I don't think it does. Whether or not trans people's existence is being questioned, whatever is being questioned is a selective social practice. The consider a trans woman's identity *as* a woman mistaken is not mirrored by an equivalent challenge to cis identity. The Buddhist critique of identification is unlike that: it's not selective, but equally applied. What this does mean, however, is that the Buddhist critique is particularly delicate to introduce to specific groups (in so far as one can generalise, of course) and the social pressure they're already being exposed to needs to be taken into account. But it should be done, just appropriately – I do it, and people generally respond well. So, well done, Buddhism is very much within limits, it should be!
A very good and timely article. A lot of this controversy often feels very self-serving, as if people know they haven't got an argument but just want the difficult questions to go away.
This is great! I keep looking for trans-identifying people who want to discuss philosophical issues. I have no credentials in philosophy, just a few seminars and a big fan of a couple (Wittgenstein, Beauvoir, a few live, current ones). Not sure my question is philosophical but it has to do with Truth, which is the purview of philosophy, isn’t it? So I’m stumped when a biologically male person says “I am a woman.” I can see: “wish I were” or “I like to dress up in women’s clothes” or wear makeup. But the Truth, in ordinary language terms, is No. So are trans-adjacent people simply trying to change the use of the term ‘woman’ to start meaning females and some men who like to dress as one? Now, I’m a person who often gets misgendered, sometimes ‘Sir’ sometimes “Ma’am”. Especially on the phone (a female tenor!) or multiplayer gaming with headset. Sometimes I say something, sometimes not but I know my sex. We can’t be close & intimate with that many people in our lives (5 or so?) And they ‘know’ I’m female. Meanwhile we have multitudes of superficial social interactions and misgender often. I’d take forum interactions as superficial also. But a great way to hear lots of other people’s thoughts.
Here also, I think the sex/gender distinction is huge here: so much of what we attach to the phrases "man" and "woman" is cultural gender rather than biological sex. I think we do the world a service by decoupling the two where possible - allowing gender to become an aesthetic more than a biological phenomenon.
That's nice apart from the fact that single-sex spaces exist and we have built and awful lot of social norms and legislative priors on changing rooms, saunas, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centres, maternity wards, prisons, various sports, strip searches, and everyone's favourite, toilets.
How are all these to be replaced by gender, especially when we are told that there are an infinite number of genders and people are free fluidly change between them?
Yes, I think that's where things get complicated. What I think we need to most beware of is any one-size-fits-all answer, whether it's "all single-gender spaces should be based on biology alone" or "trans women are women and should be allowed into every women-only space without question". What the trans movement really calls for is something that I think our society could use anyway: a rethinking of what spaces really need to be gender-segregated in the first place, *and why*. In a number of cases, the simplest solution is to stop the gender segregation and make things gender-neutral and open to everyone. Where we still see a need for gender segregation, we should make decisions based on that specific need. In cases where violence is part of the issue (as in a number of the spaces you name), it's relevant both that people with testosterone are more likely to be violent, *and* that trans women are even more likely to be victims of gendered violence than cis women are.
If there are infinitely many genders and people can just make them up how ever they want then concepts like single-gender space and gender-segregation are incoherent. They will always collapse to something like uni-sex or mixed-sex. This may be fine in some cases, many establishments have uni-sex toilets already. Most of the examples I gave are unlikely to change.
Yeah, I don't really agree that there are infinite genders – I'm not a fan of the "xe/xer/xis" genre of neo-pronouns, for example. Gender identities usually come down to *some* variation of the biological sexes (which may mean "both", as in my case, or "neither", as in many other non-binary people).
And regardless, there are some single-gender spaces where identity doesn't seem to be the issue: in sports, for example, each case needs to identify whether testosterone or other biological male features really do give an advantage over those who don't have them, and restrict according to those specific features. (It's not as simple as "biological men shouldn't be in women's sports", because we now have the technology to make that category fluid: someone born with a female body may now be taking testosterone, and for that matter have a penis, and those interventions of medical transition make a difference.)
I think it often helps to be more specific about what exactly is meant by "single-sex" in each situation, in order to clarify when in a transition process a person would switch from one gendered space to the other. And then that gets sticky because a lot of it is about preserving people's comfort and perception of safety, which is subjective.
This issue of "people's comfort and perception of safety" seems crucial to me. How is it, exactly, that, in philosophical debate, any trans persons' existence (or, for that matter, any person at all's existence) is threatened? That does not seem coherent to me. OTOH, trans persons' rights and lives are vilely threatened when cultures accede to false and unjust limitations of sex and gender.
How do we continue to move the debate forward, if we cannot freely call into question *all* assumptions about these issues? In this sense, I am sympathetic to Kathleen Stock as portrayed online (though I have not read her work).
To be even more un-pc, I'll add that this debate seems to me to echo that regarding the situation of Jews on American college campuses over the last couple of years. Are they existentially threatened (as the clearly mendacious Republican Congress maintains)? Or are they merely confronted with moral complicity (as pro-Palestinian protesters maintain)?
Philosophical debate may have no direct and dangerous effect on marginalized persons, but surely it may have indirect effect when taken up into the political realm. How do we preserve free discussion and yet avoid the potential victimization of those marginalized by that discussion?
I think maybe the real question is "how is philosophical debate related to actual policy decisions?" Philosophical debate is by definition not practically harming anyone but what we are talking about is not staying in the realm of the philosophical so I'm not sure that your question really applies.
Well, there may be at least two levels where potential harm can occur. Some would argue that it is possible to do harm to persons simply by linguistically marginalizing them or advocating for philosophical positions that would put them in position to be harmed. I think even Amod would agree that this possibility exists (though not perhaps the possibility of negation or annihilation). Then the there is the harm philosophy can do when it is converted in "actual policy," as you mention.
Well I think there's nothing wrong with open dialogue and having the opposition make their case. But they make their case with the intention of denying transgender people to exist as transgender people. They want somebody like me to revert back to living as a male. That is the only acceptable outcome for them. The biological arguments are a weapon. They are used to tie me to my past. So often they are intellectually dishonest. But they don't see it that way. They see me as the one who is dishonest and conducting a charade. I find that the anti-trans gender critical crowd on Substack uses reasoning that is meant to trap the transgender person. Rather than understand them. Them build arguments that are constraining, not openly questioning for knowledge sake only. They don't understand that my existence is not to argue whether I am a woman or not. Rather, my transitioning is helping me live a life based on a condition that I have. But they do not see it as legitimate. So all this philosophy, at its heart, seems all well and good. But it's not a purely academic exercise. It's highly political. Part of the challenge is seeing the difference.
I’m new to gender philosophy, so I’m looking for direction here.
The question I have is…how can one refute someone who claims a gender for himself? We can easily look at genitalia (or chromosomes)and with 99 percent accuracy agree on a universal truth regarding one’s gender.
But if genitalia or the downstream characteristics of such are not there, how does one refute someone who doesn’t have these? The first principles of how to identify are rejected…for personal preferences that cannot be universalized.
Genitalia and chromosomes tell you something about biological sex, which can still be complicated - a trans man may have a penis with XX chromosomes, and there are also people (and animals) who are naturally intersex. But biological sex isn't the same as gender, which is a complex of social roles that differ from culture to culture, and is therefore even more complicated. I don't think there are definite answers here. But I do appreciate Sally Haslanger's point that with a social construct like gender, we may be better served by asking "what do we want it to be?" rather than "what is it, really?" I expect to be writing more on the topic over the next couple months.
... "our very existence is being questioned" - That makes Buddhism off limits.
I don't think it does. Whether or not trans people's existence is being questioned, whatever is being questioned is a selective social practice. The consider a trans woman's identity *as* a woman mistaken is not mirrored by an equivalent challenge to cis identity. The Buddhist critique of identification is unlike that: it's not selective, but equally applied. What this does mean, however, is that the Buddhist critique is particularly delicate to introduce to specific groups (in so far as one can generalise, of course) and the social pressure they're already being exposed to needs to be taken into account. But it should be done, just appropriately – I do it, and people generally respond well. So, well done, Buddhism is very much within limits, it should be!
A very good and timely article. A lot of this controversy often feels very self-serving, as if people know they haven't got an argument but just want the difficult questions to go away.
Thanks for such an incisive piece.
This is great! I keep looking for trans-identifying people who want to discuss philosophical issues. I have no credentials in philosophy, just a few seminars and a big fan of a couple (Wittgenstein, Beauvoir, a few live, current ones). Not sure my question is philosophical but it has to do with Truth, which is the purview of philosophy, isn’t it? So I’m stumped when a biologically male person says “I am a woman.” I can see: “wish I were” or “I like to dress up in women’s clothes” or wear makeup. But the Truth, in ordinary language terms, is No. So are trans-adjacent people simply trying to change the use of the term ‘woman’ to start meaning females and some men who like to dress as one? Now, I’m a person who often gets misgendered, sometimes ‘Sir’ sometimes “Ma’am”. Especially on the phone (a female tenor!) or multiplayer gaming with headset. Sometimes I say something, sometimes not but I know my sex. We can’t be close & intimate with that many people in our lives (5 or so?) And they ‘know’ I’m female. Meanwhile we have multitudes of superficial social interactions and misgender often. I’d take forum interactions as superficial also. But a great way to hear lots of other people’s thoughts.
Here also, I think the sex/gender distinction is huge here: so much of what we attach to the phrases "man" and "woman" is cultural gender rather than biological sex. I think we do the world a service by decoupling the two where possible - allowing gender to become an aesthetic more than a biological phenomenon.
That's nice apart from the fact that single-sex spaces exist and we have built and awful lot of social norms and legislative priors on changing rooms, saunas, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centres, maternity wards, prisons, various sports, strip searches, and everyone's favourite, toilets.
How are all these to be replaced by gender, especially when we are told that there are an infinite number of genders and people are free fluidly change between them?
Yes, I think that's where things get complicated. What I think we need to most beware of is any one-size-fits-all answer, whether it's "all single-gender spaces should be based on biology alone" or "trans women are women and should be allowed into every women-only space without question". What the trans movement really calls for is something that I think our society could use anyway: a rethinking of what spaces really need to be gender-segregated in the first place, *and why*. In a number of cases, the simplest solution is to stop the gender segregation and make things gender-neutral and open to everyone. Where we still see a need for gender segregation, we should make decisions based on that specific need. In cases where violence is part of the issue (as in a number of the spaces you name), it's relevant both that people with testosterone are more likely to be violent, *and* that trans women are even more likely to be victims of gendered violence than cis women are.
If there are infinitely many genders and people can just make them up how ever they want then concepts like single-gender space and gender-segregation are incoherent. They will always collapse to something like uni-sex or mixed-sex. This may be fine in some cases, many establishments have uni-sex toilets already. Most of the examples I gave are unlikely to change.
Yeah, I don't really agree that there are infinite genders – I'm not a fan of the "xe/xer/xis" genre of neo-pronouns, for example. Gender identities usually come down to *some* variation of the biological sexes (which may mean "both", as in my case, or "neither", as in many other non-binary people).
And regardless, there are some single-gender spaces where identity doesn't seem to be the issue: in sports, for example, each case needs to identify whether testosterone or other biological male features really do give an advantage over those who don't have them, and restrict according to those specific features. (It's not as simple as "biological men shouldn't be in women's sports", because we now have the technology to make that category fluid: someone born with a female body may now be taking testosterone, and for that matter have a penis, and those interventions of medical transition make a difference.)
I think it often helps to be more specific about what exactly is meant by "single-sex" in each situation, in order to clarify when in a transition process a person would switch from one gendered space to the other. And then that gets sticky because a lot of it is about preserving people's comfort and perception of safety, which is subjective.
This issue of "people's comfort and perception of safety" seems crucial to me. How is it, exactly, that, in philosophical debate, any trans persons' existence (or, for that matter, any person at all's existence) is threatened? That does not seem coherent to me. OTOH, trans persons' rights and lives are vilely threatened when cultures accede to false and unjust limitations of sex and gender.
How do we continue to move the debate forward, if we cannot freely call into question *all* assumptions about these issues? In this sense, I am sympathetic to Kathleen Stock as portrayed online (though I have not read her work).
To be even more un-pc, I'll add that this debate seems to me to echo that regarding the situation of Jews on American college campuses over the last couple of years. Are they existentially threatened (as the clearly mendacious Republican Congress maintains)? Or are they merely confronted with moral complicity (as pro-Palestinian protesters maintain)?
Philosophical debate may have no direct and dangerous effect on marginalized persons, but surely it may have indirect effect when taken up into the political realm. How do we preserve free discussion and yet avoid the potential victimization of those marginalized by that discussion?
I think maybe the real question is "how is philosophical debate related to actual policy decisions?" Philosophical debate is by definition not practically harming anyone but what we are talking about is not staying in the realm of the philosophical so I'm not sure that your question really applies.
Well, there may be at least two levels where potential harm can occur. Some would argue that it is possible to do harm to persons simply by linguistically marginalizing them or advocating for philosophical positions that would put them in position to be harmed. I think even Amod would agree that this possibility exists (though not perhaps the possibility of negation or annihilation). Then the there is the harm philosophy can do when it is converted in "actual policy," as you mention.
Well I think there's nothing wrong with open dialogue and having the opposition make their case. But they make their case with the intention of denying transgender people to exist as transgender people. They want somebody like me to revert back to living as a male. That is the only acceptable outcome for them. The biological arguments are a weapon. They are used to tie me to my past. So often they are intellectually dishonest. But they don't see it that way. They see me as the one who is dishonest and conducting a charade. I find that the anti-trans gender critical crowd on Substack uses reasoning that is meant to trap the transgender person. Rather than understand them. Them build arguments that are constraining, not openly questioning for knowledge sake only. They don't understand that my existence is not to argue whether I am a woman or not. Rather, my transitioning is helping me live a life based on a condition that I have. But they do not see it as legitimate. So all this philosophy, at its heart, seems all well and good. But it's not a purely academic exercise. It's highly political. Part of the challenge is seeing the difference.
I’m new to gender philosophy, so I’m looking for direction here.
The question I have is…how can one refute someone who claims a gender for himself? We can easily look at genitalia (or chromosomes)and with 99 percent accuracy agree on a universal truth regarding one’s gender.
But if genitalia or the downstream characteristics of such are not there, how does one refute someone who doesn’t have these? The first principles of how to identify are rejected…for personal preferences that cannot be universalized.
Genitalia and chromosomes tell you something about biological sex, which can still be complicated - a trans man may have a penis with XX chromosomes, and there are also people (and animals) who are naturally intersex. But biological sex isn't the same as gender, which is a complex of social roles that differ from culture to culture, and is therefore even more complicated. I don't think there are definite answers here. But I do appreciate Sally Haslanger's point that with a social construct like gender, we may be better served by asking "what do we want it to be?" rather than "what is it, really?" I expect to be writing more on the topic over the next couple months.
Would be useful to have some defining characteristics as to what and what is not a gender- something beyond the “+” catchall.
I mean, to borrow from a great philosopher…if it doesn’t look like a duck…can it be a duck if it quacks and walks like one?