Trans women are women answers to Terfmore's questions

You are throwing women under the bus when you pretend that female biology isn't important and insist that there is such a thing as a normal male or female identity.

How should most people go about hiding their biological sex?

The idea is they wouldn't hide it, but that in their appearing indistinguishable from people who may not share their reproductive biology, their sex could not be confidently assumed.

So if I apply for a job, I'm a woman of a particular age, they think I'm likely to get knocked-up some time soon so give the job to a man. If at some point in the future they've realised that loads of women don't have kids anyway, some don't even have the equipment, and the last two men they hired both took lengthy maternity leaves, it puts a rather different complexion on the decision.

Of course that's a complete hypothetical, but it's a way of looking at things.

I am in favour of the GRA, as it stands now it is the best compromise between two conflicting needs.

I am against self id.

But they aren’t managing the tents appropriately, the guides are saying trans girls are girls and are being treat exactly as the other girls which means staying in the girls dormitory and if any of the girls object then they are to be ‘educated’ and they won’t tell the parents when their children is sleeping in the same dorm as a member of the opposite sex.

I don’t think many people would object to ‘trans girls’ being in the girl guides if they were kept separate for changing and sleeping, but they’re not.

Much more honest to call it "gender-identity critical"

No, it isn't. Radical feminism and its gender critical analysis has been around a lot longer than gender identity ideology. It hasn't changed - it is just applying the same analysis of gender to trans issues as it has applied to all other issues of concern to women.

Why must all language and history be changed to accommodate trans?

The concept of sex segregation other than for safety reasons is actually pretty outdated

Agree.

However, women still have to deal with the consequences of female biology including periods, contraception, pregnancy, breast feeding unwanted pregnancy, miscarriage and menopause. None of that is going to change any time soon.

I think the reason this issue is discussed so much on Mumsnet is that you breeze along just being yourself, and then suddenly you try to conceive or you have a baby and you can't escape the impact of being female.

Being female is all biology. The rest is just being human.

Teacup if you say you have been fighting for trans rights, I presume you were in favour of the GRA then? To be fair, I find your posts a lot more balanced than many others, so your background does show. However, I don't think you represent the majority of the GC people on here.

Teacup that is fair enough but if you read the thread about the girl guides, people were making out that it was the crime of the century to make girls be in the same society as boys.

I am sure the tent thing can be appropriately managed by the scouting staff. But many posters were opposed on principle to ever let someone born male in the Guides, despite the fact that girls can join the Scouts.

Same with same-sex schools- so many of them actually allow the other sex to join, especially in 6th form, that it's wrong to actually call them single sex. Yet when there is a sniff of a trans girl attending a girls' school, people are up in arms about it.

My guess is that most of the people on here do not work with trans people, do not have trans friends and generally are not hugely affected by trans people

Oh we’re back to this.

You’re wrong.

My mother was in a lesbian relationship when I was growing up and we were right in the centre of the lgbt community. Many of my close family friends are trans and I’ve been aware of and fighting for trans rights my whole life.
Many of the women here have trans family members, friends and some shock horror are even trans themselves.

I think most people are talking about sex segregation for safety to be honest.
I don’t have a problem with their being mixed sex groups for scouting etc, I do have a problem with them having mixed sex dorms.

You are throwing girls under the bus for a tiny number of natal males.

My guess is that most of the people on here do not work with trans people, do not have trans friends and generally are not hugely affected by trans people. It's like immigration. I keep reading about how our country is going to shit because of it. Yet, my life appears to be absolutely fine and I am not impacted by it, despite it being made out to be such a huge problem. If it's a tiny number (which I agree with), I don't agree that you are throwing all girls under a bus. In fact, if you ask girls under 18 about this, I think the vast majority would think you were mad.

I just don't agree that you're going the right way about it, and actually I think to call the viewpoint "gender critical" (not that you personally have done this) is deliberately conflating the fight against gender stereotypes with the resistance to trans ideology

Much more honest to call it "gender-identity critical

I agree with this. The concept of sex segregation other than for safety reasons is actually pretty outdated. There is no reason to have girl guides as a separate club from scouts. In many other countries, children of both sexes are free to join one single scouting organisation. Yet people on here act as if its the greatest crime in humanity. There are also many other more progressive countries e.g. in Scandinavia who do not have single sex education- again really doesn't seem to do them any harm. By separating girls and boys based on natal sex when there is no real reason to do so, you are reinforcing that there is a huge difference between the two. In your debates you also seek to hugely victimise women and girls as if they are always at constant risk. i am not sure whether all women would agree with that perception.

I think more and more toilets and changing rooms should be single cubicles which would end the stupid toilet debate. There should be exceptions in professional sport, intimate medical care and DV refuges. But the fewer categorisations we make (other than when strictly necessary), the better for everyone, to break down the perception that biology is hugely important.

And finally I think that in almost every scenario not covered in the equality act (where sex is obviously important to protect women from harm), the not knowing someone's biological sex despite knowing their gender presentation could actually be theoretically good for freeing women from sex-based oppression, but how the fuck would anybody know who the hell to oppress??

What is the relevance of somebody's gender presentation to anything? How should most people go about hiding their biological sex? Burka? Voice simulator?

You are throwing girls under the bus for a tiny number of natal males.

You may believe that, but I'm afraid you haven't convinced me.

but how the fuck would anybody know who the hell to oppress??

This should say BECAUSE how the fuck...

Much as I feel for people with dysphoria the attempts to destroy all meaningful definitions of woman is the crime of erasure.

If you are defending their right to do this, you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. You are throwing girls under the bus for a tiny number of natal males.

why are you so keen to defend the rights of natal males over natal females?

Hi Italian, hope you're well! I don't think there is a hierarchy of who should have what rights. I could respond to each of your questions, but I'll just take this one for starters...

Do you think that reinforcing old fashioned gender roles is actually in anyone's benefit?

No. I actually think my position will be better for dissolving gender stereotypes than yours.

I think rigidly sticking to sex-based pronouns reinforces the archaic notion that whether one is male or female must be super important to one's interactions in everyday society.

I think insisting that all and sundry must know the sex of those around them damagingly reinforces the same, and allows women to be stereotyped and discriminated against with far more ease.

And finally I think that in almost every scenario not covered in the equality act (where sex is obviously important to protect women from harm), the not knowing someone's biological sex despite knowing their gender presentation could actually be theoretically good for freeing women from sex-based oppression, but how the fuck would anybody know who the hell to oppress??

So there we go. In fact I really hate that the anti-self-Id, anti-GRA, anti-gender-identity or anti-whatever-else group of feminists have bagsied the term "gender critical" as if they're the only feminists in the world who reject gender stereotypes.

I was brought up rejecting gender stereotypes, and I have never met a single feminist who isn't out to liberate us from them!

I just don't agree that you're going the right way about it, and actually I think to call the viewpoint "gender critical" (not that you personally have done this) is deliberately conflating the fight against gender stereotypes with the resistance to trans ideology.

Much more honest to call it "gender-identity critical".

But doesn't piggyback off the gender stereotype debate with quite the same ease.

Juzza12 I didn't give stats on post-op people. GIRES estimated that 1% of the UK population is trans, of that number so far they say 30,000 have sought medical help (that's top of page 2)

And from the GRC stats we know there's just under 5000 who got one. Originally, you had to be post-op or soon to be post-op to get a GRC. There's also stats on genital surgeries which show about 1000 per decade, but I have no idea whereabouts those are.

Italiangreyhound this is it, isn't it? If no one believed it, we wouldn't have to have half the discussions around the issue. And even while making that statement Peakpants muddies the water by saying what makes a woman is not just based on biology. That's precisely what TW=W is based on.

RatRolyPoly what you're saying wouldn't even be true if we were asking people whether French food is better than American or whether football is better than rugby. You make it sound like you don't meet any people who know their own minds. People have their own opinions, you know, even if they don't know anything about the subtleties of the law or what medically transitioning means in practice.

I am confident because we aren't debating an inconsequential matter of individual preference. TW=W contradicts a fundamental reality of life. We are dimorphic mammals - animals who do not change sex. Anything else is secondary to that.

You might have had a little more luck prior to the redefinition of trans. Now that the overwhelming majority of TW are non-gender dysphoric, non-med, non-op individuals with no apparent desire to see a doctor and transition medically, TW=W makes even less sense in the eyes of people.

"...because no rational person believes that transwomen are biologically the same as women."

"Of course not. I never said they are. I've never heard anyone say that"

Actually, what some trans women argue is that there is no such thing as female biology. Then they start talking about intersex and how you can't be sure if anything. If women had known in 2004 that this crap was coming then there would have been a massive push against allowing biological males to appropriate being 'female' in law.

I love long winded and technical!

The right to privacy doesn't seem straightforward - there are a lot of arguments about data at the moment, and it seems that the circumstances in which you would enjoy a right to privacy can change depending on current legislation.

Doesn't that mean that while the concept of a right to privacy remains, laws can be changed as circumstances change?

Oh thank you both

I note btw that there still hasn't been an answer from the OP to the question of how anything from the ECtHR, Council of Europe etc supports the notion that transwomen are actually women - only that they should be allowed to change their legal sex.