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?

perhaps we should put dresses and heels outside bathrooms, prisons and refuges and anyone who fancies could put them on and say 'look i am a pretty girl'?

sports is more complicated but perhaps long hair = girl = girls sport. short hair = boy = boys sports.

@Creepygnochi

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.

But that's what we're all teaching our daughters. And why we think there should be sex segregation.

@MidsomerMurmurs

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.

You put your own oxygen mask before helping others. You are more than welcome to teach your children to self-flagellate, I however will not be doing so. My child making it home safe and alive at the end of the night will be my priority over your child's comfort each and every time. I'm not sorry about it either, and it's very disingenuous to claim that you would be any different in my shoes.

Women and girls don't figure in this at all.

If a man can ask himself this: Do I look enough of a lady today - and if he believes he does, he can have full unfettered access to any single sex spaces.
Its genius.

My child making it home safe and alive at the end of the night will be my priority over your child's comfort each and every time.

Understandable. However, I think laws need to be drafted based on what is good for society as a whole rather than what is good for an individual in one specific situation.

...if you believe yourself at risk in the males, use the female.

Why is it the job of one sex to accommodate the violence or aggression of the other sex? If males feel at risk of harm from other males, why is it women - females - who should move over to accommodate these males? Male violence is a male problem for males to solve.

@EdgeOfACoin

My child making it home safe and alive at the end of the night will be my priority over your child's comfort each and every time.

Understandable. However, I think laws need to be drafted based on what is good for society as a whole rather than what is good for an individual in one specific situation.

Luckily for me, the law reflects in my favor. As it should.

Luckily for me, the law reflects in my favor. As it should.

you're male?

@EdgeOfACoin

My child making it home safe and alive at the end of the night will be my priority over your child's comfort each and every time.

Understandable. However, I think laws need to be drafted based on what is good for society as a whole rather than what is good for an individual in one specific situation.

Exactly.

I’m all right Jack certainly has its place, but it’s not much cop in addressing the societal issues that blibbyblobby has so beautifully articulated, and which remain unanswered.

I’d also like to know more.

@Helmetbymidnight

Luckily for me, the law reflects in my favor. As it should.

you're male?

Me, in terms of the debate we're having.

As for Jessica Yaniv, people's issues with Jessica go way beyond Jessica's age at transition. People's concerns include (for those who don't know):

• Trying to sue beauticians for refusing to wax Yaniv's balls
• Obtaining online advice on the best way to help a 10-year-old insert her tampon
• repeatedly calling the fire services for getting stuck in the bath and making the female fire fighters uncomfortable

I'm pretty sure Yaniv would consider that they pass as a woman.

Luckily for me, the law reflects in my favor. As it should.

Depends on where you are. In the UK the EA 2010 provides exemptions.

It's impossible to separate by gender. It's completely unquantifiable. Take me, a transwoman and a man. My gender identity, if you must call it that, is common for women where I live: fairly domineering, a little bit heartless, somewhat abrasive. The transwoman follows what they personally think is a feminine gender identity: kind, helpful, cries a lot. The man is, as so many men are, gentle, loving and emotionally expressive. I wear jeans, the TW wears a dress, the man wears flowery shorts. Which facilities suit our internal genders and external expression?

Luckily for me, the law reflects in my favor. As it should.

Which law? Your posting times and spelling of favour suggest the US or Canada, not U.K. which is where this site and most of its posters are based. British law still clearly allows for single sex exemptions in the equalities act, although it's regrettably often misquoted or ignored. If you're not in the U.K. you may find we're occasional talking at cross purposes.

Hey Creepy

Thanks for getting involved. I think your example is not quite the question I'm asking.

You are, if I read it correctly, saying your child and others like them will use the pre-existing convention of female-sex and male-sex toilets pragmatically for their own safety specifically because they can "pass" and are likely to be read as an actual female, at least for the time it takes to have a quick wazz.

So while I see why that's a pragmatic decision for your individual child, it's not a reason to split by gender identity and not sex as the general principle. In fact, by explicitly drawing a line between your child and later-transitioning TW you are saying you want it to stay split by sex, just with an exception for your child to keep them away from dangerous members side of the male sex, including trans women in some cases.

(Also worth saying that passing is not digital. A trans woman might pass (or be politely treated as passing) for a few minutes in the ladies loo - passing full time as a female sex person in shared accommodation for example is a very different proposition.)

The question I'm interested in is what are the intrinsic differences between men and women by gender that justify single gender services, rights and provisions in principle - that means no split by passing or not passing, just a clear and undeniable gender-based difference that justifies destroying all the reasons I listed above for sex-single sex provision to replace them with exactly the same structures split by gender instead.

@ErrolTheDragon

Luckily for me, the law reflects in my favor. As it should.

Which law? Your posting times and spelling of favour suggest the US or Canada, not U.K. which is where this site and most of its posters are based. British law still clearly allows for single sex exemptions in the equalities act, although it's regrettably often misquoted or ignored. If you're not in the U.K. you may find we're occasional talking at cross purposes.

God, don't be so condescending.

I know my EA act. It's not misquoted or ignored, the way certain people try to use it clashes with the section that states you cannot discriminate against people due to gender reassignment, or proposed reassignment. Perhaps not fanastically worded and contradictory is a better argument.

@Creepygnochi

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.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the vast majority of TW are like those you’ve named - perhaps it’s because they are in the public eye? But the people you have named do have social privilege though. By virtue of the fact that in today’s society, certainly in many countries, these people know they will not be openly challenged as to whether they should be in sex segregated spaces. Imagine the furore if in a public female only toilet a girl asked Laverne Cox to please leave because they were not female?

What do you mean passing full time is different? Do you think my daughter takes her tits off every night before she goes to bed or something?

cannot discriminate against people due to gender reassignment, or proposed reassignment

There are multiple exemptions to this.

You're saying that if Laverne Cox and Khole Kardashian walked into the toilet, and you had no idea who they were, you would be able to tell which one was born male?

I didn't mean to sound condescending, apologies if I did. I believe there was a court case which clarified that you (entirely rightly) can't discriminated against a gender-reassigned person compared to someone of their own sex. But, as the OP has just says, we're straying somewhat from what she's trying to delve into.

Yes, as they would be moving. The whole male / female gait thing is easily observed. Indeed it is what often alerts women in the first place.

What I am struggling with is that there aren't two genders, there are many, hundreds in fact. So why is gender segregation based on two genders, the two that reflect what we used to call sex?
How on earth is that inclusive to someone who identifies as neither a man or a woman but one of the other 998 genders? Which option do they pick?

Thank you Blibbyblobby your excellent OP which I agree with wholeheartedly, these are the most pertinent questions.

The gender ideology movement seems to have two aims first is to dismantle any societal structures which acknowledge that the two sexes are physically distinct and have different needs in some circumstances as a result.

The second is to create new structures which separate people into categories based on gender identity instead. It is impossible to objectively judge or even define gender identity, not only that but gender identity can be “fluid” changing from day to day or moment to moment.

This result can only be to become sex and gender blind. We must all stop seeing sex but ultimately gender too and I wonder where that leaves those seeking validation.

For those of us who believe that women are disadvantaged in various circumstances due to our reproductive role in humanity and everything that goes with it this means that we can no longer draw attention to any problems we face. In a society that doesn’t see sex sexism cannot be seen nor discussed either.

YANBU OP.

@Creepygnochi

What do you mean passing full time is different? Do you think my daughter takes her tits off every night before she goes to bed or something?

I wasn't thinking about your child. It was a general comment that the set of TW who pass for the time and level of contact of a visit to the loo is going to be smaller than the set of TW that will be read as natal females by women they are living in close quarters every day with for months or years.