Have you read the Rowling essay? She advocates many discriminatory positions in it. Among them, she doesn't think trans women should be allowed in women's bathrooms, or other "single sex spaces." I don't think everyone who agrees with that statement is transphobic, but it's become a bit of a shibboleth amongst people who are, as it's often posed against the statement "trans women are women."
> she doesn't think trans women should be allowed in women's bathrooms, ... a shibboleth amongst people who are, as it's often posed against the statement "trans women are women.
Because the right to call yourself "trans woman" has been widened to the point of including people who didn't undergo any gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy. And yes, I don't think that those "trans women" are, or should be considered, women. Actually, not even "trans".
> And yes, I don't think that those "trans women" are, or should be considered, women. Actually, not even "trans".
You say this very lightly but it's obvious to me that you haven't really considered the consequences.
For example, you say "people who didn't undergo any gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy". But you don't seem to consider that those are medical interventions. I think if you thought of them in that light, you would be a little more thoughtful about demanding that people undergo medical interventions for any reason, no less as the price of being recognised as their claimed, or lived gender.
Such requirements are common. In some countries in Europe until very recently transwomen were not allowed to change their papers to identify them as women and to declare the female names they used everyday unless they could demonstrate that they had been rendered surgically sterile, by castration. Germany was one such case.
I wonder also if you have a slightly romantic idea of surgery and hormone
therapy. The truth is that surgery doesn't magically transform a man into a
woman, no matter what some surgeons want us to believe. Some transwomen will
always look like men, no matter how much they cut off and throw away. Others,
will look like women without having taken any hormones in their entire lives. I
know that's hard to believe, but it's how it is. The human species is only very
lightly sexually dimorphic and some males can pass for women, and some females
for men, with very little intervention. In the case of transwomen, for many it
is enough to remove their beard (by electrolysis or photolysis) and take care of
their hair, to be immediately identified as women by everyone that sees them. On
the other side, history is full of females who cut their hair short, wore pants
and lived the rest of their lives as men.
But, I know the above is hard to believe so OK. Just please try to keep an open
mind and remember that you don't automatically know everything there is to know
about transwomen (and transmen).
Transitioning is centered around the needs of each individual - many choose not to or are outright unable to receive surgery or medical transitioning, yet that doesn't make them any less trans.
At the end of the day, it's their decision what to do with their body, not yours. All that is asked of you is to respect their decisions and treat them with the same amount of respect as you'd treat any other non-trans individual.
It's their decision what to do with their bodies, absolutely, but then why should everyone be forced to accept their view of themselves as an objective fact? I don't doubt that in the vast majority of cases their view is sincere and sound- but shouldn't this judgement be left to those who know them rather than being imposed?
It is an objective fact. Each individual is free to express themselves as they see fit. Nobody is responsible for proving that they're a -real trans- and we really shouldn't be in the business of gatekeeping that anyways, because we already did that decades ago and the APA and AMA now move in line with WPATH guidelines which are far more reasonable.
If we meet in public and you say "Hi, my name is Michael" I can only assume that that's objective fact. If I then say "You know, you don't really seem like a Michael. I think you're more of a Denise based on what I've seen." You would be right to take offense for disregarding your own right to self expression based on my own interpretation of your person from the limited information gathered in a first impression.
This is a very similar thing, except by the time someone is out as trans you can best believe they've spent years agonizing about whether it's even a good idea to do so knowing they'll face this kind of a conversation every time the topic comes up around people who they aren't close with / are not sympathetic.
An attribute that can change based on someone's feelings is definitely not objective. And all of the genders that are neither male nor female were invented in the last few decades, so membership in one can't be factual. Likewise, membership in a construct called "gender" which is divorced from biological sex was also invented within the last century, so that can't be said to be factual either.
Objective [1]:
1. Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality.
2. Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices.
3. Based on observed facts; without subjective assessment.
Non-binary gender identity and roles have been present in human societies dating as far back as 4500 years ago[1]. The only thing relatively new in the last 100 years is the moral panic about it.
Furthermore, from a scientific standpoint, there's not really any such thing as a clean binary division between male and female. Chromosomes get messy, and even absent issues with the X and Y chromosomes themselves [2] there's some fun stuff with the SRY gene [3] and hormonal receptors in utero that can affect gender identity and presentation [4].
Meh... what you're describing is rarely where the actual conflict is. What about situations where it does affect other people (and unfortunately those situations tend to be ones where merely articulating your concerns is enough to earn you all sorts of labels and hate)?
