Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Can TWAW be compared to being "colour blind"

82 replies

ABitCrapper · 07/09/2018 12:55

Please bare with me on this as I'm not sociologically educated, or as academic or literate as lots of you on here.
But I remember a time when lots of people used to say they didn't "see colour" and explain that racism didn't really exist in our culture any more.
And now people don't say that as actually we need to recognise that BAME people experience racism, microagressions, discrimination and unconscious prejudice.

So people currently are saying TWAW, or not "seeing sex" but gender. When actually we need to acknowledge the differences in order to protect against discrimination etc. Against transwomen and women in various situations.

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

And if we take this tack, rather than a more confrontational approach (speaking for both TRAs and GC here) then there might be a better chance of meaningful dialogue.

Or am I just niaive and hopelessly optimistic?

OP posts:
RatRolyPoly · 07/09/2018 13:13

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.

Actually we do still think like that. We just don't take it as far as that.

So we try to treat everyone the same regardless of race, but at the same time accept that sometimes you have to see race in order to wipe out racism.

The opposite of that is insisting we see race all the time, and that we always factor race, even when it isn't in the least bit important!

And that's the same with this debate. There are some who would go too far towards TWAW that they can't see biological sex at all, and on the other hand there are those who insist biological sex is always considered and always the defining factor even when it is of little or no relevance at all!

Original poster
ABitCrapper · 07/09/2018 13:12

Arran I will read when I get a chance. Toddler demanding attention now!

OP posts:
Original poster
ABitCrapper · 07/09/2018 13:11

rat I agree with what you have just said. Although I dont agree with a lot of what you post I do agree with that.
Personally I think schools and hospitals and refuges and prisons shouldbe single sex loos and changingrooms. Public loos I'm less bothered by. But I know others are.

OP posts:
Original poster
ABitCrapper · 07/09/2018 13:07

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.

OP posts:
arranfan · 07/09/2018 13:06

OP, you might find some useful reading material in the Break it down for me thread.

RatRolyPoly · 07/09/2018 13:05

Actually I sort of agree with you OP.

What I would say though is that whilst I agree with you that if TWAW were a blanket, across the board, no exceptions proposal that would be exactly as unhelpful as being fully "colour blind". What I'm personally saying is that TWAW is completely fine, except in certain instances where sex really matters - as laid out in the Equality Act.

So that's the same as saying that not "seeing" race on a day to day basis is a really, really good thing, so long as you accept the times when racial factors come into play to disadvantage the BAME community; then you have to be able to see race.

Where I come to blows with folks on here is working out under which circumstances sex really matters, and what the best way is to go about managing those situations.

VickyEadie · 07/09/2018 13:00

No. TRAs want access to women's and girls' spaces, organisations, protected rights, etc.

They won't settle for anything else.