What is the difference? (Warning - another transgender thread)

[Flippetydip]

I am prepared to get totally flamed for this but it is a genuine, and not meant to be goady question. I know there is a huge amount of transgender posts on here at the moment (hence the title so people have the choice not to read) but my question is:

If I can self ID as a man (or woman if I'm a man) can I self ID as a person of another race? I seem to recall a huge hoo-ha back along over some woman in the States who identified as black but was originally white and was absolutely pilloried. Genuinely, what is the difference?

Kellie Maloney is also someone who admitted to an extreme act of domestic violence - tried to strangle their wife - so I don't know why they are asked onto any telly sofas at all, or indeed consulted about anything (except which book they want out of the prison library).

One argument being RD benefitted from her self-ID politically/financially whereas transitioning transperople seldom benefit socially/economically.

Really? Tell that to Paris Lees, Lily Madigan, Munroe Bergdoff, Caitlyn Jenner...

It seems to me to be quite a socially lucrative business being a trans identified male.

Fugitive - I hate to break it to you but it is generally accepted now that race is a social construct. It's been that way for some time. And any supposed evidence of race as a biological fact has long been discredited.

The colour of someone's skin is biological (and yes, relates to inherited genetic material in the same way that eye colour and hair colour does). But race is a social construct. The definition of different races varies from country to country and society to society.

Ethnicity - biology (to an extent)
Race - society

Sex - biology
Gender - society

Kellie Maloney has (according to the press) completed her transition so likely has a GRC and is then legally recognised as a woman.

Transwomen cannot ever be women. Women are adult, female human beings. Trans identifying men are adult human males. They may feel "feminine", according to stereotypes of dress or tastes, but they are not and never can be, women. They also behave like the males they are, they don't behave like women. Many trans id-ing men are autogynaephiles, which is a sexual fetish, rather than having some winga-wonga innate sense of "female" gender. Something that no actual women have anyway, as far as I can tell. Do I identify as a woman? Of course not. I don't identify as anything. I am a human, and I am woman, and all the nutty navel gazing identity politics in the world won't change that. I'm so sick of the stupidity of all the trans stuff. We all know what a woman is, and what a woman isn't. If you have, or ever have had, a penis, then you are not a woman.

Trans people can't do this because their gender is something innate to who they are

Gender is not innate. Gender is socially constructed and for women it’s oppressive.

Sex is a biological fact, and not to be confused with gender, which is a social construct.

There are no “female” or “male” brains.

And race. Hmmm there is more of a genetic biological difference between men and women, than between a person of colour and someone else. Race is a social construct with material consequences, just like gender.

But because it’s just women, clearly gender is not so important as race. And anyone can just define “female“ any way they like.

Is this a self confidence borne of male conditioning?
You may think so, but I couldn’t possibly say

It’s a plausible explanation. I don’t see transwomen doing the shit work as cleaners, carers, or service workers.

The ideological aspect of this is whether you're going to believe trans people when they say 'I am this gender', or whether you consider a person's biological sex to be more fundamental than their own personhood and experiences

I believe as a woman my personhood and experiences are intimately connected to my biology.
I have no sense of gender, I am a woman because of my body.

Why is a feeling inside someone's head deemed to be a better way of categorizing humans than women's biological, observable reality?

Why is it ok for you to dismiss women's lived biological experiences as us "not believing trans people"?

Where's the belief in our experiences?

It really doesn't matter if you (or I) think that transwomen will never be women.

With a GRC they are in the eyes of the law. Their new birth certificate, passport, medical records etc will say woman, all public organisations and employers will treat them as such.

With a GRC they are in the eyes of the law. Their new birth certificate, passport, medical records etc will say woman, all public organisations and employers will treat them as such.

But the Equalities Act still includes provision for transwomen with a GRC not to be included in some single-sex services if it's a reasonable adjustment to offer a service (such as rape counselling) which would not be effective or useable if it wasn't single-sex.

So no, not all public employers or organisations. (Except that too many don't understand this provision exists, and too many don't give a shit about GRCs and are already going with self-ID anyway.)

With a GRC they are in the eyes of the law. Their new birth certificate, passport, medical records etc will say woman, all public organisations and employers will treat them as such.
It doesn't mean they actually are women though. And it doesn't make it illegal for them to be recognised as trans women rather than women.

The point Fallen makes about RD lying is interesting. If she had been honest about identifying with African culture, while actually being white, there wouldn't have been a problem. Likewise if a man is honest about the fact he's a man, but enjoys some aspects of traditionally 'feminine' culture (such as wearing dresses) then why shouldn't he?

But there seems to be a double standard where people pretend to be 'really' a different gender - saying transwomen are women etc., when they obviously aren't. Why can't people live however they want to live, but be honest about it?

Don't mean to sound as if I'm condemning RD by the way - I believe she had a difficult life and was quite troubled. But it's undersable that people don't like being lied to.

Archery - yes, with some exclusions thankfully. The individuals still wouldn't be referred to as their birth gender however, that would be discrimination. They would be considered trans in those specific circumstances however.

Swearing - I honestly believe very few people would have given a shit if RD was honest and said that was how she identified.

For example, some Rastafari will object to white people identifying as Rasta (and it in a lot of ways it doesn't make sense that a white person would identify as Rasta) but other Rastas will embrace it.

I think the offence caused by Rachel was little to do with her being dishonest. I recall people comparing it to black face and accusing her of appropriation.

There is no difference tbh. In the same way as people get up in arms about cultural appropriation but ignore gender appropriation and think it’s fine.

I believe MsDugong is correct. Race is now generally consider a social construct by the scientific community. Gender is also a social construct, ie performative norms which differ according to the society in question (Ancient Greeks considered trousers effeminate, for example).

Sex is biology. Men and women are biologically different from conception (XX or XY chromosomes). This cannot be changed. Surgery cannot change it and performance certainly can't.

You may^ identify with a different sex and decide to live your life as such but you can not actually become^ a different sex.

Race is now generally consider a social construct by the scientific community.

Has been for a long time. There are very few alleles of genes which are strongly correlated with geography. Even populations with very distinct genetics are still diverse within themselves but also fundamentally similar to the rest of humanity.

Sex, on the other hand, is binary and highly deterministic of a lot of features- skeletal structure, muscle mass and structure; before you even start discussing different organs and body chemistry.

Scientifically speaking it is much more valid to talk about changing race- you are basically just adopting another culture. It is, of course, highly dickish and insensitive to claim to actually be another race- because the experience of 'race' is very real, even if the concept has no objective basis.

Rachel Dolezal lied about her race to gain advantages which were specifically designed to redress the economic balance in favour of african americans. She lied for personal gain, and continues to lie.

I think most people are pretty accepting of a man or woman who adopts the cultural traits of the other sex. I think most people would see a man pretending to be a woman to get access to a job or education as pretty unacceptable.

We should not confuse cultural traits (like women wearing dresses or black people having particular vernacular) with something intrinsic to those groups. It's important not to put people in silly boxes.

Been reading some of this thread with interest. I try not to take offence at some of the comments that seem to be based on generalisations about trans women, as I don't really recognise myself in some of them.

I have a GRC and an amended birth certificate and have lived over two thirds of my life (so far) as a woman, whilst born biologically male.

I never was actually male in any internal sense and whilst I, of course, recognise the physical and biological realities and differences, there is more to life and to being male or female than DNA.

As for transwomen not being carers (a post above). I gave up my job to be a full time carer to my mum after she had a stroke and worked 24/7 with nurses doing that for 15 years.

I was able to do it because I was not a man with commitments like my brother - so thanks goodness my being trans brought something good into the world.

It does happen from time to time.

@charlestonchaplin nobody is disputing the reality of biological sex. Gender and sex are not the same thing. Transwomen have male biology. That is their sex. They can still be women. That is their gender

This is exactly the sort of statement that people find offensive. When you say gender you mean behaviour don't you, wearing dresses, liking pink sparkly things.Get to fuck reducing me, my daughter ,and other women into a nasty sexist sterotype.

Where do you get off defining people like this?

Plenty of trans identified males do not agree with you and state clearly that they are not women.

Nobody believes this shit. No one.

RD did lie and was pilloried for it. Rightly.

Had she said, "I identify as a black person and want everyone to accept me as a black person" she wouldn't have been offered black-only roles. But Lily Madigan is offered a woman-only role. For some reason.

By the way, on the gender/sex thing. When I had surgery 42 years ago it was called Gender Reassignment and not Sex Change. And I had to sign a waiver to confirm I realised that I was NOT changing sex but was reassigning my gender.

So those of us who have been trans all our lives and lived most of our life this way across many decades when we coexisted with you in ways that caused no apparent issues at all have been aware of the limitations for some time.

I was never a trans activist and never asked for or expected to be legally recognised. But I was, of course, very happy to be proven wrong.

I have lived most of my life without thinking day to day about the fact that I was once trans and being happily cured of the problem that almost destroyed my childhood in the 50s and 60s. And it is very odd to suddenly find this a topic that everyone is talking about and scared about.

I do see some of the reasons and I do share much of the disquiet over the planned changes to the GRA and self declaration. I do not think medical involvement should be removed as I think this is an important safeguard to ensure only those with actual needs to transition do so,
.
Back in the early 70s when I was being assessed by numerous doctors there were only about 100 cases a year being progressed to actual transition by the NHS. I suspect that is about the true extent of this rare problem, whatever its cause.

They can still be women. That is their gender.

well no, woman is a definition of biology not gender. They can be feminine or a transwoman. Nothing wrong with either.

Jayceedove - of course trans people bring good into this world! It's difficult with the overlap of language, and I can't speak for everyone clearly, but the issue I think many people have is with the self-ID type of trans, not the GRC-type of trans. The former seem to be using trans as a way to edge women out of yet more places, while the latter are getting on with their lives and harming no one.

The male/female, man/woman thing is not as easy to define as it must seem if you take it only from pure biology.

As a trans woman am I different from someone born a woman? Of course. Hard to argue otherwise. Science has improved the ability to transition greatly but it is still only a partial physical transition at best.

Am I man, though? Absolutely not in any way I would consider that valid or that anyone who has known me when I was a trans child 50 years ago and the 45 years post transition - all my adult life - living as a woman.

Being a woman is about more than biology.

Oh, and being trans (in my case anyway) is nothing to do with liking punk or pretty dresses and make up. It is about an internal sense of self. Pretty amorphous and hard to describe so appearing to be trite I expect. But the reality nonetheless.

I cannot explain its cause any more than you can - only that it was real and increasingly evident from pre school onward and clear by primary school. This was in an age (the late 50s) when there was no social media and no obsession with gender and no such thing as being trans - the first doctors I saw had no clue what was going on with me and I got shunted from psychiatrist to psychologist to endocrinologist and so on.

Also I was never a cross dresser. The first time I did this, if that's how you phrase it, was the day I transitioned full time 45 years ago and, from my perspective, finally became myself.

I understand why that is hard to understand. It is for me too and I have lived with it forever. But it is what it is and one day I expect science will figure out why.

They haven't yet, though. Or this would not be still causing such terrible trauma for a few kids every year even now.

And it IS a few. Not huge numbers.