Letter in The Guardian from Transexuals saying self ID not the answer

I'll answer you again if you like? No - not in terms of chromosomes. But yes in terms of hormones, some biochemical aspects, some physiological aspects, legal status and sometimes in day to day perceptio

That’s not answering the question. It’s saying the thing ‘changing’ is taking on some superficial physical aspects of the other thing. The superficial appearance does not change the actual classification of the thing.

It’s like asking do you believe a fish can change into a monkey and saying ‘well you could put a fish in a bowl in a tree...’

It’s a yes or no answer - can humans change sex? Not gender, not appearance, not legal designator, not ‘being polite and naming however a person wants to’ - actually changing sex, so that a male becomes a female. can that happen?

Because you clearly don’t believe it, but will tie yourself in knots to avoid saying so.

Sage words babelfish

flowersonthepiano In general terms I don't have a problem with men here, be it TIM's or biological men, especially if they want to learn about feminist issues. For example, if a man comes here, reads the threads then wants to join in/ask questions about what they've read, that's fine. What I really do hate is men coming here and telling women how to do feminism.

Can you name those respects?

I've had a go ^

Why don't they fuck off to some other site? Is the thought that springs to mind

Because as in life, they don’t want to risk picking on another male, or males. Women are a safer target. Same old, same old.

It would be like me saying ‘yes I believe in fish and monkeys, and I believe that we can have monkeys with gills.’

Don't think that works as an analogy - fish and monkeys are not 2 categories of one species. A fish can't be a monkey. But a human can be male or female. Or intersex in some cases. (ie where sex isn't clear, not '3rd sex').

it’s no longer legally necessary and it was never scientifically correct. The GRA was always a legal fudge.

It's still necessary because people are entitled to get married as their acquired sex. There will also be times people need a corrected birth certificate to protect their privacy.

Anyway I’ll ask again, and I’m sure I’ll be ignored again do you believe that humans can literally change sex?

I'll answer you again if you like? No - not in terms of chromosomes. But yes in terms of hormones, some biochemical aspects, some physiological aspects, legal status and sometimes in day to day perception.

Whittle thread here. I found it very informative.

I hate it when males come on here throwing their weight around and feeling entitled to police the conversation with no respect for the culture, the women or the feminism of the FWR board that they've decided to squat in.

Why don't they fuck off to some other site? Is the thought that springs to mind.

W is dangerous because they aim to do away with society's sex-based system and move towards a gender-based system. As there appear to be almost as many possible gender identities as there are individuals, the logical extension is the complete abolition of sex-based segregation, which is dangerous for women.

Bloody-minded.

PencilsInSpace So much more eloquent than I could have put it, this is in the main my view.

Yes, I have had a strong opinion on this thread, not so much at the letter, I've already said the TS who wrote it have a right to fight for their own rights. My argument is people who come here for not always genuine reasons. No-one should be stopped from posting here, but no-one who does post here should not expect to be called out for bad behaviour. It seems my calling out of two posters for that reason is not popular with some - tough!

I agree pencils I don't think 'thank you' but I do think 'good for you' because we are united by a common enemy.

Their letter makes me hopeful that there might be a way through this where we can all have rights which don't impinge on one-another. I'm not sure how, but at least we have a grounding to start to work it out now.

"In many respects yesBarmer."

Can you name those respects?
Because breast growth isn't exclusively female.
And oestrogen levels aren't exclusively female.
And lack of testosterone isn't exclusively female.

These are human characteristics that mean very little in isolation.
Altering one aspect makes no difference to the whole. This is why you never hear feminists arguing that a hysterectomy makes a woman less of a woman. Or being 6 feet 4 makes you a bit male. That straw man argument belongs to the TRAS.

Sorry why is W dangerous?

We share Sandland’s (2005) view that as we can now have men with vaginas and women with penises, the act does undermine the binary of two morphologically distinct sexes."

But this is a totally contradictory statement. He states he believes in two distinct sexes then states that members of one can have a physical feature ONLY associated with another. It would be like me saying ‘yes I believe in fish and monkeys, and I believe that we can have monkeys with gills.’

He’s talking of course about the legal relabelling of someone who has a GRC. This was done because at the time you couldn’t have same sex marriage - it’s no longer legally necessary and it was never scientifically correct. The GRA was always a legal fudge.

Anyway I’ll ask again, and I’m sure I’ll be ignored again do you believe that humans can literally change sex?

Eloquent my arse

I have very good reasons for not offering thanks but instead saying well done, I'm pleased to see this letter, and admiring the bravery of the signatories.

The TRAs have, for a long while now, been framing the gender critical trans voices speaking in support of WPUK as 'oh look - the TERFs have wheeled out a tame tru again'. That weakens the legitimacy of the trans voices and makes it look like we are simply using them to lend legitimacy to our campaign.

I spent a couple of days nosing round the #TSRaincrew tag when it was first launched. It was eye opening. There are quite a lot of TS people who want out of the umbrella, who oppose self-ID but who disagree with GC feminists on pretty much everything else. Uterati has described this well.

It's not simply a case of not wanting to align myself with their views, it's also not wanting to appear to co-opt this campaign as part of feminism because that risks the campaign losing the backing of lots of TS people who will not want to be associated with us.

When nosing round the hashtag I saw feminists trying to dictate how TS people described themselves in their own campaign. It didn't go down well.

We are two different groups with radically different world views, who coincidentally have found a few common aims. We could spend the rest of eternity debating whether they are allowed to call themselves women or we are allowed to say TIM. Or we could allow a bit of healthy distance so there can be a strong, uncompromised feminist campaign and a strong, uncompromised TS campaign. We won't agree on much but where we do, we can lend support to each other while acknowledging our differences. A bit like Hands Across the Aisle.

To express gratitude risks giving the appearance that this letter was written in support of feminists. I think it's important that the letter is not seen in that light but instead is seen as TS campaigning on their own behalf.

None of this means I think it's a bad thing that TS people speak at WPUK meetings, or that there are not individual TS who have much more in common with GC feminism. These really are a tiny group though and for a TS campaign to be successful they will need the support of lots of anti-self-ID TS who want nothing to do with us and with whom we have almost no common aims.

So once again, well done, I think you are extremely brave and I wish you success. But not thank you.

Whittle is dangerous

Yes we are a binary species, in terms of chromosomes Orchid

But as Stephen Whittle puts it a lot more eloquently than me in his article (not sure where I stand with the penis/ vagina bit but it makes the point about binaryism):

"The Gender Recognition Act enables legal ‘sex changes’ - what legally constitutes male and female has changed. We share Sandland’s (2005) view that as we can now have men with vaginas and women with penises, the act does undermine the binary of two morphologically distinct sexes."

GRA certification is a legal fiction.
It means people can legally change their sex on some of their official paperwork. Not all of it, I think, not their birth certificate.

They haven’t literally changed sex because that would require magic.
To my mind this is part of a spectrum of being gender non conforming which most people will sit on, but I am happy to use (some of the) labels or descriptors or pronouns for how people wish to present, on a basis of mutual respect.

Sex dysphoria is real.

It doesn't mean you are the opposite sex, or can change sex. It means you have sex dysphoria.

But another message that the letter conveys is that transsexualism is a real and valid thing

It is, to the people concerned.

I don't understand or have a religious belief but accept that others do, to the point that for some of my friends it defines their every waking moment.

I accept, I think, that this is the case for many transsexual people. They cannot live as their birth sex in the same way that my evangelical friends could not live an atheist life.

I draw the line at having to pretend that it means the same to me and that I share their religion. I think 'gender atheism' should be an accepted viewpoint.

I don't believe transsexuals become female, but was OK with the old status quo. I was thinking about this when I was walking my dogs. There's a lovely meadow near where I live that I like to walk in. It's privately owned, but we've walked there for years and nobody complained. I guess (but am not sure) the owners knew some people walk there and didn't seem to care as there was free access without any barriers. Recently teens with bikes have decided it would be a good spot for dirt biking. This has clearly pissed the owners off and they have put up metal gates across the entrances with padlocks, which they have every right to. Bit of a shaky analogy I guess, but it strikes me as similar to the situation we find ourselves in (women = landowners, transsexuals = me and my dogs actually trespassing but not pissing anyone off (much), dirt bikers = TRA genderists). I find some of the hard line posters on here harsh, but appreciate that theirs is the logical extension of my position. I would hope there is a way to get back to how things were. Gender dysphoria clearly is a genuine condition and I would like to be accommodating to people with that condition, as far as that doesn't impinge on sex-based protections. I worry a lot about the changes to language and feel we need to be firm, without being wilfully unpleasant.

How can you be partly a female @SupermatchGame? We are a binary species

Yes and there have been laws in the past denying full legal sex to transitioned people, in comparison to non trans people

Do you believe that humans can literally change sex?

I keep asking this. No one answers.