Review "Six Conversations we're Scared to have"

Yes, I know multiple trans women and men in real life.

a trans woman isn’t denying biology.

You haven't met many of them, have you?

Generally speaking, a woman is an adult human female, but the term can also encompass social categories — including trans women, who identify and live as women.

and…

Generally speaking, a mother is a woman who has given birth to a child, but the term can also encompass social categories — including adoptive and foster mothers who take on the role of nurturing and raising a child.

@Onetimeonlyftw

How do you define "women"?

The point of Deborah Frances-White’s analogy isn’t to claim that adoptive mothers are biological mothers — it’s that society already accepts non-biological identities as valid in many contexts. No one insists an adoptive mother is biologically the parent, but we still fully affirm her identity as a mother. We don’t say “but you’re not a real / biological mother,” or to deny her parental rights.

The comparison to trans identity works the same way: a trans woman isn’t denying biology.
Trans people know they are trans! “Trans women are women” does not mean trans women are identical to biological/cis women. It just means they want to be included in society’s categorisation of women.

So yes, the analogy holds: it shows we’re already capable of separating biology from identity without confusion or conflict — when we want to.

Also, if adoptive mothers claimed to be biological mothers and demanded things that are meant for them (like say maternity care), or refused to accept they were adoptive and that that is different from biological, people probably would object, or think they were deluded. They don’t. They are two different kinds of mother. No one is claiming that one magically is the other just by saying so.

you’re getting confused because there’s a biological/non-biological comparison, but it’s actually not the same because no one is trying to claim to be something they cannot be or appropriate anyone else’s identity.

Oh goody. Can I identify as an adoptive mother without actually adopting a child?

Or, is being an adpotive mother rooted in the reality of actually being a woman who goes through the process of adopting a child and then caring for them?

It's not about identity. It's a legal status. People don't just waft in off the street and identify as an adoptive mother. There is an extensive and rigorous process of training, testing, meeting criteria, upholding certain rules etc. And if that is all met, one becomes an adoptive mother.

This doesn't mean one becomes a biological mother, and it certainly doesn't by any leap of logic mean a man can become a woman, no matter what certification he buys.

The two things are not the same. Comparing two processes doesn't make them the same.

You seem to have missed the point about adoptive motherhood as absolutely about identity?

Motherhood is nothing to do with identity.

Men can't be women. They haven't the first clue what it is like to be a woman, it's impossible.

Reality isn't flexible, and empathy is entirely irrelevant.

It's always the emotive pleading when there are no actual arguments.

'Do what I say or I'll be sad' isn't an argument.

KK is a sexist right-winger who says charming things on Twitter like this:

“… liberal feminism taught women to see how far they can grow their armpit hair out while shouting "where have all the good men gone?" “

KK is also a Trump supporter.

Forget clowns on buses. She is also literally a comedian and sometimes makes her points judiciously.

Her primary analogy is about how society is already comfortable overlooking biology in certain contexts — we just choose when to apply that comfort.

She points out that when a woman adopts a child, society has no issue calling her the child’s mother, even though she didn’t give birth to the child.

People don’t say, “Well, biologically, you’re not the mother,” or challenge her identity as a parent. Her role as “mother” is accepted without debate, because it’s understood that motherhood is more than just biology — it’s about love, care, and identity.

DFW uses this to highlight a double standard: If we can accept a social rather than biological definition of “mother”, why do some resist doing the same when it comes to gender identity? She suggests that people are already capable of prioritising identity over biology — when it suits them — and argues for that same empathy and flexibility when it comes to trans people.

One of the You Tube comments is very pithy.

‘This is the intellectual equivalent of a Rachel Raygun breakdance routine’

And yet they don’t seem to just say “being a woman just means feeling that you are one and saying so, that’s all it is”. And yet that is the definition trans ideology requires and that has actually, in RL, been put into practice in all kinds of spaces and situations. If you support that, just say so - it doesn’t require any justification according to gender ideology. Yet they flounder around trying to appeal to reason.

Je vous presente; Carla Denyer asked what it means to 'live as a woman'.

https://youtube.com/shorts/ChPAf8GoPgA?si=nR6n1A_mDYOBYa6V

She fuckin knows.

I think for the people like DFW who are in the public eye, whose livelihood depends on having an audience and who’ve already alienated all of their past GC followers by taking such an emphatic TWAW position, they’re probably terrified for their careers, especially following the SC ruling now that supporters are falling away as they realise the emperor is butt-naked.

The desperation is palpable, and for people who’ve built their whole business around vocal adherence to a controversial ideology, I sometimes wonder whether they have ever quietly agreed with a sensible argument for the existence of biological sex, experienced some practical sex-based issue or even listened to enough transwomen’s origin stories to notice they tend to be rooted in sex stereotypes, misogyny and/or internalised homophobia, and whether at some point they’ve wondered whether completely ignoring biological sex for every purpose makes sense as a blanket policy.

A huge number of women, myself included, once fervently believed that TWAW and campaigned for trans rights alongside gay rights. And most of us here peaked at some point.

There must be some public figures out there who have privately peaked but whose entire brand depends on maintaining that TWAW forevermore. This is, of course, a problem entirely of their own making, but it must still be very stressful. I can’t imagine how torturous it is to be a gender critical person trapped in the career of a gender woo person…

'I wonder what goes through people's heads as they spout obvious complete and utter bobbins in service of The Cause, do they ever think "shit I'm out of my depth"'

I do think that DFW had many 'oh shit' moments during the interview - there was a lot of hair twiddling and defensive mug holding, a kind of self conscious attempt to look poised. Absolute cringe. It was a seriously bad outing for her. She really needed to stop digging

I thought that KK was actually very cool under an absolute hailstorm of stupidity, and sounded sane and reasonable throughout

I haven't watched it, but might later. But I though this was interesting about stupidity and trying to defend gender ideology. People like this are trying to make a reasoned argument for something that makes no sense and that there is no evidence for – the powerful push that is making them say it is feeling like it's what they're supposed to think to not be a bad person - and that's it.

So in an effort to come across as reasonable/make it make sense. you see people coming up with flabbergastingly ridiculous shite, like the one mentioned on the Zoe Williams thread about "women and men's sports were only segregated because women always won", along with "because clownfish" etc. It sounds like Deborah has come up with some new angles.

And yes as a big part of this is about feeling superior, it's very appealing to these types to think there is some amazing esoteric gender scientific proof that is not understood by your common or garden bigot, and surpasses normal people's understanding of biology. Of course they don't understand this themselves (as there is no such proof) but making out that other people are too dim to get it is a handy get-out. Yet it makes them look more stupid, not less.

I wonder what goes through people's heads as they spout obvious complete and utter bobbins in service of The Cause, do they ever think "shit I'm out of my depth" or does the glow of moral righteousness obliterate such worries?

I've got a bit further, to where she's talking about her personal history, and I am just going to say this woman seems to be quite damaged, and confused.

She's not someone who is in a position to inform or educate others.

Okay. It's not just that she's stupid. It's that she's so stupid, her brain has become addled to the point that she thinks that other people who disagree with her bollocks are even more stupid than she is.

She is suggesting that we just haven't got used to men becoming women yet.

Astonishing how far making confident assertions can get you.

'There's a whole bunch of semiotics that go with nudity that don't go with clown costumes'

Semiotics? That word. It does not mean what you think it means, Deborah.

Ah, you're tempting me, damnit!

I need to get to the naked people strop bit, now.

I'm taking it in bite sized chunks. Lord knows, Konstantin and Francis don't always get it, but she's really in Bart Simpson book report territory.

There might even be a point when I stop laughing at her and start feeling sorry for her.