'Biological essentialism'?

It's fairly biologically essentialist to think that all women should budge up for transwomen. That position means that a very small number of transwomen's needs are superior to 51% of the population's needs.

If you actually think women have worth, there would be third spaces.

The very idea that all the women who can't share mixed sex spaces; Muslim women, Jewish women, women traumatised by VAWG, disabled women, women with heavy periods etc should bog off and not have access to public spaces so a few men with inner lady feelings can use those spaces is the most sexist thing in the world.

Sorry but your friend is a misogynist.

a blind person and a wheelchair user may have overlapping experiences of bring disabled in an ablist society and may well benefit from sharing their perspectives and joining together to increase their political clout, but they are still distinct groups with different challenges and needs.

If he struggles with this, ask him if adding braille signage to all public staircases helps wheelchair users.

Well said.

For one if GC is a "biological essentialist" view, then gender ideology is an "identity essentialist" view. But more importantly, defining something/someone in a certain way does in no way reduce them to that definition. A distinction all these people purposefully ignore. And I would rather someone be defined by object facts (sex) as opposed to nebulous, subjective feelings.

I mourn an alternative reality where feminists and genderists could explore the impact of gender constructions together, a possibility we lost when genderists went all in for the supremacy of gender over sex

Oh yes. This could have been very, very different, had the men involved not had to storm in behaving like sexist men without an ounce of generosity or reciprocity. It could have quite possibly worked very well. It's blown beyond recovery now.

There is little point in shouting 'but we're oppressed too like you' when you are yourself by far the worst and most immediate oppressor.

"'transwomen's material oppression overlaps with ciswomen'."

I think it does. Men who don't perform masculinity suffer under patriarchy precisely because they are seen as embodying the lesser valued traits patriarchy relegates to women. At the conscious, public level they are lesser valued men, while at the subconscious, private level they are threatening to men's patriarchal self-image by showing the masculinity of patriarchy is not an innate characteristic of men.

But the key word here is "overlaps". Patriarchy creates commonality between trans women and women (arguably, patriarchy creates trans women full stop). It does not follow that trans women therefore are women, not that our needs are perfectly aligned to the degree women do not need their own language, rights and voice that is separate from trans women. Trans women may suffer challenges from patriarchy but they also gain from it in ways that are closed to women, and often at the expense of women.

As an analogy, a blind person and a wheelchair user may have overlapping experiences of bring disabled in an ablist society and may well benefit from sharing their perspectives and joining together to increase their political clout, but they are still distinct groups with different challenges and needs.

I mourn an alternative reality where feminists and genderists could explore the impact of gender constructions together, a possibility we lost when genderists went all in for the supremacy of gender over sex and the appropriation of sex based experiences language and rights into gender, taking from feminists the literal ability to speak of our own reality in a language the genderists will accept.

It really does ultimately come down to belief.
OP, it sounds like he's citing words that come from the "bible" of gender identity belief, in a similar way that a Christian/Muslim etc might do if someone directly challenges tenets of their belief. Religions are completely illogical when challenged with science but they provide an explanation for the unexplainable, and therefore a sense of grounding, to those that believe in them.

Obviously your friend may not take kindly to his "faith" (in gender identity) being questioned but if he is serious about exploring it with you, maybe something like this would be of help?

Some people will dismiss it out of hand as "transphobic". Personally, if I was adamant that I was right about the idea that everyone has a gender identity, I would watch something that challenged this. I like reading and listening to things that challenge my own thinking, to help mitigate bias where I can. But obviously that's not everyone's cup of tea. I'll accept that my religious atheism is a bias in itself, but it was the above video that finally slotted everything in to place for me when I was getting my head around gender identity stuff. From there, I could build my learning further and understand why some people would feign a belief in it.

Is there any other kind?

😂though as per usual we have to be careful he's the kind of man who won't react badly to being laughed at...

Feeling childish, but just say "Your penis is a spectrum" and leave it at that.

So he’s just a wanker repeating word salad.

Biological essentialist? What does he actually think that means? What thought process demonstrates “biological essentialism” (bad) and what shows good thinking.

I would try to find the point at which your thinking diverges from his I.e. find the common ground?
Is he saying that mammals can change sex?
Is he saying- he recognizes it isn’t possible but this shouldn’t be mentioned.
Who does he think is responsible for validating transwomen’s demands - only women. Or cis-men too by dating them.

Really try to pin down his actual thoughts without judgement so that he has to write down the ludicrous notions, and you don’t have to straw man his arguments.

Quite!

Ideological authoritarianism and rigid dogma/articles of ideological faith are going to be the dominant themes going forward; and I suspect violence in defense of them too.

There will be inevitable conflicts and clashes within dogmas too - as unlikley pairings and coalitions are formed.

See the way SNP Katie Forbes was treated purely for being a Christian, whilst Humza Yousef is photographed at prayer with his male relatives, in Bute House, as if it some kind of wonderful moment.

There is an ideological battle of beliefs going on.

If you understand that gender identity is akin to a religious belief then it makes sense it comes into conflict with Christianity and Islam and Judism.

Equally 'educate yourself' then becomes evangelism. None believers are 'bigots' as they are blasphemous. No debate, is about not questioning the faith and being loyal adherents.

The idea that you can rationalise with disciples of faith is also impossible. Their mind is closed to other possibilities.

.

You could come back with:

You clearly don't understand the purpose of feminism or women's rights.

Feminism is about making sure the needs of females are appropriately met in law and medicine.

This is essential but not essentialism.

To argue it's all based on how women look (ie men can look like women) is sexist and regressive.

Ha! I have posted that article so many times on X. I think it's such a great articulation. If the Labour government are serious about "ending the culture war", IMO the most logical way to do so is to look at it this way.
Public awareness of autogynophilia will take time, but in the meantime a sensible approach would be to prevent a belief that not everyone holds having influence as "fact" in laws, education and healthcare.

I know what you mean, I now want to subscribe to the magazine, @BonfireLady they owe you commission 😁.

I think this is called having an adult conversation.😀

We used to say there were 2 topics you should avoid in polite company if you wanted it to stay polite - religion and politics.

I have this t-shirt

and have had many compliments and smiles from other women.

In Wimbledon season it would not be unreasonable to wear the purple & green of the club ...

Thank you for the link to that article, I've only read the first part and I already love the 'John the Catholic' and 'Jane the Transwoman' comparison, to illustrate the difference between an 'equality claim' and a 'belief claim'

I maintain that we can better understand the controversy if we distinguish between two sorts of claims: (1) equality claims, or claims to be free from discrimination, based on one’s transgender status, concerning the distribution of basic goods such as employment, education, and housing; and (2) belief claims, or claims that we are discriminating against those who identify as transgender to the extent that we do not accept certain beliefs promoted by trans activists as literally true, or, at the very least, that we do not act as if we accept those claims as literally true and support changes in social institutions and practices so that they accord with those claims.

That's only the 2nd paragraph, and I'm already jealous of the clarity of thought and structured expression!

Going back to read the rest of it now...

Biological essentialist argument: men are masculine and women are feminine by nature and this determines their social roles in life.

Feminist rejection of biological essentialism: men and women have different bodies, but can fulfill any social role they like. Sex based stereotypes (gender) are socially constructed and should not be used to constrain people within neat masculine/feminine boxes.

His argument: men who aren't masculine must be women.

A sad story, but a true one.

Or: Woman-know your place? Is he going to challenge his thinking or is this just a one-way street?

OP, one other suggestion if you do still want to engage on this:

If your friend is concerned about trans(-identified) people having fairness and equality, this essay may be of interest to him:

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/321-the-transgender-rights-issue

It sets out a clear difference between the right to hold a belief that someone has a "gender identity" that "aligns" with the opposite sex and where the lines of discrimination really are.

It doesn't cover the important subject of autogynophilia but, given where he is on this topic, that's probably a subject for another day!

Although I should add that this is the position I have arrived at. Prior to that, I engaged in as many conversations as I could, from all different viewpoints, so that I could get my head around it all. There is plenty of evidence of me getting lost and confused on MN!