[beckon69]

I appreciated this thoughtful response (rebuttal) to OP. I agree with your concept of "back in the 00s you'd never have a teacher scold a child for using wrong-sex clothes/toys because we'd largely gotten rid of the concept". This dovetails into one of the paradox's of the trans-adjacent ideology that I haven't been able to square in my own head, which is that transitioning genders is predicated on strong gender norms existing in a society. In other words, it seems less accepting to be a male and exhibit feminine traits (and by the way, we are in fact acknowledging traditional societal ideas of gender roles now, rather than moving beyond them).

[zozbot234]

Even weirder is how those who don't acknowledge traditional societal ideas of gender roles are being directed to adopt an identity of their own: "non-binary" or "genderfluid". So the strong gender norms have now become a thoroughly self-reinforcing cycle: even if you disagree with them, you're just treated and reassigned in accordance with these same norms.

[deanCommie]

There is a lot of debate and disagreement between those that are Transgender and those that are NonBinary.

NB people will absolutely agree that rigorous gender norms are harmful, and Trans people are likely embracing and perpetuating an unnecessary binary. Meanwhile, Trans people will claim that the binary is real to them.

Both are likely valid to some degree. There are multiple axis to this conversation.

[zozbot234]

Someday people will learn about the difference between "bimodal" and "binary", and the critical importance of liminal spaces in real-world "binary" phenomena of all kinds.

[deanCommie]

I'm OP, and I did not appreciate this rebuttal, and consider it alarmist and terrible. I responded here if you want to take a look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891710

To your point, though, there is an explanation there too.

The word is complex and full of many intersecting axis of considerations. For example - it can be logically consistent to be both pro renewable energy investment of all kinds, but also be wary of nuclear power, and the long-term consequences to our world if we expand investment into it. It's not a simple solution. Turning off nuclear power plants to burn coal or gas is clearly terrible. Not investing in solar/wind/etc because nuclear plants seem better in teh short term is also not great.

Likewise, the reality is that our society DOES contain strong gender norms. You might think we don't because women make up >50% of colleges, are in the professional world, and might believe other concepts like the wage gap are exaggerated. And those can be all true. But our world is definitely still deeply GENDERED.

There are people who believe it shouldn't be, and are working to buck those trends (and those people, generally, receive equally as much backlash as those transgender).

There are people who are working on "dismantling the patriarchy" and associated systems of capitalist economic systems, and other things that may or may not be reasonable, may or may not be possible, and may or may not make things worse.

But the point is that some of those people are transgender. And some are not. It's an independent axis. Transgender people - by and large - like most people - aren't looking to tear down the binary gender norms in our society - they're just seeking to exist in society as the other gender.

Now, if you claim that a society should be more tolerant of being male and exhibiting feminine traits (and vice versa), I would agree with you. If you claimed that IF our society became that, there would likely be fewer transgender people, I would also theorize that is true.

And if you believe that is a virtuous thing to pursue, let's both do so. But it's not a process that we can achieve overnight, and requires the support and progress of many others. Things have been progressing, but very slowly.

Meanwhile, we have people who are suffering today, and who we have statistical evidence that there is a solution for what ails them. Why deny them this?

[LawTalkingGuy]

> our world is definitely still deeply GENDERED. There are people who believe it shouldn't be, and are working to buck those trends (and those people, generally, receive equally as much backlash as those transgender).

Some things are pointlessly gendered, like pink/blue, or puffy sleeves, but others absolutely have a purpose, like single-sex spaces.

> Transgender people - by and large - like most people - aren't looking to tear down the binary gender norms in our society - they're just seeking to exist in society as the other gender.

The problem is that trying to tear down GENDER norms by living as the other SEX. You're interfering with other people's spaces to culture-jam the patriarchy and they need those spaces for safety, but you're also conflating the stereotypes of a sex with the sex itself.

> we have people who are suffering today, and who we have statistical evidence that there is a solution for what ails them.

Most or all of that evidence is as flawed as the detransitioners study. Everyone is afraid to do any actual research in this area. That said there's ample evidence in every other area of mental health that says you should not affirm falsehood.

> Why deny them this?

They're denied nothing up until their gender presentation interferes with someone else's sex-based rights. Dress how you will, live how you will.

[deanCommie]

single-sex spaces are problematic AF.

What about intersex individuals? What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals?

All have always challenged the clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary.

To put an example, I agree that there should be rape counselling that are exclusive for women. Women should feel comfortable in that space without men present. But those women also need to understand that even if trans people didn't exist, they need to share that space with 1) non-femme presenting women, 2) non-straight women, 3) intersex individuals.

Adding transgender women to the list does not meaningfully destroy the validity of these spaces or ruin them for CIS women. They were never as black-and-white-biology-based as the hateful anti-trans bigots claim they are today.

Are there men attempting to infiltrate these spaces? Sure. They are bad faith actors, and they are exceptions.

Anecdotally, cis, hetero, butch women now report more harassment in bathrooms since the rise of anti-trans hate than they faced before.

[LawTalkingGuy]

> clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary

Sexual assaults are vastly more often committed by males than females, and vastly more often on females and children. Until you replace single-sex spaces with something equally easy and effective you can't claim they aren't needed.

> single-sex spaces are problematic AF

Sexual attacks are problematic AF, single-sex spaces are the best way (cost vs effectiveness) we've come up with to prevent them.

What other single, easily inspectable, and enforceable rule would you replace it with? If you have only one bit of data to predict someone's sexual criminality you'd want to know their sex. If you have only one bit of data to predict someone's likelihood of being sexually attacked you'd want to know their sex. We know this from thousands of years of human history and from simply thinking about the male biological imperative versus the female.

> They were never as black-and-white-biology-based

There's no biology more black and white than male vs female, birth giver vs impregnator.

> What about intersex individuals?

Despite all the chromosome combinations and mobile genes there are only two gametes, sperm and egg. All intersex people are male or female. DSDs are disorders of sexual development, not whole new sexes.

> What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals?

They use the washroom that matches their sex.

> Anecdotally, [...] butch women now report more harassment in bathrooms

Yeah, since males started trying to use female spaces people have been on guard. Not only is their suffering not yours to use for emotional weight but you are part of the group which caused this.

> Women should feel comfortable in [rape counseling] without men present.

Magnanimous, to give them that. How about prisons?

> But those women also need to understand that even if trans people didn't exist, they need to share that space [...] lesbians

Do you feel that straight women weren't sharing with lesbians and that lesbians needed you, a male, to point this out?

> Adding transgender women to the list does not meaningfully destroy the validity of these spaces

As soon as a single male enters a female space it stops being a single-sex space.

> or ruin them for CIS women.

It destroys the value for all females.

> Are there men attempting to infiltrate these spaces? Sure. They are bad faith actors,

Bad faith rapists, go figure.

Is there a test that want us to perform to tell one of them from a justified male?

> and they are exceptions.

They're likely vastly more common than males who think they have gender dysphoria.

> as the hateful anti-trans bigots claim they are today.

How does a woman earn the right to declare herself different and politically distinct from you, and deserving of physical separation, without you calling her hateful?

[deanCommie]

We can't have a reasonable discussion if you insist on calling all trans women men.

There might be a chance if you acknowledge the basic facts which is that the vast majority of trans women are as even MORE at risk of sexual assault than cis women. And that the "rapists" who are attempting to infiltrate female spaces are an extreme minority, and are a danger to all women - cis and trans.

There may be a version of an argument we could have about the difficulties have with banishing those people without banishing genuine trans women. But if you can't understand how trans women are victims in this too, and brandish them all as men, we're finished.

There is no point discussing your desire to reduce men and women to sperm and eggs either.

[LawTalkingGuy]

> if you insist on calling all trans women men

I said male. And that's the issue. If trans women were female there wouldn't be a discussion, but they're male and want to be treated as female. This requires women to trust males who say they're women.

Why won't you just acknowledge that this is a huge request and that it'll require you to explain yourself, ask not tell, etc.

> reduce men and women to sperm and eggs either.

You were trying to work intersex people into a defense of bathroom colonization by saying we can't tell who's who and thus categories don't matter. That's incorrect and rude. Intersex people aren't a third sex and don't deserve to be used as a prop in a trans-rights debate anyways.

> And that the "rapists" who are attempting to infiltrate female spaces are an extreme minority,

The number of men testing the boundaries of women's boundaries and spaces is huge and would only go up if they suspected they had a chance.

> and are a danger to all women - cis and trans.

Maybe from passing violence during an intrusion, but trans women are not the target of these rapists. Also, trans women have the benefits of male biology which makes them a much tougher target if they were threatened.

> without banishing genuine trans women

I asked what kind of test you'd have us perform on the males, to see which ones are genuine trans women and which weren't.

How do you propose people do this without compromising their safety, like when a large male wants to enter a female rape shelter at night?

> if you can't understand how trans women are victims in this too

Let's just stipulate to that for now.

How does that imply that women's spaces are what they need to be safe, especially given the problems I've mentioned for the women who are already there? Why not Jewish spaces? Why not new third spaces? Why not arm yourselves and use the original spaces? There are a lot of possibilities here before we agree to take someone else's human rights and give them away.

> and [banish] them all as men, we're finished.

As males. If you don't acknowledge that most trans women have functional penises then you are intentionally not engaging with the problem.

> There is no point discussing your desire to

You're asking for too much to be uninterested in people's concerns.