If inquire into why spaces are separated we get various arguments based on human behaviour: safety and hygiene are the most common arguments I hear. Stuff like modesty/embarrassment/nakedness etc. are not usually talked about as much, but - I feel - often implied. I find the comparison to saunas interesting; they seem to be often mixed without problems: but there are two important differences: while nearly everyone uses public toilets, using saunas is far more optional. And the taboo nature of excreting heightens feeling of shame, which is absent with saunas. — Dawnstorm

This got me thinking about changing rooms in various gyms I've been in. None of them have been mixed, and women have complained about the presence of biological men, as in this story:
https://www.newsweek.com/gym-chain-center-tish-hyman-dispute-flooded-negative-reviews-10989692
This is also an issue in school locker rooms. Girls, understandably, are not always comfortable with biological boys being around them while they're changing.

Well, here's where differ: I do not think bathrooms are "divided by sex." I believe this is surface rhetoric. Bathrooms themselves are social constructs. And bathrooms being "divided by sex," means that bathrooms are gendered: there are bathrooms for girls and bathrooms for boys and unisex bathrooms. Gendering bathrooms is, first and foremost, something we're doing. Something we're used to doing. Something ingrained in our daily praxis. Gendering bathrooms is social behaviour. — Dawnstorm

That's interesting. It may be due to a difference of gender definition. For most of the life of the term gender it was a synonym for 'sex'. Probably about 60 years ago there was an introduction to create a new meaning from gender. This meaning of gender is 'Non biological social expectation from a particular sex."

So what does this mean? We know from biology that on average, men are taller than women. Can an individual man be shorter than a woman? Sure. This is biological expectation, not gender expectation. Gender is when society places cultural actions on a biological sex that have nothing to do with their biological sex. So for example, "Women wear dresses". Is there anything innately biological in a woman wearing a dress? No. Its purely a cultural construct of subjective expectation.

A trans gendered individual is not a trans sexual individual. It is an individual of one sex that does not like the cultural expectation of their sex. So they might be a man who likes to wear dresses, or a woman who likes to wear top hats. Or perhaps a man believes that only women stay at home and take care of the house while men have to work. So he lets his wife work and stays at home.

Bathrooms are not gendered. They are divided by sex. Urinals are designed for the biology of males, not females. The privacy is afforded each sex because there is also more than urination and excrement, but menstruation from women. Not to mention that there is nudity and clothing removal to take care of biological needs. One does not go into the bathroom to affirm that one is male or female, they use the bathroom because they are male or female.

The trans gendered community wants to argue that enacting the cultural expectation of the other sex gives them the right to be in spaces divided by sex. So if a man wears a dress, feels like a woman, and acts in a cultural way that he believes women aught to act, that he should be allowed in the women's bathroom, lockers, sexual abuse centers, and jails. This male can be fully intact and not on hormones.

To make my position clear: sexual facts applied in social contexts is always gendered. That includes biology: the way we organise the facts to make sense of them could be different. But biological facts do set boundries of what is likely to be successful. So empirical research is going to be far more strict than socially structured excretion. — Dawnstorm

So this is an incorrect view of gender within gender theory. Gender and sex are completely different meanings. Meaning you can have division based on sex differences, and based on gender differences. Anything based on biological differences is a sex differentiated situation that is not cultural. For example, getting a prostate exam. Since only men have prostates, the exclusion from females getting the exam is not a cultural difference, but a reasonable one based purely on biological ones.

The issue with many trans gendered individuals is they are likely unintentionally applying sexual differences as cultural expectations. Either that, are they are really trans sexuals and desire to have the cross sex access without the need to take hormones or have surgery. And of course there are always bad actors who want to cross these spaces for duplicitous, malicious, or perverted reasons. I want to be clear I do not think this is the majority, but it must be recognized they exist.

Smart people are good at building elaborate justifications that work out logically. But these elaborate legitimisations, too, are constructs, and not ones likely to be shared with trans people - or me, for that matter. — Dawnstorm

True and well said. I hope my point is based on rational argumentation and not merely bias or lazy thinking. The key is when we start saying things about rights and laws, we have to be very specific and accurate with definitions.

Now I'm a cis male and use bathrooms for boys without a second thought. I neither know or care if I ever shared a bathroom with a trans man. As a result, this is not an issue that intimately impacts me. Which also means that I'm talking from an easy place. I can question the status quo with little problem, because a change won't impact me personally at all. — Dawnstorm

Same, I really appreciate your humbleness and self-awareness in this.

Does Ms Pacman have a female biology? My personal take (in worldbuilding terms; I know Ms Pacman is just pixels... or scan lines... depending on the technology) is that Pacmen reproduce by mitosis (when you've eaten enough you get an extra life, no?). This is only partly a joke. — Dawnstorm

Its light hearted, but your point is well stated. Its interesting to think about what people feel. Some people might view Ms. Pacman as 'biologicaly female' as in 'female pac-creature'. Some people may feel that there is no separated sex intent between the two creatures, and that the only difference is that one wears a bow while the other doesn't. In the same way, it may be possible that humans view 'man and woman' in similar fashion sometimes. I personally cannot view a person in any other way than biology. If you pointed at the blue sky and told me it wasn't blue, I could no more unsee the blue sky than view a man or woman as a biologically distinct person. But, it may be that there are people who do not see biology, and generally only see cultural actions as their primary view of 'man or woman' and legitimately could swap them out in their mind without any compunction.

I think though that my viewpoint is the norm. When Mulan was found to be female, no one said, "Oh, well you were a man, but now you're only a woman because we made you wear a dress." Its an odd way of thinking that doesn't seem quite right.

This got me thinking about changing rooms in various gyms I've been in. None of them have been mixed, and women have complained about the presence of biological men, as in this story:
https://www.newsweek.com/gym-chain-center-tish-hyman-dispute-flooded-negative-reviews-10989692
This is also an issue in high school locker rooms. Girls, understandably, are not always comfortable with biological boys/men being around them while they're changing. — RogueAI

Hello RogueAI! To bring it to the OP, do you believe that it is a human right that a person's gender allow someone to enter cross sex spaces? That if a woman is uncomfortable with this, she is against a human right?

Hello RogueAI! To bring it to the OP, do you believe that it is a human right that a person's gender allow someone to enter cross sex spaces? That if a woman is uncomfortable with this, she is against a human right? — Philosophim

No, I think women have a well deserved fear of biological men. I think they have a human right to some traditional women-only spaces and sports. This is easy to do in sports, but incredibly difficult to legislate wrt bathrooms and changing rooms. Suppose you have a biological woman who has transitioned to a man and looks like a man. Do we want him to have to use the ladies bathroom/changing room? And vice-versa? On the other hand, if a biological man is walking around the PlanetFitness women's locker room with his junk hanging out, the ladies have a right to complain.

I think they have a human right to some traditional women-only spaces and sports. — RogueAI

What is this human right?

Suppose you have a biological woman who has transitioned to a man and looks like a man. Do we want him to have to use the ladies bathroom/changing room? — RogueAI

I personally don't mind. I had an encounter with a trans gender woman years ago in the male bathroom and it was fine. I think the case here is whether a person can identify the trans person as their natal sex. A person could disguise themselves as an employee and go 'behind the counter', behave like an employee, then leave without anyone knowing. But is that right? If someone can disguise themselves (trans gender, not trans sexual) as the opposite sex, does it make it ok for them to use opposite sex spaces?

Ah, but I do believe in a rational moral structure apart from the law. I don't make the all too common mistake of equating one with the other, though.

but I do believe in a rational moral structure apart from the law. — Ciceronianus

Structure? What kind of structure?

Ah, but I do believe in a rational moral structure apart from the law. I don't make the all too common mistake of equating one with the other, though. — Ciceronianus

Yes, a few had implied this equation, but you never did. Human and natural rights are rational moral structures apart from the law. Is yours something similar or is it a unique system? If similar we could address it, but if its unique that might be too much to tackle in this thread.

They might or they might not go away. Again, I think the situation could be considered analogous to that for gay people. Although the problems are not gone, social acceptance has improved. — T Clark

I'm not sure how to reply. After thinking this through, I'm not sure I understood you right. Are you talking about the results of a social justice movement? I was talking about the effects of a single personal transition and the results on that individuals life in the portion you quoted. But even then I was simplifying far too much (there's "being able to pass" vs "a perceived pressure to pass" - there's a tension field here or not, depending on the trans person's personality. I've lost track and I'm confused. I apologise.

This got me thinking about changing rooms in various gyms I've been in. None of them have been mixed, and women have complained about the presence of biological men, as in this story:
https://www.newsweek.com/gym-chain-center-tish-hyman-dispute-flooded-negative-reviews-10989692
This is also an issue in school locker rooms. Girls, understandably, are not always comfortable with biological boys being around them while they're changing. — RogueAI

Yes, that is one of the situations where empathy tears me apart inside and I dispair. In my darker hours I just think people deserve each other. Not all the time, I'm getting there more often than not lately.

I can't side with anyone here. Not with the trans woman, not with the lady, not with the gym. At the same time I realise it's a difficult situation. Given my personality: If I'd been the woman, I'd likely have been uncomfortable, too, but I'd have kept my head down. If I'd been the trans-person, I'd not have been there in the first place, and if for some reason circumstance would have driven me there, I'd have tried to be as inconspicable as possible, which wouldn't have been very inconspicable. If I were an employee present at the time, I'd be physically sick while being faced with firm policy, and two people fighting it out without giving a quarter.

This is stand-your-ground territory, and I tend to choose flight over fight whenever possible. It's people who choose fight over flight that tend to make headlines like these. And then people line up on either side of the fence, and that's what dominates the discourse. We're doomed, I tell you. Dooooooomed.

(Sorry, I'm better now.)

So what does this mean? We know from biology that on average, men are taller than women. Can an individual man be shorter than a woman? Sure. This is biological expectation, not gender expectation. Gender is when society places cultural actions on a biological sex that have nothing to do with their biological sex. So for example, "Women wear dresses". Is there anything innately biological in a woman wearing a dress? No. Its purely a cultural construct of subjective expectation. — Philosophim

This seems too crude a term to be analytically useful if the goal is to understand what's going on within the wide area on gender-non-conformism. For example, intersex is a biological condition, but it doesn't easily fit the expectations we have about bodies. Our society doesn't really provide easy categories and thus they're "deviant bodies". That implies a social role.

So on to "transgender":

A trans gendered individual is not a trans sexual individual. It is an individual of one sex that does not like the cultural expectation of their sex. So they might be a man who likes to wear dresses, or a woman who likes to wear top hats. Or perhaps a man believes that only women stay at home and take care of the house while men have to work. So he lets his wife work and stays at home. — Philosophim

I know you make that distinction, but it's a difficult one to make, because the terms aren't clear. There are people who are trans who use the terms like you do here, for sure. There are people who are trans who have no use for the term gender to being with. There are people who are trans who reject that they can ever be tanssexual, no matter how much they'd like to be; the latest reasoning (read by doing research while reading this thread, but I didn't keep a link) was that "they can only tinker with their phenotype; their genotype they have no control over").

I dispense with the distinction because I don't find it useful. Also simply cross-dressing does not make you trans. You lose a distinction here that is socially meaningful:

A cis woman who wears a dress, is the default expectation. It's unexceptional. Women these days don't stand out (at least not where I live) for wearing jeans and t-shirt instead. That's very common, too, so these days it's a "can-norm".

Every other constellation is aware that what they're doing shirks gender expectations. The model above would suggest you lump them all in the same category: people who are not biologically female yet still like to wear a dress are all trans. They're not. They're all aware that they shirk some sort of gender expectation, but their motivation and behaviour potential vastly differs:

A cis man can wear a dress for many reason. It could be a sign of rebellion. He could just like wearing dresses. It could be the outgrowth of an interest in haute couture... He'll generally not try to pass as a woman, though, unless he's into trolling.

A trans woman who wears a dress, wears the clothes of the gender she feels like. It could be what she wants to do, or maybe she'd prefer to wear her usual attire, but thinks that would make it harder for people to accept her chosen gender. Maybe it's peer pressure; other trans people want her to wear dresses.

More importantly, a cis man who likes to wear dresses may be at odds with a trans woman who uses wearing dresses as a signal of her felt gender. One wishes to loosen the dress code, while the other - as a side-effect, mind you - re-inforces the dress code. In places, where women are still expected to wear dresses and face censure for wearing trousers, cis women who like to wear trousers find themselves more aligned with cis men who wear dresses than with trans men who wear dresses: it's "I'm a man, and I can wear a dress if I want to," vs. "look at me, I'm wearing a dress, I'm a woman."

With the trans woman, wearing a dress also might help her "pass". That may relief the stress of having to explain yourself over and over again, but it carries the risk of being "found out". This might carry the stigma of dishonesty, even though that's not the intent. The mismatch is two-fold here: you're subjectively misgendered on account of your body, AND you're accused of a personality flaw you do not have.

A trans man who is wearing a dress is actually conforming to the expectations people have of him according to his body, and thus it's perhaps the least obvious form of shirking gender norms. I've recently learned of the term "girl moding". As long you're not close to passing you pretend to be what others think you are, but not you yourself. Once you're close to passing you may switch (or not, who knows).

It's far, far easier for me to navigate this messy situation if it's not only behaviour but also bodies that are gendered.

So:

When Mulan was found to be female, no one said, "Oh, well you were a man, but now you're only a woman because we made you wear a dress." Its an odd way of thinking that doesn't seem quite right. — Philosophim

Yes, that's an odd way of thinking. And it's not how I think.

Its light hearted, but your point is well stated. Its interesting to think about what people feel. Some people might view Ms. Pacman as 'biologicaly female' as in 'female pac-creature'. Some people may feel that there is no separated sex intent between the two creatures, and that the only difference is that one wears a bow while the other doesn't. — Philosophim

That, too. But what I'm drawn to here is that I think most people only perceive the gender and never topicalise sex to begin with. I think this might be more common in real life than we realise. I wish I could explain what I think this means in detail, but I'm unsure. It's certainly not that I think biological sex is irrelevant.

Where I do agree, I think, with @T Clark is that I do think treating the "mental condition" of being trans in the sense of "making them realise what they really are" is akin to conversion therapy for gays. But at the same time I think being trans is a real, bodily thing, and you can be wrong about being trans. And finally I don't trust that anyone currently alive knows enough about the subject to tell the difference. And that's a rather difficult postion from which to approach the subject.

[Argh, what a long post.]

This seems too crude a term to be analytically useful if the goal is to understand what's going on within the wide area on gender-non-conformism. — Dawnstorm

If we mean 'gender is purely a social construct' then its not crude. If we intend to tie 'gender is sex', then it is crude because then gender as a definition is ambiguous and crude itself. The way to 'uncrude it' as it were is to use sex for sex based realities and expectations vs gender for gender based realities and expectations. Conflating the two in any way muddies thinking and is the wrong way to approach it.

I know you make that distinction, but it's a difficult one to make, because the terms aren't clear. There are people who are trans who use the terms like you do here, for sure. — Dawnstorm

What's important in a philosophical analysis is to pull the terms that people may use indiscriminately and carefully define them in a way that makes rational discussion possible. "Slang" is not anything we can think rationally about. To have rational thought we must first use clear and unambiguous definitions. We can clearly note that if someone uses the term in a different way, that's a different concept. So we use the term in one clear context and concept, which is gender as a social construct. In this way using gender to mean anything related to biological sex expectation is poor vocabulary, unclear thinking, and emotional subjectivity. Nothing can be reasoned with poor and unclear vocabulary. Anyone who desires something at the expense of a person's rational thinking understands this and pushes it. In philosophy we have a responsibility to clarify and pull out the emotional and ill thought out uses of terms into something clear, rational, and unambiguous. What I've noted as the definition for gender is the basis of gender theory.

There are people who are trans who reject that they can ever be tanssexual, no matter how much they'd like to be; the latest reasoning (read by doing research while reading this thread, but I didn't keep a link) was that "they can only tinker with their phenotype; their genotype they have no control over"). — Dawnstorm

If 'trans sexual' means 'fully the other sex', then no one can be trans sexual. But 'trans gender' doesn't mean, 'fully the opposite gender' either. If we are to keep the terms in similar use, trans gender is crossing gender boundaries, trans sexual is crossing sex boundaries. Anyone who alters their biology in an attempt to cross a sex boundary is a trans sexual under this definition.

This is important, because there are many trans gendered individuals who do not attempt to alter their body. They are satisfied crossing the gender divide, but not the biological sexual divide. As such the two terms create a clear distinction that covers two separate modes of thought and process without leaving anyone behind.

A cis woman who wears a dress, is the default expectation. It's unexceptional. Women these days don't stand out (at least not where I live) for wearing jeans and t-shirt instead. That's very common, too, so these days it's a "can-norm". — Dawnstorm

Correct. This is because gender can change from person to person, group to group, and culture to culture over time. It is a purely subjective notion of behavior for a person's sex. As such it holds no objective weight.

Every other constellation is aware that what they're doing shirks gender expectations. The model above would suggest you lump them all in the same category: people who are not biologically female yet still like to wear a dress are all trans. — Dawnstorm

To be more accurate, they are exhibiting 'trans gender behavior'. "Trans" is a slang term. If we intend this slang term to mean, "A person who holds a trans gender identity", this would be a person who consciously chooses where possible to embody the culturally expected behaviors of the other sex while shunning the culturally expected behaviors of their own sex.

cis women who like to wear trousers find themselves more aligned with cis men who wear dresses than with trans men who wear dresses: it's "I'm a man, and I can wear a dress if I want to," vs. "look at me, I'm wearing a dress, I'm a woman." — Dawnstorm

This is 'trans gendered behavior" in the eyes of the social group, while in the subjective mind of the individual, it is a rejection of the social group's idea of gender. Lets say I was raised in a family that discouraged men from being dancers because "Real men don't dance." I grow up and really like to dance. Further, I think its completely stupid that they think men can't dance. I reject the idea of gender entirely and dance. To them, its trans gender behavior. For me, its not because in my definition of 'male gender', 'not dancing' isn't part of that definition.

This is the problem with making gender into a means of law or enforcement. What one believes gender should be for each sex can be different for every single person, group, or country. It is culturally enforced prejudice or sexism. Nothing more.

It's far, far easier for me to navigate this messy situation if it's not only behaviour but also bodies that are gendered. — Dawnstorm

No, its far, FAR messier. Keeping a clear distinction allows clear thought. Once you realize the difference between trans gender and trans sexual, you can correctly identify people's motivations. Some people truly only want trans gender situation. Other only want trans sexual situations. There are men who want to grow boobs, but behave like gendered men. There can also be blends. There are people who want to be both trans gendered, and trans sexual. Identifying which aspects are trans gender and trans sexual allow clear distinctions and greater accuracy in identifying people's situations.

That, too. But what I'm drawn to here is that I think most people only perceive the gender and never topicalise sex to begin with. — Dawnstorm

I disagree with this. I think you're still blending in expected sex behavior with cultural behavior. Imagine that you see a six foot tall man who walks with a physically straight gait, has a large nose, and is wearing a dress and a bow in their hair. The dress and the bow are gender, the gait and large nose are sex features. Perhaps I am wrong, but most people will look at the sex features over the gender features every time. To be clear, a female can have a large nose and a straight gait instead of a hip sway, but biologically it is more common for men to have large noses and a straight gait. Do you see the difference between gender expectations and sex expectations?

Where I do agree, I think, with T Clark is that I do think treating the "mental condition" of being trans in the sense of "making them realise what they really are" is akin to conversion therapy for gays. — Dawnstorm

Conversion therapy refers to sexual orientation. We know conversation therapy doesn't work because you can't change your sexual orientation. The attempt to claim "conversion therapy" is to claim the negative connotation from the word so that trans gender and trans sexual people can justify what they desire without having to do the work that went into demonstrating why changing a person's sexual orientation is doomed to fail.

Now, as I've noted above, many straight men have a sexual impetus to transition. Phil Illy's "Autosexual" book makes a great argument that this is a sexual orientation as it is lifelong and does not break. Just like a gay person has the wrong triggers for sexual attraction, a trans sexual person (all people who transition are tran sexuals by definition) are able to take the normal outside attraction they have for a woman and place it upon themselves. This is not farfetched, as there is another orientation called 'Autosexual". This is a person who is sexually and/or romantically aroused by themself. A person with this condition looks at themselves in the mirror and is physically turned on by themselves, and can fall romantically in love with themselves. A trans sexual with this orientation is essentially an auto sexual who gets the attraction trigger that they see in other women when they present themselves as a woman.

After examining all kinds of different motivations to transition, this is the only motivation I can actually see as being viable. It is something that cannot be removed from the individual as it seems to exhibit all the hallmarks of a sexual orientation. (I cannot say for sure, I am not a sexologist) If this is the case, then 'conversion therapy' would actually apply here. In the other cases in which it is non-sexually motivated, it seems to all boil down to confusion, trauma, or fear which cause transition. These all seem to me to be treatable as it wouldn't be treating a person's desire to transition, but treating the underlying issues that lead people to view transition as a coping mechanism.

I appreciate your long post! Its been a nice conversation.

I'm uncertain whether any thread so entirely devoted to claimed non-legal rights is an appropriate place to respond to your posts. That's because it should come as no surprise that such supposed rights have no place in what I think is moral conduct.

I favor a kind of virtue ethics, together with consideration of what conduct is appropriate to achieve eudamonia. It's based on ancient views concerning what is right conduct on our part rather than demands we be treated in certain ways by others. Hope that suffices for now.

I'm not sure how to reply. After thinking this through, I'm not sure I understood you right. Are you talking about the results of a social justice movement? I was talking about the effects of a single personal transition and the results on that individuals life in the portion you quoted. — Dawnstorm

Without going back and checking our previous posts, as I remember it, this whole discussion arose from me pointing out that homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder as gender dysphoria is currently. It no longer is.

I favor a kind of virtue ethics, together with consideration of what conduct is appropriate to achieve eudamonia. It's based on ancient views concerning what is right conduct on our part rather than demands we be treated in certain ways by others. Hope that suffices for now. — Ciceronianus

I much appreciate your polite contribution to the thread! Thank you for your viewpoints.

I have justification for my claim, admittedly, weak, but something. You have nothing. — T Clark

No. We are on equal footing. Which I pointed out (I appreciate you at least meeting 1/3 of the way there). We, neither, could access good enough information to defend our positions strongly, but we both have good reason to think the way we think. There is no need to interrogate that further, given no basis for comparison could be made out in a way that would be helpful. No?

We’re not going to get any closer to agreement — T Clark

Yeah, for sure. If you'd like, we can try to re-structure how we're talking to restrict it to Western countries/social structures/expectations.
I think my description is accurate. It may simply be that the number is still alarming for you. That's also fine. But there is clearly no large group feeling the way you say. Although, and this is definitely a bit weak, I would posit that plenty of religious people will make claims of this kind, but not actually believe it. Again, weak. Just a thought.. Most people aren't predisposed to be bigoted (in the West).

I didn’t say that and you know that’s not what I’m talking about. We’ve had the same kind of discussion in the past with you claiming that there is no longer significant discrimination against Black people here. This is just more of the same. Again, we’re not going to do any better than this, so let’s leave it. — T Clark

Huh. It strikes me that (for both of those issues) that would be a good reason to sit down and talk? It can't be that both of us are right. I am interested in that, personally. Either way ,i appreciate a fully civil resolution to those exchanges. I just like to talk..

Assuming I’m doing my math correctly, which is by no means certain, this comes to fewer than 800 incarcerations a year in the US out of a total of about 60,000. — T Clark

To discuss both issues: No, i'm not being cute, and I would appreciate you resiling from the propensity to assume motivation. I said exactly what I meant to say, and it looks, based on your reply, that I was probably right. Looking at numbers in the USA as raw numbers is disingenuous. The correct metric would not be "how many". It would be two other things:

How many vs how many not (i.e how many of the group 'trans' tend to be arrested or convicted of a crime. The other, would be a control group: Non-trans males (I want to be explicitly clear: all of hte issues I could argue about when it comes to trans being in any way 'dangerous' or whatever, have to do with being male. Not trans. It is the same discussion we have to have about non-trans males. Being 'a man' doesn't give us anything to discuss in these terms).

The numbers i've looked at, for reasons that should probably be obvious, are in the UK. So, with that, i'll continue responding, but note that I may have to come back with different numbers as I'm not fully across the US situation with this exact issue.

For the purposes of my calculations above, I assumed this was correct, although I’m skeptical. That information is not available for the US. Can you provide the documentation for the UK? — T Clark

I appreciate that. I crunched the numbers directly from a Government prison population survey from, I think, 2022. This is all on a sticky note on my computer at home - apologies I can't simply be direct with that information. I've just done a shallow dive and re-found another doc - this (which was not my initial source, ftr), from which I can glean some pretty relevant passages:

"MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting
any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for
rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as
penetration with a penis)."

"76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%"

The piece (by quote)also points out that the statistics do not count those with a GRC as trans. Which is.. legally, and socially bizarre (that's not a moral complaint. Administrative) given that several will also be part of those numbers, and given how low they are each single case is significant.

There is also addressed the problem of deceit (although, this isn't a main limb for me):

"The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long
or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the
number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been
rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in
prison if this were not actually the case. " - British Association of Gender Identity Specialists to the Transgender Equality Inquiry’ (2015)

Putting aside some of the more nuanced stuff there, we can see quite clearly that I am either close to the mark, or bang on with my analysis in general(although, I clearly and unsure whether this is hte data set I used at the time so .. pinch of salt..). I really wish I had just emailed my work-self the other stuff months ago when I presented it to someone else in another thread. I apologise for that.

I acknowledge, understand and do not argue with the fact that we're talking about an extremely small population. We're talking about negligible numbers of offenders. But if those offenders, as a class, are more likely to commit these crimes we want to know and take that into account. We would for any other group which presented this way. And in fact, it's getting, socially, to the point where people are swinging back around to bigotry because of the suppression of discussion on the topic (i here think immediately of the current 'black fatigue' trend - although, I most often see that from black people, not whites). I am not saying you're doing this, I'm just taking the opportunity in conversation with someone pretty much fully civil, to say thse things.

This is literally, obviously, and unarguably true. — T Clark

While I acknowledge what you're saying, and I definitely could have been clearer about where I believe you're massaging things, it is pretty damn clear that being male is the problem. Not being cisgender. Given that trans women are more likely (it seems) to commit a crime against a female, we're looking at (in some views) male + mental aberration (and potential one tied to sexuality, i guess). That all stands to reason, and there's no point mentioning 'cis gender' as it does nothing to change the categories we need.

I appreciate you.

I acknowledge, understand and do not argue with the fact that we're talking about an extremely small population. We're talking about negligible numbers of offenders. — AmadeusD

Agreed. That says everything that needs to be said. I think we’ve taken this far enough now.

One is too many, when it could be prevented. So, that isn't all that needs to be said.

There also vanishingly small numbers of people kidnapping Nepalese babies for racial reasons, for torture and murder. But we wouldn't say this about that issue.

So, that isn't all that needs to be said. — AmadeusD

But it is all I'm interested in saying right now.

As always, you have created a thorough and thought-provoking OP. If I may, I would like to give my two cents and hear your thoughts. Out of respect for the OP, I am going to use the terminology in the ways you define them to avoid muddying the waters.

We have many points of agreement from what you said in the OP, but the central issue I have comes out to play here:

Human Rights - Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status
…
Gender – a subjective social expectation of non-biological expressed behavior based on one’s sex. Example: Males should wear pants, females should wear dresses.

In your definition of ‘human rights’, you seem to, and correct me if I am misunderstanding, be acknowledging that rights are innate, inalienable, and grounded in the human as a human being; and this implies that rights are inherent to the nature of a human. There is something it is to be a human, of which both male and female humans have and participate in, and in virtue of this we have rights. If this is true, then what rights we have are tied and anchored in our nature as a human; and so we look at that nature to expose which rights we have and which rights we think we have but don’t.

Now I would like to turn your attention to your definition of gender: “a subjective social expectation of non-biological expressed behavior based on one’s sex.”. A right is, by your ‘human rights’ definition, grounded in the nature of being a human; and the nature of a human is never subjective; so it follows from this, I think plainly by my lights, that ‘transgender rights’ and ‘cisgender rights’ are internally incoherent phraseology in your schema. For gender is subjective (by way of social expectations, expressions, etc.) and rights are grounded objectively (in the nature of the being); so a, e.g., ‘transgender right’ would be a ‘<subjective category of thought tied to sex by a society> <that grounds a right any member of that subjective category has>’.

This is critical to the conversation, I would say, because if this is true then we can’t speak of ‘cisgender’ nor ‘transgender’ rights; instead, it is just ‘human rights’ and every human has such rights indiscriminately of gender. This means that the idea that, e.g., I have the right to use a certain pronoun to identify myself because I am of such-and-such gender is incoherent with your view on ‘human rights’. Instead, I would, e.g., have to argue that something innate to my nature grants me the right to use a certain pronoun (although I understand you were arguing against anyone having such a right).

However, if we are acknowledging that rights are grounded in the nature of a being and this is central to what rights a transgender has; then the question arises: “do all humans have the same rights as humans but not necessarily as male and female?”. That is, are we merely discussing what rights both sexes of our human species share in common; or does the other aspects of their nature not get weighed in for other rights that may not be grounded in their mere human nature but rather their specific nature as a male or female? For example, do women have the right, as women, to refuse conscription but men must fight? Do they have the right to enter a female bathroom space when men don’t? These are considerations that are incoherent with a view that thinks that all the rights humans have are ‘human rights’ as you defined it; because it considers rights that one sex may have that the other doesn’t which, by definition, will not be considered in a generic evaluation of our nature as a human instead of femaleness or maleness. I don’t have the right to go in a female’s bathroom; but women do. The right for me to use a male bathroom is not the same right as the right for females to use female bathrooms: those are two different rights.

I appreciate the fact that you addressed the view that sees transgenderism as a mental illness; and I largely agree with your conclusions from your hypothetical entertainment of it. Here’s something that is important though on that note:

As such, I believe it is a right for people to be able to, of their own free will and money, alter their body as a trans sexual. Bodily autonomy is a human right

You touched on this a bit in the OP; but it is important to note that bodily autonomy does not cover the right to do anything you want with your body. For example, does a suicidal person have the right to kill themselves? Does a masochist have the right to continually cut themselves to the point of risking bleeding out everyday? Does a person have the right to, in modern terms, “rationally and freely” decide to become a drug addict?

The point being, the critical thing that the OP skipped passed is: “what are rights for?”. I humbly submit, they are for allowing ourselves to have the proper ability to realize our natures—to flourish—unimpeded by others. If this is true, then actions we could “rationally and freely” will against ourselves that are sufficiently bad for ourselves would not be covered under rights for our own protection. We would not, then, have the right dangerous immoralities that we could commit against ourselves in a ‘rational and freely willed’ way—e.g., drugs, gambling, pornography, masochism, suicide, etc.

The question then becomes: “is it sufficiently bad for a person’s well-being to try to transition to another sex when it is currently medically impossible to do?”. I would say emphatically “yes”; as it is, I honestly think it is mutilation granted that it doesn’t actually change the body from one sex into the other—we simply don’t have the technology to do that. On these grounds, I would see it like giving someone the option to do meth: that’s not a right one has because it is too dangerous for them—not even in terms of the right to bodily autonomy.

Of course, I know you probably disagree with a lot of this and perhaps you evaluate ‘well-being’ more in terms of modern ‘happiness’ (so maybe transitioning is, under your view, not dangerous at all if ‘happiness’ is central to the good-life); but my main point is that I think the OP needs to weigh in how dangerous something is for a person when calculating if the right to bodily autonomy covers it; and it needs to clarify what it thinks rights are for, as a ‘right’ is a concept we developed to get at something about our nature for ethics. If it isn’t for helping us flourish relative to our nature, then I would need to know what your view is viewing it as.

Cheers

Ah - very fair. Thank you.

In your definition of ‘human rights’, you seem to, and correct me if I am misunderstanding, be acknowledging that rights are innate, inalienable, and grounded in the human as a human being; and this implies that rights are inherent to the nature of a human. — Bob Ross

I confess, I should have defined this better. It only took until page 5 for someone to read the OP in seriousness and point that out. :) What I really defined was natural rights, and assumed human rights were an off shoot of them. Turns out human rights are specific to international law, which I'm not sure is the intent of the slogan, "Trans rights are human rights". So lets do a little combo if that's fair. Human rights are rationally agreed upon rights that should be conferred to all people. The key provisions of human rights are:

Universal, non-discriminatory, equal, and ideas that we would like to respect, protect, and fill. And yes, they are human rights, not monkey rights. :)

If this is true, then what rights we have are tied and anchored in our nature as a human; and so we look at that nature to expose which rights we have and which rights we think we have but don’t. — Bob Ross

No objection. We may have to define human nature, but I think we both have a general sense of what that is for now.

A right is, by your ‘human rights’ definition, grounded in the nature of being a human; and the nature of a human is never subjective; so it follows from this, I think plainly by my lights, that ‘transgender rights’ and ‘cisgender rights’ are internally incoherent phraseology in your schema. — Bob Ross

Are you saying that the definition of human nature can never be subjective, or that a human being's nature can never be subjective? I agree with the first part, but not the second part. Our subjective nature of thinking, feeling, and being is a living part of human experience. The subjective viewpoint of a cockroach is very different form the subjective experience of a human being.

For gender is subjective (by way of social expectations, expressions, etc.) and rights are grounded objectively (in the nature of the being); so a, e.g., ‘transgender right’ would be a ‘<subjective category of thought tied to sex by a society> <that grounds a right any member of that subjective category has>’. — Bob Ross

Lets replace your argument with other examples and see if it still works. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is often a right. But if we disregard a person's subjective experience, then we would be able to inflict immense pain on a person without a care or doubt.

But, on looking at it again, I think what you're saying is, "Can there be a human right about cultural subjective expectations?" So you're not saying anything about the personal experience of an individual, but a subjective expectation about an individual based on their sex.

To be more thorough, its also best to differentiate between biological expectation and social expectation. For example, we know by fact that men on average are taller than women. This isn't a subjective expectation, this is a statistical expectation based on biology.

So back to what I think you're saying. Lets plug it into another example. Is there a right that society should have certain subjective expectations of someone with a red hair color? It doesn't seem so. For one, everyone could technically have a different expectation of someone with red hair color. But then a right is a reasoned conclusion, and we must ask, is there a way to reason that someone should ever be showed a subjective expected viewpoint in society?

If we look at what is common to many rights, "The right for women to vote and the right to equal treatment under the law", what we see is a consistent pattern of people being free from the subjective expectations of others. Despite there being people who think women can't vote or that we should treat certain people differently under the law, rights expect us to treat each other equally in opportunity, not in expected actions or outcomes.

So then if we say, "trans gender rights" the only way for this to make sense is if there are certain human rights being denied to trans gender people simply because they are trans gendered. I think that's the only way this makes sense.

This is critical to the conversation, I would say, because if this is true then we can’t speak of ‘cisgender’ nor ‘transgender’ rights; instead, it is just ‘human rights’ and every human has such rights indiscriminately of gender. This means that the idea that, e.g., I have the right to use a certain pronoun to identify myself because I am of such-and-such gender is incoherent with your view on ‘human rights’. Instead, I would, e.g., have to argue that something innate to my nature grants me the right to use a certain pronoun (although I understand you were arguing against anyone having such a right). — Bob Ross

Yes, with what's been brought up so far, I mostly agree. With the caveat that I think we can talk about valid trans gender rights that are attempting to remedy rights that are owed them as human beings that they are not currently receiving because they are trans gender. Asking for things separate from human rights would not be a human right, nor a valid 'trans gender right'.

However, if we are acknowledging that rights are grounded in the nature of a being and this is central to what rights a transgender has; then the question arises: “do all humans have the same rights as humans but not necessarily as male and female?”. That is, are we merely discussing what rights both sexes of our human species share in common; or does the other aspects of their nature not get weighed in for other rights that may not be grounded in their mere human nature but rather their specific nature as a male or female? — Bob Ross

In common, but in common based on biology and function. Do we consider that a person who cannot walk has a particular right that a human who walks does not? Of course we would say its "All humans who cannot walk". In such a way we can say, "All humans who are men". The key here is this cannot be due to a social expectation, it must be based on the objective realities and consequences of biology. I say this as a proposal, not an assertion. I'm curious what you think here.

You touched on this a bit in the OP; but it is important to note that bodily autonomy does not cover the right to do anything you want with your body. For example, does a suicidal person have the right to kill themselves? Does a masochist have the right to continually cut themselves to the point of risking bleeding out everyday? Does a person have the right to, in modern terms, “rationally and freely” decide to become a drug addict? — Bob Ross

In my view I say yes to all three. Does a person have the right to kill themselves by throwing themselves into traffic and causing a mess? No. These are all things you have the right to do in your own home. The moment your actions start to unduly impact other people's freedoms, then its no longer a right. So if I use drugs at home and bother no one, its fine. If I use drugs, get in my car and drive into another vehicle, that's not a right. But to your point, I have a subjective expectation that a person should not do that. My subjective expectation that someone shouldn't do something is not a right that should be enforced.

The point being, the critical thing that the OP skipped passed is: “what are rights for?”. I humbly submit, they are for allowing ourselves to have the proper ability to realize our natures—to flourish—unimpeded by others. — Bob Ross

I would argue rights are not for personal flourishing. We would have a very different society if that were the case. I feel that rights are about the freedom from other people's subjective expectation of what we should do with our own life. It is to live and die as we wish and will, be that for good, or be that for ill.

The question then becomes: “is it sufficiently bad for a person’s well-being to try to transition to another sex when it is currently medically impossible to do?”. I would say emphatically “yes”; as it is, I honestly think it is mutilation granted that it doesn’t actually change the body from one sex into the other—we simply don’t have the technology to do that. On these grounds, I would see it like giving someone the option to do meth: that’s not a right one has because it is too dangerous for them—not even in terms of the right to bodily autonomy. — Bob Ross

You and I may differ here. If an adult wants to use meth, I say they have the right to do so. Now I want to be clear, I would not encourage or condone anyone I know to start taking meth. But they have the right to make that choice. My expectation of how they should behave does not trump their ability to decide themselves how they want to live in their own body. What I think of transitioning personally is irrelevant to whether someone should have the right to do so.

Nice to see an actual breakdown of the OP Bob!