JK Rowling article

Adding things or removing things to a person's body does not change their species or their sex.

Quite. I wonder whether, as a logical exercise, we could start with whether Elaine agrees that dogs and rabbits are different things, and if so how she tells the difference.

Also for the patient, painstaking, intelligent posters taking the time to dissect this nonsense on stilts. Noticed Helleofabore particularly but she's by no means the only one.

For many intents and purposes, trans women who are undergoing/have undergone a medical transition are in many ways biological women (although not all). So the phrase biological woman carries some ambiguity (I think it's transphobic too, as it suggests there is a correct biology to be a woman, imagine if I suggested that only fertile women were biological women for example)

What 'intents and purposes'? There is a 'correct biology' to be a woman, and it doesn't require being fertile, in the same sense that there is 'correct biology' to be a human being, which is not negated by, for example, being born with one arm, or 6 toes on each foot, or losing a limb in an accident, or indeed having a cat's tail and ears surgically attached to you - even though humans generally have two legs, two arms, 10 toes and no furry tail or pointy ears. Adding things or removing things to a person's body does not change their species or their sex.

I suspect that trans women are better for triggering people's disgust reaction, "I can understand a trans man wanting to gain in privilege, but why would a trans woman want to give up her male privilege".

This is what happens when you base your argument on unsound foundations. Women are not disgusted at transwomen. They are concerned about safeguards for women and children. They are concerned about the erosion of their safety and rights.
Males identifying as women destroy those safeguards. And transwomen don't give up their male privilege by identifying as women. Far from it. They increase their male privilege. At the expense of women and children.

If we could have just one example then we would know what you are talking about @ElaineFuchs

Until then you are just laying down more and more gibberish.

Elaine Fuchs , I asked you upthread if you had any reason for thinking you had to take trans people at their word concerning how they describe themselves.

Do you have any reason(s) for this?

-- I note you have since returned to the thread. I wonder how you feel a lack of reasons for assertions such as yours here impacts on the 'quality of discourse' you have been at pains to denigrate?

But it also makes a total hash of many other things, such as health and sexuality education.

One 'inclusive' article on contraception was clearly written for female people (it mentions oral contraceptives almost right away), but because biological sex cannot be mentioned, a reader with a penis might have been led to believe that there are easily available oral male contraceptives.

It also gave the risks of pregnancy when a condom breaks without specifying if the sex with the condom was between two biologically female people, two biologically male people, or two people of different biological sexes, so the risks given were incorrectly specified. They could have been assumed to apply to two gay men having protected sex, say, and the only reason that misreading could not happen is that we still know the underlying facts.

If you want to DM me, I'm also happy to discuss things less publicly.

This is from a poster who has name called others on this thread. Now asking for people to 'DM' them. This is a very dangerous thing to do. Reader's please beware.

Not only that. But the invitation to discuss things less publicly, is because they are not able to coherently articulate any compelling posts on this thread.

And has totally ignored posters calling out their lack of ethics regarding human foetuses and animals.

Elaine Fuchs, we are talking at cross-purposes and have very different goals. You wish the total category, even globally, of 'women' to refer to nothing but pure inner identities, even if very few people actually possess such abstract identities not based on the sex of their bodies, and even if the approach results in us returning to strict gender roles and sexist stereotypes (because that is all we can use to define 'women' and 'men' if biological bodies are not allowed as the basis for definitions.)

I wish to fight against sex-based oppression, and to retain our gender identities which are based on lived experience with a female body in a world which treats those having that body differently from those who have the biologically male body. The two paths do not intersect.

Your approach will not allow feminism to improve the lot of biologically female people. I would love to be more inclusive, but as the gender ideology has not offered a separate set of names for gender identities but simply appropriated the biological labels, this is clearly not feasible.

Thank you for the debate.

Like it or not, we do live in a society with gender, and trans people do do better when they interact with society as their correct gender.

Can you say more about what you mean by 'trans people do do better when they interact with society as their correct gender'? What sort of interactions are you thinking of here? Can you give some examples?

"And I am extremely worried about the erasure of terms we can use to explain why girls over twelve still cannot go to school in Afghanistan."

It's still possible to say "girls in Afghanistan suffer hugely from an authoratian patriarchal regime."

This is interesting. We can say girls in Afghanistan are oppressed (how gracious!) But apparently we aren't allowed to talk about the specifics of how they are oppressed. We just have to gesticulate vaguely in the direction of generalised oppression because otherwise we'd be excluding girls with penises in Afghanistan from the conversation.

I have never seen anyone so decisively prove the point they are trying to argue against.

And that poster can fuck off with their attempts to silence women.

Be careful out there posters, lurkers, friends.

Agree here, the quality of discourse (especially here) is dire.

I'm laughing at this gem from the poster who has posted the most ridiculous nonsense I have ever read.

Posters, lurkers, friends.

I would exercise extreme caution when invited to dm someone.

Remember this board is heavily monitored, and there are people out there who are keen to dox & harass women. Consider very carefully before sharing any details at all that may be identifying. Some of our visitors are sadly not in good faith.

I of course suffer from the systemic factors I mentioned also.

Not sure why you take exception to the fact that as a woman I express that?

Furthermore, I don't think any discrimination or misogyny has been because of my biology more than it has been because I am and express myself as a woman. People who discriminate don't know my chromosomes, or genitals, or what's written on my birth certificate.

What a load of rubbish! Next you'll be saying that only a biologist can tell you're a woman.

" express myself as a woman" ? Give us a break.!!!

@nepeta

Thanks for your response.

This article puts it to words better than I was able to lysistrata327.substack.com/p/reflections-on-the-gender-debate-8d2?s=r

Some specific points

"My beef is with the fact that all names for the female biological sex are being erased"

I don't think this is really such a departure from where we are today, the group of people you consider "biological women" already includes people with no breasts, infertile people, people with every mix of chromosomes.

"And I am extremely worried about the erasure of terms we can use to explain why girls over twelve still cannot go to school in Afghanistan."

It's still possible to say "girls in Afghanistan suffer hugely from an authoratian patriarchal regime."

"If the two biological sexes indeed were truly equally treated, then it wouldn't matter what identity people pick for themselves."

Looking forward to the day!

"and, in theory, man, though in practice very few are re-defining men"

The conversation (especially on this forum) focuses on trans women because they are easier to demonise, in the same "protect weak women and children" way as minorities have been treated through history. I suspect that trans women are better for triggering people's disgust reaction, "I can understand a trans man wanting to gain in privilege, but why would a trans woman want to give up her male privilege".

"current impossibility of even discussing them online."

Agree here, the quality of discourse (especially here) is dire. If you want to DM me, I'm also happy to discuss things less publicly.

"One of the major questions I have is how a replacement categorisation based on femininity..."

Like it or not, we do live in a society with gender, and trans people do do better when they interact with society as their correct gender. There is also the case of identity, I think cis people just don't notice it, but trans people do feel a disconnect between their gender identity and body/interactions with society.

It's a deep and interesting question. I would suggest that this forum is probably one of the worst places to examine it though.

"The exception was female reproductive rights,"

How did infertile cis women fit into your framework?

"basic idea of feminism as centrally focused on combating sex-based discrimination"

There is no reason why trans-inclusive feminism can't keep fighting for all of these causes. Furthermore, I don't think any discrimination or misogyny has been because of my biology more than it has been because I am and express myself as a woman. People who discriminate don't know my chromosomes, or genitals, or what's written on my birth certificate. Having said that, there definitely does exist systemic oppression which harms lots of women because of their biology. For just one example, take menstruation, it's a burden which doesn't affect most men. But some women don't menstruate, nonetheless, they are still women, even though they don't suffer directly from this form of oppression. I would still consider, for example, increasing accessibility for period products as falling under the "feminism" umbrella.

I find all this talk about the misogyny, sexism and reproduction oppression that transwomen and cis women suffer excludes me as i am not cis or trans

I’m not finding it inclusive at all….women like me are being sidelined and ignored by posters like elaine

For many intents and purposes, two men who are putting on or who have put on a horse costume are in many ways a biological horse (although not all).

Elaine Fuchs:

... I think we have to take trans people at their word here, I believe who they say they are ...

This looks like a particular crux. (I take it you mean, 'believe that they are who they say they are'.)

Why could a trans person not be mistaken about who they say they are?

Of course, If I say I do not feel so-and-so, and I am sincere, it must be true that I do not feel so. Likewise if I say I am attracted to certain people, I must be so attracted. I know how I feel, we might say.

However, suppose I tell you I sincerely feel that I am a reincarnation of Elvis. Whilst it must be true that I do so feel, it would not be sensible to conclude, the further point, that I am indeed Elvis reincarnated. I could be mistaken about that even though I cannot be mistaken about how I feel.

In the light of this, it does seem we might question someone's sincere belief that he has changed sex. Whilst a transwoman may sincerely feel he is a woman, he could still be mistaken, not about how he feels, but about whether he is, in fact, a woman.

It seems to me, Elaine Fuchs , you just make a mistake in thinking a trans person must be who they say they are. It seems we have every reason to doubt a trans person's claim to be who they say they are, just as we do in the case of Elvis' reincarnation.

Do you see? Am I missing something here?

So post menopausal we are now men? Will I get prostate cancer? Will I be paid more now?

How do you explain that infertile cis women suffer from reproduction based oppression but trans women don't just as much?

Quite a few of these transwomen are fertile men who have fathered children. Show me a single infertile woman who has done the same

A man with cock and balls (even if removed) is not a woman without a uterus even though he doesn't have a uterus either.

For many intents and purposes, trans women who are undergoing/have undergone a medical transition are in many ways biological women (although not all). So the phrase biological woman carries some ambiguity (I think it's transphobic too, as it suggests there is a correct biology to be a woman, imagine if I suggested that only fertile women were biological women for example)

Do please explain with peer reviewed evidence how a biological male becomes a biological female when undergoing transition, otherwise I shall file it under more ridiculous nonsense.

Elaine Fuchs

Overall, and I think this is the main point though, you underestimate the degree of shared misogyny that trans women and cis women share. You do accept that trans women can experience sexism and misogyny, but they are still unwelcome, what degree of misogyny does a trans woman have to face before she is allowed the title of woman? Do all cis women exceed this?

I never wrote that trans women are unwelcome or are not allowed to have the title of woman in most social contexts. More about that further down. But first:

My beef is with the fact that all names for the female biological sex are being erased, while the MRAs and incels and so on attack the female biological sex directly and while the evolutionary psychology justifications for the subjugation of women are based on that concept. And I am extremely worried about the erasure of terms we can use to explain why girls over twelve still cannot go to school in Afghanistan.

If the two biological sexes indeed were truly equally treated, then it wouldn't matter what identity people pick for themselves.

But that is NOT the case, and the new gender ideology makes it extremely hard, if not impossible, to continue the work that is needed. Those who try to do that are accused of transphobia or at least of not being inclusive. Inclusiveness here actually means erasing the identities of every single woman (and, in theory, man, though in practice very few are re-defining men which in itself suggests the sexist aspect to the new way of thinking) when that identity is directly based on biological sex. This is not allowed.

I also have problems with the many theoretical contradictions within the gender identity concept and the current impossibility of even discussing them online.

One of the major questions I have is how a replacement categorisation based on femininity rather than on female biological sex can ever result in equality of the new genders, given that femininity seems to mean being passive, submissive, emotional and nurturing, while masculinity seems to mean being active, dominant, rational and competitive. Those are all adjectives that have been used to justify women's lower placement in societies.

Ten years ago I created a framework (just for myself) for including trans women in feminist work. That was based on the idea that if they present as women in all aspects of their lives, then they are going to face the same mistreatment as most women do, and so much of feminism is directly applicable to them. The exception was female reproductive rights, but at that time I was incredibly naive and assumed that trans people have surgeries which would make this question moot.

From the same angle, trans men would be grouped with men as they would partly share in what some call male privilege. Once again, I assumed that reproduction would not be a relevant question here.

I was incredibly naive, as I noted, and the advent of the nonbinary category caused the whole framework to collapse as nobody knows how others see them and so how others would treat them. Mostly, I suspect, nonbinary people looking female to others would be treated with the same sexism etc. as women experience, while nonbinary people looking like male would benefit from that the way men do.

But where I was truly naive was in assuming that the basic idea of feminism as centrally focused on combating sex-based discrimination was not going to be challenged. In my original framework trans men where treated like biological men and trans women like biological women, and that was the way they were slotted into my system. I had no idea that the demands were for the definition of 'woman' to be completely dismantled and biological sex removed from it!

Once you do that, then fighting sex-based oppression becomes almost impossible, only doable by pretending that each example is a completely separate problem: Pregnant people, menstruators, birthers, and people experiencing menopause actually largely are the same people, but now they would be treated as separate groups.

And once you do that, you certainly erase my 'identity' as a woman which is embodied and based on what it is like to live with a female body.

As an aside, I doubt that 'identity' is the correct term here, as I possess no abstract gender identity. So I don't identify as a woman in some female-soul sense, but I certainly identify with other women when it comes to reproductive rights and experiences of sex discrimination, sexual violence, and general contempt towards female-bodied people so many on this planet demonstrate.

But good analogy. Send it to Alex!

Thinking back to Alex Sharpe's Animal Farm thing (shudder),

Let's not