In a way that cis people don’t
Another one of those wait we need to tease out the meaning here items.
At the moment, the GRA requires people to justify their gender identity to a panel of people in a way that cis people don’t. No one should have other people stand in judgment over their gender identity, deciding whether their gender is ‘good enough’ to count as a man or woman.
Why not? Why should no one have other people being aware of what sex they are?
That’s what the question boils down to. The non-explicit but central to the meaning claim is that “gender identity” is both more real (or “authentic”) than sex and more private than sex. So a man may look like a man to the untutored onlooker, but his “gender identity” is A Woman, and everyone has to take that as absolute truth, and refrain from questioning aka “standing in judgement over” it.
But that’s a hell of a tall order, and the offered reasons for it are getting less and less compelling as more people take a second look at them. We’re being told that we don’t actually know what sex anyone is, that we can’t tell, that it’s not an open, apparent, detectable thing, but a deeply personal feeling or belief or decision which for greater credibility is labeled an “identity.” The root of “identity” is “same” so this is all very ironic. “My identity is the opposite of what I in fact am; you are forbidden to ask questions.”
And the issue isn’t whether Princess Jenny (born Jim) has a “gender” that is “good enough”; the issue is whether PJ has a male body or not. It’s not about quality, it’s not about competition, it’s not about arbitrary cruel sorting, it’s about the most basic human difference, which is also the one that has kept my half of it subordinate all these millennia.
Well, yeah. That’s because trans people are trying to tell us 2+2=5; it is only natural that that come under scrutiny and scepticism in a way that us ordinary 2+2-4 people don’t face. Because we aren’t trying to overturn established fact and sensibility.
“What is ‘gender?’” “What makes you think you’re a woman?” “How does ‘being a woman’ feel?’” “Explain.” “Give examples.” “What are the steps?” “What’s the connection?” “How do you know?” “How would you know?”
The easiest way to deal with questions you don’t know the answer to is refuse to answer them because you’re insulted.
This is the conflation of sex and gender that TA’s vociferously berate everyone else not to do. Every body has a sex. There is no body that necessarily has a gender, much less a “gender identity.”
If you asked me (or a lot of other people, I suspect) to “justify” my “gender identity,” I would tell them “I DON’T HAVE A GENDER IDENTITY.” There’s simply nothing to “justify.”
Of course transgender people have to justify a claim to be a sex that they are actually not. They are trying to pull a fast one, lying about sex. The only way they can pull this off is by changing language, confusing the issue, and obfuscating by introducing meaningless mumbo jumbo like “gender identity.” They get away with it only when they can conflate sex with gender, which they accuse everyone else of doing wrongfully, when that’s the whole of their game.
“No one should have other people stand in judgment over their gender identity, deciding whether their gender is ‘good enough’ to count as a man or woman.”
Ha ha ha. Yes, and no child should go hungry, and it should be sunny and clear every day, and a fine pinot noir should come pouring out of my kitchen faucet.
Everybody has people judging their “gender identity.” Us “cis” people are constantly bombarded with advertising and cultural messages about what makes a “real” man or woman, and whether or not we measure up.
Don’t like sports, or cars? Wear something other than jeans and a t-shirt? Like the wrong music? Don’t care to join in on discussing women in the grossest possible terms? Well, what kind of man are you? We might have to revoke your “man card”! Mick Jagger was singing about this fifty years ago (“but he can’t be a man cuz he doesn’t smoke/the same cigarettes as me”).
I won’t even bother listing some of the ways women are judged on their womanhood, or lack thereof, and all the ways it can be questioned.
@Screechy Monkey;
Still apples and oranges. “You’re an effeminate man” and “you’re a masculine woman” are very different evaluations than “you’re a man” and “you’re a woman.” They want to say that failing to agree that TWAW is just like telling a woman she’s not behaving like a lady.
So what is the “womanly essence” that makes serial rapist “Karen Wood” a “woman,” no questions asked?
What is the “science” behind this? What is “gender”?
I’ve gotten the impression that being unable to articulate or explain exactly how, why, or what it is to have a mental sense of gender which doesn’t match your body is supposed to be a feature, as opposed to a bug. Imagine an angry conservative demanding that a lesbian or gay man give good, convincing reasons why they’re attracted to their own sex. Not descriptions, but actual reasons. It might be an impossible task. You like what you like. It’s hard to reduce that.
But that analogy is a poor one. A transwoman isn’t talking about desire. They’re asserting knowledge, but ducking out of specifics when met with a critical reception. A better analogy might be someone who believes in God becoming hopelessly vague when asked what “God” is supposed to be. Too clear a definition looks man-made, so it’s neither this nor that, God is what God is, the concept is beyond human conception. And, in similar way, clear definitions of “gender” and what the “essence” is look sexist. But they just can’t be sexist, so disappearing in the indescribable mimics the Impossible Task of explaining what’s too basic to explain.
^ That is exactly – in different words, but in concept exactly – what I tried to explain to the inquisitors at Freethought blogs 5 years ago. They’re asserting knowledge, but ducking out of specifics when met with a critical reception. A better analogy might be someone who believes in God becoming hopelessly vague when asked what “God” is supposed to be. Exactly.
Apophatic gender.
I had to go out and buy a new keyboard after drowning the old one in coffee after this gem from “The Great PZ”
At the moment, shops require shoppers to pay for their purchases in a way that non-shoppers don’t.
At the moment, the government requires drivers to have a licence in a way that non-drivers don’t.
At the moment, the law requires criminals to be punished in a way that innocent people don’t.
At the moment, the government requires children to attend a school in a way that adults don’t.
I’m sorry, what was their point again?
It might be helpful to know what the ‘GRA’ IS.
Gender Recognition Act, or Ghana Revenue Authority, but most likely the former.
It’s ineffable, innit?
Eff that, I say.