Why DO people 'believe' transwomen are women?

DonkeySkin

One thing I would take issue with is that I don't think anybody believes 'transwomen' are 'real woman'.

It would be interesting to see how many people do. I think some TRAs and their supporters really do think that, but I expect you're right for the vast majority. But part of the problem as I see it is that some powerful organisations (e.g. sporting bodies that allow transwomen to compete with women) are acting as though transwomen really ARE women, even if they would not necessarily make that claim explicitly. I guess the deeper question is: given that most people probably don't believe transwomen are real women, why are they acting as though transwomen actually are real women? And YY, this is tied up with misogyny and results from the low status society accords women.

The Patriarchy needs to deny the validity of women's experiences to justify itself, so is deaf to the voices of women who want to make it clear just how big a part of a woman's experience is all the crap stuff that should be shared equally between men and women. The high-profile and most vocal TRAs do seem very focused on a type of femininity that does not reflect the social construct of femininity in reality. You could say it's actually one of the biggest arguments against the idea that all transwomen are the same and that all self-proclaimed transwomen should be allowed to self-identify as women. Many don't want to identify as women, they just want to cherry-pick their favourite parts - and do this at the expense of actual women.

This is ultimately the problem, as has been pointed out here and on other threads. TRAs in general do not support feminism. They may claim to do so, but their actions show otherwise. They want to express their freedom of choice by being women in the way they want to be women, and as a result don't acknowledge the problems faced by women in daily life.

I feel very sorry for transwomen who do just want to go about their daily lives, living as close to a woman's real life as possible. Transgenderism was once considered to be a difficult and complex situation and most thoughtful people were broadly sympathetic. The obsession with self-identity, the belief that a person can be whatever sex they feel they should be, has taken over. Society is no longer trying to make the lives of transwomen better in a thoughtful way.

Maybe that's the simplest explanation of all. Real life is incredibly messy, full of contradictions and unforeseen consequences, and is often so complex that being able to work out the "correct" answer to a problem is not even possible. But we humans are biased towards wanting simple answers and straight-forward and definitive belief systems. We live in a period where the attitude of welcoming simple answers to complex situations is in the ascendency. "Let transwomen be equivalent to real women" is a simple answer to a large set of very difficult existential problems regarding what it means to be a human being.

There are periods in any culture where social beliefs and intellectual ideas diverge. The revolution in the understanding of how humans make choices and define their own identities (or have their identities defined for them by society) has not yet fed through to Anglo-Saxon culture. The older generation has taken a lot of the brunt of this disparity, being blamed for being stuck in antiquated modes of thought. However, it's actually the younger generation who are most deeply invested in the social belief of absolute freedom of choice, and I think this a big part of why so many young people are so dreadfully unhappy. They expect to be able to make choices about their own lives - to choose to excel at academia, for example, or to choose to be seen as beautiful and popular - that are not in their power.

The transwoman debate is a test case of ideology vs reality. What I'd dearly love to see is for the scientists and intellectuals to come on to public forums and explain the mechanisms that underpin human behaviour and thus explain why it is that a transwoman is not the equivalent of a biological woman. But that's not easy when, as Gove would put it, we've "had enough of experts", and intellectuals who don't toe the line are publicly castigated. The "your conscious mind is not what you think it is" idea is not going to be an easy sell at the best of times!

*I'm not sure if it's misogyny, or a genuinely held belief, that women are somehow incapable of addressing these issues, logically, rationally, and irrefutably. Based on science, evidence and statistics.

Because it seems to be quite widely held belief, and is very much mistaken.*

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.

It's funny how the 'disruptors' who think woman might be something other than biology because don't also argue that yorkshire terriers might be hamsters, or penguins might be fish.
If you can acknowledge that 'tiny furball' isn't an adequate categorisation of rodent, or 'slippery swimming thing" doesn't reclassify a bird into a fish, then why the sudden blind spot about human dimorphic sex?

The classification is as binary as it gets. Male and female are mutually exclusive.

The ultimate, critical difference is our biology. What our bodies do. This is primary. This is what divides us into two, mutually exclusive groups.

What is secondary, is how recognisable we are to others as a member of one group or the other. And almost without exception, that happens effortlessly and accurately.

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

To suggest that experiencing some tertiary aspects somehow overrides the fundamental primary category is plainly nonsense. Suggesting a yorkshire terrier knows what it's like to be a hamster because it is tiny, furry and can rip up toilet rolls with its teeth is no more ludicrous than imagining that a man with a male reproductive system is the same as the billions of females because his eyebrows were on fleek and someone just wolf whistled him.

Yes my comment was meant for Rat.

Are you still female if you've had a hysterectomy?

Is a bird that's somehow lost a wing in a tragic accident still a bird? I dunno, it might be a cat. We should ask Judith Butler.

Elsie2971
I understand what you mean by savvy and to a limited extent I agree, pick your battles etc.

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.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3146166-Transactivism-and-the-lesbian-community

How on earth do we decide which oppressive demand that they make to challenge? I suspect that until we have successfully pushed back the the principle of
I believe the earth is flat and you MUST agree with me and change all laws to reflect this , this will continue.
We need politicians to understand the delusions - 'the penis is a female organ' and to understand that while they support self ID they are supporting a regressive and anti - democratic cult which is doing harm to others (especially children).

As a dedicated post modernist though, I'd point out that this is the problem with binary gender.

Ah, now I see your problem.

Subsequent data released by HM prisons (forgive me, no time to search it out for a link) revealed that the Fair Play For Women analysis had slightly UNDERestimated these figures.

And this is it. Women are told that it's wrong to lump transwomen in with men, or to fear or object to them on the same basis.

That transwomen are women and women can therefore disregard any feelings or opinion to the contrary.

Or face being transphobic.

There were no statistics on category A transwomen prisoners.

So staticians and scientists did the leg work themselves.

The information was analysed from individual inspection reports. Where it wasn't available, they didn't include it. Deliberately.

It was subsequently published in the newspapers and broadcast on TV. Representatives from mermaids ( Owl or Fox, I can't remember) and transactivists tiredness to discredit them. Writing letters to the papers and on Twitter. Saying the statistics were wrong, the study was flawed and it was just feminists being bigoted.

So the ministry of justice, presumably under pressure, suddenly collated, analysed and published their own figures. Which indeed, as predicted, because now all the information was available, showed that the women had underestimated their figures.

I'm not sure if it's misogyny, or a genuinely held belief, that women are somehow incapable of addressing these issues, logically, rationally, and irrefutably. Based on science, evidence and statistics.

Because it seems to be quite widely held belief, and is very much mistaken.

From what I've seen of the Lila Perry story, this is a human being who's trying to get on with their life.

Did you watch the video of Lila being interviewed? Because most people I know who're just trying to get on with their lives don't appear on TV with no underpants on and their bits swinging in the breeze.

(I feel like "go google "what is autogynephilia?" might be a more efficient response to these types of comments.)

HairyBallTheorem loved your post.

"So I think the argument goes "There are no clear-cut criteria for identifying natural kinds - and that includes binary sex distinctions (hence TRA's emphasis on appropriating intersex conditions). And in any case, supposedly natural kinds are often socially-based categories of interest which tell us as much about social beliefs as they do about scientific fact. This being so, why shouldn't we define "woman" not according to our narrow and imperfect scientific interpretation of the word (science which comes loaded with a tacit and unexamined bias towards social conservatism), but instead in terms of other considerations such as creating a more tolerant, inclusive and open society."

Great summation. As a dedicated post modernist though, I'd point out that this is the problem with binary gender. Because we say that there are only two genders, the logic goes that there are only two sexes, but there aren't because intersex exists.

So you say 'a woman is a biological female' and then run into 'how do you define a biological female' and it all gets a bit sticky. Are you still female if you've had a hysterectomy? And there's no point relying on chromosomes, because some people who have 'girl' on their birth certificate actually have 'male' chromosomes because they're intersex.

What most of us go on in situations where we're not naked, is facial features, general body size and shape, and clothing/hairstyles, and if someone is speaking, their voice. In situations where we are naked, we go on external genitalia.

So the answer to 'transwomen are women' should be 'that's irrelevant if you've got a communal changing room and someone has a penis, because these facilities are single sex, not single gender. Yes sex is in reality not entirely binary but for most people external bodily sexual characteristics are the important issue'

Which neatly gets round the whole thing and stops you disappearing up your own post modernist backside. The key thing here is what sex do you appear to be with your clothes off. Nice and simple.

That and gender/sex neutral single cubicles basically.

Which is why getting into the transwomen are/aren't women argument is a dead end.

Thank you for the further stats Lang. I will read them.
The summary of those stats was 57 trans sexual offenders in 80,000 male prisoners, but until I've read it in entirety, not sure what that indicates either way!
I'm reluctant to say more on any suggestion they are more or less likely to offend until I know more.

am I really as likely to be raped by a transwoman's dick as I am by a man's? Really? Or is it the man with the appendage who's more likely to assault me rather than his body part? I doubt anyone has the stats.

There won’t be any such stats because offences committed by transwomen are now reported as being by women

"16 is still far too young to take hormones imo."

But it's old enough to get married and have sex and join the army?

"I’m speechless at your racial comment. You’ve definitely been drinking too much of the TRA cool aid. This is just one of the bogus and bigoted argument they make. Along with calling mainstream feminists feminazis or transnazis. It’s they themselves, who are acting like the Nazis, not the other way round."

Given I haven't made any racial comment, I'm astounded. Did you intend to reply to someone else?

Re the changing rooms row - at my school there was a communal shower in the gym changing rooms that was never used. The reason given was the water shortage, but somehow it mysteriously never made it back into use after that because basically teenage girls aren't (or weren't back in the day) keen on getting naked in front of other teenage girls. I'm not particuarly self conscious but if I'm trying on clothes in a shop, I want a separate changing room, I'm not prancing round showing everyone my ageing undies.

Yes of course we can't just allow a male bodied person to walk into a changing room for females, particularly if their agenda is to cause trouble - they should be removed because their agenda is to cause trouble. But what is wrong with educational institutions/gyms having gender neutral separate cubicles? Again it would just defuse the whole row which is being used to distract from far more pressing issues, which I personally think are medical transitioning of under 16's. And teens would like it better I'd imagine.

From what I've seen of the Lila Perry story, this is a human being who's trying to get on with their life. If we immediately characterise all transwomen as transitioning because they want to attack women, that's unfair and unreasonable and untrue, and plays right into accusations of transphobia.

Yes some very unpleasant characters have declared themselves to be transwomen, and some are sex offenders. Not all transwomen are identical though.

The 50% sexual offences stat needs more detail. The could be only 2 trans offenders in the world, one of whom committed a sexual offence. It means nothing in isolation.

fairplayforwomen.com/prisons/transgender-prisoners

Worked out that there are approximately 113 TIMs currently in the male estate, half of whom are sex offenders. Plus, there will be more already housed in the female estate.

Subsequent data released by HM prisons (forgive me, no time to search it out for a link) revealed that the Fair Play For Women analysis had slightly UNDERestimated these figures.

Elsie
16 is still far too young to take hormones imo.
I’m speechless at your racial comment. You’ve definitely been drinking too much of the TRA cool aid. This is just one of the bogus and bigoted argument they make. Along with calling mainstream feminists feminazis or transnazis. It’s they themselves, who are acting like the Nazis, not the other way round.

What is going to happen to the 'rights' of those with agoraphobia? Shall we clear the streets of crowds to alleviate their genuine condition?

The 50% sexual offences stat needs more detail. The could be only 2 trans offenders in the world, one of whom committed a sexual offence. It means nothing in isolation.

The tenuous comparison with racial segregation overlooks the fact that black had no choice to be white and science could prove it. Society still chose to discriminate. That is not the case with trans. A better analogy would be homophobic discrimination where science still isn't sure but most of society has now chosen to accept. I am afraid, rightly or wrongly, there will be no fast track for societal acceptance of trans gaining access to our children's toilets.

Dont get it. I had a colleague who was a trans woman. She was treated as a woman of course. All female team. But she was a trans woman, not a woman. You cant make something that isnt.

RatRolyPoly

The racial comparison is sleight of hand.

Black people were oppressed by white people. Women are oppressed by men. You are mixing up the groups.

The correct comparison would be white people appropriating black people, saying they were black and telling black people to centre them in their issues. Compared to men saying they are women and telling women to centre them in women's issues.

Claiming that men who identify as women are being oppressed by women is laughable.

You have to have a reason to oppress a whole body of people. And the means.

There is no gain, which is a necessary component of oppression, in women are oppressing men. Even if they could.

Plus women clearly don't have the means to oppress men, trans or otherwise.

If you are failing to see the power dynamic at work here, based on sex, show me all the transmen, (women identifying as men) who are campaigning to be allowed into men's prisons, locker rooms. Show me all the men who are worried that women identifying as men are going to beat them at sport.

Or show me any transman who has any kind of power at all.

Transmen are famous for giving birth (first man to give birth) or being raped (but I kept telling him I was a man).

"I'd like to move to an entirely gender neutral society"
Why?

Because I think gender is a social construct that is used to oppress women.

When someone says 'girls can't do maths' that's gender.
When the cervical screening programme assumes women are too silly to be able to make a rational decision about their own bodies, and want to be treated like children, that's gender.
When someone says 'women don't want better paying jobs' that's gender.

And so on. Feminism 101 surely? I can't see the point of being gender criticial if you don't want to get rid of gender.

Funny how there's always a cake to ice when an argument is being lost...

The tired old "not allowing biological males into women's changing rooms is just like racial segregation" argument is a classic instance of DARVO - "deny, attack, reverse victim and offender."

Women - an oppressed group partly in virtue of their smaller size and lesser physical strength - have segregated spaces to protect them. Now members of the less-oppressed, physically stronger class are demanding entry and saying they are the victimised ones if we don't let them in. 100% classic reverse-victim-and-offender tactics.

"The belief that someone can magically transition to the opposite sex is most harmful to children - and that's where my 'fear' comes from.
TA pressure groups have actively targeted education, 'normalising' the taking of drugs by children below he age of consent to stop puberty, misusing suicide statistics, undermining basic safeguarding principles and laying down definitions of transphobia that silence teenagers and adults from expressing legitimate concerns about any of this.
I am fearful that pressure groups who wish to change society for their own ends (nothing wrong with that, that's what all pressure groups do) have been allowed privileged access to schools and are rewriting policies in defiance of existing equality laws that are doing actual harm to vulnerable children.
That scares me - and it should anyone who opposes unregistered medical experimentation on children."

Yes I agree with all this guardianfree but we need to be a bit savvy here. The problem with things like the Lily Madigan row is it takes attention away from issues like this, and allows these groups to present themselves as victims of nasty extremist feminists. These are the issues that should be - and are being - highlighted by the press, but we don't want to give ammunition to those who claim this is just transphobia.

I'm a big fan of what Janice Turner has been doing in the Times on this, but I'm also conscious that trans men do exist and for a small section of society, as society is currently constituted, hormones/surgery make their lives possible. As long as they're a consenting adult and fully understand the implications, I have no problem with that. We do need to press - and keep pressing - the issues concerning children and teens - the problem is that at the moment, allowing these groups to cry 'transphobia' is playing into their hands.

So the message needs to be - we have no problems with consenting adults transitioning, (something I believe wholeheartedly) but under 16s are too young to make permanent choices, and puberty blockers are not entirely harmless, despite being depicted as such. They can delay growth and cause bone loss.

So, you think that it's reasonable to suggest that over 100 girls have no good reason to be uncomfortable sharing a space where they'll be naked with a person with a penis who they've known for years. Whereas Lila is obviously being reasonable in making that demand and in handwaving away their insistence that they're uncomfortable as bigotry?

Thanks for answering the underlying question I had about how much trust you have in women and girls and how much you care about their feelings. It's illuminating.

So, over 100 girls who feel like their boundaries are not being respected versus one person who identifies as trans. Trans person still wins, motivations of girls are suspect.

don't be silly Lang.