Split Thread Philosophical musings about trans rights

[shuttlt]

A succinct rebuttal to an evidently common mischaracterisation of the gender critical position
https://www.ebswa.org/post/a-reply-to-eric-banks-mischaracterisation-of-the-gender-critical-position

Surely this

We’ve all heard evidence of children being told that because they don't like/conform to the toys; clothes; hair styles; activities and behaviours associated with their “gender" that they might in fact be the opposite sex.

should say "opposite gender", or "different gender", not "opposite sex", if we are imagining what a trans-activist would say? There certainly are some people that want to play the same game with sex as has been played with gender, but that seems to be a minority.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't think that's an attempt to quote a trans-activist, I think it's an account of the reality of what the children are being told.

I'll ask my daughter what she has been told.

 

[shuttlt]

Whatever words are used, the reality is that children are being told that if they display gendered behaviour that doesn't match that expected for their sex, they are actually the opposite sex.

Are they? I'm sure some are, I haven't seen that though. It all seems like it is muddled up with being non-binary and so on which doesn't seem to be around being the wrong sex. The whole thing looks to me like a confused, incoherent mess.

 

[theprestige]

I disagree. I don't think it is that easy to deny rights claims based on other people taking advantage of them.

One, being allowed into a women's restroom simply because you say you want to be is not a right in the first place. Second, it turns out that taking advantage is the actual goal, not an unfortunate side effect. Third, it's not a question of ease.

 

[theprestige]

Surely this
should say "opposite gender", or "different gender", not "opposite sex", if we are imagining what a trans-activist would say?

It would be significant progress if trans-activists were to actually start saying the transsexual part out loud.

 

[shuttlt]

One, being allowed into a women's restroom simply because you say you want to be is not a right in the first place.

According to you. Where do rights come from? Are they just what ever things the state has decided to grant, or are they a claim that our moral status as humans entitles us to be granted certain guarantees by the state. When Thomas Paine wrote The Rights of Man, could the whole thing have been dismissed on the grounds that the state hadn't actually granted these rights? It's like conflating the natural right to free speech, with the 1st amendment. This is a natural rights claim. Normally we talk about what natural rights people have as if we were, in the manner of John Smith, discerning the angelic writing in which these rights are transcribed. I don't see people saying, well in the 18th century giving full rights to black people would have caused all sorts of logistical challenges and maybe done more harm than good, so back then they didn't have the same natural rights as white people, but now they do. Natural Rights are imagined as being timeless, universal and independent of implementation difficulties. Claims to natural rights are the ultimate moral underpinnings of most modern liberation movements aren't they?

Again, do implementation difficulties now count against other claims to natural rights? If we are thinking of the past, that seems like it would have been a very easy rebuttal to lots of liberation movements.

Maybe I misunderstand you? If so, could you clarify?

 

[Nick Terry]

Are they? I'm sure some are, I haven't seen that though. It all seems like it is muddled up with being non-binary and so on which doesn't seem to be around being the wrong sex. The whole thing looks to me like a confused, incoherent mess.

The linked piece was using real/gender-critical language - kids might indeed be told they're identifying as the 'opposite gender' but in real terms this is the opposite sex. Using sex more frequently and gender less should be encouraged.

Yes, a transactivist would play hide the salami and substitute gender for sex.

 

[theprestige]

According to you. Where do rights come from? Are they just what ever things the state has decided to grant, or are they a claim that our moral status as humans entitles us to be granted certain guarantees by the state. When Thomas Paine wrote The Rights of Man, could the whole thing have been dismissed on the grounds that the state hadn't actually granted these rights? It's like conflating the natural right to free speech, with the 1st amendment. This is a natural rights claim. Normally we talk about what natural rights people have as if we were, in the manner of John Smith, discerning the angelic writing in which these rights are transcribed. I don't see people saying, well in the 18th century giving full rights to black people would have caused all sorts of logistical challenges and maybe done more harm than good, so back then they didn't have the same natural rights as white people, but now they do. Natural Rights are imagined as being timeless, universal and independent of implementation difficulties. Claims to natural rights are the ultimate moral underpinnings of most modern liberation movements aren't they?

Again, do implementation difficulties now count against other claims to natural rights? If we are thinking of the past, that seems like it would have been a very easy rebuttal to lots of liberation movements.

Maybe I misunderstand you? If so, could you clarify?

No. I have no intention of engaging with devil's advocacy on broad philosophical grounds.

If you yourself honestly believe it's a right, then make your own case in your own words. If you believe someone else thinks it's a right, then cite their arguments and let them speak for themselves.

I have zero interest in your idea of a hypothetical trans-activist. I will not be debating them by proxy.

---

What would really interest me is your proposal for allowing transwomen access to women's restrooms, while providing effective tools for screening out abusers of the privilege.

 

[shuttlt]

The linked piece was using real/gender-critical language - kids might indeed be told they're identifying as the 'opposite gender' but in real terms this is the opposite sex. Using sex more frequently and gender less should be encouraged.

Yes, a transactivist would play hide the salami and substitute gender for sex.

One funny thing about the article is that I would say it misstates the conservative position.

 

[Rolfe]

No. I have no intention of engaging with devil's advocacy on broad philosophical grounds.

If you yourself honestly believe it's a right, then make your own case in your own words. If you believe someone else thinks it's a right, then cite their arguments and let them speak for themselves.

I have zero interest in your idea of a hypothetical trans-activist. I will not be debating them by proxy.

---

What would really interest me is your proposal for allowing transwomen access to women's restrooms, while providing effective tools for screening out abusers of the privilege.

It's hypothetical philosophising, that's all.

 

[Nick Terry]

According to you. Where do rights come from? Are they just what ever things the state has decided to grant, or are they a claim that our moral status as humans entitles us to be granted certain guarantees by the state. When Thomas Paine wrote The Rights of Man, could the whole thing have been dismissed on the grounds that the state hadn't actually granted these rights? It's like conflating the natural right to free speech, with the 1st amendment. This is a natural rights claim. Normally we talk about what natural rights people have as if we were, in the manner of John Smith, discerning the angelic writing in which these rights are transcribed. I don't see people saying, well in the 18th century giving full rights to black people would have caused all sorts of logistical challenges and maybe done more harm than good, so back then they didn't have the same natural rights as white people, but now they do. Natural Rights are imagined as being timeless, universal and independent of implementation difficulties. Claims to natural rights are the ultimate moral underpinnings of most modern liberation movements aren't they?

Again, do implementation difficulties now count against other claims to natural rights? If we are thinking of the past, that seems like it would have been a very easy rebuttal to lots of liberation movements.

Maybe I misunderstand you? If so, could you clarify?

I don't know where theprestige lives, but in the UK, the actual wording of the Equality Act of 2010 recognises sex-segregated spaces, especially those for women, as a right - they are exempted from other provisions in the EA regarding discrimination. By extension, those who are not legally considered women (at this time, Gender Recognition Certificates turned a few thousand men into women, legally, as a fiction) are not entitled to enter, i.e. they have no right to enter.

So the right is codified in British law, but this has been violated by an expansive interpretation of the Equality Act of 2010 put about by Stonewall when advising institutions on how to best implement equality and diversity. Self-ID crept in long before it was being considered as a matter of law.

In Ireland, and presumably Canada, where self-ID is law, then the statutes likely spell out what rights are held by whom.

US statute books clearly vary with some states imposing self-ID and others denying transgender people the right of access to bathrooms of the opposite sex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill

The majority of US states don't have such explicit legislation, although federal administrative ordinances regarding Title IX would hold sway in higher education (and those ordinances changed from Obama to Trump to Biden). The Wiki article is a good primer on these matters, from the perspective of legal rights.

So when a Brit in this thread says that transwomen have no right to enter women's toilets (without a GRC), they are speaking the truth regarding how the 2010 Equality Act is in fact worded; the loosening of interpretation might be explicitly tightened up under Sunak, or so it's been hinted to the Telegraph this weekend.

Irish and Canadian women have no substantive right to eject transwomen from their bathrooms etc because the laws there changed, although Canadian women can at least refuse to wax Jonathan Yaniv's testicles.

There's no need to confuse the matter with natural rights as if this is a history of political ideas course and we're discussing Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Smith or Paine.

There are actual laws, and actual political debates and arguments which change those laws, reflecting contemporary understandings of different groups' rights. These laws are subject to change, and groups will feel differently about 'their rights' after the laws have changed, but also because of how the laws are or aren't enforced. That way lies the genuine sense of injustice from different sides, which no amount of citing statute books, or dead philosophers, can actually quell.

 

[Nick Terry]

One funny thing about the article is that I would say it misstates the conservative position.

Maybe, but the caricature of gender critical feminism is widespread. GCs aren't insisting on a gender binary, but on a sex binary, and regard the gender binary (femininity and masculinity) as socially constructed, and in need of challenging.

Anyone who assumes that a boy playing with dolls is identifying as a girl or a girl who isn't interested in makeup is identifying as a boy is reinforcing very regressive and superficial gender stereotypes. So regressive and superficial, in fact, that most self-styled conservatives might not hold them, but progressive parents and teachers apparently do.

There are far more worrying gender stereotypes which affect the socialisation of girls and boys unconsciously and consciously, giving boys a pass and burdening girls with expectations that they'll do housework, provide emotional labour and be conciliatory, look pretty, submit sexually to men, and not fight back when harassed, dick-pic-ed, slut-shamed, groped, or assaulted, which are extremely deep-rooted and widespread. See the Everyday Sexism project for a couple hundred thousand examples.

 

[shuttlt]

No. I have no intention of engaging with devil's advocacy on broad philosophical grounds.

This is the frustrating thing. People make ethical arguments, and then have no interest in discussing ethics when challenged.

If you yourself honestly believe it's a right, then make your own case in your own words. If you believe someone else thinks it's a right, then cite their arguments and let them speak for themselves.

There don't seem to be such people wanting to talk. I've given you an argument in favour of such people, they have a natural right to be treated as women in all respects, just as black people in the 18th century had a right to be treated as the equals of white people. From what I can see it renders moot Rolfe's worries about sexual assault. What would be the answer to this?

I have zero interest in your idea of a hypothetical trans-activist. I will not be debating them by proxy.

Debate me then. I don't see what argument you could have against the above. Do you have a killer rebuttal, but you are saving it for a trans activist in the unlikely event they agree to have a proper debate with you? Maybe you don't believe in natural rights?

What would really interest me is your proposal for allowing transwomen access to women's restrooms, while providing effective tools for screening out abusers of the privilege.

I don't think there is an acceptable way for doing this exists that will please both sides. If transwomen have a natural right to be treated like women though, in the same way 18th century blacks had a natural right to be treated the same as whites, I'm not sure it really matters in terms of which side are the good guys here.

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe, but the caricature of gender critical feminism is widespread. GCs aren't insisting on a gender binary, but on a sex binary, and regard the gender binary (femininity and masculinity) as socially constructed, and in need of challenging.

I'm sure that is the case. "Gender critical feminism", as descriptive and relatively straight forward as it is, isn't a phrase that comes up in most people's day to day conversation.

Anyone who assumes that a boy playing with dolls is identifying as a girl or a girl who isn't interested in makeup is identifying as a boy is reinforcing very regressive and superficial gender stereotypes. So regressive and superficial, in fact, that most self-styled conservatives might not hold them, but progressive parents and teachers apparently do.

Regressive if you are a gender-critical feminist. Maybe not regressive if you are a trans-activist? From my point of view both are regressive, so I'm not sure where saying that gets us.

There are far more worrying gender stereotypes which affect the socialisation of girls and boys unconsciously and consciously, giving boys a pass and burdening girls with expectations that they'll do housework, provide emotional labour and be conciliatory, look pretty, submit sexually to men, and not fight back when harassed, dick-pic-ed, slut-shamed, groped, or assaulted, which are extremely deep-rooted and widespread. See the Everyday Sexism project for a couple hundred thousand examples.

Again, I don't share your ideology so I'm afraid this is no more convincing to me than all the talk earlier of people's gender identity being "valid". This looks very much like the gender critical feminist view, which if I understand it correctly looks a lot like social constructivism. I'm not a social constructivist.

 

[Nick Terry]

If transwomen have a natural right to be treated like women though, in the same way 18th century blacks had a natural right to be treated the same as whites, I'm not sure it really matters in terms of which side are the good guys here.

Presumably you're ascribing a natural right to blacks in the 18th Century on the basis of the logic of the declaration of the rights of man/US declaration of independence - 'all men are created equal', For sure, that then set up the logic of not denying equal rights to African-Americans and women. Presumably also, you would extend the equality principle through to recognising same-sex marriage on the basis of natural rights? At least, as a foundational inspiration? That would be the basis for today's general acceptance.

Discussing the 'natural rights' of transwomen and transmen highlights one inconsistency here: neither are natural groups but are of relatively recent invention and self-definition, while there is great uncertainty as to whether their claims to be the opposite gender rest on significant surgical modifications or simply their feelings. Ironically, in UK law at least, effort to transition medically was more or less expected of those seeking to acquire gender recognition certificates, but it's precisely this element which trans activists wish to loosen.

And it's here that gender identity ideology comes somewhat unstuck, since gender identities are broader than just being a transwoman or transman - non-binary identities, Izzardian chameleon behaviour and other practices coexist. Which are 'natural' and which are simply socially constructed?

It took many decades to overcome the deep-rooted often religiously-inspired belief that homosexuality was 'unnatural', even though homosexual behaviour can be observed among some animals and has been observed in sufficiently many human societies that it clearly is 'natural'. But that doesn't, yet, hold true for genderfluidity or gender-transforming identities.

There are likely better grounds on which to argue for trans rights than trying to turn them into a natural group with natural rights. Certainly the first attempts to prove a gendered brain in the wrong body have come completely unstuck; there's nothing that can really be pinned down. The ambitions of some trans activists and philosophers in a transhumanist direction certainly aren't in any way natural, but entirely artificial.

That doesn't preclude that they then have rights, but it makes it harder to speak of entirely natural rights, unless those are truly universal, relating to being human.

 

[theprestige]

This is the frustrating thing. People make ethical arguments, and then have no interest in discussing ethics when challenged.

I'm not going to discuss the ethics in terms of philosophical first principles.

I'm also not going to discuss them in terms of what you imagine someone else might think are the ethical principles in question.

If you yourself have something to say about what you yourself perceive to be the ethics of treating gender dysphoria with trans access via fiat self-ID, then say it. Raise your own ethical challenge, based on your own principles, in your own words, is all I'm asking.

There don't seem to be such people wanting to talk. I've given you an argument in favour of such people, they have a natural right to be treated as women in all respects, just as black people in the 18th century had a right to be treated as the equals of white people. From what I can see it renders moot Rolfe's worries about sexual assault. What would be the answer to this?

The analogy to race has been raised and addressed repeatedly in this thread already.

Debate me then. I don't see what argument you could have against the above. Do you have a killer rebuttal, but you are saving it for a trans activist in the unlikely event they agree to have a proper debate with you? Maybe you don't believe in natural rights?

I have no opinion about that.

If you want a debate about trans access to sex-segregated spaces, then make a concrete policy proposal that you yourself are prepared to defend.

I don't think there is an acceptable way for doing this exists that will please both sides. If transwomen have a natural right to be treated like women though, in the same way 18th century blacks had a natural right to be treated the same as whites, I'm not sure it really matters in terms of which side are the good guys here.

I have given up seeking a policy that pleases both sides, at least in the short term. I think the only rational, humane way out of the current conundrum is a drastic reform of trans-activism, along scientific, medical, and yes even feminist lines. This would necessarily have to be done over the tantrums and hissy fits of the trans-activists as they are constituted today.

And again: The analogy to race has already been disposed of to my satisfaction. Repeatedly. I won't re-hash the arguments against it here. Rather, I will say that appealing to this analogy won't sway me, and you're better off putting that effort into some other argument. For example, if you sincerely believe that transwomen have a natural right to transcend sex segregation, then say plainly what you believe, and make your argument for how you think that right can be most ethically and humanely implemented - for all concerned.

 

[theprestige]

Regressive if you are a gender-critical feminist. Maybe not regressive if you are a trans-activist? From my point of view both are regressive, so I'm not sure where saying that gets us.

What is regressive about the gender-critical feminist position, in your point of view? How does your point of view inform your approach to implementing the natural right to transcend sex segregation in public policy? Assuming you believe such a right exists. Do you believe such a right exists?

 

[Nick Terry]

I'm not a social constructivist.

Please then explain the dick pic phenomenon - is this rooted in an innate biological urge of men now expressed through smartphones because of advances in technology, or something that is unrestrained because of a lack of socialisation or lack of consequences?

Before smartphones and the internet, teenage boys and adult men weren't as far as I'm aware using Polaroid cameras to photograph their penises to send the photos to girls and women, or apparently engaging in flashing and exhibitionism on the scale reported by girls and women who have been exposed to dick pics.

Just to calibrate what you mean by saying you're not a social constructivist.

 

[shuttlt]

Presumably you're ascribing a natural right to blacks in the 18th Century on the basis of the logic of the declaration of the rights of man/US declaration of independence - 'all men are created equal', For sure, that then set up the logic of not denying equal rights to African-Americans and women. Presumably also, you would extend the equality principle through to recognising same-sex marriage on the basis of natural rights? At least, as a foundational inspiration? That would be the basis for today's general acceptance.

No, I am not a liberal. I don't believe conceiving rights in this way is a good idea.

Discussing the 'natural rights' of transwomen and transmen highlights one inconsistency here: neither are natural groups but are of relatively recent invention

Why are they not natural? We only recently discovered gay people had all the rights they currently enjoy. Somehow people managed to go thousands of years before the Enlightenment without discovering the rights that the Enlightenment thought were natural. Your argument could have been used to dismiss the whole thing back in the 18th century because they had been recently discovered. Imagine what the Spartans would have made of your Natural Rights?

and self-definition, while there is great uncertainty as to whether their claims to be the opposite gender rest on significant surgical modifications or simply their feelings. Ironically, in UK law at least, effort to transition medically was more or less expected of those seeking to acquire gender recognition certificates, but it's precisely this element which trans activists wish to loosen.

This is besides the point against a claim to a natural right.

And it's here that gender identity ideology comes somewhat unstuck, since gender identities are broader than just being a transwoman or transman - non-binary identities, Izzardian chameleon behaviour and other practices coexist. Which are 'natural' and which are simply socially constructed?

I assume everything has elements of both biology and social construction.

It took many decades to overcome the deep-rooted often religiously-inspired belief that homosexuality was 'unnatural', even though homosexual behaviour can be observed among some animals and has been observed in sufficiently many human societies that it clearly is 'natural'. But that doesn't, yet, hold true for genderfluidity or gender-transforming identities.

But you said if we only recently discovered this, then it isn't a natural right. Did I misunderstand?

There are likely better grounds on which to argue for trans rights than trying to turn them into a natural group with natural rights. Certainly the first attempts to prove a gendered brain in the wrong body have come completely unstuck; there's nothing that can really be pinned down. The ambitions of some trans activists and philosophers in a transhumanist direction certainly aren't in any way natural, but entirely artificial.

You don't need to discover the biological essence of womanhood to say that people who feel like women have a right to be considered women, just as a woman has a right to pursue what ever traditionally masculine life course she sets her heart on. Black people's natural rights aren't based on them being able to demonstrate their equalness and sameness. We don't ask this kind of "show me they are the same in the brain" proof for other rights claims.

That doesn't preclude that they then have rights, but it makes it harder to speak of entirely natural rights, unless those are truly universal, relating to being human.

You've just made up a bunch of reasons that you don't apply to other natural rights claims.

It's my contention that it is very hard within traditional liberalism to argue against trans rights without those arguments also undermining things that liberals very much support.

 

[Nick Terry]

No, I am not a liberal. I don't believe conceiving rights in this way is a good idea.

Then why talk at all of natural rights? If the language, rhetoric and concept of natural rights isn't how you conceive of rights, then why use it?

It isn't necessarily how I conceive of rights - I was trying to get my head around your arguments, which invoked natural rights. Your arguments tend to be too abstract for my tastes, so pardon me if I'm not interested in trying to translate my thoughts into another conceptual language that apparently you don't believe in.

It seems like you're more interested in trying to trip up 'liberals' or 'progressives' for reasons that aren't clear to me, because you're not actually stating your true beliefs, they're just 'not a liberal', 'not a progressive'. Since I've happily debated self-styled National Socialists and racists in the past, whatever you actually do believe in isn't going to shock me. So make your own political-philosophical position clear, or get plonked.