To think that society would not be immensely simpler were women denied the right to vote and own property

[BungeeCord]

The link to this article was originally posted in FWR but I think this paragraph (written by trans woman Robin Moira White) is so offensive and telling that it needs to be seen widely.

translucent.org.uk/a-supremely-poor-job/

"We could simplify society immensely by removing women from voting, property ownership, and working in the professions, but that would not be right."

How? How would removing women from society make for a simpler society? Is this what some people think of women? Clearly some people do think that, I didn't think that was an acceptable belief to hold in our society though.

No you are right, I didn’t actually answer your last post- I got frustrated and read the wrong intentions, thinking that no matter what I said you weren’t reading it and just repeating the same question/ point. But I see now that you were genuinely trying to engage I just hadn’t made myself clear enough, so I do apologise.

Thanks for the above, tandora.

My way of analysing this kind of conflict is to pick stuff apart (coldly, if you like) to identify where the disagreement stems from. I've been told that this isn't always enjoyable to others or something that comes naturally/ comfortably - who knew?!

Believe it or not, that's how I started on FWR years ago ... really wanting to be on the gender side, I just needed to understand the position fully and have someone who knows "better" explain the apparent contradictions and illogicality and sexism (as it appeared to me, but being sure I must have gotten it wrong).

Since then, anyone on here who holds the "gender" position, and is literate and willing to put their position across, is in the unenviable position of attracting a grilling by me... It's nothing personal!

And now I will point out that trans people saying the dictionary definition of man/woman is wrong and should be something else (but what? The eternal question) would be what I, personally, would mean if I say "redefining" things that affect everyone.

If being a woman isn't simply being female, physically and nothing else, then i don't know if i am one, and i don't know what I'm conveying to someone if I say I'm a woman - it might be utterly incorrect. So I'm in an uneasy state of limbo when this isn't defined.

No you are all good. It's extremely refreshing to have an exchange with someone who really wants to engage. So please interrogate away. It's so hard to explain on mumsnet posts because it's actually a really complex issue - the GC approach of 'sex is real', 'gender is false/ constructed' is much easier to communicate/ summarise in a soundbite - so perhaps why it's been more persuasive to you?

The crux of it is that while gender critical feminism deconstructs 'gender' - recognising that harmful stereotypes/ ideas about what it is to be a woman have held woman back, they hold on to a simplistic, binary (/hierarchical), essentialist understanding of 'sex'. This understanding doesn't make sense scientifically (hence the recent statement in the BMJ about the SC judgement), or from the perspective of social theory. There is actually no way to meaningfully separate gender from sex - as gender is ultimately just the knowledge that gives meaning to bodily differences. So holding on to a fixed sex binary reproduces a gender binary. This can be seen in practical ways - e.g. gender non-conforming cis women being subject to harassment in female toilets.

Ok. So I (and many others) believe that transgender people exist and that some people have gender dysphoria. But we also believe that society should be organised on the basis of sex rather than gender identity.

If being a woman isn't simply being female, physically and nothing else, then i don't know if i am one, and i don't know what I'm conveying to someone if I say I'm a woman - it might be utterly incorrect. So I'm in an uneasy state of limbo when this isn't defined.

This makes total sense and I think is at the root of a lot of misunderstanding/ discrimination. We see (different) others as a threat where they threaten our own understanding of self/ identity. Hence that stereotyped trope of some of the most 'macho' homophobic men being closeted gay - e.g. American beauty.

But I would put to you again, that trans people being trans doesn't actually say anything about who you are. You are a woman. You have a female body, you understand yourself to be female/ a woman and (presumably?) always have. Presumably you are recognised by others as being female/ a woman, etc. Nothing has change for you, your identity isn't under threat.
But recognising trans people is to recognise diversity in sex/ gender. there are experiences of sex/gender that look different to yours. That doesn't make you any less you, it just means that some people are different to you. There isn't only one way to be female/ a woman.

@Tandora I think you're missing the point that it doesn't say anything about who I am as a woman if a trans woman wants to call herself a woman. You're right, it doesn't change at all how I view myself. But that's not all that is requested - they also want society to say "you are a woman and are to be afforded all the protections previously reserved for biological women". That's what bothers me.

I know proponents of self-ID/gender identity say "that will never happen" when women bring up their concerns about allowing some people with male bodies info female spaces. But these things do happen, there's no getting away from it.

Quite. If a man wanting to envisage himself as a woman had no impact on other women it would not matter in the least.

What @FlirtsWithRhinos said. Great post.

Of course life would be simpler for misogynistic men if women had no rights.

Life would be appalling for women — and not in the least simple. But women don’t count in the opinion of men like RMW.

We see (different) others as a threat where they threaten our own understanding of self/ identity.

I don't see anyone as a 'threat' unless they are doing something actually threatening, so it's not that. I am not 'scared' or 'hateful' of trans people - in fact, I don't know if I am trans myself or not, because I have no idea how to find out what my 'gender identity' is. And say I find out my gender identity is 'man' - does that 'match' or 'align' with female, or not? Is it only 'woman' that matches with female? Why? Isn't that a transphobic assumption?

I don't want to have surgery to change my body, but that's not trans. There are times in my life where it would absolutely benefit me to be the opposite sex - is that wanting to live as a man/male/whatever, however briefly? I don't know if I identify as a woman because no-one ever explains what that is! the nearest is 'it's complicated' - so I don't know if not understanding it means I am a woman or I'm not.

I'm perfectly happy in who I am - but I admit to getting incredibly frustrated at unthinking inferences gleaned from the fact that someone is male or female which is probably what underlies my need to unpack all of this.

You are a woman. You have a female body, you understand yourself to be female/ a woman and (presumably?) always have. Presumably you are recognised by others as being female/ a woman, etc. Nothing has change for you, your identity isn't under threat.

That's absolutely true that my identity isn't under threat - that's not the issue. I am concerned with, if I say I'm a woman, someone thinks I'm telling them I have a 'woman gender identity', and I'm unsure if that's true or not.

You've put 'female/a woman' as though they are interchangeable terms here, but you've made it clear you don't think they are, so it's partially true - I understand myself to be female, but 'a woman' - no, I've no idea, because you're telling me that a woman is a different thing from that.

But recognising trans people is to recognise diversity in sex/ gender. there are experiences of sex/gender that look different to yours. That doesn't make you any less you, it just means that some people are different to you.

I recognise trans people. I obviously understand there are experiences of sex/gender that look different from mine - that's why I'm so keen for people not to generalise. My desire for people to recognise the variance in sex - that your sex means nothing about you as a person, that you can be female and anything just as you can be male and anything - is what underlies my whole outlook!

There isn't only one way to be female/ a woman.
Can you describe a way to be a woman, then, that isn't to be female? If there are many of them, what is 'a way' and how would that manifest?

BTW Thanks for this, it's making a bit more sense than yesterday!

Exactly. Despite all the waffling, RMW’s comment really is that simple.

The crux of it is that while gender critical feminism deconstructs 'gender' - recognising that harmful stereotypes/ ideas about what it is to be a woman have held woman back, they hold on to a simplistic, binary (/hierarchical), essentialist understanding of 'sex'.

I would say, yes, it's fairly binary, because sex generally is. Let's leave aside people with DSDs because I don't think that has anything to do with gender identity, and we could argue til the cows come home about how many people might fall outside the binary. For the sake of discussion, let's agree that the vast majority of people are physically male or physically female - is that ok? biological sex only.

I don't think that implies a hierarchy, except as touched on earlier in the thread, that females tend to be less physically strong compared to males. It sucks, and I wish it was different, and yes women can show immense strength, but as a sex class, if you were to measure muscle mass, there would literally be a numerical hierarchy in the numbers you measure, for example. Just like if you were to measure breast size, females would have the larger number and you could argue there is the reverse numerical hierarchy. But GC feminists don't put people into a 'who's better' ranking like this, it would be nonsensical. They recognise where power currently lies, and it's usually with the men. Recognising this is the first step to changing it, which is the aim of feminism.

(and again, it's NOT essentialist - it's the opposite! We are saying that your sex does not say anything about you - the essentialist position says that it does! I'm still unclear what you mean by the word, so maybe I'll ignore it unless you can find another word?)

There is actually no way to meaningfully separate gender from sex - as gender is ultimately just the knowledge that gives meaning to bodily differences. So holding on to a fixed sex binary reproduces a gender binary.

I sort of agree here - in that gender - as a set of assumptions about people based solely on their sex (and not the same as 'gender identity') - is SO ingrained I don't think we, as a society, can separate it. We are doomed to have people think 'women are like this, men are like that' forever, to some degree. I'm optimistic that recent societal changes over the past 60 years or so mean we can chip away at these. I personally try as hard as I can to separate the assumptions from the person. I think that's a thing to strive for, don't you?

I disagree that saying there are two sexes automatically means saying there are only two ways to be. No-one is saying that. (If that is what you mean by 'reproducing a gender binary').

as gender is ultimately just the knowledge that gives meaning to bodily differences

I don't really know what this means, I'm afraid. The bodily differences are there. Saying 'you're female therefore you're feminine' isn't knowledge, it's an interpretation based on generalisations.

Nothing has change for you, your identity isn't under threat.

That’s the opposite of true, and that is the whole point, Tandora. Men being treated as women changes everything for women.

It’s not about our feelings of identity. A man calling himself a woman does not change how I perceive myself.

Women have been robbed of our single-sex spaces, our freedom to associate in single-sex groups, and our right to have services (eg intimate healthcare) supplied by members of our own sex.

In many cases men have also taken our sports prizes, our jobs and other official roles.

Transactivists have even mangled our language to erase evidence of women —I doubt if even the Taliban have achieved this.

The state has allowed and colluded in this abuse. The NHS allows men to take beds in vulnerable women’s wards. Police record male criminals as female, if the criminal wishes this. Women have been forced to call their rapists ‘she’ in court, very literally adding insult to injury.

All of these wrongs are an integral part of the pretence that men can be women. They are not accidental side effects.

Yes trans women want you to accept and include them for being (trans) women - , in the same way that gay people want you to accept them for being gay. These are completely ordinary requests and in no way demands you to redefine yourself. It simply requires you to open your mind to accept the fact that some people are different to you - that there isn't only one way to be a woman or to be female.

Countries that have implemented self ID have not faced any of the issues you are foreseeing

Tandora, when you say 'nothing has changed re your rights' are you saying that

a) people never had the right to single-sex (mixed-genderID) spaces in the first place, so not having them would not change anything
or
b) it is still the case that people are permitted single-sex spaces - even though trans activists are asking for all spaces to be single-genderID, mixed-sex?

I think there's a legitimate question to be asked about how we organise society to balance the needs of all people. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that some services might need to be exclusively for women, assigned female at birth, in the same way we might have services exclusively for black women, or disabled women, or lesbian women. Not all women are the same. But what is not acceptable is to refuse to recognise transness as a real/ legitimate form of human diversity, and to insist that trans people must always be treated according to their sex assignment at birth rather than as their 'lived sex'. The latter effectively erases trans experience and makes it impossible for trans people to exist in society.

We will not fall for your evil attempt at defamation, OP . It is blatantly obvious that this person is trying to making a point by using a figure of speech.

I agree to some extent. But my question was, when you said nothing has changed, did you believe it hadn't changed because you believe a) or b)?

Or, I guess, c) based on your post, do you acknowledge that in this situation, things have changed and single-sex spaces are now mixed-sex (the merits/cons of this notwithstanding)?

One of my biggest issues with male bodied people in female spaces is the plausible deniability that it gives to male predators. Men take advantage of situations all the time to "accidentally" assault women and it's just your word against theirs. For a man who gets off on exposing himself to women (flashing) it would be exceedingly easy to claim womanhood and indulge himself. On the rare occasion that he is challenged he would simply have to say "I'm just getting changed. She is a transohobic bigot". I strongly suspect this is the case with Rose and the Darlington nurses.

Not all women are the same.
Can I just say, you don't need to repeat this all the time. That's a given. It's my whole argument - being a woman (as in female) means you have one thing in common with other women - being female - and nothing else is assumed. The fact that we are all different, and still female, is the total point of my argument

what is not acceptable is to refuse to recognise transness as a real/ legitimate form of human diversity, and to insist that trans people must always be treated according to their sex assignment at birth rather than as their 'lived sex'. The latter effectively erases trans experience and makes it impossible for trans people to exist in society.

I don’t think anyone objects to men dressing as women and getting together with like-minded people. What I object to is their being treated by society and officialdom as women, in ways that sabotage women’s rights as explained (by me and other PPs) above.

Treating men as men cannot erase trans experience. It simply means they have to respect women’s rights, as everyone should. And it’s just ridiculous to claim that respecting normal social courtesies (which were unchallenged until recently), such as not entering other-sex changing rooms, stops anyone “existing in society”.

No, it isn’t. This person has shown how misogynistic they are many times.

Also, who is “we”? 85% of readers who voted agree with the OP. So I guess you mean the 15%.

If you can only 'exist' in society by trampling other people's rights and equalities then the 'experience' being sought is questionable to say the least.