JK Rowling Backlash

[CmdrKing]

So with Karen White we do have to talk about TERFs, at least a little. Because the thing is, sexual assault in prison isn't newsworthy. It's a known cost of having a prison system. It's gonna happen.
So obviously Karen White's case is considered newsworthy specifically because she has a penis while doing it. But how did it stick out? Likely explanations:

1. the prison simply reported it as a routine thing, and the UK press, hungry as they always are for their weekly hate of trans people, scoured those reports looking for their holy grail, a penis-haver doing sexual assault in a women's space.
2. The prison does not publish routine reports of sexual assault, but did in this instance because they wanted White out, and the press ran with it.
3. The prison reported this as a once-in-a-lifetime sexual assault, because they don't recognize anything not involving penile penetration as sexual assault.

So essentially with the Karen White case, the least-dire potential reason we know about it is bad-faith behavior from the UK press. And while the UK press and their hate-boner for the concept of trans women is a factor here no matter what, I raise the possibility more for completion than because I think it's the most likely explanation. Maybe the UK runs a tighter ship but I know the US prison system is deeply invested in being as secretive as possible about how goddamned horrible they are, and it seems unlikely the UK is that much different there.

The second strikes me as the most likely explanation, the prison wanted to get into a pissing match with the courts and found a good candidate. Which almost makes sense until you take even the barest glance at the sexual assault rates for trans women in the general population, then calculate for how that'll be magnified in prison. Denying trans women incarceration consistent with their gender is condemning them to sexual assault as part of their punishment, and the prison system trying to engineer that scenario is nightmarish.

I include the third not only because it's a possibility but because even if the prison system doesn't have that attitude, the world at large does. In fact, that's the underlying misconception to this entire discussion, that for some reason if you let a bepenised person into a women's space*, the threat of rape becomes more "real". But we're talking about a prison, where even if we claim that women are less likely to commit sexual assault in the general population, we're still talking about a group of people that by nature are far more likely to do so than said general population. While you can't stop every instance, you can sure as fuck do something to try and reduce the likelihood. And if we're treating "sexual assault with penis" as inherently worse than other forms, that tells me we aren't doing nearly enough to try and stop other kinds of sexual assault.
Basically by treating Karen White as a real concern over recognizing trans rights, all society is telling me is they're being dismissive of the possibility that cis women can sexually assault people, and consequently that we're ignoring a lot of sexual assault in the world. And if we address that larger issue, the problems of 'another Karen White' are addressed as a result.

So to me? There's no pressing reason to single her case out as a concern.

*Since we're talking specifically about Karen White and thus prison populations, I continue on in that vein. A much thornier and hard to deal with issue is domestic abuse shelters (which traditionally are also women's spaces, albeit there are issues with that too etc etc), because while trans folk absolutely need access to such spaces, at a higher rate than cis people if my memory isn't failing me, the cold fact is that a lot of people there will have trauma specifically related to larger-framed people with penises. Unlike the prison scenario, there is a genuine competing interest here. Sending trans women to the male domestic shelters is a not-great idea even ignoring the political aspect,not least because they barely exist to start with. But simultaneously, a woman who looks slightly dude-shaped in dim lighting is an actual immediate problem for lots of women who would be seeking a domestic shelter. It's an issue without nearly as clean and obvious a solution, but it's worth considering.
Also another reason I don't think Karen White is worth talking about, because "what if man pretends to be girl to rape people in lady prison" is an extremely specific issue that has like three dozen better solutions than legally pretending trans women aren't women and "hey so women in shelters will probably freak the fuck out if someone they read as a man is there" is a complicated issue that actually is kinda worth talking about.

This is crazy long so Yaniv will have to be her own post. Also I forgot half the things I planned to say about her.

[LittleRaven]

On the off chance that I can catch you BEFORE you jump into Yaniv, can I just point out that you shifted the goalposts rather considerably in your Karen White post?

I'm NOT saying that we "should pretend transwomen aren't women." I'm saying that "self-identification is the only ethical policy" will NOT fly in the real world. I am 100% certain that there are transwomen who belong in women's prisons. I am also 100% certain that if you give male prisoners the right to transfer to female prisons just by saying "I feel like woman now" you will have the public on an anti-trans crusade ~10 seconds after Fox News gets hold of it. I am well aware that US prisons are rife with sexual assault. And I understand, to you, sexual assault is sexual assault, and the particulars are of no importance. But most Americans - even most left leaning Americans - will not follow you there. We have spent decades programming Americans with the idea that a man raping a woman is a singularly terrible crime - the worst thing that can ever happen to her, and and an indelible stain on his character. You are not going to be able to wave that away by saying "Well, it was just another sexual assault. Get over it."

I do appreciate the extension of the argument into the area of women's shelters. Anchorage was kind enough to lead the way there. Alliance Defending Freedom made a nice little payday off THAT one.

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2019/10/02/alaska-homeless-shelter-wins-right-turn-away-trans-women

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Dammit Karen

Put another way, it’s really strange even on the internet that a rapist in the UK and a Canadian litigation troll are people two Americans know by name as inextricably linked to discussions of trans rights, isn’t it?

Why would that be strange? What other countries have experimented with self-identification policies to the extent that the UK and Canada have? Where else would you expect someone looking for data to go?

Norway?

[LittleRaven]

Norway?

I'm not able to find anything on Norwegian prison policy regarding self-identification. Can you point me in the right direction?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Norway?

I'm not able to find anything on Norwegian prison policy regarding self-identification. Can you point me in the right direction?

Just a musing. Though yeah looking into it, there's not much on the wiki, just that Norway comes off as a modestly progressive on the particular issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Norway#Gender_identity_and_expression

I will keep an eye out on the subject and keep you apprised.

[LittleRaven]

And I think it's worth clarifying what "modestly progressive" means in this context.

https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/news/latest-news/norway-introduces-self-determination

In 2016, Norway announced that trans-gendered people over the age of 16 would no longer have to be sterilized in order to be recognized as a different gender.

Now, don't get wrong, that's fantastic. I would certainly hope that nobody here has a problem with that policy. But that's not really what we're talking about in this thread. As far as I know, (and my knowledge here is super curtailed, since I don't live in Norway and don't speak Norwegian) the details of what this policy means when it comes to granting transwomen access to gendered spaces has not been clarified in Norway yet, and honestly that process may take a while, since the entire population of Norway is smaller than the population of Houston, Texas.

[clearspira]

And I think it's worth clarifying what "modestly progressive" means in this context.

https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/news/latest-news/norway-introduces-self-determination

In 2016, Norway announced that trans-gendered people over the age of 16 would no longer have to sterilized in order to be recognized as a different gender.

Now, don't get wrong, that's fantastic. I would certainly hope that nobody here has a problem with that policy.

I agree - its stupid. Although let me ask what I think is a perfectly reasonable question - if you are going to have your nuts chopped off anyway then what does it matter?

[LittleRaven]

I agree - its stupid. Although let me ask what I think is a perfectly reasonable question - if you are going to have your nuts chopped off anyway then what does it matter?

A couple of reasons.

• Not all trans-people surgically transition, for all kinds of reasons. Back in the old days, chopping bits off was kind of the only way to even partially control hormone levels, but these days, we have better methods.
• It appears to be entirely punitive/discouraging, and seems designed to punish the person seeking transition rather than serving any kind of social good. I see no way that anyone benefits from this kind of requirement. When we talk about keep transwomen out of women's sports/prisons/shelters/HUD grants/grooming salons, there it, to my mind a logical argument. Society has determined that women need these spaces in order to flourish, and by forcing them to allow male-presenting people into them, we are at least potentially causing them harm. I don't see any remotely-comparable argument in forcing them to be sterilized.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I guess they just kinda left that one lying on the books for a while or something.

[CmdrKing]

The tl;dr on the old "trans people have to be sterilized" is the folks who wrote those laws were kiiiinda eugenicists.

It's worth noting that hormone therapy also has that effect in practice, large quantities of estrogen will suppress testosterone production and vice versa, which will shut down sperm production/menstruation. Going off hormones for a few months can sometimes reverse that... and sometimes not, or at least not enough for reproductive function.
All of that assumes that you went through your assigned puberty of course, so far as anyone can tell if you do hormone replacement as your first puberty it prevents the reproductive organs from hitting full functionality. Which is yet another reason the first line of medical intervention for trans kids of puberty blockers, not hormone therapy: they're making a much more permanent decision at a much younger age than adults and consequently need to be a lot more certain about the matter.

This actually gets into the larger question of why self-ID is so important though. The laws on the books now are either outdated or don't exist, depending on where you are, so trans folk are collectively butting heads against a lot of barriers and the common thread between all of them is the people behind them a) don't know anything b) don't care and c) as often as not don't want you to exist.
In general, if it's possible to prevent someone from getting the right documentation/medical treatment they need, it will be prevented for a good long while and there's no recourse except spending the money to cast a wider net and find someone who gives a fuck.

But let's get into some specifics. Just to pull an example I know off the cuff, here's a relevant bit from the Michigan government website:

"Michigan statute says that Vital Records will issue a new birth certificate upon receipt of "a request that a new certificate be established to show a sex designation other than that designated at birth. The request shall be accompanied by an affidavit of a physician certifying that sex-reassignment surgery has been performed." Michigan Public Health Code §§ 333.2831.

To apply for an amended birth certificate the applicant should submit:

The application form signed by the applicant
A medical affidavit signed by a Physician, stating that the applicant has had "appropriate surgical procedures completed for gender transition to the new gender"
A copy of their photo ID
A copy of the court order for name change, if applicable
Any applicable fees"

Aside from preemptively excluding the portion of trans people who a) don't seek medical intervention for dysphoria, b) aren't a binary gender, and c) want hormones or other procedures but not genital surgery, even for a more-or-less binary trans person who gets genital dysphoria... well that's onerous isn't it? The steps to get to the court issuing you a new birth certificate, which will let you get proper ID anywhere, would be

1) Get a PCP referral to a qualified psychiatrist
2) Get psych diagnoses of Gender Dysphoria
3) Psych referral to endocrinologist
4) Endocrinologist prescription of hormone replacement, with associated revisits for monitoring and adjustments.
5) Followup once hormone levels are stable with psychiatrist for assessment of surgical intervention
6) Psych referral to surgeons for genital reconstruction
7) The Surgery *scare chord*
8) Secure medical affidavit
9) Get proper birth certificate from vital records
10) get proper photo id from state government

The shortest speedrun of that path of transition I've ever seen is just under a year, and closer to 3-4 is far more likely. Assuming you have the ~$100,000 to do it*. During which time you're basically using a bunch of id cards and soforth that will have an increasingly mismatched name and picture on.

Obviously some states have less dire laws (and some have more!), but Michigan is a useful average of the US in several ways (social norms, population, demographics) and also I knew roughly what they were even before looking it up so.

So how would we actually make a compromise version of that exactly? Like, no step of that process is even up to date, let alone useful. Increasingly endocrinologists and supplemental gender specialty clinics are moving to an informed consent model, wherein essentially you say "I have The Gender", they give you some waivers and explain how hormones work (and in particular the bit where you'll probably become infertile), and you go on your way. So if I say I'm in favor of self-ID for government purposes, I'm basically saying that getting up to date legal documents should work on the same model. And if we were keeping some sort of medical documentation saying "yes this person has The Gender, give them new ID" as the main qualifier, well... you only added one new step that's about as easily circumvented by a bad actor. I mean, I guess we could do that as an intermediary step to get people educated on how gender works? But even then it's a bad plan that excludes non-binary people (because another thing we should be doing, and a few states have done, is include non-binary markers for state ID). And any steps beyond that are increasingly prohibitive.

Do we separate the medical transition from the ID entirely, but keep in the requirement for a Dysphoria diagnosis? It's probably the least exclusionary option (still is, but substantially less, sure), but it has a fuckton of logistical issues. Gender Dysphoria was only added to the DSMV, which was published in 2013, so the majority of practicing psychiatrists aren't going to be familiar with it or able/willing to diagnose it properly. The other issue here is it makes legal protections difficult to create or apply, because a small handful of people can decide to simply deny you classification and thus deny your ability to seek redress even in the eventuality laws were created were trans people could seek redress from bigotry.

When I say self-ID the only ethical practice, what I'm getting at is any other standard either a) makes getting new documents inaccessible to many, indeed probably most trans people or b) provides an easy and clearly defined avenue to exercise bigotry against trans people. And more often both.

Essentially, I don't think the sort of 'compromises' that resulted from second wave feminism or the marriage equality movements will be effective for trans rights. Achieving something meaningful for the majority requires some very substantial reexamination of how we look at society regardless, so approaching problems in a holistic way is not just best practice but necessary.

*Non-US countries don't have this particular problem. But also last I knew the NHS waiting lists for gender care clinics was "get back to us after the Johnson administration" and had been 3 years before that, and that's to even START. So.