I've been following all the trans threads with interest. I agree that self ID is a terrible idea, and that it's crazy to say that everyone who cross-dresses or likes kittens is now a woman. However I do feel uncomfortable about removing rights from genuine transsexuals who just want to live their life. I know "genuine transsexual" is hard to define but I guess I would probably define it as someone with diagnosed gender dysphoria who has either had gender reassignment surgery or sufficient hormonal treatment that they no longer have functioning birth genitals.
Anyway I wondered whether a helpful way to look at it might be similar to how I would look at someone with body integrity dysphoria (BID, where people have an overwhelming desire to have a limb amputated) and what their rights might be.
I guess this is how I'd see the various "trans issues" in this situation. It's not a perfect analogy but I think it maps pretty well.
-
Treatment: treatment to address the underlying thought processes would seem the best first option - but if that didn't work and the person was at risk of suicide or self-mutilation then amputation surgery might be justifiable.
-
Treatment of children: it would seem sensible to watch and wait and let them make decisions as an adult (obviously hormone blockers, while worrying, are less drastic than surgery so analogy doesn't fully work here).
-
Support groups etc for amputees: If someone said they had BID but had not yet had amputation I'd say they wouldn't have a basis for joining this group, because they are not currently disabled (no matter how they may feel). Plus it would be impossible to distinguish them from people who don't really have BID. However if they have BID and have actually had an amputation, I'd probably say they could join.
-
Sports eg taking part in paralympics: People who have BID but no amputation yet: definitely not. People with BID who have had amputation: possibly but on a case by case basis depending on how similar their physical body is to "genuine" amputees ... or possibly only in a "third category".
-
Prisons ie being on a disabled wing: People who have BID but no amputation yet: definitely not. People with BID who have had amputation: possibly but on a case by case basis. Any past abuse of disabled people: definitely not. History of violence: probably not, due to risk of violence to people physically weaker than themselves.
-
Should people with BID be allowed to identify as disabled? If pre-op: No, they are technically not disabled so shouldn't be able to demand this right, as it's not fair to actual disabled people and they shouldn't be able to take up spaces, awards etc intended for genuine disabled people. Having said that, if I knew someone with BID I may agree to refer to them as disabled even though I knew it wasn't true, if it made a difference to their happiness. If post-op: Yes I'd probably say they could identify as disabled. (I know the analogy breaks down a bit here as a trans person post-surgery still has their birth chromosomes and some physical attributes of their birth sex ... but in the absence of a perfect solution, this would be close enough for me.)
I guess in summary I agree that woman = adult human female. However, personally I would probably say a trans person with gender dysphoria and post-surgery or substantial hormone therapy could have the right to be called a woman, but would still have to abide by case-by-case decisions for prisons, sport and refuges. I know others will disagree but there you go. Maybe this is a rubbish analogy but it seemed to make sense to me!