Maybe that's just a fad that will blow over. Nobody took that idea seriously until a few years ago. On Google Trends, peak "transgender" was in 2018. Transgenders are around 0.6% of the US population. Niche issue.
Yup, that's the only thing any company or person can say without causing a Twitter storm against them. By saying this they can simply avoid clarifying what they mean by this. I think all these public personalities will have a much harder time if they were asked a clearer question:
Should any man who self ids as a woman have access to women's private spaces.
I don't see a large company ever answering that in yes/no.
I see people say many things, not all of them make sense or appear consistent to me, which is why I am asking questions.
I appreciate the answer. Are there situations where those of the female sex as a group have a legitimate special interest that does not include trans women?
> Are there situations where those of the female sex as a group
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.
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. 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.
As for your other question:
> I should add, I see people use the phrase "assigned male/female". Which seems odd to me if sex is a biological construct rather than a social construct. It seems the correct phrase would be "assigned man/woman". Is there something I am missing?
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'm not an expert, but my guess is that the "assigned" framing is a way to help distance the person from an aspect of themselves that can cause dysphoria. If you see yourself as a woman, you might strongly prefer to be biologically female, but you can't be. Framing this as something you were assigned helps to address that.
> 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).
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]
I should add, I see people use the phrase "assigned male/female". Which seems odd to me if sex is a biological construct rather than a social construct. It seems the correct phrase would be "assigned man/woman". Is there something I am missing?
male/female are biological descriptions. Men/Women are social constructs. A man can wear a woman's dress, but a male cannot be pregnant and give birth.
That's up to the society, hence their definitions as social constructs. For example, when you shop for dresses, do mostly men or women come up? Articles of clothing by themselves are not tied to the biology of a person's sex... meaning a vagina/penis is not required to wear a dress.
But most of society (as it is now) has deemed that woman are associated with dresses, while men are associated with suits. That image is now changing, although slowly, with trans and other non-binary genders.
An easy way to see this is to ask yourself if you think it's acceptable for men to wear dresses? If so, ask why we don't see more of that in the workplace.
If you check a dictionary, the top definition for "woman" is typically something like "an adult female person" or "an adult female human." So the claim that woman/man is a totally different thing from male/female is pretty novel.
Indeed, I bring this up elsewhere, but there's been a lot of overlap of the medical and the social throughout history. That's changed recently. I don't see how that makes things "ridiculous" to quote GP.