To start by reiterating a point from elsewhere, two things are true: the first is that Trump's new policy on passports, which requires listing the holder's natal sex irrespective of his or her gender identity, is going to create real hardship for trans people.
I think there are compromises, but there is no compromise that will make everyone happy. It reminds me of what I heard about divorce mediation: if both sides feel it's not fair to them, it's probably about right.
It's not only that Kat, but in the case of anything criminal, say even a rape on a trans person, DNA, fingerprints, etc etc, will prove show the absolute unchangeable reality of biology. This is something that is inescapable. The birth certificate which is registered at birth, shows birth reality. This must stay for accurate records in so much as city planning. The pelvis area in the body also is used post hummerously by specialists to determine sex anthropologically. Whilst respecting the right of a trans adult to dress and express their felt reality, the biological truth can never be undermined, nor should we allow it.
Yes, you can change language but then you still need a word to describe reality. It turns out there is a reality beyond just the labels we might collectively decide to give things.
"with the input of the people whose lives stand to be affected by whatever standard they seek to impose" -- I think this is key. Trans people who want to travel should be able to do the calculation *for themselves* about what bad things happening in foreign countries they are most concerned about. They might agree with you and want the gender that will match their DNA listed on their passport. But I can certainly imagine other true (hate) crime type scenarios unfolding when one's only identification outs one as trans.
>the importance of the dignity and privacy afforded to trans people by being able to obscure that information.
This is one of those emperor wears no clothes things. I just don't get this, surely it's weird to pretend to be something you're not? What other circumstance would we be happy for someone to lie? To pretend you have lived all your life in USA when you migrated from Canada. Boys don't cry is tragic and shows horrible men commiting an abhorrent crime but the protagonist also transgresses by pretending to be something she is not, she does not get full consent for her actions.
If you're liberal minded, and I am, then gender and presentation can still be flexible while acknowledging the whole of the reality of a person. That is actually a more progressive stance!
The initial concession that someone can be treated 'as if' they are the other sex has got us to where we are now, where apart from Trumps latest actions, it has been the case that women have been struggling to secure their rights to a private space. Secure trans people can handle it, can't they just refer to themselves as trans, rather than the opposite sex?
Indeed. I would argue we always start with the truth, and then decide - in what circumstances would it be necessary and reasonable to falsify your sex? Because knowing what sex someone is can be very important for women and children's welfare. It can also be important for accurate statistics, health data, deciding if sex discrimination is happening, etc etc. Not a popular argument with genderists, I know, but other people, and society as a whole, do count too. Individual demands for special treatment and "living your authentic self" don't take any account of the mutual obligations we owe each other in society, alongside the rights we might assert.
The drama about travelling with your accurate sex marker on your passport, when you say you present as the opposite sex, is overdone. If you are truly likely to be discriminated/harmed in a particular country for being transsexual, you will be at risk there even if you have a false sex marker and get through Border Control. Because in those countries are communities that are not at all friendly to gender-non conformity, and I have to break it gently to them that almost no transwoman passes as female to the degree that would be needed to fool these communities.
These societies are sadly, on the alert for "effeminate" men and "masculine" women. Homophobia is normal there, and that's how those places understand boys "living as girls" and vv. Even if your passport lies for you, you are going to be at risk of discovery and mistreatment in quite a few places (imagine Russia). Best just not to go (or if you have to, then present as your birth sex for the duration, it will not kill you).
In Western countries too, transwomen generally don't pass as women anywhere near as often as they think, at least with women, but we are already socialised not to be rude and show we notice your sex. Border control will not be an issue in many countries. They have policies that are trans-friendly. Just explain you are transgender, and there you are.
The other really obvious reason not to have a false sex marker on your passport (or driving licence) is because if you are found delirious with fever or unconscious after an accident, you want paramedics and hospital staff to quickly be clear about your biological sex. No confusion or contradiction caused by the paperwork, thanks. Particularly for transmen, who might be pregnant or have a gynaecological emergency like a uterine infection, or for both transwomen and transmen where there are medicines that need careful dosage, and are contraindicated for one of the two sexes. You really don't want emergency treatment given by someone who is mis-sexing you.
I do feel we have raised unrealistic expectations in people with gender dysphoria, about how far society can be expected to participate in the immersive fiction of "gender identity" - and that has harmed those transgender people who have come to rely too much on having everyone constantly reflect their constructed identity back at them. They are made quite unhappy when reality intrudes.
Yes, I agree and the examples you raise are all very illuminating. Our duty must be to reality first and muddying this distinction is fundamentally undermining to society and meaning making. There is a cost to being equivocal with words and what they point to. It is revealing to focus on ones mental state when reading, for example, a BBC article that is referring to a trans person with he or she according to preferred pronouns but also reveals enough to know it's a trans person (through indirect references) such that the mind gets confused and it becomes difficult to parse because we use words to build a picture of reality and we know that biological sex is part of the reality. I mean I'm obviously speaking from personal experience but I think it's obvious that everyone recognizes the truth at some level even the true believers. Overlooking entirely what we know to be real is a very weird collective phenomena. In a philosophical sense, trans is parasitic on sex, as it relies on it for it's meaning/definitional content but undermines it at the same time. This is incoherent - you can't rely on something and then insist on being primary to that something.
So I agree, while it is conceivable that trans people who pass might find having their biological sex on their passport uncomfortable, individual discomfort is not a sufficient reason to upend structures of meaning we rely on. As you point to, there are countries where people do not treat gender conforming people well and it would be ill-advised to travel there. In some countries, like Iran, people might even be more likely to become trans because of this social pressure, ie being gay is dangerous. This points to a regressive motivation for trans, people may be escaping their non-conformity to fit in.
I agree with all your points. At heart it is terribly condescending to pretend somebody is something they are not and not psychologically healthy for anyone. I'm actually in despair as so few people seem to care- I'm actually starting to wonder if people are genuinely mistaking the socially constructed as being reality. It's quite weird more people don't get it and I'm not sure if it's that they won't admit what they understand privately or that they really are confused about what is real.
You’re forgetting a far more trivial and common reason. If you go through airport security there is a very real chance you’ll be padded down by the security personnel. Female security personal should have the right not to pad down a person with a penis, period. The problem with the trans rights discourse is that it constantly asks *others* to pay a price and refuses to even acknowledge it: it’s not just about trans athletes but about the women they compete against and share locker rooms with, not just trans priosnser but other prisoners and the prison guards, not just trans travelers but the security personnel at the airport. All these people count too and have rights too and it’s about time we stop ignoring that.
This has really made me wonder what directions the Ripley novels might have taken if Patricia Highsmith was writing them today. Probably not as entertaining; she was able to create a con artist whose surpassing skill was manipulating and impersonating the idle rich. A contemporary Ripley would have to be some kind of hacker, or have ties to organized crime, I guess?
Thing is, most of the time, if Jack passes, then an "M" on his passport is going to be a better clue than an "F", since people will be looking for someone who looks like a man.
True, but in her scenario, the identification is of a body or of DNA, not a live person walking around. I thought the scenario she would give was "imagine the police find blood all over Jack's room and Jack is gone. The blood is female blood." They are going to suspect Jack killed some female, when it's Jack that got killed!
The US did not in fact start listing sex on passports until 1980, when the ICAO started requiring it. Is there any evidence that foreign travelers were actually less safe from the kind of scenarios you paint before 1980?
Societies the world over were much more strictly gendered in the past—names, hair length, clothing, etc, with very little gender bending, so I doubt there was ever much confusion about one’s sex.
If sex and gender are two different things, why not have two markers?
Or just make TM and TW possible answers.
I think there are compromises, but there is no compromise that will make everyone happy. It reminds me of what I heard about divorce mediation: if both sides feel it's not fair to them, it's probably about right.
I think this seems like a super simple way to keep things clear for all involved.
It's not only that Kat, but in the case of anything criminal, say even a rape on a trans person, DNA, fingerprints, etc etc, will prove show the absolute unchangeable reality of biology. This is something that is inescapable. The birth certificate which is registered at birth, shows birth reality. This must stay for accurate records in so much as city planning. The pelvis area in the body also is used post hummerously by specialists to determine sex anthropologically. Whilst respecting the right of a trans adult to dress and express their felt reality, the biological truth can never be undermined, nor should we allow it.
Yes, you can change language but then you still need a word to describe reality. It turns out there is a reality beyond just the labels we might collectively decide to give things.
"with the input of the people whose lives stand to be affected by whatever standard they seek to impose" -- I think this is key. Trans people who want to travel should be able to do the calculation *for themselves* about what bad things happening in foreign countries they are most concerned about. They might agree with you and want the gender that will match their DNA listed on their passport. But I can certainly imagine other true (hate) crime type scenarios unfolding when one's only identification outs one as trans.
>the importance of the dignity and privacy afforded to trans people by being able to obscure that information.
This is one of those emperor wears no clothes things. I just don't get this, surely it's weird to pretend to be something you're not? What other circumstance would we be happy for someone to lie? To pretend you have lived all your life in USA when you migrated from Canada. Boys don't cry is tragic and shows horrible men commiting an abhorrent crime but the protagonist also transgresses by pretending to be something she is not, she does not get full consent for her actions.
If you're liberal minded, and I am, then gender and presentation can still be flexible while acknowledging the whole of the reality of a person. That is actually a more progressive stance!
The initial concession that someone can be treated 'as if' they are the other sex has got us to where we are now, where apart from Trumps latest actions, it has been the case that women have been struggling to secure their rights to a private space. Secure trans people can handle it, can't they just refer to themselves as trans, rather than the opposite sex?
Indeed. I would argue we always start with the truth, and then decide - in what circumstances would it be necessary and reasonable to falsify your sex? Because knowing what sex someone is can be very important for women and children's welfare. It can also be important for accurate statistics, health data, deciding if sex discrimination is happening, etc etc. Not a popular argument with genderists, I know, but other people, and society as a whole, do count too. Individual demands for special treatment and "living your authentic self" don't take any account of the mutual obligations we owe each other in society, alongside the rights we might assert.
The drama about travelling with your accurate sex marker on your passport, when you say you present as the opposite sex, is overdone. If you are truly likely to be discriminated/harmed in a particular country for being transsexual, you will be at risk there even if you have a false sex marker and get through Border Control. Because in those countries are communities that are not at all friendly to gender-non conformity, and I have to break it gently to them that almost no transwoman passes as female to the degree that would be needed to fool these communities.
These societies are sadly, on the alert for "effeminate" men and "masculine" women. Homophobia is normal there, and that's how those places understand boys "living as girls" and vv. Even if your passport lies for you, you are going to be at risk of discovery and mistreatment in quite a few places (imagine Russia). Best just not to go (or if you have to, then present as your birth sex for the duration, it will not kill you).
In Western countries too, transwomen generally don't pass as women anywhere near as often as they think, at least with women, but we are already socialised not to be rude and show we notice your sex. Border control will not be an issue in many countries. They have policies that are trans-friendly. Just explain you are transgender, and there you are.
The other really obvious reason not to have a false sex marker on your passport (or driving licence) is because if you are found delirious with fever or unconscious after an accident, you want paramedics and hospital staff to quickly be clear about your biological sex. No confusion or contradiction caused by the paperwork, thanks. Particularly for transmen, who might be pregnant or have a gynaecological emergency like a uterine infection, or for both transwomen and transmen where there are medicines that need careful dosage, and are contraindicated for one of the two sexes. You really don't want emergency treatment given by someone who is mis-sexing you.
I do feel we have raised unrealistic expectations in people with gender dysphoria, about how far society can be expected to participate in the immersive fiction of "gender identity" - and that has harmed those transgender people who have come to rely too much on having everyone constantly reflect their constructed identity back at them. They are made quite unhappy when reality intrudes.
Yes, I agree and the examples you raise are all very illuminating. Our duty must be to reality first and muddying this distinction is fundamentally undermining to society and meaning making. There is a cost to being equivocal with words and what they point to. It is revealing to focus on ones mental state when reading, for example, a BBC article that is referring to a trans person with he or she according to preferred pronouns but also reveals enough to know it's a trans person (through indirect references) such that the mind gets confused and it becomes difficult to parse because we use words to build a picture of reality and we know that biological sex is part of the reality. I mean I'm obviously speaking from personal experience but I think it's obvious that everyone recognizes the truth at some level even the true believers. Overlooking entirely what we know to be real is a very weird collective phenomena. In a philosophical sense, trans is parasitic on sex, as it relies on it for it's meaning/definitional content but undermines it at the same time. This is incoherent - you can't rely on something and then insist on being primary to that something.
So I agree, while it is conceivable that trans people who pass might find having their biological sex on their passport uncomfortable, individual discomfort is not a sufficient reason to upend structures of meaning we rely on. As you point to, there are countries where people do not treat gender conforming people well and it would be ill-advised to travel there. In some countries, like Iran, people might even be more likely to become trans because of this social pressure, ie being gay is dangerous. This points to a regressive motivation for trans, people may be escaping their non-conformity to fit in.
I agree with all your points. At heart it is terribly condescending to pretend somebody is something they are not and not psychologically healthy for anyone. I'm actually in despair as so few people seem to care- I'm actually starting to wonder if people are genuinely mistaking the socially constructed as being reality. It's quite weird more people don't get it and I'm not sure if it's that they won't admit what they understand privately or that they really are confused about what is real.
Excellent piece, thank you. There are two things progressivism perennially misses: unintended consequences and incentives.
Ummm, this genderism is going to kill people. Many Medicines affect the sexes differently. Symptoms often mean different disorders.
You'll let us know, I hope, when the novel is out. That's a helluva good premise.
You’re forgetting a far more trivial and common reason. If you go through airport security there is a very real chance you’ll be padded down by the security personnel. Female security personal should have the right not to pad down a person with a penis, period. The problem with the trans rights discourse is that it constantly asks *others* to pay a price and refuses to even acknowledge it: it’s not just about trans athletes but about the women they compete against and share locker rooms with, not just trans priosnser but other prisoners and the prison guards, not just trans travelers but the security personnel at the airport. All these people count too and have rights too and it’s about time we stop ignoring that.
You said what I have posted here, but more succinctly, damn it!
This has really made me wonder what directions the Ripley novels might have taken if Patricia Highsmith was writing them today. Probably not as entertaining; she was able to create a con artist whose surpassing skill was manipulating and impersonating the idle rich. A contemporary Ripley would have to be some kind of hacker, or have ties to organized crime, I guess?
I’m so tired of everyone tiptoeing around trans people’s feelings!!!! Act like grownups. Stops demanding all this preferential treatment.
Thing is, most of the time, if Jack passes, then an "M" on his passport is going to be a better clue than an "F", since people will be looking for someone who looks like a man.
True, but in her scenario, the identification is of a body or of DNA, not a live person walking around. I thought the scenario she would give was "imagine the police find blood all over Jack's room and Jack is gone. The blood is female blood." They are going to suspect Jack killed some female, when it's Jack that got killed!
Eh, this depends on how well the person passes. Throw TW or TM on the passport and everyone understands what’s going on.
The big "if". We pretend people are passing (what harm is there etc?) but very few do.
The US did not in fact start listing sex on passports until 1980, when the ICAO started requiring it. Is there any evidence that foreign travelers were actually less safe from the kind of scenarios you paint before 1980?
Societies the world over were much more strictly gendered in the past—names, hair length, clothing, etc, with very little gender bending, so I doubt there was ever much confusion about one’s sex.