For those who believe we need to differentiate by gender identity rather than sex, why?

[Blibbyblobby]

As a feminist my default reaction is to be sceptical whenever society determines it's necessary to treat men and women differently because it is so often based on sexist beliefs.

But I also recognise there are valid reasons for separation in some cases:

Firstly, where our bodies differ in such ways that we can't have equal provision without separate provision - sports, medicine, differences in physical tool design and safety equipment. These will never go away.

Secondly, where the intersection of our reproductive roles and the structure of our society put women at a disadvantage economically - maternity leave and employment rights, support for breastfeeding activities, legal obligation of males to finance the children they father regardless of the relationship with the mother. These will never go away as long as our society is structured around private incomes.

Thirdly, where the history of sexism in society has produced systemic structural disadvantages, internalised sexism and unconscious bias against women that has no root cause in a physical (sex) difference but nevertheless causes significant disadvantage, limitation or danger to women because of their sex. In this case we have agreed laws and other pro-women initiatives to counteract the reproduction of historic oppression. This I deeply hope will go away in future, but since these laws and protections can only be dismantled when the need for them has disappeared, here and now they are necessary. I personally include single sex toilets, accommodation, prisons and so on in this group because I believe that the male expectation of female care and time, male on female violence, male on female sexual violence and male fetishisation of female privacy is socially constructed not innate to male biology, but I accept I may be crediting them with too much here. Either way, as long as the danger is real, the protections are needed.

So all the reasons I can see where we justifiably separate men and women are either based in the actual physical differences, or inequalities that exist today because of past injustices based on those physical differences.

I also understand that under trans ideology, this view is hopelessly, irredeemably transphobic. To accept TWAW and TMAM one has to accept that there are no meaningful material differences between male and female bodied people that justify separation by sex rather than gender.

I don't believe that, but for the sake of argument let's say that is true.

I understand that while these sex-based separations may be wrong, since for historic reasons they currently exist, trans people want to be accepted on the Woman or Man side that aligns to their gender identity. However that's entirely a reaction and a reproduction of the pre-existing historic division rather than any practical difference between Man-the-gender and Woman-the-gender that produces an ongoing need for separate provision.

So while I know that feelings are not always logical, logically, TRAs should be fighting to dismantle these historic divisions that were based on sex, not keep them exactly as is but stick "for sex, replace with gender" on top.

And yet, they are not. So in fighting for TW in women's sports, women's toilets and women's prisons, there is an implicit statement in trans ideology that even without sex differences there is sometimes a need to separate men and women.

So what are these gender differences between men and women that mean we need women's prisons, sports, toilets, accommodation, STEM initiatives, political roles and so on?

Why under trans ideology do we still need to separate men and women in all the same practical ways that we were separating by sex, just now by gender and not sex?

I’d be very interested in a serious answer to this from someone who does believe in this gender ideology.

My suspicion is that this is all about “validation” and that if you take sex-based stereotypes away from gender there isn’t anything there. Emporer’s New Clothes-style.

Agree with @MidsomerMurmurs

I know. It's such a fundamental question hiding in plain sight. If the only difference between a woman and a man is their internal knowledge of their gender and it's not possible to perceive it from the outside, why on earth do we need single-gender anything?

Very good question, Blibbyblobby. Sadly, I doubt you'll get an answer. Other than perhaps 'validation'.

The only thing I've been able to think s things like, say, a woman's book discussion group, or men's club, something like that. There is a gay men's choir here and I know there is at least one transman member.

However, I personally think that while it's a good thing for groups like this to consider whether they really should be single sex or not, as sometimes it is just a matter of people doing what they have always done, it's perfectly valid for women and men to have social groups of this kind.

But then, I see them as sex differentiated by sex, not gender.

I have been thinking about this this week. I want to say to my dds that some activities need to be divided by sex for reasons usually of fairness, privacy, safety or dignity (eg. People have fought to maintain single sex hospital wards) but that it might be that other activities could reasonably be divided by self identified gender. I was trying to think of some examples of the latter. A woman's festival or a mens group? (but then, these were originally set up because spaces for that sex to come together - what business does a female living as a male have in a men's mental health group)? A girls school or a boys school? But if a female is allowed into a high performing boys school by virtue of self identification, is it fair that her sister is not allowed to attend? Is it fairer to exclude the trans boy or the girl? Schools can't gatekeep 'transness' so are by default forced to become mixed sex. Maybe a girls night out or a boys only party - but these are informal events and invitations are up to individuals, and often certain men or women are included in these. I couldn't think of any examples where I thought it would make sense to separate by gender, because if there is a need it is due to sex not stereotypes. I would be happy to find some because I would like to have this conversation.

I'd like to know the answer to this also (beyond 'be kind').

Even if I were to accept there is something meaningful called 'feeling like a woman' that is shared by transwomen and women alike, I can't see the utility of organising that way. Because there's no shared material reality - the only thing shared is some (highly hypothetical) emotion. To me, it makes as much sense to organise society on the basis of sad/happy or introvert/extrovert or open to experience/closed to experience ie not at all.

I suspect there is no answer beyond 'be kind' and 'disrupt the norm', because other than the physical differences between the sexes, and then environmental/intrinsic differences that accrue to our sex, there's no real reason to separate humans at all.

But I'm always open to a coherent answer.

It really is an excellent - and unanswerable- question.

What about something to do with fashion? The thing is those aren't usually all that bothered about mixed sexes if people are keen.

Agree with the first two, because they are based in scientific fact, but as the mother of a transdaughter, not so much the third. Both the twaw and anti-trans lobbies have a very bad habit of cherry picking their trans. The twaw loves holding up the Hunter Schafer (puberty blockers, then straight onto csh so never having had an influx of male sex hormones. Which, for full disclosure, is the camp my dd sits in), the anti trans movement holds up the Jessica Yaniv (middle age transition, possibly has a wife and child. Has no interest in hormones or medical transition). The reality is that the vast majority of transwomen sit in the Blaire White, Nikki Tutorials, Nikita Dragon, Laverne Coxs territory (those who didn't have blockers, but transitioned in their late teens/early 20's, are on hormones and have fully socially transitioned, possibly medically transitioned. Likely had some form of feminising surgery.) They're the ones that you might or might not give a second glance to, but ultimately not be able to determine the truth. And to suggest that they have any social privilege in their day to day lives over natalwomen is ridiculous.

Sorry, don t know where the paragraphs have gone in that. Enjoy your wall of text.

What do I - a woman - share with Blaire White, that I couldn't share with a man? I can't think of anything.

Passing* as a woman doesn't mean the issues affecting the class 'woman' affect a transwomen in a way they never affect men.

*The whole passing thing is very subjective.

There is no reason to have anything separated based on internal gender ID.

All of the things that are currently separate for um. Female people. Are to do with minimising risk. Maintaining long standing social norms around who you take your clothes off around. Things related to issues that impact female people more than men and in certain ways due to men being in charge etc forever.

The thing I find really interesting is that in general.

The male only stuff that women wanted to get into, argued against. Were things to do with work, being independent, and about political power. That sort of stuff.

Parliament was male only until 1918.

The marriage bar in the foreign office was only lifted in 1973.

Etc etc

We had to fight to be allowed to vote, to go to university, to be allowed to be politicians, to work after marriage. These were things that gave a voice, let us learn and work. Men only could do them.

When it's the other way around.

It's about things that are not like that at all.

I have read about and heard men talking about how women having trivial stuff is not on.

1 hour a week women only swimming for example. Women only gyms. Women's support groups etc etc.

And they don't want a man only session as well. They just don't like women having it.

There are men only support groups, men only gyms (in London at least), stuff laid on by the council for new dads etc. I have never heard a woman saying anything negative about that stuff let alone try to shut it down.

And now the things are the things that are even more to do with privacy and risk. Communal changing for swimming clubs, toilets, in patient psychiatric units, hospital wards etc etc

The things women wanted access to and the things men want access to (not TW, men). Are just totally different.

But the haha you wanted equality you've got it how do you like it types are loving all this.

There is no reason to separate on internal gender.

And it doesn't work anyway because

There are lots of genders
Plenty of people don't have that feeling (agender in the stonewall language)
Plenty of people aren't even aware of it, know what it means. My mum would be baffled if she was told she should use facilities based on her internal gender feelings.

I would think in some circs it would be safer just to have it all unisex. But in general neither men nor women want that.

And actually trans people don't either. The idea is that the majority of people follow the idea it's on sex, and a small group of people can choose.

Creepy that essentially means you think things should be single sex but trans people who pass are ok to use the things for their gender ID?

That's not very fair on those who don't, surely?

And when it comes to bogs if someone passes then of course no one will notice anyway.

When it comes to prisons etc then??? Would you apply the same principle?

@NiceGerbil

Creepy that essentially means you think things should be single sex but trans people who pass are ok to use the things for their gender ID?

That's not very fair on those who don't, surely?

And when it comes to bogs if someone passes then of course no one will notice anyway.

When it comes to prisons etc then??? Would you apply the same principle?

That's exactly what I think, and I have no qualms in saying so. I think the influx of middle aged men coming out as trans is symptomatic of a larger societal problem that actually has nothing to do with gender dysphoria, as I do the huge influx of teenaged girls. There is a conversation and study to be had there, but I don't think that should reflect on actual dysphoric trans people who are just out there trying to live their lives.

so all women look a certain way- if a man pulls off that look yay, he's a woman, and can access womens rights and sports, if he fails to look girly enough, he remains a man?

how do you propose to legislate this?

@Helmetbymidnight

so all women look a certain way- if a man pulls off that look yay, he's a woman, and can access womens rights and sports, if he fails to look girly enough, he remains a man?

Yep.

If you pass, you should be using facilities that align with your outward appearance for your own safety. If you don't pass, you need to weigh up the risks of each situation and determine which is likely to result in less harm, physically and mentally. That's what I teach my dd and her friends. Personal safety comes first, always, and I will not apologise for teaching that.

its pathetic, stereotypical nonsense, and impossible to legislate for, damaging especially for women but hey, you do you.

Thanks, I intend to.

Interesting perspective @Creepygnochi

Just wondering about this part:
If you don't pass, you need to weigh up the risks of each situation and determine which is likely to result in less harm, physically and mentally. That's what I teach my dd and her friends. Personal safety comes first

Whose safety and risk of mental harm are you talking about here, and what would you advise where there is the potential for the behaviour of one group of people (perhaps some of the individuals you named upthread) to adversely affect another group (women)?

I'm speaking of being accosted when I speak of mental harm. If you don't pass and think you are at risk of verbal abuse in the female toilet, use the males. Likewise, if you believe yourself at risk in the males, use the female.

Safety first. Fuck everything else, you do what you need to do to ensure you get to go home at the end of the day.

If you pass, you should be using facilities that align with your outward appearance for your own safety. If you don't pass, you need to weigh up the risks of each situation and determine which is likely to result in less harm, physically and mentally.

What if someone thinks they pass but don't? Isn't that very subjective? How do you propose to draft legislation that allows people who pass into, say, communal single-sex changing rooms and hospital wards but not those who don't pass?

What rights would a woman have if she found herself sharing facilities with someone who didn't pass (but thought they did) and felt uncomfortable as a result? Would the woman have any rights in that situation?

And no, not every transwomen is like Blair White and Nikki Tutorials. Blair has had huge amounts of plastic surgery, which Blaire has been very open about. Blaire has posted pre-transition videos on YouTube and the difference is remarkable. Blaire has had huge amounts of facial feminisation surgery, most notably around the jawline. I don't deny that Blaire passes extremely well. However, Blaire still has a penis and is open about that fact.

I have met transwomen who have come from very poor backgrounds and who don't have a hope of achieving Blaire's look. It takes money.

Should gay men also use the women's toilets if they feel at risk from harm in the men's?

Thanks @Creepygnochi
Safety is definitely important. I'm teaching my kids (still thankfully v young - really hope the current situation will have improved before they hit adolescence) that they as individuals also have to think about the needs and safety of others. That sort of social responsibility is quite a key message they get from their primary school actually.

Not sure how old-fashioned ideas of being part of society fit with the very self-focused demands of gender ideology.