Why DO people 'believe' transwomen are women?

Excellent points up thread.

It’s akin to abracadabra (“I create as I speak”) and is a form of magical thinking. It is also a thought terminating mantra, which means that although it is technically a nonsense phrase, if you can get people to repeat it then you can stop people from really engaging with the facts (or lack of facts) inherent in the ideology.

It’s brainwashing via magical thinking. So progressive.

And not even just for safety! My dad is a lovely person who would never, ever hurt me. I still don't want to get changed with him when we're going to the swimming pool.

I agree. And I think Miranda would probably accept that, but then some other tosser would come along and take umbrage on Miranda's behalf.

Sex segregated spaces are segregated by sex, not clothing or hairstyle or "gender" or how much we like someone.

And, if I may add, much as I like Miranda, much as I respect him, and appreciate his fighting on the side of women? I still wouldn't undress in front of him, or accept him as my cervical smear nurse (were he qualified). Because we are not the same sex. And being an all round lovely person does not override that. My criteria for who I share sex segregated spaces with isn't 'lovely person'. It's biological sex.

And writing that was most uncomfortable, which goes to show the intense pressure, external and internal, that I feel to jettison my boundaries in service of being 'kind' to someone else.

Have you read, oh I don't know, the entire rest of the Feminist Chat section? We're not the ones making the pomo arguments.

Also, Labour have committed to pushing the change through if this government doesn't. They'd have to get elected first, obviously"

Well given they didn't manage last time after the worst election campaign I've ever seen by May and co, I very much doubt they will.

But as I keep saying, we need common sense arguments. Not a post modernist debate. If you want to oppose irrational people, you need to appear rational to expose their irrationality.

At times I've wondered if the solution is to replace the stick figure and stick figure in a skirt symbols on the doors of toilets etc with a cute little stylized cock and balls and a cute little stylized vulva. What we have here are the room for people with penises and the room for people with vulvas. Doesn't matter what gender you identify with or what you're wearing, if you have a penis you go in door A and if you have a vulva you go in door B.

"It's a goalpost move. Women need segregation because of the way they are treated. Therefore the way they are treated determines what they are. No.

Hell, if one wants to go down that road, give me a world where women are treated completely equally to men, whilst having their biology acknowledged and accommodated."

Yes, I fear that as a matter of long term strategy if we lose this one and go down the Canada route, the only option left to us will be "equalism". We'll have to fight for public toilets with individual floor-to-ceiling doors opening onto public spaces, for instance on the grounds of public (non sex/gender specific) safety. Any sort of class analysis and affirmative action will go out the window, so we'll have to throw ourselves whole-heartedly behind free speech (maybe even to the extent of trying to get it formally enshrined in UK law in a way it never has been in the past) so we can at least shine a light on the dark corners of individual abuse.

guardianfree
"BUT I get exhausted by the sheer delusional range of all the demands by transactivists. While I appreciate that social media enables this and gives air space to many fools, take a look at this mumsnet thread for an example of the consequences for young lesbians of TAs demands."

Yes I agree, as I said, I'm a big Janice Turner fan and I've followed her journalism on this.

But answering delusional rage (I assume 'range' was a typo) with equal rage (whether delusional) or not doesn't convince the general public you've got a good argument. The Labour party is currently a lost cause in my view, which is a big shame because we need an effective opposition like never before. We need to use simple logic, and common sense not get dragged into the post modern madness.

For example Ruth Hunt said that questioning whether someone is trans is as transphobic, becuase all trans people just know they're trans, just as all gay people know they're gay.

Except she's talking rubbish, because some people come out as gay in mid life. Some people who've been gay all their life suddenly have a straight relationship. And most importantly, you don't need medical interventions to be gay.

If you try to answer the trans activists in their own terms, you will lose the argument. Don't even try - just move the focus elsewhere.

The question posed here is 'why do people say transwomen are women'. My answer would be 'that's irrelevant, what are the practical issues here ? I don't care if transwomen are women, men or giraffes. I care what the practical effects of that statement are. '

See - you just shifted the focus back to the key issues. Instead of entering a post modernist black hole.

Hear ye, hear ye, I now declare in ye olde town cryer style that I'm as certain as I can be without being able to read minds that Miranda Yardley is not a pervert who just wants to get into women's changing rooms.

Which does absolutely nothing to address the issue of how we're going to go about dealing with the people who are perverts.

“But that doesn't mean I don't believe every single transwoman is just a wannabe perv who wants to get into a girls changing room.”

Neither does anyone else.

Also, Labour have committed to pushing the change through if this government doesn't. They'd have to get elected first, obviously, but the whole self ID issue isn't going away just because Greening is out.

(Points up at images Haddock posted)

So, person just trying to get on with their life? I get that you want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes that's a mistake.

Did you watch the video of Lila being interviewed? "

No, I haven't. I agree that Perry should not be in the girls changing room - I've said so. And yes I have heard of autogynephilia. But that doesn't mean I don't believe every single transwoman is just a wannabe perv who wants to get into a girls changing room. No doubt if the GRA were to get passed as proposed, that would give those who are just pervs who want to go into a girls changing room a free pass. But I don't believe it will be, because it was Justine Greening's baby, and Justine Greening has gone, and there's been too much negative press. This government has got enough on its plate without making any more trouble for itself.

Oh god sorry! Computer had a brain fart. No one really needed to see that so many times

Kind of glad to see it's not just me having posting issues...

Lila Perry, just trying to get on with their life

Lila Perry, just trying to get on with their life

Lila Perry, just trying to get on with their life

Agreed, Montoya. There are a number of different groups for whom women no longer being able to name and thus discuss our experiences works out very nicely. The younger people pushing the trans women are women line hardest are oblivious to this, and think it's a simple social justice issue. It's not.

And then when we're proved to have been correct in the first place the answer is just that the data is unkind and hurts people's feelings.

Or the data is not enough because the numbers are too small.

Completely ignoring that the data is based on a subset of the cohort men. Half the population

Not an entirely different species.

$%#$%$

Not sure why I suddenly can't do bold. Must be an extra space in there somewhere. Sorry, I know it's annoying visually.

$%#$%$

Not sure why I suddenly can't do bold. Must be an extra space in there somewhere.

$%#$%$

Not sure why I suddenly can't do bold. Must be an extra space in there somewhere.

And then. We get our differential treatment. Tertiary. The sexism, the roles and the rules and the restrictions.

Yes. It was summed up for me by someone saying that inferring what something is doesn't determine what it is.

It's a goalpost move. Women need segregation because of the way they are treated. Therefore the way they are treated determines what they are. No.

Hell, if one wants to go down that road, give me a world where women are treated completely equally to men, whilst having their biology acknowledged and accommodated.

Then I won't care how we categorise.