You don't see people saying "trans women are biologically female" for a reason.
Can you elaborate on what makes that statement so ridiculous on it's face?
I appreciate the answer. Are there situations where those of the female sex as a group have a legitimate special interest that does not include trans women?
What does it mean for these categories to be social constructs? What criteria makes one a man or a woman?
Obviously: medical stuff. The needs of trans women and cis women are not aligned when issues of sexual health come up. Trans women don't have uteruses, for example, and healthcare for trans women differs greatly from assigned-female-at-birth people. Here, the interests of trans women, AFAB women, trans men and AMAB men are all somewhat unique. Note further that in this situation men (specifically trans-men) and AFAB women can have significant overlaps in needs.
Do you mean more in social spaces, where women as a group are interacting as women and not as females? Because as a society we don't often differentiate between female and women's spaces, and in general we seem to apply the label "female" to many things that are really "women's".
Offhand, I can't think of many social spaces where women interact as females, and not just as women. Perhaps spaces devoted to motherhood? As for the women's spaces, those being trans exclusionary is, imo questionable in most cases. Although I did see a trans person I know recently point out that they are able to relate with trans women's experiences often more deeply than with cis women's, so the reverse would also likely be true.
As for your other question:
> I should add, I see people use the phrase "assigned male/female". Which seems odd to me if sex is a biological construct rather than a social construct. It seems the correct phrase would be "assigned man/woman". Is there something I am missing?
I agree the terminology here is weird. But implicit in your framing is that someone is assigned a gender based on their sex. One is not assigned "man/woman" at all. Or, insofar as a trans woman is AMAB, they were also assigned woman at birth (but this assignment is mental), that's why they chose to transition their appearance, to better align with their gender.
I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the "assigned" framing is a way to help distance the person from an aspect of themselves that can cause dysphoria. If you see yourself as a woman, you might strongly prefer to be biologically female, but you can't be. Framing this as something you were assigned helps to address that.
That's up to the society, hence their definitions as social constructs. For example, when you shop for dresses, do mostly men or women come up? Articles of clothing by themselves are not tied to the biology of a person's sex... meaning a vagina/penis is not required to wear a dress.
But most of society (as it is now) has deemed that woman are associated with dresses, while men are associated with suits. That image is now changing, although slowly, with trans and other non-binary genders.
An easy way to see this is to ask yourself if you think it's acceptable for men to wear dresses? If so, ask why we don't see more of that in the workplace.
Should any man who self ids as a woman have access to women's private spaces.
I don't see a large company ever answering that in yes/no.
> Obviously: medical stuff. The needs of trans women and cis women are not aligned when issues of sexual health come up. Trans women don't have uteruses, for example, and healthcare for trans women differs greatly from assigned-female-at-birth people. Here, the interests of trans women, AFAB women, trans men and AMAB men are all somewhat unique. Note further that in this situation men (specifically trans-men) and AFAB women can have significant overlaps in needs.
That makes sense.
> Do you mean more in social spaces, where women as a group are interacting as women and not as females? Because as a society we don't often differentiate between female and women's spaces, and in general we seem to apply the label "female" to many things that are really "women's".
> Offhand, I can't think of many social spaces where women interact as females, and not just as women. Perhaps spaces devoted to motherhood? As for the women's spaces, those being trans exclusionary is, imo questionable in most cases
A nursing mother's room does seems like it would be fairly uncontroversial. But if a majority of females would prefer to have a female only space for something else (bathroom, gym, etc.) to what extent are they obligated to accommodate trans women in including them? How do we arbitrate between those interests?
> Although I did see a trans person I know recently point out that they are able to relate with trans women's experiences often more deeply than with cis women's, so the reverse would also likely be true.
Interesting. Could it be that having spaces specifically for trans-* people might be more beneficial for social harmony and individual comfort than turning "female" spaces into "women's" spaces?
> I agree the terminology here is weird. But implicit in your framing is that someone is assigned a gender based on their sex. One is not assigned "man/woman" at all. Or, insofar as a trans woman is AMAB, they were also assigned woman at birth (but this assignment is mental), that's why they chose to transition their appearance, to better align with their gender.
I guess it depends upon who is doing the "assigning" here. My assumption is that "society" is the assigner. So far as I understand, biological sex relates to the role one is able to perform in the reproductive process, and cannot be assigned at all. Gender, being the social construct, would be something that is determined by societal norms. When assigned at birth, would be driven by the biological sex of the child.
So, if someone identifies as as man, but society disagrees, is that person a man? What reasons would a society have to change their criteria to include this person in the category of "man"?
> Interesting. Could it be that having spaces specifically for trans-* people might be more beneficial for social harmony and individual comfort than turning "female" spaces into "women's" spaces?
These are interesting questions. So I offer only some food for thought:
What's best for "social harmony" and what is just or morally right don't always agree. Keeping schools segregated was likely best for social harmony (at least at the moment), but I think we're all better off for the US having integrated schools. Ultimately, any change for the benefit of an underrepresented group will have to start somewhere, and that first change will likely cause discord in the community.
Is having trans-only and cis-only spaces good? Maybe. Is it long term problematic? Almost assuredly. I'm not saying I have the correct answer here. I don't think anyone does (note that the trans woman I'm paraphrasing wasn't, I don't think, using this argument to say that we should have trans-only spaces, but simply that they can empathize with the connection).
As for the gender/sex segregation issue, I don't know I have a good answer either, though I think freedom to self-segregate would probably help us best discover a "good enough" answer.
Marriage used to be strictly between a man and a woman. Now society says it can include homosexuals. Women used to stay at home to take care of the house, while men worked at jobs to provide for the entire family. Now society says both roles can be taken up by both men and women. Black people used to sit at the back of the bus, and now anyone can sit anywhere.
I mean, society constantly changes. We see it in history, we even see it today within our own lives. Places like Saudi Arabia are currently having their own version of woman's suffrage even as we speak.
So given this, in your example person, I would wager that society would deem that person not a man, since the hypothetical society has already decided it that way. But that's not to say that person will give up on not being recognized as a man. Our human history has shown us that we don't just stop at an idea, some of us go all the way to pave new rights for entire future generations to come.
Whether or not society adopts the new definitions, well, that's up to the people living in it.
The Wikipedia article on Sex Differences in Humans uses the terms man/woman and male/female interchangeably[1]. What little I've seen of the scientific literature follows this convention as well.
It's my experience that, across a broad swath of American society, that many people follow the old convention as well.
Yes, in most contexts in present western society, male/female and man/woman are interchangeable (and certain groups have a vested interest in maintaining this state). There are however contexts in which they are not. Trans people (and allies) need to be cognizant of these things to be able to discuss the differences.
If your argument is that to an observer, "trans women are women" could be interpreted as "trans women are biologically female", then sure one could interpret it that way. But in the context of discussions about trans people, women and female mean different things, which is why "trans women are women" is the phrase, and not "trans women are biologically female".
That dictionaries haven't caught up is kind of disappointing, but if you look at the wiki page, it mentions trans women at the end, which seems kind of strange to do in the context of biological female-ness.
I'll also note that because it's so common to conflate the two, that I try to explicitly add the "biologically" modifier when discussing bio sex. in contexts not talking about trans groups, I'm sure I've conflated the terms without noticing.
I'll offer two points, and then probably not respond much more because we're well beyond the initial discussion and while you've been very polite, we're moving further into space where things could become heated.
Forced integration was clearly not best for social harmony in the moment. It required calling in the military (not to mention things like bussing across district are costly and annoying). In general this is the issue with extending rights to minority groups: social harmony is easier to maintain if you don't upset the dominant group.
As for whether or not forced integration was the "right" thing. Consider that today de-facto segregation is still a thing, school districts are on the whole, still very racially skewed because people are skewed in where they live[0]. Where people are given choice, the privileged are unlikely to give it away, and because of how education works in the US (funding is based on property taxes, and de-facto again segregation and class differences), you can see stark differences in k-12 educational opportunities for minorities still today. Strategies to address this don't exist in many areas, or come with trouble themselves.
It's unlikely that on the whole educational opportunity would be more equal today without the temporary forced integration, unless you're valuing second order effects (like thinking that school integration "fixed" racial inequality) much more strongly than I.
[0]: And I'll ignore for now how things ended up that way, but it wasn't by accident
Now, sex has many correlating genetic and phenotypic factors, and so if someone possesses those characteristics but is simply infertile, then we would still be correct in identifying them as being of a particular sex.
I think in the context of intersex people (at least those who are infertile) that the idea of "assigning" sex makes sense, because there is some natural ambiguity there. But just because determining a person's sex is arbitrary in some circumstances does not mean it is arbitrary in all circumstances.
In terms of the science of sex differences, my understanding is that they (at least sometimes) don't make the distinction between sex and gender because many traits and social behaviors that we might assume to be part of "gender" end up having a underlying biological component as well (that isn't easily separable).
In terms of the general populace, I would say that for many people the realities of their biological sex (including their reproductive capacity) have a great deal of impact on their gendered experience.
This is not to say that the experience of trans people should be ignored. But this may help account for some of the surprise people express at statements like "trans women are women" or "women is not a sex".