Identifying Into a Different Sex and Title IX

I think for many of us, the trans discussion started out very simply.

Imagine someone dyed their hair blond, and they wanted to be known as blond. It would only be polite to refer to them as blond. Even if they wore a blond wig, everyone is happy to go along with calling them blond. Someone changing their appearance and asking to be called by pronouns reflective of their new appearance started out for me as similar to this. A question of manners.

Imagine someone undergoing a religious conversion. Here, a religious body accepts the person into a religion that they were not part of previously. In this case it seems to me they should be entitled to all the rights and privileges of other people in that religion as conferred by the religious group that accepted their conversion. And everyone else should respect their religious choice as a question of manners. Similarly, imagine someone wanting to change their nationality. People do this all the time. Once you become an American citizen, you are entitled to all the rights and privileges of your citizenship, including competing as an American citizen in the Olympics, if you like (and if you are good enough).

Imagine someone dyeing their skin and wanting to be known as a Black person. Is this like dyeing your hair or undergoing a religious conversion? There is no governing body for Black people that I’m aware of that has the ability to decide the person is sincere, and welcome them into this community grouping. There is, however, social consensus that this is not acceptable. In no small part likely due to the history of blackface. If someone dyed their skin and was completely respectful, and didn’t mock people of color, and didn’t apply for scholarships or set asides or jobs intended for people of color, I’m not sure I would see harm in referring to this person in the way they wanted to be referred, as a person of color. But I’m not a person of color, so what I feel about this appropriation is basically irrelevant. As a woman, however, I feel more comfortable discussing people who would like to be identified as women who were born male.

Imagine someone using clothing, medical and/or cosmetic processes to appear as a person of the opposite sex. For me, at first glance this is similar to someone dyeing their hair. It is not akin to a religious conversion, because there is no governing body to welcome them into the community grouping. The closest approach would be meeting with a psychiatrist and convincing the doctor they have a fervent belief that they are truly inherently a member of this cross sex. Is that the same thing? Maybe, but it's only a proxy.

The history of people presenting as people of the opposite sex is long and complex, and, I think, worth a look. One example of presenting as the opposite sex involves war. Throughout history, women dress as men in order to go to war and men dress as women in order to avoid having to go to war. Cross-identifying for many other reasons, including to relieve a feeling of dysphoria, existed in mythology and up to the present day. Three of Shakespeare’s plays have cross-identification central to the plot. One of my favorite movies, Some Like it Hot (released in 1959), has gangsters crossdressing to avoid the Mob. 

Most people cross-identify for reasons that do not impinge on others’ rights (well, the Government may want to find the draft dodgers). But some people cross-identify in order to more easily hurt people by falsely gaining their trust, evade capture by the law, plant hidden cameras in women’s toilets and changing rooms, humiliate others, gain a competitive advantage in sport, or be housed in a prison with people of the opposite sex for the purpose of sexual congress (either willingly or forced). These are not hypothetical, potential purposes. Men have been documented to do all of these actions, in the US, in the UK, in other places around the world. These are to me unacceptable reasons to honor someone’s purported desire to cross-identify.

Proposed changes to Title IX and Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) will protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. To the extent this enables people to live and let live, as cross-identifiers have for millenia, this seems like a good thing. However, I am concerned some cross-identifiers may seek to use these amendments to impinge on others’ rights or engage in what I consider unacceptable reasons to cross-identify. Consider free speech. Should someone be entitled to lodge complaints of Sexual Harassment if someone else fails to honor their chosen pronouns? Some consider it “Hate Speech” to refer to DNA – based sexual assignments (in other words, call transwomen men). For another example: a large majority of Americans (70%) think people born male should not compete in female categories for sports. Yet with the proposed changes, Title IX would require people born male who identify as female to be permitted to compete as females. (People born female who identify as male generally also compete in female categories). In fact, a federal court has granted a preliminary injunction stopping one softball team from seeking to exclude a transgirl based on Title IX.

For these reasons, I am very wary of the proposed changes to Title IX and Title VII as written. I fear it will be counterproductive for Democrats to push social policies with so little popular support.