of what being transgender means.  In an ultimate irony, it’s rooted in a deeply misogynistic belief about women in general.  The idea of trans women as “deceivers” has long been a staple of attempted defences in court cases ranging from rape to murder.  If it sounds familiar, it’s because it’s based on the same false premise as the argument that “because a woman was dressed a particular way, she was “leading the man on” - it’s a variation of the Madonna/Whore paradox. One might call the transgender equivalent of this the Woman/Drag Queen paradox.   Anti-transgender misogyny is still misogyny at its core, and it takes on many of the same tropes as a result. 

Which leads us into what our commenter calls “the weeds” of the sex versus gender issue. Except it’s not “the weeds” at all, because it’s a point that is deeply central to the experience of being transgender.  Going back to Harry Benjamin’s works on the matter, we find a fairly consistent pattern of transgender people saying (in essence) that their inner experience of their bodies and their experiences socially are deeply discordant with their overall person.  They see themselves one way, but they experience a social environment based on their body which they often cannot relate to at all. 

Allow me a bit of a sidebar discussion here of the relationship between the body and social roles: 

One feature of transgender narratives that is important to understand is the understanding that the body and social roles in our society are deeply intertwined.  That is to say that being a woman in society has both physiological as well as social components.  Likewise, so does “being a man”.  

Some of those components are biologically essential - the ability to bear children is often cited as an example, yet at the same time we also know that just because a person can bear children doesn’t necessarily mean that they are psychologically inclined towards the kind of nurturing and caregiving that is intrinsic to being a mother (it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily abusive, just that they have no interest in being a parent - tragically this is sometimes only discovered after the birth of a child).  

However, there is an entire social sphere that exists associated with the general idea of being a “woman”, and that covers a wide range of factors, ranging from social connections to how one is interacted with in public settings.  The concepts of manhood or womanhood have multiple facets, and it is important to recognize that a lot of it is social, not intrinsically biological in nature. Transgender people are acutely aware of this kind of distinction, and they take many difficult steps in life in order to fit in to the social context that feels more natural to them. 

Which brings me to the issue around “trans women are women”.  The class “woman” in our society has both physical and social / emotional components.  At their core, the transgender woman is a feminine person who happens to start off with a male physical body.  So, the statement our commenter makes about “transgender women are feminine” is in some respects correct.  But - society as a whole has this binary conceptualization that we have “men” and “women”, and frankly a “feminine man” is in for a very rough life at the hands of the other “men” in society.  From a social perspective in particular, the statement “trans women are women” is quite true.  

That brings me to matters of sex denominators on public identification documents.  There are a whole host of reasons why it’s important for transgender people to be able to change those documents.  Putting a transgender woman into the male lockup after an arrest is basically setting the person up for a violent assault or worse (yeah - we know damn well that assault and sexual assault is a thing in men’s prisons - we’ll come back to that in a bit).  Similarly, sending a transgender man into the ladies’ changing room isn’t exactly setting things up for a successful outcome either.  Here, the social aspects of “man” and “woman” often prevail over the physical aspects of their bodies.  

Although I don’t agree entirely with Ann Fausto-Sterling, her book “Sexing the Body” is a fairly decent exploration of the complex interactions between the physical and social aspects involved here.  Similarly, from a more transgender feminist perspective, Julia Seranno’s “Whipping Girl” explores more of the complex subject.

What about “women-only” public spaces (locker rooms, washrooms, etc)?  On this subject, I see it as a matter of individual judgment and behaviour.  Transgender women have been using “the ladies’ room” for a lot longer than the current anti-trans panic has been around, and for the most part there simply hasn’t been a problem.  

Sure, many salacious headlines are written when a transgender person _DOES_ step out of bounds and engages in anything from voyeurism to sexual assault in these contexts, but let’s be realistic here - it’s not a common occurrence. As with other forms of transgression where an individual’s actions become harmful to others, we deal with them individually.  We do not engage in “class punishment” by attacking the entirety of a group because of the actions of individuals.  

To wit - “Holy Transphobia, Batman!”.  This is a stereotype - and stereotypes like this are profoundly misguided.  I’ve been around the transgender community for a very long time, and while I would say that among transgender women, there is often a point in their transition that they make some questionable fashion choices, the proverbial “loud bearded woman” thing you’re describing here is little more than a caricature and quite distant from any objective reality.  Let’s try having a real conversation about what transition looks like, and what it means to not be a social asshole to others. 

First, transition is a process, and people have to learn sometime, somehow.  Most transgender women make a sincere effort to fit into the world of women as unobtrusively as possible.  Yes, there are a few who engage in something called “Gender Fuck” - which is what you may be describing - but they are rare, and usually only do that after becoming frustrated with some of the dumbfuckery that they are exposed to on a daily basis doing routine things like grocery shopping.  Is every transgender person going to be 5’2”, 100lbs and “passing pretty” - hell no, but then again, women in general comes in a huge range of body types, so what?  

As for “freedom of association”, “freedom of belief”, etc.  Nobody is asking you to “associate” with that person.  If you see them in the washroom or changing room, just leave them alone.  It’s not hard.  You can associate with whomever you like, you can believe whatever you wish about them - I doubt they particularly care.  If you start projecting your beliefs onto them, by, for example, using masculine pronouns and they tell you that’s not appropriate, how hard is it to back off and use whatever pronouns they tell you to use?  It’s called common courtesy.  If someone uses a nickname and you hate nicknames, do you not tell that person “please don’t do that”?  


Most of what this talks about, I’ve already addressed earlier.  However, it is revealing of several assumptions which need to be examined more specifically.  

First is the idea of “sex-based” here.  I’ve already discussed how “man” and “woman” are as much social roles as they are rooted in the physical body. The bugaboo here seems to be the mere idea that someone in the “ladies” might possibly possess a penis.  When we are talking about washroom facilities, the room marked “ladies” is all but universally individual stalls.  So, it’s difficult to understand how a transgender woman using a stall is any more of a threat than any other woman, regardless of whether they have undergone genital surgery or not. Someone trying to peer over, or under a stall is engaging in inappropriate conduct regardless of their genitalia.  As I previously noted about the issue of sexual assaults, we have to recognize that those happen, but to engage in collective punishment / restriction of a population because of the actions of one or two individuals is simply repugnant.  

The second part of your claims rests upon the general idea that “some sexual predators will claim to be transgender to gain access to prey”.  I’m not going to argue that there are no sexual predators in the transgender community - such a claim is trivially refuted.  However, such overlaps are rare and it’s going to be even more rare for an actual predator to “dress up as the prey”.  The reason for this is fairly simple: most sexual predators are engaging a power and violence motivated behaviour, and it is highly unlikely that they will “dress up as their prey” because that would be symbolically emasculating themselves.

Further, I would like to point out to you that women in general are not above committing sexual assault either. The research on this is still fairly sparse, but consider the following exploration of the subject in women’s prison facilities.


The long and short of my point here is that even those who are assigned female at birth (AFAB), and are raised in the appropriate gender role are not above being sexual predators either. I would argue that someone who is transgender, and has been socialized in their chosen gender role is unlikely to be any more of a danger.  

Someone possessing a penis, or having possessed a penis in the past, does not make them intrinsically a threat.  If that was the case, we would have locked men away from women entirely decades ago.  But it’s similarly inappropriate to say that a transgender woman is a “man” because socially and emotionally, they ARE NOT (and your own argument earlier seems to recognize this).  Further, such suppositions make no sense when we are talking about those who have undergone surgeries, yet these broad stereotyping approaches attack all transgender people regardless of their individual realities. 

I would go so far as to suggest that you have likely interacted with transgender women in a wide range of contexts, including “sexed spaces”, and not even realized it, much less having had some catastrophic event occur as a result. Using individual events without evidence of there being a wider problem in the transgender community is disingenuous and suggests that you are falling into believing stereotypes that have no more validity than those which were used to justify segregation in the US, and Apartheid in South Africa. 


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's with the melodramatics about erasing trans people? Nobody's suggested that. Indeed, trans people have never been more visible, and there's never been a better time to be gender non-conforming. But being gender non-conforming doesn't make one trans. If it did, most people would be trans because most people don't conform to every gender norm.

If trans were simply about people taking on stereotypical opposite-sex dress and roles (gender), there would be little pushback. Who cares if a man wears a dress? Wear what you want; women have been doing that for decades. What do I care if a man wants to be called a stereotypical woman's name? There are plenty of men called Tracy and Kim, and I have to call them something. But people who make the “common courtesy/decency” argument about pronouns don't get it. Unlike a name or clothes, pronouns don’t belong to the person referred to. The rude behaviour doesn’t begin with my refusal to use wrong-sex language. It begins with the demand that I be complicit in a lie and someone else's fantasy. It's the camel's nose in the tent. Talking about “my pronouns” is the opposite of “inclusion," because it excludes the vast majority of people. It burdens then, it alienates them, and it pisses them off. And trans people know this because, like everyone else, they too get tripped up by non-standard pronouns.

But, you didn't like my definition of trans rights - the right to lie about one's sex and force others to play along - so how would you frame trans rights? You never offered an alternative. What short of rights are they? Are they qualified rights, like the right to privacy, which gives way to other rights and policy considerations, or absolute, like the right not to be enslaved, which doesn't?

US and UK polls show public support is rapidly falling for youth gender transition and men's access to women's single-sex spaces and sports. The public seems to be seeing the risks to safety, fairness, and ethical medical practice. People who are tolerant of difference baulk at being expected to go along with nonsense. Trans activists themselves have always been the biggest drivers of public opposition, in particular their intractability when their demands collide with the interests, needs and rights of other groups, like women and children. That’s a trend that will only accelerate the more people see hulking men take women's prizes and awards, and barging into their girl's changerooms.

Trans rights look to me like a demand for special treatment, not equality. It’s a form of appropriation and colonization of existing groups. Under the guise of "trans" the meaning of words and material reality all have to be turned upside down. Actual women become "cis" women so that men who call themselves "trans women" can claim to be every inch a real woman, even if they have extra inches dangling between their legs. Actual lesbians become "cis" lesbians, get kicked out of Pride celebrations as TERFs and told they can’t have female-only events anymore as they’re breaching anti-discrimination laws that prioritize the demands of heterosexual men calling themselves lesbians. The word "gender" is used to erase same-sex relationships, with trans-coopted pressure groups like Egale redefining gay to mean "a person who experiences attraction to people of the same gender as themselves." Sorry, but Egale should know better than anyone that it's not gender that defines homosexuality. Egale is just producing "alternative facts" to maintain the Trans Bizarro World, and the more they see the less others want a part in it. LGB Alliance Canada shows that some in the LGB are fed up with being teamed with the T+. I expect that group to grow as public opposition to trans demands spills over onto the LGB.

MgS said...

1). Your ignorance of the intent and goals of the legislative agenda being pushed in numerous countries to eliminate trans people from public life does not change the reality of those efforts.

2). Regarding pronouns: You don't get to decide what pronouns are appropriate for another person. When you do that, in particular in the context of "not going along with a lie" (Hi Jordan Peterson - that you?), you are declaring that you know that other person better than they know themselves. That's a very poor assumption to make.

3). I addressed your framing of trans rights as "a right to lie", and I explained exactly what is wrong with that framing. Your position seems to be largely that you're all pissy because you want to preserve some sense of privilege to discriminate against another group of human beings that you find "icky". Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me.

4). Regarding access to public facilities, I have addressed your claims elsewhere in my post, and on this blog. Not once have you taken the time to meaningfully refute the points made. Collective punishment of an entire population is exactly the kind of position I expect from someone looking for another group to "punch down" on. You have never presented substantive evidence that trans women in washrooms or locker rooms constitute a significant danger (hint: there's no evidence that it does - https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-trans-inclusive-policies-bathroom-safety-study-finds-n911106 )

The GC and Religious wing nut communities have spent years making a huge amount of noise about this issue, and every time someone looks into it objectively, the alleged hazard doesn't exist. In other words, you're making shit up. Blaming trans people for the discrimination and hate your crowd is whipping up is classic bully behaviour - blame the victim for what the bully did to them. Saw lots of that in grade school - I'm surprised you haven't grown out of it.

5). Your tirade about lesbians is completely irrelevant, IMO. Nobody is obliging anybody to have intimate relationships with anybody else - the implication that is happening is simply offensive. If you don't like trans women, then don't have a relationship with one. It's not hard to comprehend.

... oh, and for the most part, the stereotype you cling to of "trans woman as a man with a dick in a frock" is nonsense.

You want to make big emotional arguments? Cool - bring evidence to back it up. I have. I expect the same of you. No evidence? There's nothing to discuss.

The Cass Review and the WPATH SOC

The Cass Review draws some astonishing conclusions about the WPATH Standards of Care (SOC) . More or less, the basic upshot of the Cass Rev...