Comment by lliamander
5 years ago
Really appreciate the thoughtful response.
> Obviously: medical stuff. The needs of trans women and cis women are not aligned when issues of sexual health come up. Trans women don't have uteruses, for example, and healthcare for trans women differs greatly from assigned-female-at-birth people. Here, the interests of trans women, AFAB women, trans men and AMAB men are all somewhat unique. Note further that in this situation men (specifically trans-men) and AFAB women can have significant overlaps in needs.
That makes sense.
> Do you mean more in social spaces, where women as a group are interacting as women and not as females? Because as a society we don't often differentiate between female and women's spaces, and in general we seem to apply the label "female" to many things that are really "women's".
> Offhand, I can't think of many social spaces where women interact as females, and not just as women. Perhaps spaces devoted to motherhood? As for the women's spaces, those being trans exclusionary is, imo questionable in most cases
A nursing mother's room does seems like it would be fairly uncontroversial. But if a majority of females would prefer to have a female only space for something else (bathroom, gym, etc.) to what extent are they obligated to accommodate trans women in including them? How do we arbitrate between those interests?
> Although I did see a trans person I know recently point out that they are able to relate with trans women's experiences often more deeply than with cis women's, so the reverse would also likely be true.
Interesting. Could it be that having spaces specifically for trans-* people might be more beneficial for social harmony and individual comfort than turning "female" spaces into "women's" spaces?
> I agree the terminology here is weird. But implicit in your framing is that someone is assigned a gender based on their sex. One is not assigned "man/woman" at all. Or, insofar as a trans woman is AMAB, they were also assigned woman at birth (but this assignment is mental), that's why they chose to transition their appearance, to better align with their gender.
I guess it depends upon who is doing the "assigning" here. My assumption is that "society" is the assigner. So far as I understand, biological sex relates to the role one is able to perform in the reproductive process, and cannot be assigned at all. Gender, being the social construct, would be something that is determined by societal norms. When assigned at birth, would be driven by the biological sex of the child.
> But if a majority of females would prefer to have a female only space for something else (bathroom, gym, etc.) to what extent are they obligated to accommodate trans women in including them? How do we arbitrate between those interests?
> Interesting. Could it be that having spaces specifically for trans-* people might be more beneficial for social harmony and individual comfort than turning "female" spaces into "women's" spaces?
These are interesting questions. So I offer only some food for thought:
What's best for "social harmony" and what is just or morally right don't always agree. Keeping schools segregated was likely best for social harmony (at least at the moment), but I think we're all better off for the US having integrated schools. Ultimately, any change for the benefit of an underrepresented group will have to start somewhere, and that first change will likely cause discord in the community.
Is having trans-only and cis-only spaces good? Maybe. Is it long term problematic? Almost assuredly. I'm not saying I have the correct answer here. I don't think anyone does (note that the trans woman I'm paraphrasing wasn't, I don't think, using this argument to say that we should have trans-only spaces, but simply that they can empathize with the connection).
I think there's plenty of evidence that racially segregated schools was best for social harmony, even in that moment. And while I think that forced segregation was wrong, I don't think it's obvious that forced integration was the best outcome. I think there's a good case to be made that free association would have resulted in a better outcome for all races.
As for the gender/sex segregation issue, I don't know I have a good answer either, though I think freedom to self-segregate would probably help us best discover a "good enough" answer.
Argh, meant to say "I think there was plenty of evidence that racially segregated schools wasn't best for social harmony, even in that moment."
2 replies →
Sex is assigned too. Most people are born with distinctly male or female genitals and just assumed to have the chromosomes and reproductive potential that usually go with them.[1][2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Definitions
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment#History
I see the links to which you refer, but I'm not sure that makes sense. Sex is fundamentally a role that an organism plays in the process of sexual reproduction. Any organism that has the reproductive potential of a given sex then it is that sex.
Now, sex has many correlating genetic and phenotypic factors, and so if someone possesses those characteristics but is simply infertile, then we would still be correct in identifying them as being of a particular sex.
I think in the context of intersex people (at least those who are infertile) that the idea of "assigning" sex makes sense, because there is some natural ambiguity there. But just because determining a person's sex is arbitrary in some circumstances does not mean it is arbitrary in all circumstances.