Are mumsneters TERFs

[ChedderGorgeous]

I started a thread on the new taskmaster line up here. This greatly angered a taskmaster fb group who screenshot the conversation and agreed all mumsnetters were TERFs. AIBU to suggest this isn't the general perception of others when you have mentioned mumsnet ? Ps. I still haven't heard of John Robins !

I am!

All really important and challenging questions. So hard to answer in the context of a mumsnet post! (And obviously I am not claiming to have all the answers).

In terms of the last question , I would say there’s a difference between having a gender identity , and having “a concept of a gender identity”. The development of gender identity is a powerful subconscious psychological process, having “a concept of a gender identity” is an academic debate on which people may have a range of views which have nothing to do with their gender identity.

I am.

the policy question can't be separated out from definitions because policies need definitions to make sense

yes absolutely. Which is why I think we need to settle the definitional questions first, which is the specific part of the debate I have been engaging in. Before we come to any consensus / understanding there, there is no hope in having a meaningful /
fruitful conversation around the policy question of how we segregate spaces.

@Tandora
The “middle ground” is understanding that while gender is strongly related to biological sex, it is not absolutely determined by it.

I'm not sure I understand, but I want to!

Do you agree that 'being a man or being a woman is a matter of how you feel inside, and physical sex is irrelevant'?

If 'being a woman' is sort of to do with being female, but sort of isn't - can you outline the criteria for being a woman? What exactly do you, personally, mean when you say 'woman'?

Is it, for a start, a person of either sex?
If you agree that a woman is a person of either sex, then sex is irrelevant to being a woman.

I would be interested in hearing the middle ground though.

[Just as a courtesy (because this often happens, not because I assume you will) could you not re-word my post or questions?]

TERF is a useful shorthand these days for someone who knows (note, not "believes") that biological sex cannot be changed and that "gender" is entirely a social construct (which, in the opinion of many, is outdated, sexist and homophobic). Happy to put my hand up to that, and to agree that there is a sizeable group of people with the same beliefs who find it convenient and helpful to communicate with each other on MN. (There is however no such thing as "Mumsnetters" as a coherent group, whether in terms of biology, beliefs, or any other parameter).

I would absolutely not claim that gender identity has “nothing at all to do with biological sex” .

I think this is what I can't get.
Being a woman is either restricted to one sex,
or,
it isn't, in which case sex is not a determining factor in what a woman (/man/boy/girl) is.

And surely in the meantime we should continue as we have done for decades if not centuries, and where there is perceived benefit, separate by sex.

The transgenderists have, in my opinion, done the 'original' transsexuals great harm by over reaching into so many different women's single sex spaces.
Whereas before women were mainly willing to accept a tiny tiny number of transsexuals who had seen GPs, had operations etc, most women are not willing to accept any man who says they are a woman based on nothing but an inner feeling.

"The development of gender identity is a powerful subconscious psychological process," Is it? How do you know this?

I know what sex I am, it's a fact about my body that I know to be true. I don't have a gender identity. I have a lot of complex behaviours due to being part of a society that has expectations, restrictions, discrimination and so on in relation to the sex of people in that society. But that's not an identity.

Thank you for staying and discussing.

The core point though is, if you want to implement a social policy which says that gender identity can replace or usurp sex, you have to have both (1) a clear evidenced understanding of what gender identity is, and (2) a clear evidence base as to why gender identity can justifiably replace sex, which acknowledges what the implications of this are, and why they are justified.

Gender ideologues are not arguing for a private personal belief about gender identity, they are arguing for a massive social overall which places gender identity as effectively replacing sex in how we organise as a society. And that needs a lot of evidence to support it that significant social change.

Yes a lot are. Most have inability to grasp that transexuals have existed for many many years and that it is a very real thing but they will froth at the mouth worrying about other peoples genitals calling it biology (as if the trans community aren't aware of this). Live and let live.

Just like you're "frothing at the mouth" about the women disagreeing with you on Mumsnet. BTW transsexual is a very old fashioned term, which shows that you aren't particularly well informed about these issues.

The term ‘transsexual’ is often seen as a transphobic dog whistle so I’m surprised to see @vorhees using it. Are you a TERF @vorhees?

@Rainbowshit
"Well how about males stop using their genitals to harm females and then it won't be such an issue?"

Men can do this regardless of how they identify. The % of "trans women" who do this are extremely low, and some are absolutely opportunists but you're tarring a whole community with one brush

Which is why I think we need to settle the definitional questions first, which is the specific part of the debate I have been engaging in.

Happy to. Why is it useful to have a category for a group of people who are mostly biologically female with some biological males who "feel like they are", according to their own, often stereotyped views of men and women? And why should that determine that they can use things meant for female people, a disadvantaged sex class, to be able to participate in public life on an equal footing to males, who tend to dominate most spaces?

No I've used the wrong term - I realise it's outdated not sure why I wrote that. Bit of ignorance there. Apologies to the transgender community!

The % of "trans women" who do this are extremely low

That isn't actually borne out by evidence. There is no reason to suggest that "trans women" pose less risk to women than other males, statistically.

I think there can be, and I thought some people used, a useful distinction between transsexual (those who recognise their sex and believe they would be happier being perceived as the opposite sex) and transgender (those who believe they have a gender identity which determines if they are a man or a woman or something else). But I'm unclear if it's offensive to say transsexual- it sounds a bit old-fashioned but it is related to sex.

I would also say that if you ( by you, I mean supporters of gender ideology) are struggling so much to define your core concepts, such as gender identity or 'woman', you need to consider strongly if this is because your concepts don't really hold up, and are not grounded in anything evidenced or solid.

' Sex realists' or GC women have not trouble defining what sex is or what a woman is. We have evidenced definitions grounded in reality and which can withstand inquiry.

There are plenty of difficult subjects, such a astrophysics, but all the people who work in these 'hard' fields can define their key terms and concepts, and would regard this as core to their positions holding up to scrutiny and having substance.

Gender ideology is the ONLY field I can think of which cannot define its key terms. Yet is still holds onto its beliefs and feels entitled to change society on the basis on their undefined, unevidenced position.

That is not a defendable position, when you think about it honestly.

The % of "trans women" who do this are extremely low, and some are absolutely opportunists but you're tarring a whole community with one brush

The concept of a trans 'community' doesn't make much sense when literally any man can say he's really a woman and that should be affirmed.

So, it is not accurate to talk about what percentage of 'TW' might attack women. We need to be talking about what percentage of men might attack women. Because TW can include any men who fancy it.

I think if you think of the question as what proportion of people on mumsnet think

1. it is sometimes both kind and necessary to tell teenagers things they don't want to hear.

AND / OR

2. sex is real binary and immutable and it is important to have words to talk about sex, conception and contraception to teenagers because actually whilst they don't always accept this teenagers do not in fact already know everything.

It might be clearer that whilst many people are painting mums as the evil villains it isn't really a sensible assessment of the situation.

I would also say that if you ( by you, I mean supporters of gender ideology) are struggling so much to define your core concepts, such as gender identity or 'woman', you need to consider strongly if this is because your concepts don't really hold up, and are not grounded in anything evidenced or solid.

This.

And all the opposite view basically boils down to is "you're mean!"

I’ll do my best.

Do you agree that 'being a man or being a woman is a matter of how you feel inside, and physical sex is irrelevant'?

I would agree with the first part of this statement, but not the second. For the majority of people physical sex is strongly
predictive of how they feel inside/ gender identity (sometimes called “subconscious sex”). For a small minority of people gender identity is not predicted by physical sex. We don’t yet know why, although there is lots of interesting research looking into this.

If 'being a woman' is sort of to do with being female, but sort of isn't - can you outline the criteria for being a woman? What exactly do you, personally, mean when you say 'woman'?

I don’t think I can outline the criteria for being a woman. People and bodies are so varied and complex: there are so many different ways of being a woman. However, acknowledging gender is complex and not easily defined , is not the same as saying it’s not real or it doesn’t exist. Gender permeates every aspect of human society. When we make judgements about gender, physical bodies, gender expression, gender roles, (and even sometimes sexuality!) play a role. Gender is not reducible to any one of these things, nor is it entirely separate from them.

in the same way, biological sex itself is now understood to have multiple components. For most people , karyotype (xx, xy) will determine sex development. So it would be ridiculous to say that karyotype is irrelevant or has nothing to do with biological sex. However, we now know that biological sex isn’t definitively determined by karotyope, and cannot be reduced to this measure alone.

The percentage of TW who do this is at best the same percentage as the percentage of all males. So shall we do away with all segregated spaces in order not to tarr all men?

I suggest you have a look at the statistics coming out of prisons and what percentage of transwomen are incarcerated for sexual assault vs males and females.

@Tandora

I don’t think I can outline the criteria for being a woman. People and bodies are so varied and complex: there are so many different ways of being a woman.

Can you describe one way?

Are you saying that the word 'woman' is without a meaning? You use the word, you must have some idea in mind as to whether you mean 'human' or whether there is anything else in addition to that?