Can TWAW be compared to being "colour blind"

Especially as it is true that you need to acknowledge differences to be truly intersectional and deal with discrimination.

Yes. And of course being trans intersects with feminism - that's where trans men are. Feminism is about all females regardless of their personal identities.

I do agree with OP that this is an effective argument to make. I think many people who think of themselves as 'woke' would be more likely to pause for thought if asked whether their understanding of intersectionality includes a recognition of having female reproductive biology as an axis of oppression? And if so, isn't it problematic that women who face oppression both for being women and for having female reproductive biology (I know, I know...) are silenced and shamed as bigots if they raise concerns about sharing space with or competing physically against those who have male reproductive biology?

To say
TWAW but only sometimes. Sometimes they are not
Means TWAW is false. It's a lie. So it opens up a whole shitshow of problems. This is what's happening right now in our legal and cultural systems.

GC women are not all man hating get out of the same room as me in all situations women. These women don't actually exist. The people who do exist who are shaping policy and influencing schools and government policy are those who believe TWAW in every circumstance and our male biology is in fact female. I can name at least 5 immediately. LM SF JF PL AC.

Mostly to Rat but generally aimed if you have never heared these ppl talking about women and trans issues you really really need to listen to them.

ABitCrapper I think you're right. How about;

'Its not nuanced enough. Its not intersectional, and doesn't eliminate discrimination''.

Please bare with me on this as I'm not sociologically educated, or as academic or literate as lots of you on here.

I have a PhD in STEM (Biochemistry) and I am telling you, this postmodernist gender shite is totally over my head. I frankly doubt the problem here is my or your lack of education or intellect.

So could TWAW be seen as a meaning-well but ultimately unhelpful message to profess.

Initially, there might have been some truth to it, but at this point anyone who wants to understand does understand there are differences in socialization and - who would have thought - biology. And in fact a number of outspoken transpeople, particularly transsexuals, are allies of women and are 'on record', getting it.
Others, however, are too caught up in their narcissism and mysogyny to concede the obvious. They want 100% validation. And not just as 'equal' but as 'the better women'. The comments on how they are more 'woman' you and me because of their pornified outfits and bodies are legion (I haven't seen the analogue in transmen. Maybe there is, but I bet it is very rare.)

I don't think we can ever have common ground or dialogue with that type of transpeople, unless women accept being subordinated. (Which surprisingly many, even within the elite, apparently do.).

Rat - your position is fairly close to mine, I think.
In most social circumstances, I would treat trans women as women. I'm no more worried about being assaulted than I am around anyone else. There's some occasions when I think risk assessments are required - we've seen today the consequences of not doing that, headlines about trans rapists in a women's prison don't help the majority of trans people who just want to get on with their lives.

Problem comes when I'm not allowed to organise around things which only affect people born with female bodies as women's issues. I've literally been told, repeatedly, that abortion isn't a women's issue, when it seems obvious to me that it's about the place of women in society.

I can't organise groups around the shared realities and linked oppression of being born into and living in a female body. My life would have been very different had I been born with a penis, I want to talk to other people who share these experiences, and I can't. I'm not even allowed 'no cis men' as the basis for a meeting. Seriously.

I'm not allowed to talk about my own experiences of gender identity. I was born into a female body, which leads people to treat me as a girl or woman. I identify as a woman on the basis of a lifelong history of facing shared systematic oppression, which has shaped me in significant ways. I genuinely don't have an internal sense of gender identity. I've been disbelieved and told that it's transphobic even to say this, over and over again, by so many TRAs, but it is genuinely my internal sense of self.

The term 'woman' has a particular meaning that I need to talk about my own lived experience. I don't object to trans women talking about their experiences as trans women, or as currently living in a social role as women. But I need a word for people like me, and I keep being told that I can't have 'woman' any more. I'm being constantly redefined as 'menstruator' or 'cervix haver'.

I've spent most of my adult life around some of the extreme TRAs who are discussed on here. The moment I started to get uncomfortable was when I wasn't allowed to use the term 'female' or 'female-bodied'. Yes, biological sex is complicated, but almost everyone ends up with a body which is clearly either phenotypically female or male, and intersex organisations have put out statements asking TRAs to stop appropriating intersex struggles.

I want a world where people can do what they want with their bodies, without being limited by social roles. But we still need words to talk about bodies.

I grew up being told that I was a failure at being a girl or woman, and therefore failed at being human at all, because I didn't conform to shitty social norms, I loved sports and science and didn't care about my appearance. I work in an otherwise all male team, with male dominated hobbies. This doesn't mean I stop being a woman, if anything it foregrounds it, because I'm more subject to patriarchal bullshit based on shitty stereotypes of womanhood.

My body was never wrong. My body didn't need changing. My female body was not the problem. The whole concept of gender was the problem.

I need words and space to talk about this, and extreme TRAs keep telling me to shut up.

I don't want to stop other people wearing what they want, using the names and pronouns they choose. I don't want to stop them doing what they want or going where they want, except a very few circumstances which need risk assessments, like rapists in women's prisons.

I just need a bit of space and language for me, and to be able to talk about my life to people who share my experiences. That's all. But having spent most of my adult life around extreme TRAs, I'm not allowed that.

So could TWAW be seen as a meaning-well but ultimately unhelpful message to profess

I think people who say TWAW can be split into lot of different groups.

I think some people say TWAW because they’re nice people and think “live and let live”. I might have said it myself years ago - long before I really put some thought into it.

Some people, handmaidens I guess, say TWAW because they want everyone to know how clever and woke and morally superior they are - a badge of honour, like you say. I know a lot of these and have lost friendships over it.

Then you have the straight male misogynists who say it aggressively because they hate women: especially women with opinions and women who want their spaces to remain free of males.

And so on...

The GRA has exclusions and the EA has exceptions. Disingenuous argument, the EA probably won't interact with the revised GRA in the way you think it will. The current GRA is restrictive in that it was intended for 5000 post op transsexuals but already organisations are neglecting their duties under the EA. Expanding the number of people from 5000 to half a million isn't going to make that situation better for women is it?
They are subject to the same discrimination when they are taken for natal women. I'd argue they are more likely to face homophobic abuse instead of being discriminated against for being women, as most don't pass in real life.
They are physically disadvantaged compared to men in terms of hormones and muscle mass. This is a: not proven, b: irrelevant because many trans women aren't even on hormones and c: doubly irrelevant because what we are concerned about is trans women relative to women and girls, not relative to men. And a trans woman on estrogen is still on average much bigger and stronger than the average woman or girl, and appears to retain male levels of violent criminality.

I can't agree with your position, Rat. Its not ok to say 'I can't see colour', and assume that BAME people know you secretly mean 'except when it really matters'.

I don't think 'TWAW' is a sensible position or statement, and its being misused by misogynists to have a go at women. Its not just random nutters on Twitter.

'TWAW (except when sex matters)' is neither one thing or the other. As an attempt to placate both sides it wont work.

Perhaps I misread your tone Noodle, my apologies.

I've heard of nutters on Twitter (I don't use it myself) but that's what the internet's like these days. You'll get nutters everywhere.

The actual thing in law that is being proposed and a lot of the things I argue for on here are not as extreme as those views. The GRA has exclusions and the EA has exceptions. The things I argue for are not to not see sex at all (i.e. the same as being completely colour blind), but to take only what steps are proportionate and necessary to limit harm to women and girls whilst including trans women where possible.

Because in a good many ways trans women are the same as women. They are subject to the same discrimination when they are taken for natal women. They are physically disadvantaged compared to men in terms of hormones and muscle mass. These are just examples.

Believe me, my impression of the extremity of some GC views comes entirely from trying to argue that, and being told that only classing TW entirely, always, in every circumstance as just like men is the only way to think. And that the only answer is blanket exclusion. And that's not my position.

But anyway, not to derail. Probably not the thread to start arguing the toss on each situation, just saying that I think any position that says the only answer is unilateral exclusion and TW=M is, to me, extreme. I appreciate you might disagree.

ABitCrapper so the premise is that TWAW doesn't address the needs of trans women? I get where you're coming from and in theory it would work, but all it will take is for trans women to deny that they have different needs, and to say that they're quite happy being lumped in with women, for that argument to fall down.
Going on what I've seen so far, the trans women who would agree would be the ones who agree with us already, and they're being ignored as much as we are.

"To be honest I sort of meant both of the things I'd written were wildly extreme positions unlikely to be held by many, if ANY one at all!"

I mean this sincerely Rat and am not picking a fight. If you really believe that the 'TWAW, no differences, no exceptions, no debate' position is wildly extreme and unlikely to be held by anyone at all, you must have done very, very little reading or listening to the ideology GC feminists are pushing back on. That is exactly the position that many, many people are coming from! It is the only poaition you can hold without being labelled a 'terf'.

Maybe the strength of feeling among GC feminists has seemed extreme or unreasonable to you, simply because you haven't previously understood what an extreme and unreasonable position they are opposing.

Well you language was somewhat inflammatory, no? Shamelessly misleading false-equivalence? Oh fine, whatever.

Is disagreeing with you "picking a fight"? More hyperbole.

Such shamelessly misleading false equivalency, Rat.

Oh God, I come here to agree with someone for once and you still pick a fight with me!

...is pretty much the central tenant and non-negotiable doctrine of TRA activism

I'l have to take your word for it. I've never met a TRA. And it's not my trans-inclusive position, so it's clearly not the only position that comes in for some stick around here.

but which doesn't actually reflect the position of any GC feminist

To be honest I sort of meant both of the things I'd written were wildly extreme positions unlikely to be held by many, if ANY one at all! So you can't exactly tell me off for it seeming ridiculous.

So much for finding common ground.

Transwomen are more likely to be colour blind than biological women (though I don't think this is the point you were making)

Such shamelessly misleading false equivalency, Rat.

"there is no difference between a trans woman and a natal woman AT ALL, EVER, how very dare you!"

...is pretty much the central tenant and non-negotiable doctrine of TRA activism, and we have seen many women rounded on for not toeing that exact line, notably Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Jenni Murray.

"a Y chromosome means you cannot be in the same ROOM as me because you're probably a violent fetishist!"

... is a hyperbolic made-up position (reductio ad ridiculum) that you'd like to ascribe to GC feminists to make their concerns seem silly, but which doesn't actually reflect the position of any GC feminist. Unless, of course, the 'room' you refer to is a women's or girls' locker room, or a girl's bedroom on a school residential, or a cell in women's prison, or a bedroom in a women's refuge, or a single sex hospital ward.

Ha! I'm really not But I really do think most people in this debate are somewhere on the sliding scale from "there is no difference between a trans woman and a natal woman AT ALL, EVER, how very dare you!" and "a Y chromosome means you cannot be in the same ROOM as me because you're probably a violent fetishist!", rather than at either extreme

The problem is that TWAW isn't factually true unless you change the current dictionary meaning of woman/man. There have been many threads asking what a new definition should be but no clear answer given.

An equivalent would be to say black people are really white people, when they aren't and they wouldn't want to be described as such. That doesn't mean they shouldnt be treated fairly in society and not experience discrimination though.

Wow Rat you sound almost gender critical there.

Oh don't worry ABit, I'm used to being disagreed with

I just like it when I read an OP in here that might actually foster some common ground; love having the chance to half-agree on something every now and then!

But separate the access argument out and just address the TWAW statement. By spinning it as well meaning but now a bit passe and we don't think like that anymore, you can out-woke the woke. Iyswim. Make the access a different battle.

some recent events (documented on fwr) have totally convinced me that for some activists this astroturf (opposite of grass roots) movement does indeed have sinister aims. however your point is about addressing TWAW with ordinary civillians and i quite like your idea actually. as a relatively recently reformed woke person i think that could be a conversation opener at the very least. i think people need to be allowed to feel their own doubts rather than have somebody's entire thinking shoved down their throats.