An argument over dinner

[Felon]

I was out with a few friends and my partner over dinner a few days back, and somebody asked me an interesting question, it turned into a bit of an argument and it's been bothering me ever since

Suppose you have to elect a certain number of people into a political position, for example MPs. Suppose that six positions are up for grabs, in the interests of equality - 3x male and 3x female.

Would it be fair/right/acceptable/ok, if the 3x female positions were filled by transgender women?

My answer is that it wouldn't be acceptable, because a transgender woman wouldn't have encountered the unique elements and experiences that make a female what she is, such as childbirth and motherhood, along with many others that are unique only to people of the female sex.

If you're going to elect someone into a legislative position, with the intention of addressing societal balance and equality between two groups - then that person should at least be a genuine member of that group, rather than someone who has decided to identify as part it.

My response generated a lot of gasps and nasty looks.

Despite being a bit of a liberal gay lefty, I am a realist - and to me there are some facts of life that simply can't be undone by wishful thinking, reality bites hard, sometimes we have to learn to deal.

What do you lot think?

 

[Felon]

I don't know how I'd answer the question you had posed, and I hope I never have to

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

For me the sticking point is that we're reduced to the position of having to consider whether a trans woman and a natural woman are the same, if they are the same then there's no problem and it's easy, however I'd argue that they're not the same.

Is it fair on society, when in the name of equality we place such a person in a position where they'd be speaking up about issues from a female perspective (for equalities sake) having never truly had many of the experiences that only a natural born female could ever have?

You answered wrong..

You interview all and pick the best 6 regardless of gender...

But that's not really what it's about..

Strange question to ask over dinner... it’s a like a trap designed to prove a reaction. Why ask the question if the only interesting thing that come out of it is a rise?

I trust you all went to the strip club afterwards

Yeah, it's not the first time these sort of questions have come up..

Would you exclude Theresa May, who isn’t a mother, as well then?

Yeah I can't stand her,

I know where you're coming from - she hasn't had children, but I imagine she went through female health issues, puberty, being hit on by men, periods, female discrimination, attending a girls gramma school, and a whole load of different things that would be unique to a young woman growing up as a politician - it does in my opinion, make her more qualified than a trans woman to speak about female issues, (as controversial as it sounds)

 

[Felon]

You have 6 positions and in the hope of achieving equality, you base them with a priority to gender?

Gender should not come into it at all if it was real equality

That doesn't really address the question being asked

The question being asked is; if you enforce equality (eg: quotas of certain groups, filling certain positions, etc) is it ok to allow individuals to be part of a group, if they merely identify as being part of it, in light of the fact that they don't posses any of the unique characteristics, that would automatically include them as being part of that group.

I wonder why you've arbitrarily decided to ensure there's equality of outcome in your 6 representatives based solely on gender and not any other trait, such as race, height, social class, political leaning, etc.

I haven't arbitrarily decided anything, it's a question that was put to me.

And I think it's a highly relevant question, because you only have to look at the news and the workplace to see that society is changing by enforcing these sorts of groupings, many workplaces and systems (including political systems) have targets and objectives to enforce gender/sex balance, in terms of numbers and pay, within these systems complexities such as this scenario might and probably have arisen.

That’s all far too sophisticated for my dinner time chats. The last argument I had at dinner was whether or not a bear could beat a tiger in a fight. I said a bear would crush a tiger and my brother disagreed. Almost turned quite nasty.

Trust me, I'd prefer dinner with this sort of topic

 

[Felon]

Just because the news is bleating on about it, it doesn't mean equality of outcome is at all desirable. Diversity targets and quotas are very bad for a lot of reasons. The target should be equality of opportunity and choosing the best candidates based on their merit and competency in a role and nothing more. It might be, for instance, that you could hire a man in one of your roles and he would do a better of looking after the interests of women than if you'd had a woman in that role, it also might mean that 5 women and 1 man might do a better job of running the country than your set quota of 3 men and 3 women simply because they are more experienced and competent at the role. What equality of outcome guarantees is that you aren't getting the best people for the job, as a result the organisation, whatever it is, will suffer.

I don't necessarily disagree with you,

But what you've said doesn't address the specific scenario or question being asked.

that's not equality, equality would be all 6 positions up for grabs by everyone and you pick the best fit for the role regardless of what the applicant is.

Again I don't disagree, but that's not what's being asked.

 

[Felon]

You have asked whether a transwoman meets the criteria to fill the role reserved for a female

Exactly,

Considering the obvious physical and psychological differences between a woman and a trans woman, is it ok with you that a trans woman would fill a role that's ring-fenced for a woman, (regardless of dictionary definitions regarding sex) is it ok or not ?

 

[Felon]

Going back a step, why is it right to elect 3 men and 3 women? What if 5 women are the most suitable candidates, do you have to tell 2 they don't get the job because they're the wrong sex and elect 2 lesser candidates just because they're the correct sex?

To be honest, this isn't really a question of whether gender based quotas are right or wrong, it's more a question of what happens if you enforce gender based quotas in employment, whilst simultaneously allowing people to identify with either group out of personal preference, and then expect those same "group rights" to filter down and apply to them.

 

[Felon]

Now no one can object to your own opinion, but that’s all that is, your opinion. You are free to have it, however the resulting decision of whether you prevent someone doing something base on their sex can be since the basis of it isn’t valid in both medically or legally. So what reasons are left? Bigotry?

If the person has been given a position on the basis of their sex, for the sole purpose of championing, legislating, law making, on issues from the perspective of that sex - if in the final analysis such a person, hasn't experienced many of the core characteristics that a natural member of that sex would have experienced, (motherhood, childbirth, periods, discrimination, dating, social stigmas, physical appearance, puberty, hormones, fashion, etc) then how can they be a legitimate voice for concerns related to that group, when they've not "been there and done it" so to speak?

I don't think it's bigotry, to point out there's an obvious difference between a natural born woman and a trans woman, the question is - how does that difference play out in the wider context of forced equality.

 

[Felon]

If the position is that of a woman, and then it is given to this woman.

But then you're reduced to the position of having to enforce the notion, that there is zero difference between a trans woman and a woman - both are essentially "woman" so therefore the exact same rights and responsibilities filter down to them, because they're the same.

But to me, and many people - it seems there some vast, obvious differences between a trans woman and a natural born woman, it seems that you're sweeping them all under the carpet, presumably in the interests of equality itself?

Would it not stick in the craw a little, if you had a trans woman trying to champion issues relating to something like the tampon tax, or womens maternity rights? because surely, when it comes down to it - they're no more qualified than a man to talk about these sorts of problems?

 

[Felon]

It’s not up to you or a gender to accept, this isn’t some tribal dispute, there is no “one of our own”.

They will become the new gender in intends and purposes. Really, go read the law and the debate that leads up to it, all your concerns are answered there, people much smarter than us have debated this, considered questions you don’t think of i.e. where to send a transgender to prison.

A lot of people might disagree there, appealing to authority and the law might not help very much.

If you're going to assign a person from a specific group within society, in the interests of equality - to argue and legislate based on the thoughts and experiences of that group at large, does it not stand to reason, that any such person would be far better suited if they themselves have experienced those same issues, rather than someone who hadn't?

As an example, how would you expect a trans woman, to deal with considering health legislation for breast cancer screening? what would make them any more qualified than a man to consider that sort of issue? (based on the premise that a woman would be in such a position, because breast cancer screening is a female issue)

 

[Felon]

What about a Dinosaur that happens to identify as an attack helicopter - game over?

 

[Felon]

Yes, it does. It addresses the question being asked by judging it an invalid question because it's based on false predicates. In this case, the belief that sexism is sexual equality and of course the belief that a person's sex is their identity because that's required for sexism. Sexism is not sexual equality, so any question that contains that belief is an invalid question and should be dismissed as such rather than accepting the false predicate by giving an answer containing it.

Performing unnecessary mental gymnastics doesn't invalidate anything, stop trying to be a smarty man.

 

[Felon]

I thought I had made my point very clearly, but it seems I wasn't clear enough for you. I don't see anything unclear about my point, but if you tell me which part you didn't understand and why, I might be able to come up with an explanation you'll understand.

"Sexism is wrong" and "sexism is not equality" don't seem like "unnecessary mental gymnastics" to me.

But none of what you've said in anyway invalidates the original question.

It's quite possibly a real issue that society may, or probably already has had to deal with, where you have trans women being put into positions where they might be speaking, or helping to legislate around issues that they have no experience of, many people might find this uncomfortable,

Just to be clear - is it acceptable to you, that a trans women, can take the position of a woman in a role, where a gender quota is being enforced? (such as government, police, NHS, etc) it seems like a perfectly valid question to me..

 

[Felon]

It'd be great if elections could be done where all the candidates are anonymous, you know nothing about them except what they say.

All debates are done via text based platforms so it's purely about someone's policies and standpoint, not what they look like and all the assumptions that come with that.

I quite like that idea, it would be interesting to see the effects on the electorate - you'd have to spend a lot of time sitting down and reading policies and manifestos, rather than just catching their soundbites on the news or TV,

I imagine far fewer people would vote, but maybe that's a good thing

 

[Felon]

Do they need experience and, if so, what kind?
Do you have to have actually been raped to legislate against it, for example, or is knowing someone who has sufficient?

Experience might be of good benefit certainly, if we place a woman in "woman only role" so she can add balance to the debate, by offering views from her perspective. If her perspective includes useful real world experience of issues that only affect her natural group, (such as the scenarios myself and others have mentioned) then that would seem like a sensible thing to have.

It would seem pretty strange, to turn the whole thing around by placing a woman in that role, but to then say that many of the natural and unique experiences that help define her, don't count for anything at all, all that matters is the label, or how that person identifies - then that might not seem very useful, or fair in the wider context.

Being a victim of crime, specifically rape is a difficult one to answer, but I would argue that someone who has been raped would have a big advantage in talking about those issues and raising them politically, not just the crime itself, but how the system performed, their experiences with the police, victim support, courts, psychological recovery, victim support groups, etc. Would it be a mandatory requirement that only a woman who's been raped can legislate against it - of course not, it just wouldn't be practical - but it is a more extreme example.

 

[Felon]

That's because you agree with the premise contained in the question, i.e. that democracy should be fundamentally undermined by denying people the chance to stand for election solely because of their sex. I reject that premise, so I consider any question containing it to be invalid.

I can see you disagree with gender based equality, you think that forcing employment or electing positions based on gender or sex isn't real equality, therefore you outright reject any further discussion relating to specific scenarios that may occur, within the framework of enforced gender based equality - because you reject the whole premise outright.

I don't agree or disagree with the premise in the original question, because it's a fact that it's happening regardless of my opinion on it, laws have been changed to enforce gender based employment and election quotas (France and Norway) so therefore the question of whether trans women can fill these quotas, stands as being perfectly valid.

 

[Felon]

France and Norway are not hiring to fill quotas but supporting measures to facilitate equal opportunities and mitigate negative discrimination. It is illegal under EU rules to hire explicitly due to gender or other protected criteria. People tend to forget that when getting triggered by BBC trainiee adverts and the like.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ssional-state-fund-boss-idUSBRE98T0LM20130930

OSLO (Reuters) - Norway’s law requiring at least 40 percent of public limited company board members to be women has made the panels more professional and globally focused, the head of its largest domestic-focused investment fund said on Monday.

The penalty for not complying was drastic: if a company did not comply, it would be shut down. At the time the move caused an uproar in the Norwegian business community, but firms complied.

 

[Felon]

1) I make a dictinction between sex and gender because they're completely different things. You're writing "gender" when you mean "sex" and as far as I can tell you think they're the same thing. I don't, so your interpretation of my position is flawed by that. Gender equality is a whole different thing and impossibly complicated because gender is a huge collection of spectrums of variations on which nobody has a fixed position. Also, gender is almost entirely artificial, frequently changes and even the few bits that are real are just statistical trends that don't apply to any individual. Height, for example, is genuinely gendered. Men really do tend to be taller than women. But that's just a statistical trend and may or may not be true for any individual.

None of this is relevant, the fact that there's a difference between sex and gender doesn't invalidate the original question being asked, you can still provide an answer regardless of whether you think gender / sex is a factor. I don't actually think that gender and sex are the same thing at all, but it doesn't matter - because the question of whether a trans woman can perform the job of a woman in a "woman's only" role, can still be answered, regardless of your opinions of gender / sex, and their respective effects.

2) The reason I disagree with forbidding people to even attempt to gain a job or political position because they're the "wrong" sex is because I don't consider that to be equality. So I don't disagree with any sort of equality. I disagree with deliberate inequality.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with enforcing gender quotas in employment, has nothing whatsoever at all do with the original question being asked, the question isn't about defining what constitutes equality, it's about whether it's socially legitimate or acceptable, to have a person from one group, represent the interests of another simply by identifying as being part of it.

I also find the idea of enforcing gender based quotas uncomfortable, because I don't think it's been demonstrated that it leads to real equality, but it has no real influence on the validity of the original question being asked.