"That being said, the claim that trans-women pose a unique risk to cis-women is harmful rhetoric which employs misinformation to demonise trans people under the guise of protecting women. "
It never ceases to amaze me how many people misunderstand the concerns of the other side by characterising them in the way you have with this statement. It's not that people who object to transwomen entering female-only spaces think they "pose a unique risk" to women. It's the concern that de-coupling identification from the observable features we normally associate with femaleness may give license to unscrupulous males -- whether trans-identified or not -- to enter those spaces for nefarious purposes. Indeed, if a person only needs to self-identify as a woman to guarantee their right to enter female-only spaces, what's to stop a non-trans-identified male from entering, say, a women's toilet for the purposes of sexual gratification? That's the concern; your rendition, meanwhile, is a red herring.
Except that policing the feminity of women does more harm than good. There are plenty of stories, becoming more common now, of cis-women (especially of colour) being stopped by other women for fear they may actually be a trans-women (or man invading their space). There is no way to play this that doesn't end in more mysogny and racism (and transphobia of course).
Well, I don't know precisely how common these stories of policing are. But a) that doesn't change that fact that your statement of the other side's concerns is a mischaracterisation; and b) what's the alternative -- allow self-ID to be the reigning criterion for entry into female-only spaces? You speak of misogyny and racism, which are utterly condemnable. But what about the unintended consequences of allowing biological males (whether trans-identified or not) into said spaces? If we're wanting to balance the rights of women and trans-individuals, third/unisex spaces would be a more appropriate solution.
A) It may be a mischaracterisation of your position, but I have certainly heard it peddled by transphobes so it is neither a red herring or a caricature, and b) please see the rest of that section for my thoughts on that.
Who are these transphobes you speak of? Every person I have listened to on the topic -- people like Kathleen Stock or Helen Joyce -- have been at pains to say that the concern isn't with transwomen per se, but with the pernicious consequences of grounding femaleness in mere self-identification. I'm sure you'd probably object to their views broadly speaking, but I don't know any mainstream figures claiming that trans people pose a unique threat.
As for the rest of the section, you've made some points that are worthy of reflection. That said, I'm not as concerned by apparent segregation as I am by reducing the danger of nefarious activity by unscrupulous males. I recognise the statistics you've referenced, but don't know why we'd want to implement policies that would risk making such behaviour more likely. I also don't know why women ought to carry the can for this wider societal problem, given their historical vulnerability vis-a-vis men.
The people you have named may mean well, but ultimately their views are discriminatory (hence, transphobic). To be clear though, I don't hold an entirely self-ID view of gender, as I spent the previous two articles outlining. As you point out though, there are practical issues that are not simple to solve, but any solution that entails the erasure of trans folks from public life is something I won't tolerate.
Well, I think we're in basic disagreement over the meaning of "transphobic." Personally, I think the term has been stretched beyond the breaking point.
I did see your previous articles on the topic, and recognise that you don't hold to a pure self-ID position. Problem is, once we accept some degree of trans-identification in relation to female-only spaces, I don't see how a pure self-ID position can be logically (or practically) avoided when the question of entry into such environments arises. At what point would identification as a woman become illegitimate for the purposes of, say, using a women's toilet?
In any case, it seems that our priors are fundamentally different on this question, which probably means this discussion has reached a natural conclusion.
I’m disappointed you still make concessions to racial essentialism. If a man can become a woman why can’t a white man become a black man? There are far greater physiological differences between the genders than there are the races, no? If a man can wear the clothes of a woman, remove his genitalia, undergo surgery, and society grants her womanhood, then certainly we can do the same for race, no?
I don’t buy this inherited / adopted logic. It’s essentialist. Any cultural changes can be “adopted” like the genders. Any physical differences can be altered with surgery / cosmetics. A white man can become a black man. Any argument against that is the same argument a transphobe would use with regard to races. I’m sure you’ll change your tune when it becomes fashionable to do so.
What ethnic content must be “inherited” so that someone can be a black man? What ethnic content must be “inherited” so that someone can be a white man? Or an Italian? You’re not taking your logic to the next step.
It seems to me you won’t take this step because you are concerned about the optics of your preferred political ideology.
"That being said, the claim that trans-women pose a unique risk to cis-women is harmful rhetoric which employs misinformation to demonise trans people under the guise of protecting women. "
It never ceases to amaze me how many people misunderstand the concerns of the other side by characterising them in the way you have with this statement. It's not that people who object to transwomen entering female-only spaces think they "pose a unique risk" to women. It's the concern that de-coupling identification from the observable features we normally associate with femaleness may give license to unscrupulous males -- whether trans-identified or not -- to enter those spaces for nefarious purposes. Indeed, if a person only needs to self-identify as a woman to guarantee their right to enter female-only spaces, what's to stop a non-trans-identified male from entering, say, a women's toilet for the purposes of sexual gratification? That's the concern; your rendition, meanwhile, is a red herring.
Except that policing the feminity of women does more harm than good. There are plenty of stories, becoming more common now, of cis-women (especially of colour) being stopped by other women for fear they may actually be a trans-women (or man invading their space). There is no way to play this that doesn't end in more mysogny and racism (and transphobia of course).
Well, I don't know precisely how common these stories of policing are. But a) that doesn't change that fact that your statement of the other side's concerns is a mischaracterisation; and b) what's the alternative -- allow self-ID to be the reigning criterion for entry into female-only spaces? You speak of misogyny and racism, which are utterly condemnable. But what about the unintended consequences of allowing biological males (whether trans-identified or not) into said spaces? If we're wanting to balance the rights of women and trans-individuals, third/unisex spaces would be a more appropriate solution.
A) It may be a mischaracterisation of your position, but I have certainly heard it peddled by transphobes so it is neither a red herring or a caricature, and b) please see the rest of that section for my thoughts on that.
Who are these transphobes you speak of? Every person I have listened to on the topic -- people like Kathleen Stock or Helen Joyce -- have been at pains to say that the concern isn't with transwomen per se, but with the pernicious consequences of grounding femaleness in mere self-identification. I'm sure you'd probably object to their views broadly speaking, but I don't know any mainstream figures claiming that trans people pose a unique threat.
As for the rest of the section, you've made some points that are worthy of reflection. That said, I'm not as concerned by apparent segregation as I am by reducing the danger of nefarious activity by unscrupulous males. I recognise the statistics you've referenced, but don't know why we'd want to implement policies that would risk making such behaviour more likely. I also don't know why women ought to carry the can for this wider societal problem, given their historical vulnerability vis-a-vis men.
The people you have named may mean well, but ultimately their views are discriminatory (hence, transphobic). To be clear though, I don't hold an entirely self-ID view of gender, as I spent the previous two articles outlining. As you point out though, there are practical issues that are not simple to solve, but any solution that entails the erasure of trans folks from public life is something I won't tolerate.
Well, I think we're in basic disagreement over the meaning of "transphobic." Personally, I think the term has been stretched beyond the breaking point.
I did see your previous articles on the topic, and recognise that you don't hold to a pure self-ID position. Problem is, once we accept some degree of trans-identification in relation to female-only spaces, I don't see how a pure self-ID position can be logically (or practically) avoided when the question of entry into such environments arises. At what point would identification as a woman become illegitimate for the purposes of, say, using a women's toilet?
In any case, it seems that our priors are fundamentally different on this question, which probably means this discussion has reached a natural conclusion.
I’m disappointed you still make concessions to racial essentialism. If a man can become a woman why can’t a white man become a black man? There are far greater physiological differences between the genders than there are the races, no? If a man can wear the clothes of a woman, remove his genitalia, undergo surgery, and society grants her womanhood, then certainly we can do the same for race, no?
I don’t buy this inherited / adopted logic. It’s essentialist. Any cultural changes can be “adopted” like the genders. Any physical differences can be altered with surgery / cosmetics. A white man can become a black man. Any argument against that is the same argument a transphobe would use with regard to races. I’m sure you’ll change your tune when it becomes fashionable to do so.
What ethnic content must be “inherited” so that someone can be a black man? What ethnic content must be “inherited” so that someone can be a white man? Or an Italian? You’re not taking your logic to the next step.
It seems to me you won’t take this step because you are concerned about the optics of your preferred political ideology.
Well I would say that race is biologically inherited in the same way sex is. I don't believe someone can change their sex- they change their gender.