Who Is a Woman: Sex, Gender and Policy Making

[aseriesofstillimages]

I’m not sure if this paper by Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine has been noted on this forum before, but I had not come across it.

https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/2/211/htm

It seemed to me the most helpful, clear, balanced discussion I’ve seen of how to approach these issues. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

"will the trans woman be at risk in the male estate"

Everyone should be protected in prison, but the way to do that for trans women is potentially to house them in their own sections.

Or whatever solution you find, if you are thinking of sending males into women’s prisons then that just creates a new safety risk. It's hardly fair to risk women’s safety and no "assessment of risk" is going to be perfect.

"how much distress would it cause them to be housed in the male estate."

Again, it's a punishment. Some people will have a better or worse time in prison because of various factors. If you suffer more because of gender dysphoria well then remember not to break the law.

I haven’t RTFT, sorry. Just a quick observation that, in the thread discussing the recent documentary with Kathleen Stock a couple of weeks ago, we noted that the individual who was in the pub with Linda Bellos had:

• only conceded that males shouldn’t be in women’s sports after that argument had clearly been lost;
• continued to use female intimate hygiene spaces despite being fully conscious that the presence of a clearly male person would cause distress and discomfort to some women;
• sought to move the focus of the argument about the TQ campaign for males who profess a gender identity to have access to women’s spaces, facilities, services and provisions onto whether there was a direct likelihood/ risk of physical harm to women (and away from women’s right to privacy, dignity, etc).

The discussion in that thread concluded that we would likely see that approach being deployed more frequently on here.

“That applies to prison equally, and you probably have to assess on an individual basis in that context - ie does this trans woman pose any sort of threat to female inmates, will the way the trans woman presents cause female inmates distress, will the trans woman be at risk in the male estate, how much distress would it cause them to be housed in the male estate.”

Interesting to observe that the “case by case” approach being advocated for by the OP here is also the approach advocated for by individuals who profess to support women’s rights but regard themselves as the special exception who should have access to women’s spaces in circumstances where other males who identify as TW shouldn’t. Individuals such as IW, DH, and the person in the pub with LB (whose name I can’t recall but I think included Jon/John?).

I think we all know the answer to that one! And it sure as hell isn't gains for the women women!

Why can't they do something about the possibility of gains from greater diversity within men's spaces from the inclusion of transwomen? (Rhetorical question! As I'm sure yours was!)

“This sounds like you're advocating for mixed sex prisons. I ask how that benefits women and the only answer I can come up with is that it doesn't. So that's a no from me.”

Mixed sex prisons is exactly what the OP is advocating for.

If the paper ignores the motivations of erotic cross-dressers as one of the factors to be considered when assessing whether women’s single-sex female-only facilities and services should be permitted to exist or should be withdrawn from women and transformed into mixed-sex facilities open to males, then the paper will be of limited value for use in policy-making.

Indeed @LoobiJee But isn't it Helen Joyce who points out that one of the blockages in sensible discussion - indeed an embarrassment in discussion - of policies which try to balance the rights & needs of 50% of the population with the the rights & needs of transpeople, is the admission (or rather non-admission) that a substantial proportion of [biological] male transgender people are motivated by their sexual preference for autoerotic cross-dressing.

Are we to make public policy on the basis of a sexual preference for autoerotic cross-dressing?

Particularly public policy which has the potential to affect the rights and safety of 50% of the population?

That applies to prison equally, and you probably have to assess on an individual basis in that context - ie does this trans woman pose any sort of threat to female inmates, will the way the trans woman presents cause female inmates distress, will the trans woman be at risk in the male estate, how much distress would it cause them to be housed in the male estate.

a) I don't believe in case-by-case assessments here, there is too much risk of them being politically-driven, or of being just plain wrong.

b) don't forget the prison staff, some of whom are now on public record expressing their problems in dealing with transwomen inmates in female prisons

c) no one ever actually asks the current female inmates, or staff, whether they mind. Any assessments are just a theoretical, paper exercise.

Indeed @LoobiJee But isn't it Helen Joyce who points out that one of the blockages in sensible discussion - indeed an embarrassment in discussion - of policies which try to balance the rights & needs of 50% of the population with the the rights & needs of transpeople, is the admission (or rather non-admission) that a substantial proportion of [biological] male transgender people are motivated by their sexual preference for autoerotic cross-dressing.

Are we to make public policy on the basis of a sexual preference for autoerotic cross-dressing?

Particularly public policy which has the potential to affect the rights and safety of 50% of the population?

Women on Mumsnet have made this point for years, predating Helen Joyce, great though she is, when we've been able to dance around the language enough to remain undeleted. The fact that is not taken into consideration by policy makers is a serious issue.

Indeed, @Ereshkigalangcleg (and both of us are dancing nimbly!). But it's great that Dr Joyce - with her very public platform - is speaking straightforwardly about the issue (in ways we can't).

Definitely. And she is calm and clear but unrelenting.

The issue of individuals whose motivation is erotic cross-dressing was raised in one of the committee sessions in the Scottish Parliament last year. I can’t remember who by, was it JC? As I recall, the individuals sitting just behind in the public gallery failed to conceal their sniggers / self satisfied expression.

I've only skimmed the article but thanks for posting it, aseriesofstillimages. I'll try and read it properly later.

I thought it was interesting, not least because it acknowledged conflicts of interest, and also because it differentiated between different types of policy purpose - e.g. support for family carers will primarily help women but would also benefit men and transgender people who care. It also acknowledges that women who have been abused have a right to single sex spaces but assumes that all lavatories are the same in terms of risk. In reality, some women would be prepared to use a unisex lavatory in a high end restaurant but would feel differently about the lack of separate provision in schools. The weakest section for me was the discussion on quotas, (including developing new award categories). Quotas are always unpopular politically (politicians are unlikely to implement them) and they won't solve the problem of a person wanting to be in the woman/man award nominations, not the 'third space' one. I liked the reference to people identifying as a woman 'on a part time basis' but I bet such people would never agree to be treated differently legally from those who have had full affirmative surgery/medication.

On a frivolous note, I always smile when I hear or see the phrase 'heated debate' because of Mrs Merton.

Incidentally, there is another article in the same issue about the limits of identity. I haven't read it but this is the link:

https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/2/205/htm

Thank you sharing your initial thoughts on the article.

On the thing about quotas and similar interventions, I think I recall they made the point that there may often be more effective, tailored approaches to help those who are actually underrepresented/disadvantaged than just all women. I’ve thought for a while that in many cases where policies seek to increase representation of women (eg in a profession), it would make more sense to have a quota/initiative specifically for women with children, as child care responsibilities often seem to be the primary factor making the difference.

Thanks for sharing that other article, I read quite a lot of it. It’s interesting as a philosophical discussion, but it felt to me like a bit of a pointless exercise in terms of actually working towards a practical way forward.

Thank you for posting this @aseriesofstillimages
I will read it with interest

My pleasure!

but it felt to me like a bit of a pointless exercise in terms of actually working towards a practical way forward.

It feels as if policy was allowed to drift by a failure to properly consider what could/should be changed at an early stage. Now opinions have become very polarised - like the slogan 'my existence isn't up for debate' when the gentlest of discussions are proposed.

Thanks for sharing that other article, I read quite a lot of it. It’s interesting as a philosophical discussion, but it felt to me like a bit of a pointless exercise in terms of actually working towards a practical way forward.

I thought it was very insightful. I can see why it would have made you a bit uncomfortable. The Tuvel controversy was utterly batshit.

Tuvel’s principle is misleadingly stated as an expression of negative duties. In reality, “not blocking people” from assuming the identities they wish to assume requires active participation. Trans* inclusivity requires female athletes to be willing to participate against male competitors (or leave the field), and for women generally to share formerly female-exclusive spaces with males (or else vacate those spaces). It requires people of all sexes to refer to some males by feminine pronouns and, occasionally, to use non-standard pronouns. Abiding by these language norms might seem like a trivial inconvenience, but they’re sometimes enforced with consequences that aren’t trivial.52

If Tuvel’s principle only refers to non-interference, then it goes little distance toward the claim that we owe trans* people and others full acceptance (unless we’re supposed to understand “non-interference” in an unusually broad way). If we understand it to mean that we have positive duties to affirm others’ identities, then it has a gazillion counterexamples. The crank next door isn’t entitled to have anyone affirm his status as a brilliant musician regardless of how much his self-conception depends upon this belief. Religious believers aren’t entitled to have non-believers affirm their beliefs. This might invite the objection that these things aren’t “identities” of the relevant sort. But specifying “the relevant sort” without trivializing the principle isn’t easy.

I think that’s a fair point that these issues should have been considered much more proactively and carefully at a much earlier stage.

On the ‘my existence isn’t up for debate’ point, I think that is where getting mired too much in arguing over language prevents any progress being made on substantive matters - personally, I understand why a trans individual might feel strongly about the language used about them (eg that a trans man might feel deeply negatively affected by someone else insisting they are a woman), but that shouldn’t stop us finding a respectful way to discuss what the right course of action is where biological sex is important, such as in data collection, medical matters and sport.