Transgender arguments

JK Rowling's tweets about the transgender issue, and Radcliffe's entry into the debate on the side of transgender activists ("a transgender woman is a woman") made me look up so called TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminism) articles.   I found this from 2018 by Katheleen Stock in The Economist:  Changing the concept of "woman" will cause unintended harms.   Which is pretty much what Rowling argues.  I think.

Here's a paragraph that struck home:

In public discourse, there’s a lot of focus on whether trans women should be counted as women. Whatever the ultimate answer, that’s obviously a reasonable question, despite trans activists’ attempts to count it as “transphobic”. But I think we should also ask whether self-declaration alone could reasonably be the only criterion of being trans. There’s little precedent elsewhere. In a superficially comparable case, such as coming out as gay, there is still another underlying factor, sexual orientation, that secures your membership. It’s not just a matter of saying that you are gay. And though, as in the notorious case of Rachel Dolezal, a person might “self-declare” that she is “trans racial”, it has seemed clear to nearly everybody responding to this case that such a declaration would be not only false, but also offensive to genuinely oppressed members of the race in question. There is no such thing as being “trans racial”; there is only thinking falsely that you are.

This seems a good point about race.  Even allowing for cases where a very small amount of biological ancestry is still sufficient for some Australians to be recognised as aboriginal,  no one ever argues that it would be reasonable for someone with no biological descent at all to self declare aboriginal identity for any meaningful purpose.  Why is race "protected" in this way, but sex or gender not?   Both can be in a biological "inter" state, and both can be understood as having social construct elements too.  Does it come down to how clearly you can see how open membership to "race" would dilute positive discrimination measures?  Because if it does, that is what Stock argues for women (see below.)

But what are the harms Rowling thinks self declaratory gender would bring?   She's a bit vague on this, and runs the risk of being accused of arguing that biological females are just obviously losers if their life experience loses its distinctiveness by being forced to accept others into the club, so to speak; in much the same way that conservatives argued that recognising gay marriage would be an intrinsically damaging insult to heterosexual marriage.   That in fact is what this Washington Post writer accuses Rowling of arguing.  It was not a great argument against same sex marriage, and without some details, not an especially great one regarding trans declarations of gender too.

The Kathleen Stock article does try to give some more concrete examples:

*   It will muddle understanding (basically, statistics) on problems biological women have long faced such as:

....vulnerability to rape, sexual assault, voyeurism and exhibitionism; to sexual harassment; to domestic violence; to certain cancers; to anorexia and self-harm; and so on. If self-declared trans women are included in statistics, understanding will be hampered.

She argues that its fine to collect stats as to how these same issues affect transwomen too, but they should be kept separate if you want a clear understanding.   [Given the small number of transexuals, I'm not sure how much effect this could really have.  But I guess there would be some examples where it is more significant than others.]

*  The weakening of "safe spaces" for women, which she argues is a problem because of the history of violent men.   [Bear in mind she is arguing against the idea that any man, no matter what state their body is in, can declare himself a woman.]    I have previously written that the fuss about a man who thinks he's a woman having access to women's toilets is overblown - especially if they are already hormonally and at least part physically feminised.   However, Stock does have a point that, if transgender activists want to be consistent, their "gender is what anyone declares it is" would allow testosterone filled wannabe male rapist a legal right to enter spaces, like toilets, where other women would be very uncomfortable if they knew his biology.    It feels more like a hypothetical problem, but one which transgender activism just wants to ignore completely.
 
* The last example I will quote:

And changing the concept of “woman” to include self-declared trans women also threatens a secure understanding of the concept “lesbian”. Lesbians are traditionally understood as females with a sexual orientation towards other females. Again, the categorisation is socially useful. It helps members of the category understand themselves in a positive, distinctive way, despite living in a heteronormative society. It motivates them to create their own social spaces. It gives them special protections, as a discriminated-against minority; and access to special sources of charity funding. 

I don't know that I have much to say about that.   In a non discriminatory world, the importance of lesbians, or gay men, having their own social spaces should be decreasing - and it's probably happening, given what I think is the decreasing number of gay bars and venues in many Western cities.    But I can understand lesbians being a bit irked about transgender men moving into their "territory" so to speak.

In my view, then, the points Stock makes have some merit, but you can see the arguments that will be deployed against them.  

I think there are two very pragmatic ones that are more convincing:

a.  the disadvantages birth women face when a transgender woman wants to compete in women's sports; and

b.  the interest of potential or actual sex partners in knowing transsexual status.  

The first point I won't write about - the unfairness to women athletes is obvious. 

As to the second point:   I'm not sure why we can't be honest and say that the transgender process is never a 100% complete physical transition, and the end result is, inevitably, a simulacrum of the physicality of the desired gender.   If transgender ideology taken to its desired legal effect (that a man can legally alter gender to woman, for all purposes) means that no naive man who marries a transgender woman could ever claim he has been wronged by non disclosure of his partner's former gender, I would have to say there is something wrong with the ideology.  This may sound like a hypothetical case if you are talking marriage, but no doubt there have been cases of a transsexual woman bedding a man who did not realise what he was getting into.  

If everyone can understand why a man or woman going to bed with a partner might be upset if they find their partner has not first disclosed opposite gender genitals, or an imitation of such, well then they are accepting that self declaration is not the only thing that matters about gender and sex.

As to how to resolve this, I have been thinking lately that the idea of a "third gender" seems to have a lot going for it.   It's acknowledging  both a biological and psychic reality, isn't it?   And as I have said before, it's pretty interesting that people who wanted to live as the other gender in those societies did not (as far as I know) spend a lot of time fretting about how their body must in all respects be altered to match their perceived gender, otherwise their life will be one of crushing depression and unhappiness.

The Wikipedia entry on third gender talks about it in the context of transgender, and some parts are pretty interesting:

In a study of people in the United States who thought themselves to be members of a third gender, Ingrid M. Sell found that they typically felt different from the age of 5.^[42] Because of both peer and parental pressure, those growing up with the most ambiguous appearances had the most troubled childhoods and difficulties later in life. Sell also discovered similarities between the third genders of the East and those of the West. Nearly half of those interviewed were healers or in the medical profession. A majority of them, again like their Eastern counterparts, were artistic enough to make a living from their abilities. The capacity to mediate between men and women was a common skill, and third genders were oftentimes thought to possess an unusually wide perspective and the ability to understand both sides.^[42] A notable result of Sell's study is that 93% of the third genders interviewed, again like their Eastern counterparts, reported “paranormal”-type abilities.*^[43] 

But of course, some gender theorists may say it's OK to have a third gender category - let's call it "non binary" - but the important thing is that people can move between whatever category that they feel is true to themselves.  So a person should be free to self label as male, female, or non-binary/third gender.

If that's the argument, it doesn't solve anything.


So, what's my conclusion?   I think Stock and the TERFs make some valid points, but they seem to skirt around the more fundamental arguments about why it's not unreasonable for people to consider the biology of bodies important - and that's something that trans people should be able to live with and not argue that it can be removed from moral and legal consideration by mere self declaration.   


*  On that odd point about paranormal abilities, I think it is well recognised that an above average number of  male mediums in spiritualism are gay.