Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama all are advancing bills that "define sex" to exclude transgender people from any legal recognition of their gender.
It's hard living in a country that likes to scapegoat minority populations when their politicians fail to do anything positive for their constituents beyond using the law as a weapon to demonize and bring violence to those who can barely if at all fight back.
These moves are straight out of their White Supremacy Playbook, which they've been refining ever since the Restoration period, now defining "sex" just as they did with Whiteness over time.
Exactly, Scott ... exactly. I've lived this shit for over 66 years now. I was born into Jim Crow. Saw them doing all sorts of crap like this to us Black people. Then gay people. Now trans people. They're mixing Jim Crow with Nazi Germany. I remember saying years ago, although trans people ignored me, "Welcome to being treated like Black people!" Guess they didn't like me saying that, but it's true in so many ways.
Maybe, just maybe, white trans people should listen to Black folks that have lived this for decades & decades. Me? Over half a century. Uh huh. I must say, y'all shoving us in the corner to cling to your whiteness isn't doing you any good right now. Is it?
Begging your pardon, but I'm stuck in this shit with you. I am a Black man who happens to be trans and get a double-dose of discrimination, oppression, AND racism because I am Black first. That's what people see automatically. They don't know I'm trans unless I tell them. Those that know discriminate against, oppress, and neglect me too; especially at the VA and within your mostly trans white woman-led organizations.
So, I'm not in support. I'm actually furious, because I have watched the racism (and sexism) inside the trans community for the last 7.5 years. People have cringed when I speak my/our truth, and literally shoved me all over the internet because I am outspoken. I say things not many Black people have the courage to say to white people. I want folks to know what I've been dealing with, as well as educate about things trans people haven't wanted to hear from us all these years. I feel unsupported because I am Black and am not supporting anyone with this particular comment.
Believe it or not, I'm a fun-loving kind of elderly man, but am only accepted in your circles if I ignore my struggles as a Black man. Let me start talking about that part of the trans struggle, and people suddenly go deaf, dumb, blind, and ignore me/us. We started Stonewall and know how to fight. But guess what? I'm quite ambivalent about supporting people who would rather use me as a token instead of include me fully at the head of the table. I am a bold leader ... rather incognito here on Substack. I'm coming out as one in my own articles. Well, it will become evident through what I say. Feel me?
It is, but I take it all in stride. It's our reality and not likely to change. I do need to write an article about the racism/sexism I see within the trans community. It will be eye-opening and many people will turn a blind-eye. I speak about it on YouTube, but again, folks would rather tune-out than see the intersection of issues we face.
We could learn so much from one another, but there's all this divisiveness within the community. So, I watch, participate, and do my part in other communities, because this covertly forces segregation. Not one I'm opposed to, but in order to fight transphobia, ALL HANDS ON DECK!
I'm just one of these people who speak truth to power no matter what. I don't judge it as much as I point it out very powerfully & boldly. It's crazy out here!!! Hahahahaha
What I've been showing people is the true context of intersectionality.
A Hope that someday labels will be a thing of the past and all Americans will be treated with equal respect, welcomed for their talents and what they contribute to society. My email byline has always been "Touch the Dream" and we can touch that dream and make it a reality.
Biden refusing to even address the calls for him to utilize the real ID act to help trans people is such a disappointment. And he had the audacity to repeat his empty claim of "having our backs" in the state of the union
These bills are cruel, discriminatory, and need to be fought in court (and hopefully they will be). Andrea Long Chu recently wrote an article in New York Magazine which is relevant to this issue; in her article she argues for the weakness of “gender identity” as a concept to base trans rights on, and this weakness has allowed anti-trans activists to seize the momentum. Instead, Chu argues that a much stronger argument is that trans people, through medical interventions, are actually changing their biological sex - a much more definitive thing to base rights on. This is why bathroom bills and legal recognition bills are so absurdly cruel. If you’ve had medical intervention as a trans individual - especially SRS surgery - then you are a new biological sex in most, or all, of the ways that functionally matter to society, and therefore need to be recognized legally as such.
It is a stronger case. It needs to be made carefully so that it doesn't become simply "those who pass should be treated as the gender they live as" -- leaving out people who are visibly trans-- but it needs to be made nonetheless. I think a better short term argument ought to boil down to: "the purpose of sex segregation is not 'just because', it's to protect the vulnerable. Trans women are as vulnerable as cis women, so in order for society to be just and equal they should be protected in the same ways." This will appeal to the sense of fairness that keeps public support for legal protections for trans people high even as support for equal access in other ways (sports, legal identification, bathrooms) falls.
Right now, I think people don't really understand why it's not fair and equal to segregate people strictly by sex assigned at birth because they aren't thinking of the underlying reasons for segregation. They just take it as an unquestioned fact of life. That's got to change.
It sounds as though you're voicing support for bathroom bans, regressive ID laws and anti-trans sports regulations because there's a good reason to do so that is important to all women, including trans women. That makes no sense to me. These legislative efforts are specifically attacking trans identities. Please help me understand.
I'm not voicing support for them at all. My argument is that most of the public does not understand why those bans are so harmful. Even among people who nominally support some transgender rights, some may internalize the idea that sex and gender aren't the same and use that to justify excluding trans women on the basis of "sex".
The only way I can see around this is to stop people from assuming that sex segregation is just a necessary part of life. By instead asking "what goal is it trying to achieve?"
If we think about the goals that sex segregation is trying to achieve, I think it will become more clear why excluding transgender people is problematic: because transgender people need protections for the same reason as other people of their lived gender. Sex (chromosomes, gametes, or whatever is being used to define it at the moment) is invisible but gender is not.
If people want to argue that women are vulnerable, then we have to acknowledge that they are not vulnerable because of their sex. They are vulnerable because of their gender presentation and/or their secondary sexual characteristics. Even the most absurd hypothetical predators do not karyotype their victims after all.
The purpose of this is to try to leverage the existing support that we have in terms of fairness and anti-discrimination policies then apply that to areas where we are lacking support. We have to come up with a concrete way to reframe our arguments so that the reasons why trans women should be allowed to cross barriers of institutional sex segregation or why those barriers shouldn't exist become obvious.
Thanks. I think I understand. No separate bathrooms or education. No recognition of sex. It’s an incredibly idealistic target and not likely to happen, I’d argue for effectively ever. Definitely not something we’d want to make a talking point.
I was not trying to make a utopian argument about abolishing all sex segregation. I have a very practical and personal interest in not having IDs out me and not being forced to choose between breaking the law or potentially being chased out of a men's room (this happened to me two decades ago when I was taking estrogen but trying to continue going to college presenting as male believe it or not).
Right now opponents of trans rights have the option of paying lip service to our gender while enforcing policies based on our sex assigned at birth which effectively ignore it. One way of combating this would be to claim that transgender people do change sex by taking hormones or having surgeries. That strikes me as an all or nothing gambit -- and we would need to teach advanced biology to the public at large to advance it. Another way, which is what I am proposing, is to question the intention behind sex segregation policies. I believe that in most cases in daily life, it's very easy to argue that the goals of sex segregation are better served by gender segregation. Maybe not in all cases, that is immaterial. By looking at each instance of sex segregation separately, we can triage.
It's not a fix-all, but it creates some space to keep the basics of living life within our reach as a community. I'm honestly worried about losing those. We will survive, sure, but I want us to thrive and IDs and access to public facilities seem like the bare minimum prerequisites to being able to build a life without huge friction to doing things like getting jobs or traveling freely.
Thanks for clarifying for me. I think you're right, though tbh, I'm not sure most cis/het folks get the distinction between gender and sex. But, again, thanks for the reply. Very helpful.
I realize this is not really relevant to your argument, but I have to ask.
You say "so that it doesn't become 'those who pass should be treated as the gender they live as.'"
Why shouldn't they be? I mean, if someone lives as a certain gender fully and completely enough to pass as that gender, why shouldn't they be accepted and treated as that gender?
I mean, yes, absolutely they should be. I'm just wary of being misinterpreted as saying that someone must pass to be able to have their gender respected. Most trans people for the foreseeable future will unfortunately be forced by their states to go through the wrong puberty and that makes passing out of reach for many. I just don't want to imply that anyone should be left out of protections on account of that. Make sense?
I note at the top that I have not read the original article and am basing my comments on your description of it. Which means Chu may have addressed some of what I raise here, in which case, well, I can fairly be accused of jumping the gun.
First, "if you’ve had medical intervention" is a damn big "if," depending on what constitutes "medical intervention." And no matter how broadly it's defined, it still at minimum leaves out those who have found social transition sufficient.
Moreover, arguing gender change is a change in biological sex is unlikely to convince anyone in light of the easy comeback, already heard even against those who have had bottom surgery, that "you're still a man/woman, you can't change your genes" - even as it comes at the cost of going against the very medical and psychological research and studies often cited, including the recognition that sex and gender are two different things mediated by separate regions of the brain.
Finally, the meaning of "you are a new biological sex in most of the ways that functionally matter to society" is already wrapped up in the statement "a transgender man/woman IS a man/woman" without the baggage of equating sex and gender.
As an I guess irrelevant sidebar, SRS is increasingly called GAS, for Gender-Affirming Surgery.
In many respects I agree with you. In an ideal world, gender identity would be sufficient; an example would be Spain, a country where I think legal gender is self-declared. The point I’m making - and that I think Andrea Chu is also making in her article, probably far better than I can - is that in the US, the on-the-ground practical reality is that insisting on gender identity as the basis for rights has major weaknesses for not only conservatives, but also moderates, and is part of the reason why we continue to lose our rights in legislatures and courts. Basing those rights on biological sex - and then making the case that trans medical interventions constitute that - is more objective and verifiable, and this might win over moderates (even though of course, hard-core conservatives won’t be swayed by anything). Case in point: post-op (GAS/SRS) trans women ARE different, they have safety, sexual, and bathroom needs that are distinct from those that haven’t had the surgery, and fairly closely approximate the needs of AFAB cis women. Thus, they are especially harmed by the lack of carve-outs in these awful ID and bathroom bills. Oh and as you noted, genetics are a weak argument for the anti-trans activists, and trans folks need to advocate that much more forcefully. AFAB women can be XY sometimes, and as for trans medical care, while yes, chromosomes don’t change, there is increasing evidence that epigenetics DO change as a result of hormone therapy, and they might be even more important.
Don't go down this road. This is the same logic as "LGB without the T". "The for non-heterosexual rights in an ideal world could also include a fight for trans people, but those trans people are so much harder for folks to accept, it weakens our argument. In reality, we have to only fight for the rights and acceptance of cis non-straight people, and leave the trans people out of it"
Your argument is functionally the same, except instead of LGB it's trans people with medical intervention, and instead of the T it's specifically trans people who can't it don't medically transition. It's vile. Compromising the rights for some of us won't get the rest of us to be accepted. It'll only weaken our community as a whole and get a whole lot of the most marginalized of the trans community hurt or killed. Turn away from this road, this is not how we treat our siblings
I understand the argument you're making, but beyond remaining doubtful that the argument "they've actually changed their biological sex, really," is going to be persuasive, I remain disturbed by the suggestion that - based on your description - protections would extend only to those who have had bottom surgery along with the fact that trans men don't even seem to be part of the discussion.
On another point, while I don't know of a mechanism whereby someone AFAB can be XY - please explain it to me if you know (seriously) - there is a clear mechanism where someone AMAB can be XX. And while there is evidence that hormone therapy can affect gene expression, it doesn't change the genetic sequence and the epigenetic effect stops when the therapy does and so doesn't overcome the "I don't care about your" (what will be called "plastic surgery" or "self-mutilation" or "fistful of drugs to maintain a lie") "you're still a man/woman!"
Ultimately, I just can't accept that it's a good strategy to embrace the right-wing canard that cis women are at constant risk from trans women in restrooms in order to advance what I maintain is a scientifically-unsound argument that would leave most transgender people out of any proposed protection.
I want to conclude my side of this on an up moment by reprising something I said in February, I think in response to another of Erin's posts. Which was that while I fear there are dark days ahead, I do have longer term hope because history indicates that when certain social forces are trying so hard to arrest change, it's a sure sign that they know they are losing and, like King Canute in the popular version of the story, they are trying to hold back the tide. And just like him, they will fail.
Thanks for your reply. AFAB people can be XY in androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), especially the complete version. Despite the XY karyotype, they develop as phenotypic females.
Okay, this is a "duh" moment for me. As soon as I saw your reply I thought "Of course! I knew that!!" I suppose I could chalk it up to failing memory due to age, but the truth is I've always displayed the ability to be a n intermittent twit.
If sex/gender is to be based on "reproductive capacity", does that mean that anyone who has neither impregnated nor been impregnated is somehow neutered?
Hahahahaha. That sounded fucked-up and funny. Listen, I cringe to think about how these clowns would implement any of this. They gonna deputize the entire country to hover over bathrooms? Hire a bunch of people to check all these documents? I don't think so. They'll have to start rounding us all up. Sounds like an excuse for the real perverts to show their coward colors ... cisgender heterosexual males. Such hypocrites to make it look like we're deranged while doing nothing about the real predators of society. Not even sex-workers would be able to do what they do without demand ... from who? The very same men! As a man, I'm insulted to be lumped in with those sickos. Hmmmmmm...
On a practical level, it is of course almost unenforceable. But that's not the point - or rather, either of the points, which are:
1. Keep the panic going and exploit it to keep yourself in your cushy legislative chair, and
2. create FUD in transgender folks.
FUD is "fear, uncertainty, and doubt," an acronym with an interesting but for now irrelevant history. The idea is not so much to effectively bar trans folks from using the proper restroom as to make then afraid to do so., to impose a social self-censorship and isolation for fear of the consequences of doing otherwise.
Yes, yes, practically I know all that. But I also don't trust the GOP and if they really are on the path of Nazi Germans, there may come a day when we do have to think about what I said too. I haven't been wrong yet, and predicted all of this before it happened. I am an elder trans man and see things before others do. They just weren't listening because ... wait for it ... I'm Black and less supported than you non-Black people. That's a whole 'nother matter.
That FUD is affecting the cisgender heterosexual part of our communities, some of ours, and its very effective doing all those things. Just pisses me off. I do not fear them, nor does it make me doubt who I am. Only makes me uncertain that this country gives a damn about anybody different than mainstream. Good ole' pecking order strikes again!
I'm starting to feel like they want to know who they need to round up and keep pregnant, versus who they want to round up and deport, versus who they want to round up and disappear either into death or forced labor in private prisons. Since I've had a hysterectomy I'm assuming I'll get murdered but that might be overly optimistic. This shit is terrifying. They can try to disappear your gender but you'll still be here so why do they care so fucking much? I don't understand this need for private demographic information constantly from the party that "hates" "big government".
The Real ID might not be a total solution, but it would give the weight of federal law to such arguments. I'm particularly concerned about how traveling into or through such anti-trans states would affect someone who has changed their gender marker on other states' documents, such as my NM driver's license. Would I be in violation of the law for trying to use it as ID in these hate states? PS... I think it's "Jackson", Mississippi, not Jacksonville.
The states mentioned in Erin’s article are among the bottom dwellers in nearly every ranked survey of the 50 states with regard to practically any social outcome or quality of life criterion. So while it’s sad and disgraceful to see these states pursue this path, it’s hardly surprising.
It should also be mentioned that Erin herself is from Louisiana. So I worry that her driver’s license or her birth certificate would revert the gender marker thereon back to an “M”.
Yes it’s a concern, and maybe Erin will choose to comment. However, birth certificates typically have no expiration date, and so while they could revert a gender marker if a re-issue was requested, I don’t see how they can prevent you from possessing previously issued, correct documents you already have - unless they want to send a gang of jackbooted thugs to knock in your front door and forcibly retrieve the documents.
I'm from NE, but I could care less what they do with that document. I only did it for thoroughness. If I were young or trying to change things right now, I'd be worried. As of now, I have no use for that BC. When I have to renew my passport, I pray they haven't gotten into THAT system. With my DL (in another State), they don't ask for birth certificates. They'll have to turn everything upside-down in every State to screw us some more. SMFH
Yeah, I knew the small wins were only temporary and bullshit would pop up in different states than before. Until Pres. Biden protects us federally, there's not a chance we can fight this. He's being a typical spineless Democrat. Really pissing me off. I keep sending him messages.
These loathsome legislators presume to 'define sex' when they cannot define 'love your neighbor' or show a decent respect or common decency itself. They rule with cruelty, fear and lies they learned in church. They kill children like Nex Benedict.
I guess I have something to worry about for next year, when Texas will inevitably join their Southern Gulf brethren of stripping me and mine of our basic civil rights and dignity.
We may be adding South Carolina to that list following Missouri. HB 4624 now on the senate floor in SC after passing in the house despite mine and others who have petitioned our legislators to condemn this bill as a human rights violation, endangering children and locking out many adults presently in their treatments. Please we must not let another state follow suit. I beg all to please petition your legislators to protect the rights of Americans and save our children from these needless laws that put American children and many adults in harms way.
It's hard living in a country that likes to scapegoat minority populations when their politicians fail to do anything positive for their constituents beyond using the law as a weapon to demonize and bring violence to those who can barely if at all fight back.
These moves are straight out of their White Supremacy Playbook, which they've been refining ever since the Restoration period, now defining "sex" just as they did with Whiteness over time.
Exactly, Scott ... exactly. I've lived this shit for over 66 years now. I was born into Jim Crow. Saw them doing all sorts of crap like this to us Black people. Then gay people. Now trans people. They're mixing Jim Crow with Nazi Germany. I remember saying years ago, although trans people ignored me, "Welcome to being treated like Black people!" Guess they didn't like me saying that, but it's true in so many ways.
Maybe, just maybe, white trans people should listen to Black folks that have lived this for decades & decades. Me? Over half a century. Uh huh. I must say, y'all shoving us in the corner to cling to your whiteness isn't doing you any good right now. Is it?
Many of us are listening and appreciate your support.
Begging your pardon, but I'm stuck in this shit with you. I am a Black man who happens to be trans and get a double-dose of discrimination, oppression, AND racism because I am Black first. That's what people see automatically. They don't know I'm trans unless I tell them. Those that know discriminate against, oppress, and neglect me too; especially at the VA and within your mostly trans white woman-led organizations.
So, I'm not in support. I'm actually furious, because I have watched the racism (and sexism) inside the trans community for the last 7.5 years. People have cringed when I speak my/our truth, and literally shoved me all over the internet because I am outspoken. I say things not many Black people have the courage to say to white people. I want folks to know what I've been dealing with, as well as educate about things trans people haven't wanted to hear from us all these years. I feel unsupported because I am Black and am not supporting anyone with this particular comment.
Believe it or not, I'm a fun-loving kind of elderly man, but am only accepted in your circles if I ignore my struggles as a Black man. Let me start talking about that part of the trans struggle, and people suddenly go deaf, dumb, blind, and ignore me/us. We started Stonewall and know how to fight. But guess what? I'm quite ambivalent about supporting people who would rather use me as a token instead of include me fully at the head of the table. I am a bold leader ... rather incognito here on Substack. I'm coming out as one in my own articles. Well, it will become evident through what I say. Feel me?
I'm sorry. That sounds awful.
It is, but I take it all in stride. It's our reality and not likely to change. I do need to write an article about the racism/sexism I see within the trans community. It will be eye-opening and many people will turn a blind-eye. I speak about it on YouTube, but again, folks would rather tune-out than see the intersection of issues we face.
We could learn so much from one another, but there's all this divisiveness within the community. So, I watch, participate, and do my part in other communities, because this covertly forces segregation. Not one I'm opposed to, but in order to fight transphobia, ALL HANDS ON DECK!
I'm just one of these people who speak truth to power no matter what. I don't judge it as much as I point it out very powerfully & boldly. It's crazy out here!!! Hahahahaha
What I've been showing people is the true context of intersectionality.
A Hope that someday labels will be a thing of the past and all Americans will be treated with equal respect, welcomed for their talents and what they contribute to society. My email byline has always been "Touch the Dream" and we can touch that dream and make it a reality.
JIm Crow for Trans people.
Wrote an article about this phenomenon:
https://open.substack.com/pub/kingrayvet/p/racismsexism-in-the-trans-community?r=2qkvsm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And yet, they wonder why many people consider southern states backwards and uneducated. Neil Young was right about Alabama back in 1973.
Biden refusing to even address the calls for him to utilize the real ID act to help trans people is such a disappointment. And he had the audacity to repeat his empty claim of "having our backs" in the state of the union
Talk about grand-standing. For what? Who is he trying to impress and letting us get thrown under the bus anyway? SMFH
These bills are cruel, discriminatory, and need to be fought in court (and hopefully they will be). Andrea Long Chu recently wrote an article in New York Magazine which is relevant to this issue; in her article she argues for the weakness of “gender identity” as a concept to base trans rights on, and this weakness has allowed anti-trans activists to seize the momentum. Instead, Chu argues that a much stronger argument is that trans people, through medical interventions, are actually changing their biological sex - a much more definitive thing to base rights on. This is why bathroom bills and legal recognition bills are so absurdly cruel. If you’ve had medical intervention as a trans individual - especially SRS surgery - then you are a new biological sex in most, or all, of the ways that functionally matter to society, and therefore need to be recognized legally as such.
It is a stronger case. It needs to be made carefully so that it doesn't become simply "those who pass should be treated as the gender they live as" -- leaving out people who are visibly trans-- but it needs to be made nonetheless. I think a better short term argument ought to boil down to: "the purpose of sex segregation is not 'just because', it's to protect the vulnerable. Trans women are as vulnerable as cis women, so in order for society to be just and equal they should be protected in the same ways." This will appeal to the sense of fairness that keeps public support for legal protections for trans people high even as support for equal access in other ways (sports, legal identification, bathrooms) falls.
Right now, I think people don't really understand why it's not fair and equal to segregate people strictly by sex assigned at birth because they aren't thinking of the underlying reasons for segregation. They just take it as an unquestioned fact of life. That's got to change.
It sounds as though you're voicing support for bathroom bans, regressive ID laws and anti-trans sports regulations because there's a good reason to do so that is important to all women, including trans women. That makes no sense to me. These legislative efforts are specifically attacking trans identities. Please help me understand.
I'm not voicing support for them at all. My argument is that most of the public does not understand why those bans are so harmful. Even among people who nominally support some transgender rights, some may internalize the idea that sex and gender aren't the same and use that to justify excluding trans women on the basis of "sex".
The only way I can see around this is to stop people from assuming that sex segregation is just a necessary part of life. By instead asking "what goal is it trying to achieve?"
If we think about the goals that sex segregation is trying to achieve, I think it will become more clear why excluding transgender people is problematic: because transgender people need protections for the same reason as other people of their lived gender. Sex (chromosomes, gametes, or whatever is being used to define it at the moment) is invisible but gender is not.
If people want to argue that women are vulnerable, then we have to acknowledge that they are not vulnerable because of their sex. They are vulnerable because of their gender presentation and/or their secondary sexual characteristics. Even the most absurd hypothetical predators do not karyotype their victims after all.
The purpose of this is to try to leverage the existing support that we have in terms of fairness and anti-discrimination policies then apply that to areas where we are lacking support. We have to come up with a concrete way to reframe our arguments so that the reasons why trans women should be allowed to cross barriers of institutional sex segregation or why those barriers shouldn't exist become obvious.
Thanks. I think I understand. No separate bathrooms or education. No recognition of sex. It’s an incredibly idealistic target and not likely to happen, I’d argue for effectively ever. Definitely not something we’d want to make a talking point.
I was not trying to make a utopian argument about abolishing all sex segregation. I have a very practical and personal interest in not having IDs out me and not being forced to choose between breaking the law or potentially being chased out of a men's room (this happened to me two decades ago when I was taking estrogen but trying to continue going to college presenting as male believe it or not).
Right now opponents of trans rights have the option of paying lip service to our gender while enforcing policies based on our sex assigned at birth which effectively ignore it. One way of combating this would be to claim that transgender people do change sex by taking hormones or having surgeries. That strikes me as an all or nothing gambit -- and we would need to teach advanced biology to the public at large to advance it. Another way, which is what I am proposing, is to question the intention behind sex segregation policies. I believe that in most cases in daily life, it's very easy to argue that the goals of sex segregation are better served by gender segregation. Maybe not in all cases, that is immaterial. By looking at each instance of sex segregation separately, we can triage.
It's not a fix-all, but it creates some space to keep the basics of living life within our reach as a community. I'm honestly worried about losing those. We will survive, sure, but I want us to thrive and IDs and access to public facilities seem like the bare minimum prerequisites to being able to build a life without huge friction to doing things like getting jobs or traveling freely.
Thanks for clarifying for me. I think you're right, though tbh, I'm not sure most cis/het folks get the distinction between gender and sex. But, again, thanks for the reply. Very helpful.
I realize this is not really relevant to your argument, but I have to ask.
You say "so that it doesn't become 'those who pass should be treated as the gender they live as.'"
Why shouldn't they be? I mean, if someone lives as a certain gender fully and completely enough to pass as that gender, why shouldn't they be accepted and treated as that gender?
I mean, yes, absolutely they should be. I'm just wary of being misinterpreted as saying that someone must pass to be able to have their gender respected. Most trans people for the foreseeable future will unfortunately be forced by their states to go through the wrong puberty and that makes passing out of reach for many. I just don't want to imply that anyone should be left out of protections on account of that. Make sense?
Yes, I understand your intent now. In return, I hope you can understand how the way you put it originally could be misinterpreted as I did.
Not all trans people can access or want surgical intervention. I'd hate to see a class system created whereas those without surgery get left behind.
I note at the top that I have not read the original article and am basing my comments on your description of it. Which means Chu may have addressed some of what I raise here, in which case, well, I can fairly be accused of jumping the gun.
First, "if you’ve had medical intervention" is a damn big "if," depending on what constitutes "medical intervention." And no matter how broadly it's defined, it still at minimum leaves out those who have found social transition sufficient.
Moreover, arguing gender change is a change in biological sex is unlikely to convince anyone in light of the easy comeback, already heard even against those who have had bottom surgery, that "you're still a man/woman, you can't change your genes" - even as it comes at the cost of going against the very medical and psychological research and studies often cited, including the recognition that sex and gender are two different things mediated by separate regions of the brain.
Finally, the meaning of "you are a new biological sex in most of the ways that functionally matter to society" is already wrapped up in the statement "a transgender man/woman IS a man/woman" without the baggage of equating sex and gender.
As an I guess irrelevant sidebar, SRS is increasingly called GAS, for Gender-Affirming Surgery.
In many respects I agree with you. In an ideal world, gender identity would be sufficient; an example would be Spain, a country where I think legal gender is self-declared. The point I’m making - and that I think Andrea Chu is also making in her article, probably far better than I can - is that in the US, the on-the-ground practical reality is that insisting on gender identity as the basis for rights has major weaknesses for not only conservatives, but also moderates, and is part of the reason why we continue to lose our rights in legislatures and courts. Basing those rights on biological sex - and then making the case that trans medical interventions constitute that - is more objective and verifiable, and this might win over moderates (even though of course, hard-core conservatives won’t be swayed by anything). Case in point: post-op (GAS/SRS) trans women ARE different, they have safety, sexual, and bathroom needs that are distinct from those that haven’t had the surgery, and fairly closely approximate the needs of AFAB cis women. Thus, they are especially harmed by the lack of carve-outs in these awful ID and bathroom bills. Oh and as you noted, genetics are a weak argument for the anti-trans activists, and trans folks need to advocate that much more forcefully. AFAB women can be XY sometimes, and as for trans medical care, while yes, chromosomes don’t change, there is increasing evidence that epigenetics DO change as a result of hormone therapy, and they might be even more important.
Don't go down this road. This is the same logic as "LGB without the T". "The for non-heterosexual rights in an ideal world could also include a fight for trans people, but those trans people are so much harder for folks to accept, it weakens our argument. In reality, we have to only fight for the rights and acceptance of cis non-straight people, and leave the trans people out of it"
Your argument is functionally the same, except instead of LGB it's trans people with medical intervention, and instead of the T it's specifically trans people who can't it don't medically transition. It's vile. Compromising the rights for some of us won't get the rest of us to be accepted. It'll only weaken our community as a whole and get a whole lot of the most marginalized of the trans community hurt or killed. Turn away from this road, this is not how we treat our siblings
I understand the argument you're making, but beyond remaining doubtful that the argument "they've actually changed their biological sex, really," is going to be persuasive, I remain disturbed by the suggestion that - based on your description - protections would extend only to those who have had bottom surgery along with the fact that trans men don't even seem to be part of the discussion.
On another point, while I don't know of a mechanism whereby someone AFAB can be XY - please explain it to me if you know (seriously) - there is a clear mechanism where someone AMAB can be XX. And while there is evidence that hormone therapy can affect gene expression, it doesn't change the genetic sequence and the epigenetic effect stops when the therapy does and so doesn't overcome the "I don't care about your" (what will be called "plastic surgery" or "self-mutilation" or "fistful of drugs to maintain a lie") "you're still a man/woman!"
Ultimately, I just can't accept that it's a good strategy to embrace the right-wing canard that cis women are at constant risk from trans women in restrooms in order to advance what I maintain is a scientifically-unsound argument that would leave most transgender people out of any proposed protection.
I want to conclude my side of this on an up moment by reprising something I said in February, I think in response to another of Erin's posts. Which was that while I fear there are dark days ahead, I do have longer term hope because history indicates that when certain social forces are trying so hard to arrest change, it's a sure sign that they know they are losing and, like King Canute in the popular version of the story, they are trying to hold back the tide. And just like him, they will fail.
Thanks for your reply. AFAB people can be XY in androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), especially the complete version. Despite the XY karyotype, they develop as phenotypic females.
Okay, this is a "duh" moment for me. As soon as I saw your reply I thought "Of course! I knew that!!" I suppose I could chalk it up to failing memory due to age, but the truth is I've always displayed the ability to be a n intermittent twit.
Thanks for the answer.
If sex/gender is to be based on "reproductive capacity", does that mean that anyone who has neither impregnated nor been impregnated is somehow neutered?
This just in- womanhood ends at menopause! Biologists around the world stunned by Republicans' incredible discovery. Story at 11!
LOL, Joan
Hahahahaha. That sounded fucked-up and funny. Listen, I cringe to think about how these clowns would implement any of this. They gonna deputize the entire country to hover over bathrooms? Hire a bunch of people to check all these documents? I don't think so. They'll have to start rounding us all up. Sounds like an excuse for the real perverts to show their coward colors ... cisgender heterosexual males. Such hypocrites to make it look like we're deranged while doing nothing about the real predators of society. Not even sex-workers would be able to do what they do without demand ... from who? The very same men! As a man, I'm insulted to be lumped in with those sickos. Hmmmmmm...
On a practical level, it is of course almost unenforceable. But that's not the point - or rather, either of the points, which are:
1. Keep the panic going and exploit it to keep yourself in your cushy legislative chair, and
2. create FUD in transgender folks.
FUD is "fear, uncertainty, and doubt," an acronym with an interesting but for now irrelevant history. The idea is not so much to effectively bar trans folks from using the proper restroom as to make then afraid to do so., to impose a social self-censorship and isolation for fear of the consequences of doing otherwise.
Yes, yes, practically I know all that. But I also don't trust the GOP and if they really are on the path of Nazi Germans, there may come a day when we do have to think about what I said too. I haven't been wrong yet, and predicted all of this before it happened. I am an elder trans man and see things before others do. They just weren't listening because ... wait for it ... I'm Black and less supported than you non-Black people. That's a whole 'nother matter.
That FUD is affecting the cisgender heterosexual part of our communities, some of ours, and its very effective doing all those things. Just pisses me off. I do not fear them, nor does it make me doubt who I am. Only makes me uncertain that this country gives a damn about anybody different than mainstream. Good ole' pecking order strikes again!
Bob Barker Syndrome
I'm starting to feel like they want to know who they need to round up and keep pregnant, versus who they want to round up and deport, versus who they want to round up and disappear either into death or forced labor in private prisons. Since I've had a hysterectomy I'm assuming I'll get murdered but that might be overly optimistic. This shit is terrifying. They can try to disappear your gender but you'll still be here so why do they care so fucking much? I don't understand this need for private demographic information constantly from the party that "hates" "big government".
They never hate big government more than when that government is protecting everyone else 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.
Includes the state where my transphobic parents live. Even less likely I will ever visit them now.
The Real ID might not be a total solution, but it would give the weight of federal law to such arguments. I'm particularly concerned about how traveling into or through such anti-trans states would affect someone who has changed their gender marker on other states' documents, such as my NM driver's license. Would I be in violation of the law for trying to use it as ID in these hate states? PS... I think it's "Jackson", Mississippi, not Jacksonville.
Been wondering the same thing if I were in Florida and driving with a CA license
The states mentioned in Erin’s article are among the bottom dwellers in nearly every ranked survey of the 50 states with regard to practically any social outcome or quality of life criterion. So while it’s sad and disgraceful to see these states pursue this path, it’s hardly surprising.
It should also be mentioned that Erin herself is from Louisiana. So I worry that her driver’s license or her birth certificate would revert the gender marker thereon back to an “M”.
Yes it’s a concern, and maybe Erin will choose to comment. However, birth certificates typically have no expiration date, and so while they could revert a gender marker if a re-issue was requested, I don’t see how they can prevent you from possessing previously issued, correct documents you already have - unless they want to send a gang of jackbooted thugs to knock in your front door and forcibly retrieve the documents.
> unless they want to send a gang of jackbooted thugs to knock in your front door and forcibly retrieve the documents.
Given what’s happening in the US, I see that within the realm of possibility.
I'm from NE, but I could care less what they do with that document. I only did it for thoroughness. If I were young or trying to change things right now, I'd be worried. As of now, I have no use for that BC. When I have to renew my passport, I pray they haven't gotten into THAT system. With my DL (in another State), they don't ask for birth certificates. They'll have to turn everything upside-down in every State to screw us some more. SMFH
The haters paused to take a deep breath...
...and now everything blows again.
Yeah, I knew the small wins were only temporary and bullshit would pop up in different states than before. Until Pres. Biden protects us federally, there's not a chance we can fight this. He's being a typical spineless Democrat. Really pissing me off. I keep sending him messages.
It was just the eye of the storm…
These loathsome legislators presume to 'define sex' when they cannot define 'love your neighbor' or show a decent respect or common decency itself. They rule with cruelty, fear and lies they learned in church. They kill children like Nex Benedict.
Say his name.
I guess I have something to worry about for next year, when Texas will inevitably join their Southern Gulf brethren of stripping me and mine of our basic civil rights and dignity.
We may be adding South Carolina to that list following Missouri. HB 4624 now on the senate floor in SC after passing in the house despite mine and others who have petitioned our legislators to condemn this bill as a human rights violation, endangering children and locking out many adults presently in their treatments. Please we must not let another state follow suit. I beg all to please petition your legislators to protect the rights of Americans and save our children from these needless laws that put American children and many adults in harms way.
Politicians in these states just doing what's best for their poverty stricken constituents. Seriously, how does this legislation benefit anyone ?
One of my moms lives in Alabama. Which is actually an improvement, as she moved from Florida.