The rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time. Changing the definition after makes no sense. It changes what the rule was about in the first place.
rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time
Oh boi, having studied law, i can confidently say that using words with no clear definition in laws and trying to apply them is one of the main problematic and debate fuel of judges and lawyers.
And “man/woman” are clearly not words with one specific definition, even in the past (maybe people cared less about the definition, but it does not make it more specific).
This is the precise reason why that clip everyone lost their mind over was using the wording “birthing person” when discussing rights related to abortion.
You can get your “anti-woke” panties in a bunch for terms like this. But there is a reason they are used when deciding laws. It is meant to very very specific and at the same time being very very inclusive to the rights the law is meant to protect.
It’s so no asshole tries to take away your rights on a technicality they made up in their mind.
No one is calling women, nb’s, or trans men “birthing persons” except in this specific context and for very good reason.
Makes sense. I think it’s possible to hold this belief and still be pro-trans rights. There’s literally not a limit on the number of laws we can have, seems silly to change what a legal woman is rather than include transgender women people as an additional group that these laws can apply to.
I would be interested to hear trans’ users opinions on whether they view themselves and/or prefer to be treated as literally the same as the other biological gender, or something different.
E.g., male-to-female trans folks, do you hold that there is only one kind of woman and you are no different from those born as women?
Or do you think that transgender people have a fundamentally different experience, and thus trans women are a little different category of women?
I don’t mean any offense by the question, I’d really just like to know how people see themselves.
For 99% of issues, the trans/cis distinction doesn’t matter and we are the same. Where it matters is on issues of healthcare. That’s pretty much it.(*) This is the only area I don’t want to be treated the same, because it’s the only consistent difference between trans women and cis women.
My lived experience is not fundamentally different from other women. We’ve experienced most of the same things. The biggest difference is that for the first two years of transitioning, I was treated like garbage by strangers because I didn’t look feminine enough to be considered a woman. But even then, a bunch of cis women experience that too!
All these laws and all this discrimination, it’s all because too many people are ignorant on the science of sexual diversity, refusing to admit that neither sex nor gender is binary because it wasn’t what they learned growing up. Now that ignorance has fueled misinformation to run rampant, E.g. the Cass review, the public and politicians still assert their false information and bigotry – even when every major medical association states over and over that trans people – and trans healthcare – is scientifically valid, and even when new reports come out that disprove the misinformation in the Cass review.
Trans people are facing legislative genocide in the US right now and it’s getting worse every day. I am terrified. If anyone doesn’t believe me about how bad it is for trans people right now, look at Erin Reed’s reporting on substack.
If the UK doesn’t get their shit together, trans people may very well face the same horrors there too.
(I’m not going to argue inclusion in sports here because that topic is nuanced and complex, but generally trans girls/boys/men/women should be included in sports that align with their gender identity.)
Right, so those are two typical TERF (trans-exclusionary radical/reactionary “feminst”) talking points. Edit: I am not insinuating that you are a terf in any way or that you aren’t presenting your viewpoint in good faith.
Cisgender people don’t experience gender dysphoria.
Neither do most trans people once they are treated for it, by having access to health care. I don’t think it’s a big deal that fundamentally separates cis and trans women, especially to the point of excluding one group or the other from spaces, events, or with laws.
Cis people didn’t grow up socialized as being seen as the opposite gender.
While it’s true that cis people didn’t grow up socialized as their opposite gender, neither did a lot of trans people in the last 20 years, because they had supportive parents and access to gender-affirming health care from a young age. I say this because socialization and upbringing is not a constant among trans people, and if it’s not a constant, it shouldn’t be used as justification for laws against all trans people.
But even if we ignore them and focus on trans people starting transition after age 18, it still doesn’t justify any of the discrimination these laws are doing. It doesn’t justify exclusion. Trans people aren’t any less valid because they started transitioning – or were forced to delay transitioning until – after age 18. And it most certainly does not mean that trans women aren’t women. Gender identity is innate and rooted in science and biology. Being trans is not a choice.
Yep, my point exactly. Admittedly I am not a trans person, but my understanding is that trans people have slightly different concerns, protections and risks than cis people.
A legal woman? Let me ask you a simple question. What law should be made that should be different for men than women? Laws should be able to cut gender/sex completely out and exist or they are inherently sexist.
How about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which provides additional protections and services for women who are in domestic violence situations. Things like access to free rape exams, legal representation etc.
Shouldn’t need to exist as women only. Should exist for anyone in a domestic violence situation/rape exams/legal representation etc. Why would it be treated any different. It’s either illegal or not. Why help someone more than another just because their gender/sex?
I’m not personally a lawyer. Also, I’m Australian and our discrimination laws don’t allow the laws to discriminate on the basis of protected qualities like sex, religion, age, sexual identity/orientation and intersex status.
Maybe some laws (I.e. protective laws) should apply more specifically to trans people though, I’m not sure what sort of awkward legal situations can arise by every law applying equally to every person.
What would they protect for them? Harassment is harassment, and a hate crime is a hate crime. If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group being singled out out of prejudice
Are you saying the law shouldn’t recognise trans people as a group? They should be just men or women (of their identification) in the eyes of the law?
Lets say a trans person breaks the law and goes to prison. Should a trans man go to a man’s prison (where they will face statistically higher rates of abuse), or should the law provide some nuance in this situation?
“If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group” were my words. Why was your first question that I thought they weren’t considered a group of people?
Laws should be written for people. Punishments for crimes are dictated separately for the most part. They just put max/min fines and incarceration times.
If you get a DUI it doesn’t say in the law you get up to twelve months in a women’s/men’s jail, it just says jail. The particulars of how the incarceration is dealt with is usually decided elsewhere (hopefully by the judge) while gender identity is stillprotected class in the U.S. Will it be for much longer, I’m not sure, I hope it is though.
Trans people are just people. It’s like saying “there are still laws about black people” in the Jim Crow South.
Laws should be written to be inclusive, not exclusive. When laws are written in these fragmented ways it is the exact purpose of right wingers to exploit them. It is written to SERVE THE POWER OF OPPRESSION.
This is the same as “gay people can have civil partnerships”. While ignoring that it is literally just a method used to exclude gay partners of the same rights married partners have.
It’s the same “separate but equal” bull shit that has existed over and over. I don’t know how “well intentioned liberals” keep falling for this same trick over and over again throughout our history.
The rules on “sex” are entirely based on social definitions of gender norms. Or tell me you would be confused by seeing this guy walk through TSA with F as his sex.
Edit: I really should not have to use “passing” trans people to make my point. But I feel like people live in a different reality where every ID check is followed up with a genital inspection.
But this isn’t about changing a definition, it’s about expanding recognition to a previously mischaracterised portion of the population.
If racoons were at one point considered to be cats but now we know they’re actually much closer related to bears than anything else, are we changing the definition of “cat” and “bear”?
That’s bullshit.
The rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time. Changing the definition after makes no sense. It changes what the rule was about in the first place.
There are still laws about trans people.
Oh boi, having studied law, i can confidently say that using words with no clear definition in laws and trying to apply them is one of the main problematic and debate fuel of judges and lawyers.
And “man/woman” are clearly not words with one specific definition, even in the past (maybe people cared less about the definition, but it does not make it more specific).
This is the precise reason why that clip everyone lost their mind over was using the wording “birthing person” when discussing rights related to abortion.
You can get your “anti-woke” panties in a bunch for terms like this. But there is a reason they are used when deciding laws. It is meant to very very specific and at the same time being very very inclusive to the rights the law is meant to protect.
It’s so no asshole tries to take away your rights on a technicality they made up in their mind.
No one is calling women, nb’s, or trans men “birthing persons” except in this specific context and for very good reason.
Makes sense. I think it’s possible to hold this belief and still be pro-trans rights. There’s literally not a limit on the number of laws we can have, seems silly to change what a legal woman is rather than include transgender women people as an additional group that these laws can apply to.
I would be interested to hear trans’ users opinions on whether they view themselves and/or prefer to be treated as literally the same as the other biological gender, or something different.
E.g., male-to-female trans folks, do you hold that there is only one kind of woman and you are no different from those born as women?
Or do you think that transgender people have a fundamentally different experience, and thus trans women are a little different category of women?
I don’t mean any offense by the question, I’d really just like to know how people see themselves.
I am a woman who is trans.
Trans women are women. Cis women are women.
I am not a cis woman.
For 99% of issues, the trans/cis distinction doesn’t matter and we are the same. Where it matters is on issues of healthcare. That’s pretty much it.(*) This is the only area I don’t want to be treated the same, because it’s the only consistent difference between trans women and cis women.
My lived experience is not fundamentally different from other women. We’ve experienced most of the same things. The biggest difference is that for the first two years of transitioning, I was treated like garbage by strangers because I didn’t look feminine enough to be considered a woman. But even then, a bunch of cis women experience that too!
All these laws and all this discrimination, it’s all because too many people are ignorant on the science of sexual diversity, refusing to admit that neither sex nor gender is binary because it wasn’t what they learned growing up. Now that ignorance has fueled misinformation to run rampant, E.g. the Cass review, the public and politicians still assert their false information and bigotry – even when every major medical association states over and over that trans people – and trans healthcare – is scientifically valid, and even when new reports come out that disprove the misinformation in the Cass review.
Trans people are facing legislative genocide in the US right now and it’s getting worse every day. I am terrified. If anyone doesn’t believe me about how bad it is for trans people right now, look at Erin Reed’s reporting on substack.
If the UK doesn’t get their shit together, trans people may very well face the same horrors there too.
I don’t think that you have the same lived experience as a biological woman.
Biological women don’t have the experience of gender dysphoria and all the stuff that comes with it.
Biological women also don’t have the experience to grow up being treated as a boy/man.
I think those two are very different living experiences as they also have a huge impact on the person having to go through them.
Right, so those are two typical TERF (trans-exclusionary radical/reactionary “feminst”) talking points. Edit: I am not insinuating that you are a terf in any way or that you aren’t presenting your viewpoint in good faith.
Neither do most trans people once they are treated for it, by having access to health care. I don’t think it’s a big deal that fundamentally separates cis and trans women, especially to the point of excluding one group or the other from spaces, events, or with laws.
While it’s true that cis people didn’t grow up socialized as their opposite gender, neither did a lot of trans people in the last 20 years, because they had supportive parents and access to gender-affirming health care from a young age. I say this because socialization and upbringing is not a constant among trans people, and if it’s not a constant, it shouldn’t be used as justification for laws against all trans people.
But even if we ignore them and focus on trans people starting transition after age 18, it still doesn’t justify any of the discrimination these laws are doing. It doesn’t justify exclusion. Trans people aren’t any less valid because they started transitioning – or were forced to delay transitioning until – after age 18. And it most certainly does not mean that trans women aren’t women. Gender identity is innate and rooted in science and biology. Being trans is not a choice.
Yep, my point exactly. Admittedly I am not a trans person, but my understanding is that trans people have slightly different concerns, protections and risks than cis people.
A legal woman? Let me ask you a simple question. What law should be made that should be different for men than women? Laws should be able to cut gender/sex completely out and exist or they are inherently sexist.
How about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which provides additional protections and services for women who are in domestic violence situations. Things like access to free rape exams, legal representation etc.
Shouldn’t need to exist as women only. Should exist for anyone in a domestic violence situation/rape exams/legal representation etc. Why would it be treated any different. It’s either illegal or not. Why help someone more than another just because their gender/sex?
I’m not personally a lawyer. Also, I’m Australian and our discrimination laws don’t allow the laws to discriminate on the basis of protected qualities like sex, religion, age, sexual identity/orientation and intersex status.
Maybe some laws (I.e. protective laws) should apply more specifically to trans people though, I’m not sure what sort of awkward legal situations can arise by every law applying equally to every person.
What would they protect for them? Harassment is harassment, and a hate crime is a hate crime. If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group being singled out out of prejudice
Are you saying the law shouldn’t recognise trans people as a group? They should be just men or women (of their identification) in the eyes of the law?
Lets say a trans person breaks the law and goes to prison. Should a trans man go to a man’s prison (where they will face statistically higher rates of abuse), or should the law provide some nuance in this situation?
“If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group” were my words. Why was your first question that I thought they weren’t considered a group of people?
Laws should be written for people. Punishments for crimes are dictated separately for the most part. They just put max/min fines and incarceration times.
If you get a DUI it doesn’t say in the law you get up to twelve months in a women’s/men’s jail, it just says jail. The particulars of how the incarceration is dealt with is usually decided elsewhere (hopefully by the judge) while gender identity is stillprotected class in the U.S. Will it be for much longer, I’m not sure, I hope it is though.
I don’t suppose that’s true, is it. Laws change over time, right? And different people have different understandings even at a fixed time.
Trans people are just people. It’s like saying “there are still laws about black people” in the Jim Crow South.
Laws should be written to be inclusive, not exclusive. When laws are written in these fragmented ways it is the exact purpose of right wingers to exploit them. It is written to SERVE THE POWER OF OPPRESSION.
This is the same as “gay people can have civil partnerships”. While ignoring that it is literally just a method used to exclude gay partners of the same rights married partners have.
It’s the same “separate but equal” bull shit that has existed over and over. I don’t know how “well intentioned liberals” keep falling for this same trick over and over again throughout our history.
The rules on “sex” are entirely based on social definitions of gender norms. Or tell me you would be confused by seeing this guy walk through TSA with F as his sex.
https://www.olympics.com/en/news/transgender-boxer-pat-manuel-makes-history-with-first-professional-win
Edit: I really should not have to use “passing” trans people to make my point. But I feel like people live in a different reality where every ID check is followed up with a genital inspection.
But this isn’t about changing a definition, it’s about expanding recognition to a previously mischaracterised portion of the population.
If racoons were at one point considered to be cats but now we know they’re actually much closer related to bears than anything else, are we changing the definition of “cat” and “bear”?
deleted by creator