Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Trans women are women answers to Terfmore's questions

881 replies

SupermatchGame · 25/04/2018 20:33

Terfmore. I don't want to override the ASD discussion that's developed...
but SupermacthGame: you gave your explanation why "trans women are women". I was hoping for a coherent argument.
Could you respond to my request that you clarify your position; I found it difficult to understand tbh I found it incoherent.
You could start a new thread if you like.

Ok, as you suggest:

upthread you say -
"Trans women are women because 'woman' (or female) is not only a legal designation but having a gender identity of 'woman' is a legitimate female gender identity with some basis in biology and physiology. No-one said this is an exact science. It's pragmatic." -
Could you break this down -

1. what do you mean "woman" is a legal designation? what law are you referring to? do you mean "adult human female"?

I mean the category ‘female’ not only has a biological definition, but it is also a legal category that can be conferred to a person following GRC. I’m using ‘woman’ and ‘female’ interchangeably here. Eg as specified in the Royal College of Psychiatrist’s Guidance on gender dysphoria:
"Once a Gender Regulation [sic] Certificate has been issued, the applicant must, in accordance with the provisions of that certificate, be identified as a man or a woman and not a ‘trans man’ or ‘trans woman’. "

Quoting the Gender Recognition Act 2004:
"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)." (my bold)

2. what does "gender identity of woman is a legitimate female gender identity" mean.

It means that regardless of natal sex, if a person identifies as a woman, and they have been diagnosed or confirmed as having a ‘female gender identity’ then to all intents and purposes they are classed as having a female gender identity that legitimises medical and legal transition. I’m not sure taken in isolation this clause makes much sense because it is part of a larger sentence.

3. in what way is an identity legitimate (and presumably there will be non or illegitimate identity?)

Legitimate as in confirmed by psychiatrists and/ or psychologists. As in a (cross sex) gender identity that is not caused by some co-morbidity or underlying pathology. (Not caused by anything other than GID/ or 'transgenderism'). An identity that can then be further legitimised by changing legal status.

4. do you mean identity "has some basis in biology and physiology"? what do you mean by identity? (it means different things to different people).

I mean gender identity (the sex with which an individual identifies with or feels they are) has genetic, biological, environmental and societal causes. (Although you could say that about most aspects of identity - using the biopsychosocial model). What evidence there is points to this. I’ve highlighted a lot of it on the other thread. I was abbreviating my language and focusing on the non environmental causes - by biology I meant genes and biochemistry including hormonal influences. By physiology I meant the physiology of the brain as in brain structure. Is There Something Unique about the Transgender Brain? www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

5. What is "pragmatic"? I think you are referring to "trans women are women" not being exact but we just have to live with it. but I may have that wrong?

Not 100% perfect solution. No-one has yet found a way to ‘cure’ transsexualism. Treatment alleviates dysphoria. In many cases it supports the person to lead a happier life in which they can function better psychologically, emotionally, socially and occupationally. Sometimes also in terms of sexual relationships. It’s not a perfect transition - trans women do not acquire wombs, trans men do not have real testicles (not that they all want to?) Not all trans people can resemble their new sex as much as they would ideally like. But it can be good enough. It can support improved health outcomes for some individuals. It is also a solution that most of society (and it’s main organisations) seems to accept. Hence pragmatic, not perfect, solution.

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 27/04/2018 17:31

I agree teacup, sex is nothing to do with gender identity.

I'm just pointing out that the GRA doesn't actually help trans people because it does nothing to fight discrimination. It just allows people to hide there natal sex. I personally don't think being trans is anything to be ashamed of or something to have to hide.

Teacuphiccup · 27/04/2018 17:28

People who reject the gender binary still have a sexed body.

So why can’t they use the facilities that correlate with their sex?

Surely their fight is to break down the idea of gender norms in society and for it to be acceptable for people of sex to have whatever personality they like. (Hello gender critical feminism).

jellyfrizz · 27/04/2018 17:28

I dunno teacup, the same ones as the people identifying as any gender I suppose.

I personally don't see what gender identity has got to do with anything other than for that person. I think people should be treated well whatever they look like or identify as.

Teacuphiccup · 27/04/2018 17:19

What rights do people who don’t identify as any gender need that they don’t have now?

jellyfrizz · 27/04/2018 17:17

But that is just arguing for the right of some people who pass and identify with a binary gender to hide the fact that they are trans. Why should there be stigma attached to being trans? How does this help people who don't want to identify as any gender? It's accepting discrimination rather than fighting discrimination.

^^ This.

The GRA does nothing to fight trans discrimination.

MsBeaujangles · 27/04/2018 17:13

There really needs to be clear blue water between gender identity and sex

Yes and corresponding nouns when talking about categories of people so we all know what we are talking about!

merrymouse · 27/04/2018 17:12

A poorly drafted law that doesn’t think about all the consequences? I would have thought that May be Ruddy impossible!

LangCleg · 27/04/2018 17:06

Because I don't think it is neutral or ambiguous really. It can easily be read in the way Whittle described. Once that is established, then the sex exemptions in the EA are effectively nullified. Clearly separating natal sex and gender identity would allow the EA exemptions to be effective and help to prevent them being undermined in the guise of being progressively trans friendly without thinking about the sex-based implications.

Thank you. Yes. It is a poorly drafted law and therefore has unintended consequences. One only has to read the Hansard debates during passage to see that it was understood to be a stop gap to close loopholes for a tiny number of people and not to entirely reorganise society.

EqA 2010 functions as acknowledgement that rights are contested and sometimes conflict and to provide a framework for adjudicating such conflicts. It cannot function properly unless its protected categories are clearly defined and so the GRA needs to be clearly defined also.

Rat can womble on about courtesy and ambiguity in some kumbaya fantasy all she likes. It won't change the fact that this kind of woolly nonsense just makes for bad law - for everyone.

Laws are being used not as intended to benefit the trans lobby at the moment - but how will the trans lobby feel when the pendulum swings, as it always does, and laws are similarly weaponised against its interests? We all need good law.

flowersonthepiano · 27/04/2018 16:40

It's really not animosity rat, it's clarity, and seeking to reinforce sex-based protections. ...

merrymouse · 27/04/2018 16:33

But the thing is you literally can't change your natal sex in terms of legality and the documents

The problem is you can't change your actual sex either. The law might as well decide that the earth is flat.

RatRolyPoly · 27/04/2018 16:28

Ignore the words "performed" and "civic" in that last post; no idea what my phone's playing at

RatRolyPoly · 27/04/2018 16:26

It can easily be read in the way Whittle described.

Well yes, that's the ambiguity I'm talking about I suppose. Perhaps it is a courtesy. But the thing is you literally can't change your natal sex in terms of legality and the documents, because as per the above you may get a new birth certificate but you can't change the sex recorded at the registration of your birth - your natal sex , quite literally!

So whilst I see where you're coming from, I'm performed personally not civic convinced the EA will become nullified by that interpretation. Because it's not actually backed up by what happens in the legal and administrative sense. But I do get why you'd worry

merrymouse · 27/04/2018 16:26

There really needs to be clear blue water between gender identity and sex.

Completely agree.

Ereshkigal · 27/04/2018 16:24

There really needs to be clear blue water between gender identity and sex.

Ereshkigal · 27/04/2018 16:23

Why muddy the waters with unnecessary animosity when it doesn't change the outcome in the slightest?

It does. Why give legitimacy to a lie?

merrymouse · 27/04/2018 16:20

"And if the ambiguous, neutral wording is doing the practical and legal work, why open that can of worms?"

It's not doing the practical work though. It is endorsing the idea that everybody has a gender, that gender is binary, that it is necessary to group people by gender , that there is such a thing as living as a particular gender, and that gender and sex are interchangeable. It doesn't begin to approach the problems faced by people who don't want to conform to any gender expectations. It just tries to sweep the entire issue under the carpet.

Meanwhile, the effects of being born male or female are unavoidable, nobody can explain what gender is and there is a concerted effort to silence women who want to talk about the biological roots of female oppression. It is a mess.

flowersonthepiano · 27/04/2018 16:19

And if the ambiguous, neutral wording is doing the practical and legal work, why open that can of worms?

Because I don't think it is neutral or ambiguous really. It can easily be read in the way Whittle described. Once that is established, then the sex exemptions in the EA are effectively nullified. Clearly separating natal sex and gender identity would allow the EA exemptions to be effective and help to prevent them being undermined in the guise of being progressively trans friendly without thinking about the sex-based implications.

RatRolyPoly · 27/04/2018 16:18

Yes. Yes I do. You can pearl clutch about it as much as you want.

I'm not pearl-clutching about it, I can completely see why you'd want that. I just think you'd be opening a whole can of worms for the sake of achieving bugger all, in practical terms. So why bother?

I'm much more the sort to get the job done, if at all it can be. Why muddy the waters with unnecessary animosity when it doesn't change the outcome in the slightest?

Ereshkigal · 27/04/2018 16:11

You want the wording to exclude anyone from believing they have simply been recognised in their lifelong sex (or believing that they have truly changed it)

Yes. Yes I do. You can pearl clutch about it as much as you want.

Ereshkigal · 27/04/2018 16:09

then why would you want the wording to explicitly bias either belief?

Because anyone who believes you can actually change sex has a false belief. It's not "equally valid" so bias isn't an issue. This is why we should never have gone down this Orwellian road in the first place.

I agree we need more clarity, plain speaking and honesty.

Ereshkigal · 27/04/2018 16:06

Ereshkigal, re: repealing gender recognition laws vary across Europe (they don’t even exist in some countries) so I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be possible to go back and start again.

Me neither. Perhaps Peak will elaborate?

RatRolyPoly · 27/04/2018 16:03

as far as I am aware there is no independent way of checking

Well look, I agree that a degree of good faith is assumed with regards to the exceptions. And actually the practical opportunities for anyone to lie are, in my opinion, fairly slim - but I do agree they're there.

That's not to say there's no independent way of checking...

The thing about the birth certificate changes though is that one is simply issued with a new certificate. The original record in the register is not changed! And that, I hear, is centrally linked. For privacy it is not available openly but on genuine requests - such as from a police officer investigating a crime - it will be accessible.

Would you be in favour of extending that access to places like refuges, so as to facilitate the exclusions already in place under the Equality Act? I know I would. And I know I'm not the only one on this side of the fence who would.

In contrast, I would like to see a clear statement to the contrary.

Flowers but why? Why bother? If it would have the same practical effect - and surely it would - then why would you want the wording to explicitly bias either belief?

You want the wording to exclude anyone from believing they have simply been recognised in their lifelong sex (or believing that they have truly changed it), but the TRAs aren't calling for the wording to be changed to specifically say that is what's happening. And if the ambiguous, neutral wording is doing the practical and legal work, why open that can of worms? Noone wins!

merrymouse · 27/04/2018 15:33

Ereshkigal, re: repealing gender recognition laws vary across Europe (they don’t even exist in some countries) so I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be possible to go back and start again.

flowersonthepiano · 27/04/2018 15:13

Rat the problem with the current wording is that implies that the person with a GRC does change their biological sex. Indeed, Stephen Whittle wrote a paper indicating that he believes the act enshrines the notion that you can change your biological sex.

In contrast, I would like to see a clear statement to the contrary. Plus an indication that there are circumstances where it is an offence to lie about your biological sex.

AllyMcBeagle · 27/04/2018 14:59

RatRolyPoly The comment you were responding to was this.

In that case, yep, the GRA needs updating. Any updating needs to reinforce that getting a GRC does not mean you change your biological sex, and that, in some limited circumstances you will be legally obliged to reveal your natal sex.

That IS what it says!

The GRA doesn't actually say anything about being forced to disclose your natal sex and as far as I am aware there is no independent way of checking. So hypothetically you could end up in a situation where a passing transwoman works/resides in a single sex women's refuge because they have failed to disclose their biological sex. I would hope that this situation will never arise but it's bad law if there's no mechanism for checking someone's biological sex in those rare instances where the exemptions are enforced.

Also, I think the main problem with the exemptions is that they are not enforced. Everyone is too scared of being sued so it's easier just to provide services in the basis of self ID even if that's not what women want. There's no clear mechanism for women to force service providers to envoke the exemptions for the sake of their safety/dignity/privacy etc.