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?

Surprised that @ASugarr hasn’t waded in to lecture us all on this yet.

Can't say society doesn't have a type

I think this is the crux.

Interesting info about Schafer, will be keeping an eye on those developments, thanks.

@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.

Except that Blair White et al are never going to experience periods or menopause or pregnancy discrimination or maternity issues or reduced earning capacity following child rearing or any of the other things women experience that have nothing to do with how pretty we are or whether we wear a dress or not.

They get to enjoy the 'benefits' of the aspects of womanhood they choose to emulate but none of those based upon their biology.

That isnwhere their day to day privilege lies.

@AyeRobot

But it's all self identity, Blibbyblobby, given that one can't change sex.

Yes, one can't change sex, hence my point as if they were the opposite sex.

If there's a need for a mechanism to handle a small number of exceptions in a sex-based structure by recognising that the sex-based concerns may also apply, in defined and limited cases, to a small number of people of the other sex because for the purposes of that particular constraint they are likely to be read as the opposite sex, it can be done within the context of single-sex provision. It is in fact the exception that proves the rule - the exception for passing TW proves the need is for sex not gender. It's not a reason to redefine the single-sex provision as single-gender.

So while anyone can certainly self-identify as a woman by gender, it should not be self-identity by gender that gains a TW access to single sex spaces when the reason they exist is sex not gender.

I'll not go into specifics because I envision it will be different for each provision, but certainly when the sex provision is a legal right I'd expect anyone qualifying for an exception to hold some sort of legal id that could be presented if challenged (not that I'd expect anyone to challenge if someone passes so well, but it maintains the principle that women's spaces are not open to men without gatekeeping. Think of it like a driving license - no one asks to see it every time you drive but you are required to have it, if you cause problems it can be demanded and even revoked, and sometimes you need to show it before you can do something). That legal status would certainly include full reassignment surgery.

To be clear, that's not gatekeeping or "genital inspections" for one's right to self-identify as a women by gender. A TW's gender is her own business which she can chose to share or not as she wishes. It's entirely about a male person's license to be treated as an exception as if he is female when it comes to single sex provisions.

So, for example, I can see a case for a TW who has had full reassignment surgery and would read as female to have a license (but not a right) to use women's sex-based toilets, but she doesn't gain access to a Women's (sex) space by right because of her gender identity but by exception because of her specific situation in being likely to read as female, ie it's still a sex-based control and the space is still single-sex in principle. It's not open to all TW by right of their gender.

Also, being one of a subset of TW who have an individual exception for one single-sex purpose does not give a person any right (or license) to other single-sex provision such as incarceration in a woman's prison, acting as the woman's officer in a political party or trade union, speaking for women at an event, taking a place in a STEM outreach programme for women or being counted as a woman for pay gap or board representation.

To me the "risk of passing" exception actually adds weight to the argument that all the reasons we separate men and women are do to with sex and not gender because it would apply just as much to a male person who for some reason went through enough physical alterations to fully pass as female in a given scenario without actually identifying as a trans woman precisely because gender identity is irrelevant to the reasons we have historically segregated by sex.

I'm very open to examples of differences between Men and Women by gender that necessitate single-gender provision but not single sex provision. I'm especially interested in why those differences appear to apply wholesale to require redefining all the pre-existing single sex spaces as mixed sex, single gender.

Because there is a little more to who someone is than the contents of their underpants perhaps?

@Shizuku

Because there is a little more to who someone is than the contents of their underpants perhaps?

I’m sure we can all agree with that, but this thread isn’t about “who someone is”.

Which activities/spaces/opportunities/rights do you think should be segregated by gender, specifically, and why?

From what I've seen I would say that defining people by the contents of their underpants is exactly where gender ideology leads us.

@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?

Even to the extent that a transwoman colleague of mine told me that a female we both know must be a transwoman because she doesn't look or behave very womanly. (She isn't)

I don't really care what people look like as long as male bodies stay out of female-only spaces.

No.

Gender is a societal construct and sex is an biological reality.

Yes, of course there's more to someone than their genitalia as we've pointed out time after time.

Let me do the heavy lifting this time. Genitalia indicate sex, and being born XX/ female means we will be the one's conceiving, gestating and bearing children, with all the costs on our bodies, minds and careers that that entails. On average we're shorter, weaker and can run less fast than the average XY/ male person, we'll live longer, earn less, are at far higher risk of domestic violence, sexual harassment on the street, sexual assault and rape, are likely to earn less, retire on lower pensions, less likely to reach senior grades in our careers and professions, far, far less likely to head up a Top 100 company, far more likely to be expected to care for our children and parents, remember Christmas and birthday cards and of course, we do considerably more housework and emotional labour within the family than the average male. Plus we struggle with mobile phones and other tech made for larger men, with drugs and medical practices developed using male bodies and social structures and many physical structures designed for men.

So yes, there's a lot more to being male or female than what's in our pants, but what's in our pants has massive significance and knock on effects in our lives and failing to acknowledge this, and to pretend that adopting a roughly female appearance and insisting to the world that you're a woman is utterly, profoundly, inexcusably sexist, patronising and insulting to women.

@Shizuku

Because there is a little more to who someone is than the contents of their underpants perhaps?

Underpants?

How interesting. Knickers, surely!?

"this thread isn’t about “who someone is”."

It literally is.

@DaisiesandButtercups

I think that MidsomerMurmurs has raised the issue that traditionally in the UK we have had more of an idea of being a community, a society and to a certain extent it hasn’t been a social norm to put the needs of the the individual ahead of the needs of the majority. We have aimed at a balance so that most people get most of what they need most of the time and individual or minorities with needs or wants haven’t been able to trump the majority.

So maybe some Muslims would like wearing hijab to be required by all women who work in the public sector, or just all women out in public, the majority disagree and so we can choose to wear hijab or not.

Maybe some vegans would like all public services to serve only vegan food and for eating meat in public to be a hate crime but again the majority wouldn’t be served well by that change so we go on free to make our own dietary choices and vegans have to sort themselves out with a packed lunch in many schools and other public services.

Maybe we ought require that all public sector employees have at least GCSE level British Sign Language, has this ever been proposed? BSL could be taught in all state schools as a compulsory subject. If it were proposed I am sure that the costs and benefits would be properly assessed prior to implementation, plus an impact assessment.

Maybe we should make stairs and steps illegal in public places, and require every space on public transport to be wheelchair accessible and all public conveniences to be accessible as well. Once again a proposal of this nature would likely be subject to scrutiny, costs, benefits, impact assessment and so on.

I still find it inexplicable that believers in gender identity ideology are able to have their requirements so prioritised to the point that the whole of society is expected to change its structures from being based on the different sex based needs of men and women to being based on an ill defined and ever changing personal self-concept of any given individual.

Structures are already being changed in favour of gender identity rather than sex despite that fact that there has been no impact assessment and no government department nor the sports organisations promoting it can tell us why the changes are necessary, proportionate, and beneficial, or at least benign, for the majority rather than benefiting a minority to the detriment of the majority.

A brilliant post @DaisiesandButtercups

@Shizuku

"this thread isn’t about “who someone is”."

It literally is.

No it literally isn't, so if that's how you read it then as the OP I can clarify.

It's what are the practical, observable differences of gender but not sex that require separation of men and women by gender instead of sex.

Not just because there's a pre-existing Woman's category due to sex differences so TW feel that's where as women they belong, but actual, fundamental reasons that demonstrate why the genders, but not the sexes, need separate rights, opportunities and/or protections.

It's got nothing to do with "who someone is". We don't base single sex, or single gender^ rights based on "who someone is" (although we sometimes take them away based on what they chose to do.). We define them by group based them on specific, observable risks and needs of that group.

What are the gender risks and needs that require separate gender provision for men and women?

I don't get this reductive business, we are all also people, no only men and women. The fact that maleness or femaleness, qua maleness or femaleness, is about reproductive class, does not mean that all we are is a reproductive class.

does not mean that all we are is a reproductive class

It also does not mean that someone's sense of self is more important than objective reality or everyone else's needs and is therefore a justification to strip all women of sex based rights regardless of how they feel about it.

It may mean that a campaign is needed to provide a third choice alternative for those whose sense of self does not match their biological sex and where they would prefer an alternative. Because sex is how toilet/changing/sex based need facilities are organised.

Defining yourself in new and different ways because those ways don't work for you and requesting additional provisions? Fine.

Demanding the whole of the rest of the world define and organise themselves around your self definition regardless of whether they agree, share your beliefs and can actually still access facilities without sex based provision? Really not fine.

Tolerance for those who have sex based beliefs is needed here.

To the OP question.

Maybe beauty contests and things like that? That's all I can think of. There's a transman entered into Mr gay UK or similar I think.

What people think of these contests is a different conversation but I think having gender id for them would be fine.

After that I draw a blank.

Beauty contests are an interesting one. I have a relative who does the pageant circuit. It's very much a validation tool for someone with low confidence and an eating disorder. I can't imagine that will positively impact her self image if she lost out to a man. She is very twaw but they either have their own catagory or just never win because of obvious reasons.
If transwomen started winning enmasse the purpose of entering for these girls kind of goes.
I think they're hideously unhealthy environments for anyone, but that's just my opinion. Relative would say they're empowering but I see no evidence of that, they've just reaffirmed unhealthy attitudes for her.

Excellent question Blibbyblobby, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I agree, if sex matters because the issue is something to do with the difference between male and female bodies, then you have to divide by sex. If sex doesn't matter, then gender doesn't either so no need to divide into groups.

This keeps things simple and means that we can focus attention on how provision can be made for trans or non-binary people in the situations where sex matters that keeps them safe and is respectful of their feelings - making third spaces widely available and used by lots of people, providing appropriate medical advice and treatment for their sex while respecting their right to privacy and so on.

I imagine a workshop on how to be a good wife might advertise to those who consider themselves to have be the feminine gender.

Can't think of any further examples.

What about religious issues? Some religions don't accept that TWAW. Are we to simply say if they don't like it, all their female followers will just have to stay at home and only go out for short periods because public toilets allow transwomen? I'm an atheist, but even I think that's unfair.

It's an interesting question op: Are there ever occasions when it might be appropriate to segregate people on the basis of identity or personality? I might be missing some but I cannot think of any where it's ended well.

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?

Those are examples covered by @Blibbyblobby excellent OP:

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.

I'm an old 1970s feminist (well, I was a teenaged baby feminist in the late 1970s at university). I was able to experience the power & liberation of women-only groups and gatherings in specifically feminist contexts (that is, not mother-and-baby groups, for example).

I wonder if many younger women nowadays rarely have this experience, and if that's why they don't value it? The energy & freedom of a woman-only group is an experience every woman should have.

I imagine a workshop on how to be a good wife might advertise to those who consider themselves to have be the feminine gender.

I don't imagine there'd be a huge uptake from transitioned men ... I'm thinking of clips of Caitlyn Jenner post-transition berating their ex-wife for not being supportive. Same story, different dress.

So the only answer here from a pro-gender perspective is 'you can't tell real transwomen from women'. With a side of 'safety for the transgirl/transwoman must outweigh all other concerns and can only be solved in a binary manner.'

Colour me unconvinced that society ever needs to be organized by gender.