Trans vs other protected characteristics

[Rudest75]

As somebody who has always been an advocate of both women's rights and LGBT rights I'm struggling to get my head around the recent trans debate. It seems to be an issue where you can't really support both sides, yet it's so less clear to me than is the case between most opposing ideologies like conservative vs liberal, nationalist vs multiculturalist, etc.

A common question around the bathroom debate seems to be "what rights exactly are trans people being denied?" When I try and apply this question to other protected characteristics I'm even more confused!

If we take the statement "trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men" how does this differ from the following examples?

"Muslims shouldn't be allowed in Christian spaces because of a small minority of terrorists/suicide bombers."

"Immigrants shouldn't be allowed in native spaces due to a small minority of rapists."

"Black people shouldn't be allowed in white spaces due to a small minority of gang members/Bloods/Crips."

I can't get my head around it!

[IrkThePurist]

The argument is not "trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men".

the argument is we cant tell who is genuine trans and who is not until it is too late, and it is unreasonable to demand we take that risk.
Women should not be put in the position of having to challenge potentially dangerous men in their spaces, not knowing if they are a predator, gender fluid or trans.

It is up to trans people to fight for a third, gender neutral space and services. that way, people who feel comfortable can voluntarily join them there.,

And women who's culture or race forbid them from sharing space with biological men wont be forced to stay at home.

[McTufty]

I think the difference is that there is no legal protection for Christians against Muslims, whites against blacks (for obvious reasons!) whereas there is sex based protection for women against men, which is eroded if anyone with a penis can self ID female and use these spaces.

[McTufty]

And I actually think you can support both women and trans, the only things stopping this are the insistence on self ID, and the refusal by the trans lobby to accept that there are some limited circumstances in which it is legitimate to treat women and transwomen differently eg requesting female doctor for intimate care

[UpABitLate]

If you feel that the parallels are the same then presumably you disagree with sex segregation entirely, given that we do not segregate the other groups you talk about.

Is that correct?

[Rudest75]

the argument is we cant tell who is genuine trans and who is not until it is too late, and it is unreasonable to demand we take that risk.

I understand this concern, but how do I understand who is a terrorist bomber and who is a normal law-abiding Muslim then?

[UpABitLate]

If you feel that the parallels are the same then presumably you disagree with sex segregation entirely, given that we do not segregate the other groups you talk about.

Is that correct?

[BigDeskBob]

We have sex segregation for a variety of reasons, allowing men into women's spaces stops the segregation. Fine if you believe sex segregation is unnecessary, not so good if you believe it's important.

[UpABitLate]

OP - do you disagree with sex segregation?

[IrkThePurist]

You keep chewing on that bone as if you think you have a point.

But the fact is womens medical services are segregated through criteria such as need, privacy and consent, risk is further down the list.

When men and women want single sex hospital wards thats what they mean. Single sex.

When trans people try to demand all access, they are the ones being oppressive. Especially when their presence bars women from other cultures.

You want to give trans identifying males access to the womens space in a mosque, so dont pretend you are being egalitarian or progressive.

[terryleather]

Trans Identified Males shouldn't be allowed in women's sex segregated spaces because they are men, despite how they identify. Trans Identified Females would be welcome as they are women - despite how they identify. The segregation is by sex not gender.

I agree with UpABitLate that following that following the OP logic there would be no sex segregated spaces at all.

[Betti935]

Feminists don't say trans people shouldn't have access to women's refuges etc. We say biological males (whether trans or not) shouldn't have access to them. Trans people who are biologically female (whether identifying as male, non binary, agender etc) should have access.

Similarly Muslim or immigrant women should have access to women's refuges and other women-only spaces. Muslim or immigrant men (along with all other men) should not.

[Beachcomber]

Your equivalences are false.

I suggest you stop trying to analyze sexual politics via useless and irrelevant thought experiments and focus on unpacking the actual matter in hand.

[BarrackerBarmer]

No, a better analogy would be whether a Hindu could declare that it is bigotry to deny the existence of multiple deities, announce that they have decided to self-identify as an atheist but also declare that atheism has evolved and is being redefined as 'an internal belief in multiple deities' so that it includes them. Any belief which excludes them is now evil. Exclusiveness is just wrong. Then they demand that the other atheists immediately worship according to the beliefs of the newly self identified 'atheist'. Continuing to hold the opinion that God doesn't exist becomes a hate crime. Those who persist with asserting that atheism means absence of belief in God, or refusing to pretend to believe or worship a nonexistent God are under threat of at best, social exclusion, or at worst, the loss of jobs and possible threat of being criminalised.
The new definition of atheism (acknowledgement and compulsory worship of multiple deities) becomes part of the school syllabus, children are punished for not conforming, and sports, medical science, laws begin to categorise people according to which deity is their favourite, with no option to opt out of the entire faith.

Compulsory religion.

Should it be a "right" to force a population to pretend to believe in something that doesn't exist? Should it be a "right" to replace meaningful categories with meaningless ones?

The conflict is as pure as conflict can be.

The right of a transwoman to insist he is the 'same' as a woman
vs
The right of a woman to insist she is not the same as a transwoman.

Same, or different.

To establish the truth - one has to allow both parties to be truthfully represented. Facts must prevail.

What is in fact happening is that the factual differences are being turned into social taboos. And women are being denied the right to represent themselves.

TLDR: penises have rights, vaginas don't.

[BarrackerBarmer]

I kinda stomped all over your last post there Beachcomber, with my badly timed analogy. Bad timing of cross posts. Soz.

[Rudest75]

If you feel that the parallels are the same then presumably you disagree with sex segregation entirely, given that we do not segregate the other groups you talk about.

Is that correct?

With respect I'd rather focus on my original question than derail to discussing my beliefs - the question should be able to stand alone whether asked by Donald Trump or Mother Teresa.

[Rudest75]

Sorry, missed the quotation marks.

[UpABitLate]

With respect the answer to that question is utterly key to the entire conversation.

You have drawn parallels between sex segregation and other groups that we do not segregate by sex.

If you refuse to answer as to whether fundamentally you agree with sex segregation or not, then I don't see how this conversation can go anywhere.

I have no idea what donald trump or mother teresa have to do with anything.

[Rudest75]

I still don't feel any clearer on the difference tbh. I guess my original point was reflecting on the fact that in all examples the threats represent a minority of the demographic being discussed - in fact, terrorists are likely more dangerous than transwomen.

[CousinChloe]

But in all your examples you're talking about identifying a tiny minority of 'bad/problematic' people from amidst the good ones. This is not the situation for preventing male access to women's private areas.

In this issue, it's not about separating a tiny minority of 'sex offenders / violent / bad' people out from the population of 'good trans', it's about the privacy of women from ALL male people, not just the 'bad' ones.

There's no reasonable reason to separate Christians from those Muslims who are not terrorists, but plenty of people see a reason to separate changing women from all men, not just the violent ones. I would feel uncomfortable changing my clothes on front of my gentle, non violent Dad, simply because he is a man and I am a woman.

[UpABitLate]

So you aren't going to answer the question as to whether you generally disagree with sex segregated situations,

Is that right?

I don't see how you can possibly expect anyone to engage with you on this if you won't answer that very basic question which is crucial to your OP.

[CousinChloe]

So I don't think your sentence stands "trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men". The sentence should be:

"trans identifying males shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because they are male".

[UpABitLate]

I've got to say rudest I don't think you're posting in good faith.

If you want to try and "get your head round" the things you talk about in your op, then you need to engage with the conversation.

Numerous posters have pointed out that none of your analogous situations involve groups that are segregated currently. I'd go as far as to say that all societies on the planet practice sex based segregation for various situations.

Helping you to "get your head round it" starts with understanding if you agree with sex segregated spaces in the first place. If you won't answer that, I don't see how you or anyone else can get any further with helping you not to be so terribly confused.

[CertainHalfDesertedStreets]

I think you should answer the question.

But if you won't then you need to flip your examples because you are mixing up the privileged with the under privileged.

So men want access to women essentially. We deny them that for good reason - no reasonable man would demand such a thing. So should I - as a privileged white person - expect access to spaces where racial and ethnic minorities might reasonably expect me not to?

Should I demand my right to wander around a mosque?

Or gatecrash a networking meeting aimed at BME people?

Can I walk into a gay club shouting about how I don't feel represented as a heterosexual?

Shall I pop up in the local synagogue at Passover carrying a menorah and shouting about how excluding me would be 'literally worse than the Holocaust'?

See any issues there?

[UpABitLate]

Man at my work recently said " why do they even need a group? there's no group for straight people" at a lgb event hahahaha silly sod

So yes some people think you should be able to

[BeeInMyBonnet1985]

I think Barracker's reply sums it up for me. Gender politics have a great deal of overlaps with religious belief in the sense that both are deeply-held, but intimately personal, internal, and entirely subjective. What trans activists are basically campaigning for is a state-enforced belief system where unbelievers are forced to accept an entirely subjective dogma. it would be like me as a Christian claiming that my Muslim neighbours are denying my humanity because they do not accept and share my belief system.

Our legal system does not operate on beliefs but on objective facts. Until Trans activists can not only define terms like 'woman' and 'man' without resorting to vague dogmas, but also demonstrate factually why sex is irrelevant in legal terms, I do not see that they have any basis for their claims.