To state that they are both "women" and therefore both permitted in bathrooms designated "women" is to equivocate with the term "woman," as it has two meanings — Hanover

That's correct. My stance is that in communities where the majority are ok with the ambiguity, they'll allow trans women to use the women's facilities. Where the community is generally opposed to it, they'll act accordingly.

There isn't a clear logical answer to the problem, and people are generally irrational anyway. My impression has been that the recent attacks on LGBTQ have been politically motivated (as opposed to offering solutions to real problems). I think Republican politicians find that they stand out when they approach the edge of decency? I'm not trying to be insulting. That's just really the way it seems.

Since the historical basis of the seperate bathrooms was the result of the sexual distinctions and not the gender based distinctions, you cannot allow the gender based women access simply because of the happenstance of their both now using the term "woman." — Hanover

We already do and have done so, because the "check" at the bathroom door is a social check, not a biological one. Even if you put "XX" and "XY", these will simply work as substitutes for "Woman" and "Man", and the people who "pass" will get to use the bathroom they want to. I think it's always been a gender-based social enforcement, even if we used the language of sex.

I think bathrooms should be unisex, like all of mine have been at work for the past 35 years.

The question 'what is a woman' can be unpacked in numerous ways. This question is usually a surrogate for: 'Is transgender identity legitimate?' Because that's where this line of questioning always seems to head.

It's interesting that no one ever raises the issue of female to trans-male. No one seems to care and perhaps this says something about attitudes to women more generally.

This is to say we can discriminate on the basis of gender and sex at different times for different purposes, and we can within differing contexts refer to both as "women," but to call both XXs and XYs "women" in different contexts does not give rise to consider both of the same ontological status in all contexts. They are all women, but different types of women, and therefore having differing rights. — Hanover

Interesting. I don't quite know what to think about this. One tentative thought for me is that many trans women 'pass as female' to use the old language. Do we want to create a separate category of female that forces all trans people to out themselves as trans? Are we not hoping for something more seamless or streamlined? Bear in mind that there are diverse views amongst trans people and what is irritating in discussions is when outliers are invoked as representative of all. The hasty generalization fallacy is alive in this space.

My impression has been that the recent attacks on LGBTQ have been politically motivated (as opposed to offering a solution to some problem). I think Republican politicians find that they stand out when they approach the edge of decency? — frank

That's what it looks like to me. If you also roll into this religious positions of putative voters, which support certain politics, and comes with (shall we say) bigoted social views, the trans issue can be readily be used as welcome evidence that liberals are trying to destroy the fabric of society and go against nature and god. (That's not to say that atheists aren't also sometimes bigoted.)

I think it's always been a gender-based social enforcement, even if we used the language of sex. — Moliere

Agree. No one ever checks your biology when you go take a piss.

If you also roll into this religious positions of putative voters, which support certain politics, and comes with (shall we say) bigoted social views, the trans issue can be readily be used as welcome evidence that liberals are trying to destroy the fabric of society and go against nature and god. — Tom Storm

Something like that, yes. The trans issue really hasn't been a problem in most American communities. Corporate America loves all citizens who have money. Viva diversity. Republicans need to show their asses at every opportunity (some of them, anyway.)

How has it been in Australia?

The trans issue really hasn't been a problem in most American communities — frank

That's interesting and nice to hear.

How has it been in Australia? — frank

Hard to say. Certain negative voices are loud and 'outraged'. We seem to copy a lot of politics from your country and the Right and Left have cultivated a similar culture war style approach. But I generally avoid politics and the news and political discussions. I find politics unattractive for the most part.

I find politics unattractive for the most part. — Tom Storm

So do I. It’s nice to hear the same from an intelligent person I respect.

I think these posts assess the issues aptly. Unisex toilets... :up: Although they might need to be phased in to get people used to the idea.

I agree with both of you about politics...if only it weren't necessary!

I've been surrounded by unisex bathrooms for about a decade.

:up:

My concerns about bathrooms would primarily be a) Trans women being forced to use the men's bathroom and being harassed or assaulted there on being identified as trans. b) Bathroom talk lending to a false narrative that trans women are a "threat" in women's bathrooms, reinforcing societal transphobia.

I agree the topic can be debated in a reasonable way but the most neutral approach for me is not to give self-fulfilling credence to potentially irrational fears but to ask for real evidence to support the idea that trans women should be considered a disproportionate threat in women's bathrooms such that denying them access can be justified. It's the same principle as not allowing an irrational fear of e.g. black people to dictate social policy.

(1) those of sexual orientation "woman" and (2) those of gender orientation "woman." — Hanover

The term "sexual/gender orientation" doesn't help discriminate between one kind of "woman" and another kind. Would "sexually" or "chromosomally" defined and "gender defined" be better? Or just say, "real woman" and "fake woman" (real man and fake man).

You have written about the difficulty of defining "woman" because, apparently, "new categories of woman" have been created/floated/tried. In your view, is it equally difficult to define "man"? An XX woman, born with breasts, ovaries, uterus, and vagina (BOUV) could have her distinctive BOUV organs removed, and replaced with testosterone injections, a penis like fleshy tube, and a skin pouch with plastic testicles. A beard and body hair might grow. Some changes in musculature might occur, depending on age and activity level. Is this person a 'real man' or a 'disfigured woman'?

Is the issue charged because some sort of (apparently disguised) female-like potentially predatory person could use a woman's toilet, and this would be very disturbing to 'real women'? And on the other hand, men wouldn't be disturbed by a (apparently disguised) male-like person, predatory or not, using a man's toilet?

But then one might ask, are F to M transsexuals at risk of attack while using men's toilets? I suppose it would depend on the toilet. A F to M could safely urinate in the toilets of the Campaign of Human Rights, but maybe the toilet at Tea Party HQ, or a really rough biker bar would not be a good place to test things out. Is anyone safe in a Tea Party toilet?

Good on you, mate, you must be used to it then...

A woman is a female of the human species. It's mind-boggling that such a benign fact can create so much division between people. The truth of this says nothing about the right of men to wear dresses or put on makeup, which are rights that ought to be defended as matters of personal choice and freedom. Nothing of this fact diminishes theplight or worsens the burdens of those that struggle with dysphoria.

Rather than cede the language, the bathrooms, the sports, though, all of which pertain to sex, we should abandon the use of gender altogether. If the sex surgery, the puberty blockers, the desire to compete with members of the opposite sex is any indication, it all has to do with sex anyways, and the use of gender only muddies the water.

Rather than cede the language, the bathrooms, the sports, though, all of which pertain to sex, we should abandon the use of gender altogether. If the sex surgery, the puberty blockers, the desire to compete with members of the opposite sex is any indication, it all has to do with sex anyways, and the use of gender only muddies the water. — NOS4A2

Each state will come to its own conclusions about how to do it. That's democracy.

I think bathrooms should be unisex, — Tom Storm

My concerns about bathrooms would primarily be a) Trans women being forced to use the men's bathroom and being harassed or assaulted there on being identified as trans. — Baden

Having unisex bathrooms might be fine if each one held just one person, but larger locations tend to have communal bathrooms. As I see it, it's reasonable for a biological female to be uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a biological male, no matter how that biological male identifies. It is not unreasonable to restrict certain bathrooms for use by biological females. It is not necessarily bigotry for a biological women to be unwilling to share a bathroom with a transgender women.

For me, it comes down to the fact that transgender people make up less than 0.5 percent of the adult population. A fair and humane society will find a place for them as members of the community. That doesn't mean that social institutions that have been in place for a very long time have to be discarded immediately for their convenience.

Thoughts? — Hanover

The difference between a men's and a women's lavatory is the urinal.

Odd, then, don't you think, that this sort of discussion is posed as about women's bathrooms, when it is men's bathrooms that are problematic?

No one ever checks your biology when you go take a piss. — Tom Storm

Indeed.

Evidence that trans women are a threat in women's bathrooms, please. If there is no evidence for that, fear of them being in these bathrooms is irrational, no? And do you really think it's reasonable to discriminate against groups of people simply because we are "uncomfortable" with them. Is that not the very basis of bigotry?

Part of my issue here is the apparent circularity. Trans women are a threat in bathrooms because some women are uncomfortable around them. Why are they uncomfortable? ...Because they're a threat. At some point there has to be some justification to avoid the self-fulfilling phobia.

No one ever checks your biology when you go take a piss. — Tom Storm

Actually, the built environment does, by differentiating the room you use based on your genitalia.

One presumes that urinals are cheaper, and faster, which perhaps explains the shorter cues for men's toilets at intermission.

I'm all for unisex bathrooms as a solution btw but I'm going to keep pushing back against the threat narrative seeing as I'm confident trans women are more threatened than a threat and reality is being turned on its head in these debates.

Evidence that trans women are a threat in women's bathrooms, please. — Baden

That's a good question. Do trans women actually have to be a threat before it is reasonable to exclude them from women's bathrooms... I'll think about that.

I don't have any statistics, but if you look on the web you'll see instances of people who call themselves transgender women raping other women. How many do there have to be before it is too many? The vast majority of men would not rape women if they shared bathrooms with them.

I guess it comes down to that for me - if it's not reasonable to exclude trans women from women's bathrooms, then it's not reasonable to exclude men either. Perhaps @Tom Storm's idea of only unisex bathrooms is the way to go.

OK, but excluding men from women's bathrooms doesn't put them in a situation where a) they are misgendered and b) they are in disproportionate danger. If it turns out to be the case that forcing trans women into men's toilets results in more violence overall against the innocent (whoever they may be) then it would seem the most humane policy would be not to do that.

How has it been in Australia? — frank

We have more important issues, such as drag queens reading books to children in public libraries...

think bathrooms should be unisex, like all of mine have been at work for the past 35 years. — Tom Storm

The broader question is whether it's appropriate to designate XX women as such when that designation matters. To assert it doesn't matter in the bathroom scenario simply avoids the question momentarily until the scenario meets your approval to then have to consider unless you take the approach it per se cannot matter.

So, substitute for bathroom, gym locker room, which does in fact have fully naked people walking about.

This question is usually a surrogate for: 'Is transgender identity legitimate?' — Tom Storm

That's not what this thread is about. I made that clear.

It's interesting that no one ever raises the issue of female to trans-male. No one seems to care and perhaps this says something about attitudes to women more generally. — Tom Storm

Either that, or I didn't think it mattered, so I chose MtF.

Do we want to create a separate category of female that forces all trans people to out themselves as trans? — Tom Storm

When it matters we do. If it's an XX sports team, then XYs shouldn't be on it. Keep in mind, even if we're creating a sport team based on gender identification, we are going to require the person out themselves if they identify as a woman but appear entirely as a man.

The correlation between appearance and gender identity is a choice, not a requirement.

So, substitute for bathroom, gym locker room, which does in fact have fully naked people walking about. — Hanover

And what do you think is the issue here? What's the problem that results from folk wandering around naked? Fill it out.

But this was addressed in the OP. I didn't suggest an XY transsexual be forced into an XY bathroom specifically for the reasons you're identifying.

Should a MtF preop be permitted to walk about in the women's locker room fully naked?

Should the MtF play on the CIS women's soccer team?

That is, is there an instance where you would permit desparate treatment of XX and XY persons who both identify as women?

If the answer is no, then that speaks to an unrealistic understatement of the impact of genetic composition on behavior.

And what do you think is the issue here? What's the problem that results from folk wandering around naked? Fill it out. — Banno

The concept of modesty may seem quaint to you, but it is an area of concern for most cultures, and asking that it not be respected across gender lines is certainly as culturally insensitive as forcing a transsexual into a locker room opposite their gender.

This is to say, I think a CIS woman is within her rights not to be expected to shower with the men today due to her locker room being full.

But you tell me, why don't you show up tomorrow at work just in your shirt like Winnie the Pooh?

The disambiguation of the term "woman" is completed by drawing a bright line between the sexually defined and the gender defined, which is what the transsexual accepting crowd advocates. — Hanover

At first reading this seemed downright nonsensensical to me. I'm not part of trans communities, but whenever I came across transpeople talking about their experiences, the opposite seems to be true; they'd rather blur the line and/or de-emphasise it, while it's the opponents who re-inforce the line and make it a tad brighter when they're talking about how trans-people's identities are invalid.

When I first read the post, there were no replies yet; I spent the time between then and now trying to figure out where I differ from you, how we could have such different intuitions (or, as a possibility, that I totally misread you).

I think my main point is pretty convoluted, though, and trying to stick with what you've written is... tough. I'll try to pick out some quotes and respond, but the danger in the approach is that I fragment my attention too much and confuse even myself (it happened before).

If the women's bathroom were labled "XX" as opposed to "Women," that would discriminate on the basis of sexual designation and not on the basis of gender, protecting that class of XX's who wish that space be protected, but offer no commentary on social gender definitions. — Hanover

Hm, the thing is when we assign sex to children we tend to check for genitals rather then chromosomes, as this is usually accurate enough, and testing the genome is too expensive and not worth it. You can correct me if I'm wrong about this; I'm not actually certain about this. I am certain that the concept of man/woman is way older than our knowledge of genes, though.

I feel like the retreating from genital sex to chromosomal sex means something, but I'm not sure what exactly. Maybe it's because operations can change that stuff, but we're not yet at the point where we can modify the chromosomes?

That is, the dispute arises when the right decrees that gender and sex must be correlated. — Hanover

That's when the dispute may arise, but the problem arises earlier - with intuitions. You see, I don't think think the sex/gender distinction is that clear cut to begin with, and that may be why the opening quote confused me. "Gender" is indeed a social attribute, not a biological one. I don't disagree here. But the alignment of gender and sex is not as straightforward as one might intuit. All sorts of things are gendered, down to grammatical gender (whose ties to sex are spurious, and whose ties to social gender have occasionally been researched - mostly I think through the lense of cognition? Don't take my word for it.)

But "gender" as a social category is a more comprehensive interpretative scheme than just a tool to sort people into categories. One of the things, I think, that's gendered is how we think about sex, and for that very reason the distinction between XX and XY may not be as relevant as people think. One of the things, for example, that I hear challenged a lot is that gender needs to be a binary. And while this is indeed mostly social talk, it's not entirely clear if some people among the trans community mightn't benefit from knowledge we might gather by thinking of sex not as a binary: that is, maybe there's knowledge to be had out there that we don't have, because we gender sex as the common male-female binary? Then there's the additional gender category of cis and trans. The social indentity category is difficult enough as it is, but is there something in the biology that favours the social distinction? That is: could "cis" and "trans" be at least partly an attribute of sex? The answer to question is one of practical research, and that would need theory, and there might be theories that restructure the way we think about sex? Now consider the political landscape: who would reject such a restructing, and who would seek it? There's a problem of continuity, of acceptance on one side, and of bias and wishful thinking on the other. Who would fund such research? Where would it be published?

So my suggestion is not "sex" on the one hand and "gender" on the other, but the other way round: sex is "gendered biology". This is where I should lay my bias open. I have a degree in sociology, but have never done anything with it and am out of the loop. The theories that attracted me most were usually interpretative or constructivist approaches (many deriving from Husserl - such as Alfred Schütz, or Berger/Luckmann). What this means is that I think of "gender" more as basic interpretative scheme than as an attribute given to things and people.

This important, as the distinction between gender and sex is somewhat different in daily language. English (unlike my mother tongue German) has different adjectives for sex (male/female) and gender (masculine/feminine). So it's sort of tempting think of gender as the things that are "masculine"/"feminine" and sex as the things that are "male"/"female". But this is problematic, because it forces trans people into a more complicated terminology. You see, there's (at least in theory) such a thing as a masculine trans female, in the same way that there is a masculine cis female. Something that's terribly confusing for some people is a trans woman with a beard, for example.

I have two examples where this matters:

1. To be recognised as trans in Japan, you need to take the operation. Not all trans people want to.
2. Voice training: Some trans people may not see the need to talk any differently than they're used to, but will still undergo voice training so they sound more feminine, not because that's closer to some ideal they invision, but because it's less confusing for non-trans folk. I've read reports from transitioning folk who felt pressured into voice training by their trans support structue (with the justification being something like: "if you don't train your voice, you make things more difficult for us to gain trans acceptance).

So basically drawing a bright red line between biological gender (sex) and social gender, would usually not be in the interest of the trans community. De-emphasising the importance of biology altogether, it seems to me, would be more in line with what they actually say. And it might discourage or inhibit research into whether there are biological components to being trans that are part of your sexual make up we haven't found yet.

I'm really not sure I made much sense to anyone but myself, but if you're reading this I managed to stay coherent enough to make sense in my own mind, which - considering that I often confuse myself enough so I'm unable to finish a post - I consider an accomplishment. I may be embarrassed by this post tomorrow, though.

Where the community is generally opposed to it, they'll act accordingly. — frank

I'd argue that democracy doesn't work that way, as if a vote occurs and the lovers take their lumps and the winner gets his way. The losers protest and continue to push back. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but democracy doesn't equal harmony.

Republican politicians find that they stand out when they approach the edge of decency — frank

I suspect they think themselves decent.

...modesty... — Hanover

If the issue is modesty, then design dressing rooms for modesty. Put up more dividers.

You are way overthinking this.

Or is "modesty" a proxy for some other problem, unaddressed?

Or is "modesty" a proxy for some other problem, unaddressed? — Banno

You have no idea about the darkness that lies within.