On why gender identity cannot be the discriminant to determine who gets access to sex-segregated spaces.

There is a lot of controversy over the proposal for self-ID in GB and the access by transgender people to spaces segregated for the sex they identify with. First of all I want to point out that as trans people have been around for some decades without trouble, specifically regarding their use of women’s toilets, it is the recent change in trans politics and identification criteria that is causing opposition to rise. In this article I don’t want to touch on every aspect of the discussion: I will not touch ethics or morality nor contest the validity of identifying as the opposite sex or any other aspect that should rightfully be discussed. I will also not talk about intersex conditions since they are outliers rather than the norm and have nothing to do with transgender people. I will only attempt to express in very simple terms the basic issue with the acceptance of trans women in women-only spaces and the problem caused by the redefinition of words, which would also deserve its own article.

I recently read the well-thought piece from Kathleen Stock that expounds the various points of controversy between radical feminists and trans women and I was struck by an oddity. The recent trend to acknowledge trans women as women has brought with it a difficulty in defining who we are talking about when we use the word ‘woman’, so that now saying women is not clear enough to express who we are talking about. That’s because the terms ‘woman’ and ‘female’ are about the sexed body. The opposite words ‘man’ and ‘male’ serve to distinguish between the two sexes that the human species presents, and the characteristics they have in terms of reproductive capability and the other differences that stem from them.

For sake of brevity, in this article I will use ‘TW’ to indicate trans women, that is: male-bodied humans who identify as women, and ‘women’ to indicate those who are born with a female body.

Words matter. Using words with a clear meaning allows us to communicate without having to clarify what we really mean and descend in detailed descriptions that a lack of clear definitions would require. And the words for ‘male’ and ‘female’ are, as we said, specific to the reproductive system. They describe what a person is in terms of the physical body, so that one can determine whether to be careful around them, or the person encountered is a potential partner, and so on. One could argue that these words also mean more, like gender roles, but no, that is not the case. When we talk about a male cat we do not mean a cat that exhibits behavior typical of a male cat. We mean a cat that has the (potential) capability of impregnating a cat of the opposite sex. When we buy a couple of animals for reproduction we want a male and a female, because a male and a female-identifying male will not produce offspring. Having these specialized words makes it possible to talk about reproduction, population and sex-specific issues in no uncertain terms. Mammals are all either male or female, and nature, at least on this planet, does not exhibit more than two sexes (intersex, after all, means ‘between sexes’, and hermaphrodites are still not a third sex), so there is no doubt what we are talking about when we say ‘male’ or ‘female’. These are concepts inherently exclusive and cannot be expanded to include other categories. Now let’s move on to ‘man’ and ‘woman’, since here’s where things get a little more confused.

Man and woman refer to the adult specimens of male and female humans respectively, and they belong to a set of words that refer to the physical and psychological maturity of individuals. People, however, tend to also associate the typical cultural characteristics associated with men and women to these words, therefore making those who stray from the locally accepted social norms to be considered ‘not really man’ and ‘not really woman’. This is what can be defined as ‘gender non-conformity’. Examples are what’s called ‘effeminate’ men (that is, soft spoken, gentle, who like dresses etc.) and ‘tomboys’ who are females who don’t perform ‘femininity’. It is clear from usage though that these ‘deviant’ men and women are called out for straying from the norm, and not because someone actually believes they don’t have the physical makeup expected of their sex. It is simply considered proper to exhibit certain behaviors and use certain clothing that society has come to accept, and that by the way, can vary according to place and time. Societies tend to reject the differences that the compliant members consider destabilizing or disruptive. This potential confusion is solved by calling these non-physical characteristics ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’, and it would do a lot of good to consider them descriptive rather than prescriptive, but I digress.

Gender theory proponents want to shift the meaning of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ from the physical to the mental (spiritual, even), thus depriving us of a way to unambiguously refer to physical characteristics. It would follow that we’d need new terms to refer to those physical characteristics that used to be encompassed by a single word. But why do that when it’s more convenient to coin new words for the ‘inner essence’ of female and male rather than repurpose (without most people’s consent) existing words that are still necessary? This is even more the case when actual trans politics affirm that it’s not necessary to be dysphoric to be trans, and so there is a new generation of trans women who still appear and function as men in all respects except perhaps their choice of wardrobe and makeup.

Since the claim is that trans men and women are ‘born in the wrong body’, which would imply that their brain/mind/soul is actually the opposite sex of their body, let us assume that we want to admit a need for a metaphysical definition of man/woman, since the words female and male refer to their bodies, objectively speaking and regardless of SRS, and repurposing the existing words that define sex would be highly confusing.

This concept of, let’s call it meta-woman and meta-man for sake of argument, still would not change much in relation to the arguments radical feminists have made against the access of TW to female-only spaces.

Let’s go through some of the areas that would be most severely affected if we equated gender identity with sex.

Sports

Women gained the right to practice sports relatively recently — very recently if we consider the whole history of sports. But did they suddenly participate in sports with men? No. There are undeniable physical differences between the sexes, much as it disappoints me, and so it makes sense that women have their own leagues and practices separated from men from an early age, because women also deserve to have a fair competition. So this meta-woman who still has a male physiology (including superior lung capacity, higher bone density and I don’t know how many advantages are kept after transition), should not gain the right to participate in women-only leagues and competitions because her presence would create an imbalance and make the competition skewed in her favor. In contact sports this disadvantage can also translate into an increased risk of injury (already happened in more than one case). Again, in light of the fact that it’s not necessarily true that trans women undergo hormone therapy nowadays, even the mitigating effects of estrogen on the male body cannot be taken for granted anymore when talking about trans athletes.

Solution:

Since it would be considered discriminatory to make TW participate in male sports, I think the only solution that is fair to all parties involved is to create a separate league for them, maybe still in the context of female sports. And since trans men take testosterone, which is essentially doping for women, the same should apply to them.

Real life examples: Hannah Mouncey, Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox.

Bathrooms, changing rooms and other places that involve physical vulnerability.

Public bathrooms are often subject of public debate, but they are actually the least problematic situation of this group. Segregation by sex in this case is obviously necessary for privacy and safety.

Places where people change and are in vulnerable situations are sex segregated so that women can be safe and have privacy, or can freely get undressed without fear that some pervert or violent man gets advantage of the situation. Due to the stigma (and unfortunately, fetishism too) surrounding menstruation, it is important especially for young girls to also be able to change sanitary products in peace and without fear of encountering males in that space. Women-only swimming pool sessions also allow for a sense of privacy and refuge from the male gaze. The presence of TW could disrupt this, and would be damaging to the women who in the past have suffered male violence and can’t help associating that male body, even when belonging to TW, with the men who have abused them. As mentioned above, trans women do not necessarily undergo surgery or hormone treatment, which makes them as unsuited for women-only spaces as men are. The trans women who did have SRS cannot weaponize their sex so they are considered safe and have proven the genuineness of their feeling like women, but the problem is that we cannot reasonably ask TW their genital status before they enter a restroom, nor would it be fair to them. The point of legislation is to protect society from those who might cause trouble or injury or damage to others, but in doing so it limits the general public’s freedom. The law does not make exceptions for individuals just because they are ‘safe’. There is no way of knowing who is actually safe beforehand. I’m a peaceful person but I am still checked by security in airports, how fair is that? But people are not arguing against security checks, are they? If people in office cannot understand this point, they have no business being in politics. I’ve seen a couple of trans women in politics argue with this argument; one even said that they pass and they’ve had SRS so nobody would consider them unsafe. It’s probably true, but it completely misses the point. TW are a very heterogeneous category. For every TW perceived as safe, how many are not? And how many perverted men would take advantage of an easier change in sex ID to commit crimes? This is actually the greatest risk in allowing meta-women in female-only spaces. Mixed-sex bathrooms are also a risk in schools where there is a risk of assault and unwanted pregnancies.

Solution:

Single-stall toilets, separate changing rooms.

Quotas for women in politics

The involvement of women in politics is very recent. Most countries granted women the right to vote after WW2, which means women’s voices in politics have barely started being heard. As with most positions that have to do with power, women still are discouraged in most places from participating, and a bias against their competence still exists, which makes them less likely to be voted. Quotas, whether one approves of them or not, have the purpose to guarantee that politics take into account the experiences unique to women in legislation (I’d argue that this is not working particularly well). TW, being born male and thus having no direct experience of the challenges faced by women, are not suited to represent these experiences because they are directly tied to the sexed body. They have often faced discrimination of their own, no doubt, but it’s a different kind that most likely has roots in homophobia rather than misogyny and as such deserves its own representation, separate from that of women. The few TW involved in politics that I know of seem, in fact, more preoccupied with the affirmation of rights for TW rather than with tackling the problems women face.

Solution: introduction of quotas for TW in politics.

As TW differ from women in a very defining and relevant aspect, the physical one, it follows that it’s reasonable to limit their access to women-only spaces and resources and institute instead measures specific to them.

Final thoughts

I think trans women’s idea of becoming women after SRS stems from the idea that women are ‘non-men’. The idea that altering a man’s genitals and removing the testes makes them a woman is as outlandish and unscientific as it sounds. A surgically created ‘entrance’ is not a vagina. We are talking about organs, not drapes. A woman is not a man with missing parts, as anyone with a mother could confirm. Wanting to be inclusive of a minority by trampling on the needs of the majority is not a solution, it just creates a whole new set of problems and resentment between the two groups.

To guarantee rights for TW the trans movement should first determine what they really want, since their goals and definitions change so often, and what is the factor that makes them women (which is not the physical body, obviously). When these premises are clear, as a society we can work on solutions to make sure their needs are met without simultaneously worsening the condition of women.