Harriet Harman webchat - her responses to the self-identification question

[CaroleService]

One response so far. But it very much depends on what her definition of 'women' is.

aging

She wasn't suggesting that autogynephilia itself was controversial, she was doubting its very existence.

I agree, anything that is controversial should be opened up and have some oxygen flow through it.

But if you think it doesn't exist in the first place, so there's no point mentioning it, that's even worse.

I don't understand why sex and gender identity can't both be protected characteristics? I've written to my MP accordingly.

Women are not "less than men" in society because of what's inside our heads. We're "less than men" because of being of the female sex - able to bear children and physically weaker.

If we take away protections from being discriminated against because of our sex, how is that right?? That's the source of much of the discrimination.

Women aren't trafficked for the sex trade because they "identify" as women. Women aren't forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because they "identify" as women. Women aren't subjected to FGM because they "identify" as women. Women aren't paid less than men because they "identify" as women.

People who have a gender identity that doesn't align with their biology certainly deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, but why should granting this protection entail removing protections associated with having two X chromosomes??

Gender identity (inside people's heads) wasn't even a thing for the thousands of years that women were legally less than men and indeed basically considered to be possessions (which is the foundation for current day continued inequality). I challenge anyone to explain to, say, the average person in medieval England what gender identity even is.

They can't both be protected characteristics because the rights of the two groups are, in some respects, directly opposed, Elanetical.

For example, women want sex segregated facilities for their privacy, safety and dignity. A majority of transwomen insist that their gender identity must override this because refusing them access to places like showers and changing rooms invalidates their identity as women.

There are other examples but I'm sure you get the picture.

If the trans lobby would acknowledge that they are trans and not the sex they hope to appear as the problems would disappear. Essentially it's the claim that "transwomen are women" that is the root of the conflict.

Surely the potential for conflict can be managed by being clearer about which of the two characteristics applies in each situation? At the moment we have a conflation of biological sex and gender identity - this blurs lines where they needn't be blurred I think.

For example either a facility is segregated based on sex, in which case biology has primacy, or it is segregated based on gender identity, in which case how an individual identifies has primacy.

I can see how prisons should be segregated based on biology, due to the risk of both physical violence and rape (which are biologically mediated).

But I can see an argument for school classrooms being segregated based on gender identity (since differences in girls' performances in single-sex vs mixed-sex educational settings seems to be based on stereotyped expectations around gendered behaviour e.g. how much girls should talk in groups). Obviously this determination should take into account how someone presents their gender, since the principle of "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then people are going to assume it's a duck and treat it like a duck" will apply.

I would think that the law should protect both characteristics if they are both seen to be sources of sufficient discrimination for it to be a problem (since that's what the legislation is for). Obviously then there would be a series of court cases until there was an established precedent about which characteristic applies where. But at least then it would be discussed properly on a case by case basis without this blurry fudging of definitions that seeks to erase the completely bloody obvious re biology.

Semaphorically

I see what you mean. But what other situations, apart from in schools, would you see gender being the determining factor?

I did struggle to think of others! Probably situations that are more about individual discrimination, like is seen with race or religion?

Given that gender norms are enforced from birth - people even interact differently with babies depending on what sex they're told the baby is - I can't see that separating school children by gender identity would be fair on girls, Semaphorically. Girls do better in single sex schools because boys aren't sucking up all the class time and attention. The advantages of male socialization are not eradicated by gender identity.

Girl only schools are a resource for girls, regardless of gender identity. Allowing boys to identify into such schools is damaging to the girls. Staff have been shown to react differently depending on a student's sex. Plus the loos, changing rooms etc issue is certain to rear its ugly head and I don't think it's fair that girls should have to navigate this crap.

I struggle to find any group that would be improved by a split on gender lines. Make up lessons maybe? How to walk in heels?

That's a good point, Prawn. A much more eloquent way of explaining what I was thinking of with the duck point.

It's an example of another difficulty there will be with protecting this characteristic, isn't it (ie gender is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is inside the mind)? If someone is discriminated against based on their gender identity, how do you prove it? If everyone thinks they're a boy, but they identify as a girl without telling anyone and without presenting like a girl, would it still be discrimination?

How does it work with other "invisible" protected characteristics like religion? CofE schools are allowed to give preference to churchgoers when allocating school places, for example. If I'm CofE but don't go to church I can't get my child into a school on the basis of religion. Which is kind of an inverse example, in this case of allowed discrimination. But proof is still required, otherwise it's just he-said-she-said.

The question of whether someone can claim an identity that others can't see is an important one. There's a Canadian professor who is campaigning vigorously against changes in the law there that make misgendering a crime. His argument, which I entirely support, is that words have meanings and forcing people to describe males as females is essentially creating a thought crime. If you don't - and he doesn't - subscribe to the cult of gender identity why should we have to speak as if we do? I don't believe that transwomen are women in any sense. Making laws to prevent me from saying so is censorship and an assault on reality.

I would be reluctant to cause offence to someone I met in the flesh but that doesn't mean I necessarily respect their gender identity. I may do, in certain circumstances, but generally speaking I think the whole thing is bollocks. Like so many MN posters I started off unthinkingly supportive of the trans agenda. My exposure to the facts has changed my POV completely.

Another obvious difficulty is that sex is immutable but gender identity is not. You get people who change their gender on a daily basis. Then there's the angle that you can only claim that you're suffering discrimination on the basis of your gender identity if the people discriminating are aware of that identity. What transwomen describe as transphobia is often homophobia, and you can only experience transmisogyny if someone registers that you're trying to look like a woman.

I read a piece on HuffPo from a transwoman who complained that someone who spoke to them had touched their arm. The transwoman saw this as transphobia, insisting that no woman would have been touched like that by a stranger. The ignorance was astounding.

Another aspect is that in reality only a small proportion of people actually claim to HAVE a gender identity. I'd estimate that the vast majority of people know their sex and beyond that, don't have an 'innate sense of gender' that matches others 'innate sense of gender'.

Despite the intense efforts of transactivists to rename most people as 'cis', this is truthfully a pseudonym for simply 'accepts the reality of their sex'.

People who adopt cis are simply trying to be nice. I doubt any 'cis' person actually believes they do have a brain gender that matches 3.5bn other people and differs fundamentally from the other 3.5bn. They know their sex matches, mind you, and they aren't in denial about it, so: cis will do.

Androphilic transwomen who transitioned young often pass very well indeed, and I can easily see that they would be "attractive" to an AGP transwoman who has the sexuality of a heterosexual man.

"I've never seen anything written about this before. Are you saying they would be attracted to them until they found out that they weren't real women?

"Presumably the attraction wouldn't be returned?

"I need to think about this one."

I think I need to think about it too. Just floating the possibility, because I am not sure.

My understanding is that heterosexual men who lack access to women often do abuse males who, in their minds, can serve as "substitutes" (ugh, feel grubby even writing that).

For example, in places like Afghanistan where women are highly segregated from men, it's horrible but straight men sometimes sexually abuse young early-teens boys, because their smaller, slighter, smoother bodies allow them to serve as substitutes for women (and of course, they are physically and emotionally vulnerable and are easy to abuse).

On the sillyolme blog, the blogger had some interesting stuff on gynandromorphophilia:

sillyolme.wordpress.com/tag/gynandromorphophilia/

I'm sure the feelings would not be reciprocated, but if a late-transitioning AGP transwoman was abusive/violent, she would not care about that. Right now we are seeing "early-transitioners" who have undergone puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones, meaning that they are likely to present/pass very convincingly as women, AND will not have male-pattern upper body strength either (since they never went through male-type puberty). They could be very vulnerable.

Again, I know the large majority of transwomen (including late transitioners) would not commit rape or sexual abuse. But when we are talking about environments like prisons, presumably we have to base our ideas on the reasonable assumptions that a minority of these transwomen might commit abuse in this kind of way.

God, it's a minefield.

Again, I know the large majority of transwomen (including late transitioners) would not commit rape or sexual abuse.

Agree on the rape bit.

However if someone is getting their rocks off by their proximity to me and other women in, say, a bathroom, despite me not realising it, is that termed abuse?

It bloody feels like it to me. But again how the hell are you supposed to stop it?