“Transwomen are women”

[BertrandRussell]

I’ve tried this before-but please can someone explain the thinking behind this to me. I am naive enough to think that there must be some- is it the “male brain/female brain” thing? And where did it come from? Where did it start?

Please-no abuse from either “side”. Just statements of fact. With links to evidence if possible.

There's an interesting debate in the comments where someone tries and fails to make an argument against Cantor's conclusion and then resorts to dismissing the views of TIM Anne Lawrence about autogynephilia because he googled and it said Anne was "a controversial figure".

@BertrandRussell I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the law, which I find quite interesting as a lawyer.

At the moment the definition of a woman is adult human female, plus the GRA 2004 creates the legal fiction that an adult human male with a Gender Recognition Certificate is female.

The EA 2010 then goes on to say that there must be no discrimination, harassment or victimisation of anybody on the grounds of gender reassignment, including those who are proposing to have it or in early stages rather than those already in possession of a GRC. Sensible enough, and that also protects those like me who are sometimes mistaken for a trans man (I'm not).

EA also says that someone undergoing gender reassignment should be treated as a member of their preferred sex unless the provision of a single sex service is in proportionate pursuit of a legitimate aim (s.28 to Schedule 2). It does not as far as I can see say that that person IS a member of their preferred sex (unless they have a GRC in which case the GRA 2004 kicks in).

The accurate legal proposition of "trans women with a GRC are legally female" has been modified to the catchier, but inaccurate, "trans women are women."

I don't think it is impossible to redefine "woman" - after all, looking back over the last 300 years "marriage" did indeed get redefined and in a good way - but it needs Acts of Parliament and judicial oversight, not wishful thinking on Twitter.

I can imagine given the plasticity of the brain that there could be various m/f differences. Like- I’m a woman. I spend a lot of time on every journey I make pretty much- on public transport, in a crowd, or when walking alone, calculating risk (of unwanted attention, harassment or attack), it’s a constant background hum in my mind. Particularly if i’m out after dark. That’s probably developed my brain in ways most men don’t need to develop theirs.

But even if a ‘male’ or ‘female’ brain is somehow proved, and then is shown to have any relevance to people’s perceptions of their own gender identity- that doesn’t solve any of these deeply problematic issues.

Societies having rigid gender roles that are highly stereotyped is a recipe for trouble in general.
Then letting the bigger, stronger, way more statistically violent people into the private spaces of the smaller, physically weaker people at vulnerable times for them (like being partially undressed or using the toilet or receiving medical care) is a recipe for trouble.

lauramipsum I think that some legal fictions are ok. (Not a lawyer so bear with me please)

Like the very old concept of ‘the child of the marriage’ that creates a (rebuttable) assumption of paternity. It still works OK i think- it holds even where you both know you used a sperm donor- it recognises intention to be a parent and usefully weights that higher in legal paternity terms, than the biologically key (but socially fleeting) role of the sperm donor.

But in the case of the TW=W, that legal fiction is being used to encroach which is wrong. there are such obvious harms and power imbalances.

(Not at all saying that you said legal fictions are wrong in themselves Laura) just that i was thinking that it’s probably how the legal fiction is then used, which is crux.

Even the weakest men can out grip the strongest women

I think that might be an overstatement, to be honest.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17186303/
"Less expected was the gender related distribution of hand-grip strength: 90% of females produced less force than 95% of males. Though female athletes were significantly stronger (444 N) than their untrained female counterparts, this value corresponded to only the 25th percentile of the male subjects."

It surprised me when I read it. The scale of the difference, I mean. But it is there. Physiological sex differences are marked in this respect.

I don't think it is impossible to redefine "woman" - after all, looking back over the last 300 years "marriage" did indeed get redefined and in a good way - but it needs Acts of Parliament and judicial oversight, not wishful thinking on Twitter

Marriage is a man made institution, a concept, It can be changed at will. Woman is a biological fact, which cannot. They are not comparable.

It surprised me when I read it. The scale of the difference, I mean. But it is there. Physiological sex differences are marked in this respect

But you're quoting a figure of 90% to prop up an argument that ANY man is stronger than ANY woman. You are proving the opposite.

I don't think it is impossible to redefine "woman" - after all, looking back over the last 300 years "marriage" did indeed get redefined and in a good way - but it needs Acts of Parliament and judicial oversight, not wishful thinking on Twitter.

How would you redefine it though to include men, without using sex-role stereotypes? It isn't the same as redefining marriage to include same-sex couples IMO, because the word 'woman' only exists in the first place in order to distinguish adult human females from adult human males. So if you want to make it able to encompass any adult human, you are still left with needing some objective qualities for this set of adult humans that distinguishes them from other adult humans.

The only thing I can think of that would meet that requirement is sex-role stereotypes, whereby 'woman' comes to mean, 'person who conforms to current culturally accepted standards of feminine presentation.' Which would be shit for obvious reasons.

Then of course you are still left with needing a word for the set of people previously known as women, for medical and other purposes - what could we use? Female? Not precise enough, as that also includes other animals. What if we came up with a new word? Snarflblart? We all know what would happen next. Trans-identified males would immediately abandon the word 'woman' and start identifying as trans snarfleblarts. And we're back to square one.

LauraMipsum, I think it is impossible to redefine "woman" in such a way that it includes all women plus transwomen, but excludes all men. If you can come up with a new definition, that would be great - no-one has managed it so far.

It's not like redefining marriage - that was between a man and a woman, it's now between two adults, which is clear.

Or what Donkey said.

In fact, does anyone want to start a new thread with "Things Donkey has said" as the title - every single post from Donkey has been fanfuckingtastic over the last few days

“I don't think it is impossible to redefine "woman" - after all, looking back over the last 300 years "marriage" did indeed get redefined and in a good way - but it needs Acts of Parliament and judicial oversight, not wishful thinking on Twitter“

And would presumably have a requirement for some sort of consultation, including natal women?

The only thing I can think of that would meet that requirement is sex-role stereotypes, whereby 'woman' comes to mean, 'person who conforms to current culturally accepted standards of feminine presentation.' Which would be shit for obvious reasons.

Except that would exclude a whole bunch of natal women.

You'd to have to have, 'conforms to cultural stereotypes and/or is an adult human female'.

But, then again, transactivists say they are perfectly entitled to walk around conforming to male stereotypes and still be considered a woman.

Jess Phillips is being pushed on Twitter to repeat the mantra: Transwomen are Women.

She's wriggling.

The answer to that Jess is 'I am Spartacus'.

Labour is about to make itself unelectable.

Except that would exclude a whole bunch of natal women.

Yes. I guess I'm assuming here in Trans Dystopia that 'man' would be concurrently redefined to mean 'person who conforms to current culturally accepted standards of masculine presentation', which then takes in a lot of non-conforming women, and who knows, maybe there'd be 70 'non-binary' categories for all the stragglers in between.

You'd to have to have, 'conforms to cultural stereotypes and/or is an adult human female'. But, then again, transactivists say they are perfectly entitled to walk around conforming to male stereotypes and still be considered a woman.

Yep. You couldn't go with this one because it's still separating women from TIMs by saying that women get to be included in the category regardless of how we present, but TIMs have to conform to feminine presentation. Which excludes all the so-called 'butch transwomen' (i.e., masculine presenting men).

Poor Jess. Even if she says it they will never forgive her for hesitating.

Just read the Jess Phillips twitter thread. She's being hammered with the usual overblown 'denying transwomen the right to exist' (ffs grow up) and to declare that biological women daring to fund raise to seek a legal challenge is transphobic hatred. I hope JP doesn't fold.

These people are insane.

Once someone has repeated the 'trans women are women' mantra, they are then pretty much locked into defending all the absurd extremes of trans ideology - the biology denial, the end of sex-segragated spaces and women's sports, the traducing of crime and medical stats. The person who has uttered the phrase in the spirit of being 'inclusive' (or under duress ) then feels obliged to defend their position to its logical (or rather, illogical) conclusion.

No wonder they pressure people so hard to say it.

Maryz

Jess is trying to be reasonable. She doesn't realise how fully batshit and dogmatic much of the trans movement is. But there will be no dodging. They already hate her because she's not a Corbyn fan.

I didn't say any man is stronger than any woman did I? If I did I shouldn't have. I was recalling from memory at first. Let me check...

OK, I said "95% of all men have a hand grip strength greater than any woman"
Which was incorrect, I remembered incorrectly.

I should have said "95% of all men have a hand grip strength greater than 90% all women".

In other words, when it comes to hand grip, unless you're in the top 10% of women, you will find you are out-gripped by almost every man alive, weedy or otherwise (95% of men will beat you)
The top 10% of uberstrong women will beat some men, yes. But their uberstrength still only corresponds to only the 25th percentile of the men.

Even the strongest woman can't out grip an average man. At the highest level of strength attainment, women rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrainedmen.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Ahhhh, the Donald trump defense.

Actually the quote is from Goebbels! But it is very true.