Can transwomen live as women?

[chocladoodle]

I've been reading about the council appointed women's officer and some of the responses got me thinking. Obviously biology means that transwomen can never truly experience the lived experience of women, neither than being conditioned as male throughout their childhood in anyway can compensate the privilege automatically bestowed on them.

In this example it is especially ludicrous as we are talking about a 19yr old, but what about older transwoman. Could they, are they ever going to be accepted as 'woman' without controversy. Is there ever a right time for them to be given 'womens' posts etc.

As women we all have different life experiences and different needs/priorities. Some are lesbian, some heterosexual, some married to men, some to women, some with children, some in full time successful careers, some care givers, some unable to work because of childcare, some disabled etc etc. We all have different takes on life, and I will always hold onto biology to define us as a class, but no one woman can speak for all us. A straight woman, married to an abusive male, struggling with 3 children under 5 has very different needs to a middle age butch lesbian, with no children and a successful career, for example. Neither of these women could truly understand the others way of life.

With that in mind, is appointing a 'woman's post' to a transwoman (not a 19 yr old) that controversial? Until today I would have always said yes, must be a female, I'm not as sure now. I'm hoping some of you who have a better knowledge could help me get my head round this.

Is this person a woman or not? (No trans element in this link - just CAIS - Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome):

Copied from another thread (credit to pisacake

Transgender:

• No ambiguities in innate biological sex characteristics.
• Self-declared gender does not match biology
• A full and functional reproductive system
• A choice to transition in manner of own choosing
• Identical twins with one twin transgender will not necessarily have other twin transgender
• No in utero test possible
• Can always compete in sport as biological sex. May be able to compete in self-declared gender

Intersex:

• Has biological variation on body from female/male norm
• May have genetic, chromosomal and hormonal differences and differences in whole of body, particularly sex organs.
• Likely to be infertile
• May be subject to irreversible surgery as an infant
• Identical twins will both be intersex if one is
• Can be tested for many conditions in utero, and subject to termination
• May or may not be able to compete in sport in either sex.

Not the same thing at all.

I do think the "living as a woman" stuff is problematic, but I would rather that there was something like this than it being possible to wake up one day and decide to transition.

I'm trying to think of parallel processes with significant impact on one's life, but can't think of any very good ones.

I know that women who ask to be sterilised are frequently delayed by doctors to make sure that they are certain they won't change their mind. And it's not possible to get married (other than in Gretna Green) without giving public notice and allowing a minimum amount of time to pass. Joining the army is a drawn out process: you can't just drop into a recruiting office and enlist right away. In many countries, if you apply for a visa on the basis of a marriage or partnership, you have to satisfy the authorities that the relationship is enduring and genuine.

So I think it's right that there is some sort of requirement, even though it's not an ideal situation.

As an aside, on the issue of representation: my test is always whether the constituent group are happy to be represented by the individual in question. Maybe the women of the Labour party in the area in question are happy to be represented by a transwoman. Maybe disabled people are happy to be represented by a non-disabled person. Maybe parents are happy to be represented by someone who is child-free by choice.

Provided that they have a genuine say in the matter - and understand who they are voting for - I am sort of relaxed about it. BUT I would think that there are very few people with the wider life experience, empathy and humility to do a representative and lobbying job justice if they have no direct, personal experience of the issues that most concern their constituency.

i Is this person a woman or not? (No trans element in this link - just CAIS - Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome):

The intersex community have specifically asked that they NOT be included in any discussions on transexuality.

And I knew who Bruce Jenner was - I watched 'Can't Stop the Music ' with him and the Village People

As regards the vaginal (re)construction attempted red-herring -- I think you'll find the modern procedure is to culture cells from the nearby tissues, use a scaffold, then implant the grown vagina.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn25407-exclusive-my-lab-grown-vagina-and-hopes-for-a-family/

The essential point being that this is only possible because she is genetically female hence has the genes for it. MRKHS occurs in females and effects the development of (some) parts of the reproductive system.

And this is all a red-herring anyway, because these various developmental issues and intersex conditions have quantifiable measurable physical effects. A totally normal biological male who just declares he is actually a woman is not related in any conceivable way, either before or after any surgical or hormonal modification they may or may not undergo.

In the Telegraph article (linked by Rachel40s ),

headline: "Woman born with no womb gives birth to miracle twins"

but in the body of the article: "a new specialist at Royal Derby Hospital found a tiny womb missed on previous scans."

So it seems that this person was not born without a womb, after all.

I suppose such articles are supposed to pass for journalism these days.

It is possible, but very rare, for an XY-chomosomal intersex person to become pregnant if the person has a womb, as in the case described in the article. I welcome this expansion in our understanding of intersex conditions and it's wonderful that the case in the article resulted in two babies for the two happy parents.

I think these intersex pregnancy cases highlight that an intersex person does not have to be female in every way to become pregnant. I think it is, however, completely irrelevant to any assessment of whether or not transgender-identifying males are women or men.

Usually, when intersex people are cited in debates about gender identity, they are used to caste doubt on our conventional understanding of all sex-determining aspects of human biology not just intersex conditions, implying that it is only a matter of time before transgender-identifying males will be proved to only look male but really be female from birth, like some intersex people. It is a tactic that mistakenly tries to conflate two unrelated phenomena in two unrelated groups: "thing A happens in group B" therefore "thing C can happen in group D". Such linked claims definitely do not have to be true or even probable or possible. It's illogical, wishful thinking, obfuscation and pseudoscience.

Only natal males can experience being male bodied (and all that accompanies this) just as only natal females can experience/ know what it is like to be female bodied. Surgery and artificial hormones do not give natal males the same body parts or bodily experiences of a natal female, and vice versa. In relation to intersex conditions, the nature of the condition will determine which experiences a person with that condition will be exposed to.
I do not believe that our society, as a whole, would knowingly agree to denying natal males and natal females the right to differentiation according to their sexed bodies when it comes to exclusive experiences/attributes (i.e. support groups focussing on premature ejaculation or endometriosis). I think this type of discussion is more accessible to the masses than who should/shouldn't or can/can't call themselves a woman.
If we can maintain/secure a continued right to segregation by natal sex for specific activities/services then this will go along way to addressing lots of concerns expressed on this board.

If we can maintain/secure a continued right to segregation by natal sex for specific activities/services then this will go along way to addressing lots of concerns expressed on this board.

Agree. Unfortunately that approach is being met with huge resistance.

A Woman’s Place UK as formulated five areas of concern. Very reasonable, very rational. Trying to maintain the rights of women as a class, without being controversial.

It was tweeted by Jess Phillips MP. Who has historically been a trans ally. She was involved in the original formulation of the gender recognition act.

Her tweet received a huge, negative backlash from transactivists. It became quite unhinged.

If you scroll to 2/3 down the very long thread, you will see quite how ‘reasonable’ can never work.
mobile.twitter.com/jessphillips/status/931093574011191296

Here is a thread discussing it, on the back of the tweet in question.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3090459-Labour-MP-Jess-Phillips-being-attacked-on-Twitter-for-her-reasonable-approach-to-gender-bill

I'm loving afab trans woman. It really gets these TRAs worked into a frenzy as in 'you are hi jacking our words, our language'

Elendon

Me too.

Thanks @Datun, interesting threads.

I think it is great to debate the issues with people who come on the threads but participants on the threads and the Twitter 'discussions' etc comprise of people already engaging with the issues, who recognise they have 'skin in the game'. In order to get traction, there is a need to engage the masses. At the moment, the articles in the mainstream press are covering a myriad of inter related issues that need addressing, but can more easily be addressed if/once natal sex is clearly recognised as a protected characteristic.

I think 'reasonable' will work with society at large, the issue is bringing attention to the key issue in a simplistic form; almost a single issue format. I think A woman's Place has done a great job in reducing a lot of the the issues into a simple 5 point format, but for the less motivated/interested even this is probably too much to keep them engaged. I think a list of questions such as: Should natal woman be able to chose to have a natal female conduct intimate exams? Should natal woman who have fled male violence be able to stay in refuges that are for natal females? If you answered yes to the following, please make this known by......(insert what is needed to contest the GRA consultation when it comes out). I think the majority would be pretty much #nodebate about this. Ultimately, I don't think the majority would accept sacrificing the option to have such spaces in order to validate someone else chosen identity. The arguments about trans people also needing protection and also being vulnerable etc doesn't need debating if we are just talking about the right to making specific spaces exclusive to natal sex.

I know that such an approach produces/ will produce very bizarre responses from those for whom the approach threatens what they are seeking to achieve. I see this as symptomatic of the level of threat that the approach presents. I respond with a simple, 'I disagree, segregated places are important for specific tasks/purposes. Sometime mixed sex spaces are best, sometimes sex is not relevant and other times single sex spaces are best. We need to be able to create the best environment for the task at hand.
Many of the other issues, whilst pernicious, are less accessible/ more abstract and can lead people to switch off/ get lost in the detail (i.e. definition of woman, danger of gender stereotyping etc.).

@Elendon - What is afab trans woman

MsBeaujangles

I agree. A Woman’s Place wants to strengthen the existing exemptions.

This needs to be done both in law, and also, crucially, culturally.

At the moment the law is being flouted left, right and centre. Because culturally, it’s almost a done deal.

So not only do the exemptions need strengthening and extending, they need promoting. Far and wide. So women know where they stand and can object if they are breached.

And I also agree it will make the whole transwomen are women thing moot.

@MsBeaujangles A female at birth trans woman.

My daughter has just told me she was assigned female at birth.

I told her that she wasn't assigned anything at birth. Her sex was observed and she was, on confirmation with us as parents, declared female. Because, you know, I was there!

A natal female a trans woman? What does the trans send for?

What about a 50 year old biological male who went through HRT and full surgery at the age of 20, and has been living as a woman for 30 years

No one looks at them and treats them as a women. They don’t pass. They are treated as a man who wants to be a woman. Wholly different.

Well I transformed from a girl into a woman.

MsBeaujangles

It’s a way of getting back at transactivists by using their own logic.

Firstly, if transwomen are women, women must be transwomen, right?

That’s the simple formula.

The linguistically gymnastic formula is this:

Transwomen swear they were never socialised as male. They say they ignored all the privilege that came their way, and only bought in to the female socialisation that was around them.

Every time someone said that girls are decorative and sweet or whatever, that’s what they took on board.

Conveniently ignoring how they may have been treated, and got great jobs, and not got talked over, etc, etc. (And the big one, that they were born at all. Because it is female foetuses that aborted in places like China.)

And here is how it’s been subverted:

I was assigned female at birth (AFAB - which basically means I’m female).

But, from a very young age, I didn’t feel female, I felt male.

According to trans logic, I disregarded my female socialisation and internally took on board everything directed at males. Because I knew I was male. I utterley identified with everything male.

Not just the toys, but every time someone said things like big boys don’t cry, internally, I felt that that was directed at me. Because of my own internal sense of maleness, I disregarded male privilege and only absorbed the socialisation reserved for females. And sat with my knees together.

However, as I have got older, I realise I am actually female and that is how I identify. So I am transitioning. From feeling male soon after birth, I now feel, and identify as, female.

Ergo, I am a transwoman.

Despite it being a load of bollocks, it drives transactivists insane.

“How dare they appropriate transgenderism”.

“You can’t just decide, with a click of the fingers!”.

“They know nothing about being trans” (irony overload).

Frankly, because I’m a logical woman, never in a million years would I have thought it could produce much of a reaction.

But it does. It so does.

You are not allowed to appropriate transgenderism.

The very idea that you can appropriate something you’re not is anathema.

Because, you know, we are all equal, but somehow, trans are more equal than cis.

Not just the toys, but every time someone said things like big boys don’t cry, internally, I felt that that was directed at me. Because of my own internal sense of maleness, I disregarded male privilege and only absorbed the socialisation reserved for females. And sat with my knees together

Fuck me. I’ve managed to confuse myself. But I’m sure you get my drift. Identifying with everything male.

And, I have to say, this is part of the problem.

It’s a mindfuck of mammoth proportions. Trying to separate men and women from the way men and women are treated.

And buying into the concept that because you don’t feel male, somehow, you are not treated as male.

I hope my post makes sense in as much as it’s nonsense!

I'm not 100% sure a trans person could make an excellent lgbtq officer as it's hard to occupy that position and truly represent gay men, lesbian women and trans people with even-handedness and objectivity. i'm not sure who could occupy such a position, though - would prefer an LGB officer and a gender issues officer or something.

A trans person who states they believe biology is irrelevant as Lily has done, is definitely not suited to the role of LGB officer either. Given is sex is irrelevant, LGB don't even exist A transgender person is probably one o the worst people possible for a role about the rights and concerns of lesbians. Given how the community treats lesbians for refusing penis.

Live as women? No. That is why they are trying to change the definition of what a "woman" is.

I don't even understand why they want to be women so badly. Trans make up roughly 0.3% of the population (figure for the US I read somewhere recently). So maybe 0.2% of the population is MTF. How the ... has society bought into their agenda? They are a tiny minority. It's not like disabled people are going around pretending they are abled-bodied. They accept it and they manage fine, they compete in their own groups (classification cheating aside), so why do transwomen desperately need to compete with women? (Rhetorical question, I think people on here know why). Why does this tiny majority need to force the whole "women have penises" and the rest of it onto the whole of society, and why is the rest buying it?

Something went wrong for them at birth or during pregnancy and their body and mind do not align sex and gender. That is unfortunate, but it happened. Deal with it. Don't try to change the rest of the world just so you can pretend nothing is wrong and you are a "normal" "woman".

Trans make up roughly 0.3% of the population

It's increasing very rapidly. A very large survey of Minnesota high school students found 2.7% declare themselves 'transgender, genderqueer, genderfluid, or unsure about their gender identity'. That draws a wide net, admittedly. But Minnesota is hardly an advanced state on transgender stuff, I'd expect higher proportion in say California, Oregon, or New York.

www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30207-0/fulltext

This reveals how the customary sex ratio (more TIMs than TIFs) has now completely reversed: 1.7% of boys identify as trans, but 3.6% of girls.

Surprisingly, poorer students are more likely to identify as trans.

cromeyellow0
That's interesting? Does the research offer any theories as to why? And why poorer students?
I was interested to note that the Met Police recently announced that 70% (if I recall rightly) of young people subject to protection orders to stop them heading to Syria were girls?? !! I immediately made a link with girls 'transing' and wondered whether girls are more easily 'influenced' by online grooming? (for want of a better phrase).

Girls are looking for a way out. Objectified, or conversely being ‘too butch’, they wanted to escape society’s approbation.

Men want to identify in. To what they perceive as their view of women. Put on a pedestal, the gatekeepers to sex (female sexual power).

Or a more quiet, demure presentation (if they are gay). The true gender dysphoric, want to escape toxic masculinity.