What Am I Missing?

[Catiette]

I may not be able to check in on responses to this very much - I hope that isn't hypocritical or rude. I read something that left me feeling a bit unsettled and just wanted to formulate my thoughts on it, really. Any responses - whether to agree with me or to highlight where I'm going wrong - would both be helpful and reassuring whenever I can return!

It relates to the article posted on the "Which Stories Could Change Someone's Mind" thread: https://philosophersmag.com/the-transgender-rights-issue/. I didn't want to derail that discussion, and also really don't want to discourage people from using it as one of the best representations of our position I've seen - so thorough, lucid and convincing... up to a very few paragraphs near the end, which I didn't think reflected the nuanced thought of the whole. It left me wondering what I'd missed?

I'll try not to be too wordy (famous last words...)

Of course it's appropriate. Whether it can be done within the context of our current laws, is another thing entirely.

Men wearing women's clothes to get turned on is entirely inappropriate and absolutely involved everybody else.

The fact that it's completely legal Doesn't make it any more appropriate.

It's reasonable for JT to be able to choose to call some people by preferred pronouns in response to her perceiving them to be courteous. I support her right to do that.

I support her "right" as I support free speech. I think we're fully able to criticise it and call it out as illogical, unhelpful and self serving though.

OK.
I think that a reverting to a situation where different policies apply to men and women at work is likely to have unintended negative consequences for women, in fact I think many less scrupulous employers would be itching to be able to circumvent employing those pesky women and their inconvenient biology. So I think its a bad idea and equal rules/policies is more sensible.

So do you believe then that its appropriate to apply different rules and policies to males and females at work?

We do already. Imagine a woman in a knee-length skirt in a business setting. Fine, right? Now imagine a man in shorts.

Now, these standards are themselves already interesting in their provenance, and potentially problematic in their perpetuation of gendered clothing and standards. They raise all kinds of issues about how they evolved from earlier fashions and standards, the traditionally gendered public and private spheres, the male gaze, femininity, even comfort… But they most certainly exist, and I imagine always will.

Therefore, discussing how they could be adapted in this context is, to me, raising awareness of their existence and, potentially, attempting to exert some influence on them in the interest of women. The counter-argument would be, of course, your own view that a safer approach - the long-game, if you will - is to avoid mandating gendered differences in office wear at all, as this reinforces the precedent of enforcing gendered standards of appearance, and that is more often to the detriment of women than of men.

GC women such as I object to 'womanface', which I would define as exagerated stereotypical feminine traits e.g. heavy make-up, sexually explicit clothing as everyday wear etc. Debbie Hayton declares that he is a man who identifies as a woman and who does not use stereotypical feminine clothing, but dresses as most staid middle-aged womend dress (anytime I have seen a photo) - a bit frumpy IMO - and he has admitted he is AGP. I can live with him in a frock if that's what he wants to do. I think that sums up the problem @Catiette - some people think it's ok to ape women (apologies to apes here) in the most stereotypical way, as if the costume was the woman, and that insults women just as 'blackface' insults black men and women.

Such as? I'm not sure what you mean; can you give an example? 'Appropriate' or 'professional dress code' would apply to both sexes

I don't think a woman turning up to work in overtly sexualised clothing ( in most lines of work) would be considered appropriate or acceptable. Do you?

As said.....that is now an old comment.......and she herself has moved on. As has this forum.

There is such a thing as 'equal but different'. Dress codes can be equal in their intention without having to be identical and prescriptive.

Thanks for the thread, Catiette

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the term ultras is not derogatory or is not being used in a derogatory way - he uses it as a shorthand for some GC feminists he regards illiberal or authoritarian.

My short response is that this analysis is a long-winded way of saying “Why do you care?”; “How does it affect harm/you?”; “Just go about your day”; “It costs nothing to be polite”, etc.
As has been pointed out, the writer is neither a woman nor a feminist.

It's been said upthread, and I agree, that there isn't really a difference in the GC-ness of the views - JT doesn't think men are, or can turn into, women - it's more about strategy. How helpful/unhelpful is it to use preferred pronouns when you don't have to?
Wrt children, it's medical ethics. Dr Cass believes in GI and the possibility of gender incongruence, but if you don't believe in GI, it's wrong (and pointless) to continue to give any children harmful drugs to treat gender incongruence.

As a rule, I think it’s wiser to support policies or philosophical positions than the people who espouse or subscribe to them. Otherwise you can find yourself attempting to defend the indefensible or justify positions you don’t believe in purely out of loyalty or tribalism.

Regarding how people dress, TempestTost said it all on page 1.
Any man who wants to wear a skirt or dress to work has plenty of options. Kilts, tunics, sarongs, kimonos etc. Wearing women's clothing is almost always a sexual thing that involves women and that's why it shouldn't be allowed at work and should be socially discouraged. And for those men who claim it is not a sexual thing, what’s wrong with a kilt? Why is it essential for you to wear a skirt that doesn’t fit you properly instead? Why is it so important that it is a “women’s” skirt or "women's" blouse? There are men’s shirts with bows and ruffles, jackets in bright colours and bold patterns. Sensual fabrics are available. Fill your boots, lads.

As for claiming a trans identity, as far as I am aware, you can claim to be a woman, feel like a woman etc without wearing women’s clothing. The clothing is an announcement, not proof.

We will always need some gendered clothing because women and men are not the same shape and size. We saw in the Olympics the differences between young, fit men and women who play the same sport. If a woman has a medium or big bust, her blouse for work will need darts for it to look smart. (Looking smart may not matter for her work, of course.) Women in some jobs complain about unisex clothing actually being men's clothing - the legs and arms of overalls are too long, stab vests don’t accommodate any sort of bust, etc. We can all wear trousers, skirts, blouses/shirts, T-shirts, jumpsuits, jackets, wellies etc, etc, but there will be male and female versions. Anoraks, rain jackets...not so much.

Dress as you please always has the implicit caveat “within reason”.
We can’t and don't want to control other people’s private sexual thoughts and fantasies. What we should resist is when they bring them into the public sphere and effectively force women to take part. “Taking part” is just being a woman and showing any reaction at all in his presence. If a man wears women's underwear, which no one can see, he can. He can get all the thrill he wants because it doesn’t affect his female colleagues or the women on the bus.
But wearing women’s (outer) clothing is a public display of fetish. It doesn’t even have to be overtly sexualised clothing, either. I would argue that a man dressed in a beige M&S women’s skirt and fair isle cardigan is indulging himself in exactly the same way as the men who dress as hot young women in red leather miniskirts. It's the “woman” bit which is the fantasy and gives the thrill.
Women mostly wear women's versions of what used to be men’s clothing - trousers or jackets, trouser suits. When women wear actual men's clothes, it's for comfort and practicality and because they are more hard-wearing. Not as a fetish.

I'm not claiming that combating this is practicable or simple. I'm just expressing some of the reasons why I don't think it's a trivial matter when a man wears women's clothing - I think it does affect women.

No. I don't. So I would have a professional dress code for men and women. I haven't argued anything different to that.

If a workplace allows women to wear breast enhancements (as most would, seeing it as none of their business getting involved in womens presentation), then logically the same should apply to men.

The Canadian teacher to me is the equivalent of Lola Ferarri. Both have extreme modification that's not appropriate for work.

It wasn't me that originally brought it up
Arguably the response to the mention of the term "ultra" shows this board hasn't "moved on" at all.

Actually I've seen men in suit shorts in a professional setting. I think the lack of shorts at work is more to do with social contract than dress code.

I also think if a man turned up in a professional knee length skirt a company would really have no other option than to allow it.

The framework in the essay is useful. Clothing choice is about equality, not belief. Arguing against whether or not to apply equality is where the different factions (for want of a better word) really are.

I consider it impossible for a man to adopt a cross-sex persona unless he has reductive and misogynistic beliefs about women.

A man wearing traditionally female clothes or makeup but making no claim to be a woman or present "as a woman" through language, dress, body modification or prosthetics, or use of female spaces is totally fine (assuming his clothes and behaviour are otherwise appropriate as is the case for everyone).

A man presenting as the opposite gender, which at a minimum includes, but is not limited to, a stated preference to be spoken of using female language, is a man publicly displaying misogyny. It cannot be any other way, because the only way a man can appropriate womanhood is to deny the fact women exist as fully realised individuals in female bodies who have grown to adulthood under the influence of society's view of our minds and bodies, and impose instead some idea of a "woman's mind" whereby those cultural constraints are assumed to be either innate or a conscious preference unrelated to our sexed expereinces.

Public displays of racism or homophobia are rightly be harshly criticised. I do not see why it's so problematic to say the same should be true of public displays of misogyny, other than because some men wish to be allowed and even feted for so doing.

A man wearing 'breast enhancements' - would be perverse, and we all know it.
There is nothing logical about it at all - unless you subscribe to a type of rigid ideological practice in which everyone is positioned as exactly the same.

Nobody would know that a woman was wearing breast enhancements ( isn't that what a bra is?) because women naturally have breasts - and who would know that she was 'wearing' such a thing - unless she was dressed in an inapproprraite or revealing manner in the workplace?

A better equivalent might be a balding/ thinning man wearing a toupe or hair-piece, surely?

Only if your vision or definition of equality is the eradication of all difference. It is not beyond human wit to create conditions of generalised 'equality' without it having to mean that everyone is exactly the same. That is what equalities legislation manages to do........it gves specific types of protection or flexibility to certain categories - which honours their differences and allows for integrity.

So we have single sex spaces and provisions which give protection to women and girls on account of their sex specific differences; and we also make special provisions for disabled people so that they too can access services and facilities, as just two examples.

If a workplace allows women to wear breast enhancements (as most would, seeing it as none of their business getting involved in womens presentation), then logically the same should apply to men.

But one is a fetish and one isn't. They're not the same.

Can a woman wear a large dildo which may be noticeable through her clothes just because a man might have had a penis extension?

People seem to have lost their collective minds over this.

It's completely unacceptable for a man go to work in women's clothes to indulge his fetish.

The issue is how it's been written into legislation to make it a human right!

Turner also made the ‘ultra’ comment before Hayton wrote an article in The Spectator trying to shame/tone police JK Rowling. That Spectator article went over very badly among women who were formerly supportive of Hayton and it led to outcomes such as Julie Bindel announcing that Hayton had always been a wrong un and she would have nothing more to do with supporting Hayton or Hayton’s position.

Hayton in effect turned and bit the hand that fed him. Lots of GC women with influence had supported Hayton as a reasonable voice for trans and this support helped Hayton to get writing and media commentary gigs; however, once Hayton felt securely established in the new roles, the tone of articles and commentary changed to criticising GC feminists/feminism for being too hardline.

The motivation for a 'male breast enhancement' is not symmetrical at all with a female breast enhancement.

This is not an issue around 'equality' because the motivation for the two are not symmetrical. I don't believe that there is any reasonable way to make this comparison work.

FlirtsWithRhinos

Spot on.

There have always been some women who have been totally unaccepting and very intolerant of Hayton -whatever he did or said. I can see how JT reached the place she did..... even though I think she took it too far ( with her comments) when people pushed back against her acquiescence on pronouns in some situations.

On "equality":

If a situation is inequal and you treat everyone the same, it remains inequal.

The situation of women (in the sex based meaning) relative to men is not equal. Not in social, professional or economic power, not in dress expectations, not in physical shapes and capabilities. Guff like "if a women wears breast enhancing clothes a man must be able to wear prosthetic breasts because equality" isn't doing anything to promote equality in reality, just extending the same old inequality of power and respect that we've had forever.

I know Shortshrift; I’m making the point that Turner’s tweet (made in a fit of pique) caused a huge argument/division in the GC feminist community, and created a new derogatory term for non-compliant women, in defence of someone who wasn’t worth it because Hayton has always been advocating for Hayton. Turner’s tweet was also viewed as permission by lots of men to use this new term to try and shame women.

I think Turner might justifiably feel angry or disappointed or disillusioned about being used to sanitise Hayton’s behaviour with her supportive article about Hayton’s autobiography. Turner might even feel justifiably remorseful about the whole event and how it negatively affected women with less social capital and influence than her. Then again, she might not feel any of these things.

Turner made the choice to support Hayton, and she doubled down on that choice when criticised. And now the term ‘ultra’ is being used in Francione’s essay to try and undermine women’s concerns with cross dressing males. This one of the downstream consequences of Turner’s choice.

But to be fair, such people don't require any excuses to appropriate any bit of ammunition they can get.

Who is Francione - I'll have to check their 'essay' out.

Ah, silly me...the thread starter.....!

I'd argue Turners tweet was in response to a division that already existed. She just made that explicit.

It's the same motivation for this article:
They [a subset of GC people] go beyond condemning the compelled use of “she/her” pronouns for males who identify as women and regard even a voluntary use to justify excoriation and ad hominem attacks (as occurred when, in February 2024, Andrew Doyle and Janice Turner used “she/her” when referring to Debbie Hayton, a trans-identified male, and touched off a firestorm). Those who promote the illiberal view also maintain that males who present as women are engaged in a public display of autogynephilia (AGP), a fetish involving a male being sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female, and, in effect, force the participation of women in this fetish

I am blocked by many trans activists on X (formerly Twitter) because I reject trans-activist belief claims. But I am also blocked by many of those who embrace the illiberal version of the gender-critical approach. Despite the fact that we all reject trans-activist ideology and belief claims, and all that that entails, the fact that I support transgender equality claims and am happy to let people live and look as they choose, or do not criticize people like Doyle and Turner (or Kathleen Stock or Julie Bindel who supported Doyle and Turner), is enough to get me branded as a “trans-activist lite.”

I agree. Have had much the same experience. It's very interesting that even attempting to discuss it involves so much denial and silencing of the people involved rather than engaging with the points they are making.