Decent follow up questions to 'do you believe a transwoman is a woman'

[Biologicalreality]

Following on from Andrew Marr asking this to Jeremy Corbyn, I thought JC's response was a little embarrassed. But Andrew Marr could have done so much more with the follow ups! Perhaps we could start a list of decent questions to follow up?

I would start with 'just to be clear, you believe someone who was born a man, and has not undergone any surgery or hormone treatment, and who still retains his full male genitals, is a woman?'

I think this is a really necessary follow up because I bet at least 50% of the population couldn't tell you whether the word 'transwoman' means 'born a man, wants to be a woman, or vice versa'

And then I would follow up with a line of questioning that would reveal whether he wanted someone who believed that 'woman' was a matter of biology should be prosecuted or disciplined for that.

So many roads to go down!

I think I would ask, well in that case what is the definition of "woman". They'd probably say something about self identifying, and I would say, so what is a person born with XX chromosomes and female reproductive organs. They may say something about intersex people, infertile women and cis at this point. I would ask what it means to identify as a woman. They would probably give me a circular answer.

At some point I may ask, then what is a man...and begin the whole process again.

Well there's the obvious question of when someone self identified what definition of a women are they themselves as. You can't identify as something you can't define so we need a definition

In any debate, you have to ask people to explain their terms.

And, of course, the terms are the crux of the debate. Which is why people don't want to ever describe those terms.

So you may as well cut to the chase and force the nonsense answers.

How can a man, belonging to the sex that produces sperm, also belong to the sex who produces eggs?

Also ask if they think transmen are men, and if they say yes ask why they are specifically excluded in the GRA from inheriting titles and property in the aristocracy. And then ask how this difference can be explained as surely if TW are women and TM are men there would be no need for exclusion. I think it shows that nobody who has been involved in drafting the legislation believes the new dogma.

Ask if they think Rachel Dolezal is actually black and was entitled to take positions earmarked for black people. If not, what is the difference between that and a man claiming to be a woman and taking spaces meant for women.

What was Corbyn's answer, please?

Would it be too much to ask if the transage 6 year old was going to be taken away from "her" adoptive "parents " as she is having sex with the dad. And why isn't he arrested and jailed and should she be in school

After all "we are as young as we feel" is a common saying

Corbyn believes in gender feelz.

Are you a man Jeremy? How do you know?

Is it taboo or forbidden now for female people to be recognised as a specific biological class, regardless of identities or belief systems?

Are we in a position where we are now saying to women, you can't talk about anything relating to your biology or that which acknowledges you as a common group - if it excludes biological males?

Sorting people into categories based on their internal belief rather than on physical reality seems like a recipe for disaster. How will you prevent systematic inequality if you only recognise what people believe to be true, rather than what we can see and measure?

What happens if women insist upon identifying as a different category of person to transwomen? If transwomen can identify themselves away from men, can women equally identify away from transwomen?

What do you say to women who insist you acknowledge their biology rather than compelling them to pretend that it is some invisible belief that makes them a woman?

Do you accept that sexism still happens? When an employer rejects one sex of potential employees because it's the the sex that can get pregnant, do you think it's ethically acceptable to deny that sex the right to be recognised as a biological group who needs to fight for equal rights?

Is Marie Dean a woman? Is it heresy to say that Marie Dean is not a woman?

Not really a question but, I think the consequences of self-Id with no exemptions needs to be made clear. I.e. that ANYONE can say they are a woman and they must be legally considered such in ALL circumstances. My guess is that most of the population would not support that.

Ask any man 'would you have sex with a man if he said he is a woman'.

If the answer is no, ask 'then why does a woman have to accept a smear test from him, or share a psychiatric ward with him'?

I agree with Upstart!

I mean it is all so mad, I don't know where to start! I think there are 3 main lines of quetioning:

Firstly the definition line (what is a woman)

Secondly the safety line (prisons, health, sport)

Thirdly the 'bigot' line (will I be called a bigot for believing that transwomen are different from women, for which I have biological facts as evidence)

Mine is 'talk me through the process of transition. One day they wake up and decide to not be a man any more. What happens next? At what point is the transition successful, bearing in mind that just saying words is not a transition'

I never get an answer.

Mumsnetters are the most intelligent women in the UK today.

I love this thread and think the answers so far are excellent. I look forward to those to come!

My favourite so far (because I value brevity) is

"How can a man, belonging to the sex that produces sperm, also belong to the sex who produces eggs?"

Stealing and tweeting that.

I think I'm going to start turning the statement "trans women are women" round and asking for a definition of a trans woman instead. I can't think of a definition that doesn't include the fact that they are not actually women

So maybe that should've been the next question.

Shall we ignore biology or procreation?

That ends this nonsense talk of what about defining what a woman is

Mine is 'talk me through the process of transition. One day they wake up and decide to not be a man any more. What happens next? At what point is the transition successful, bearing in mind that just saying words is not a transition'

Ah. Yes. The transubstantiation. No actual material change but an act of God took place and mystically the internal property has now become something else entirely. And it's heresy to deny it.

It's all a bit Tudor King with Syphilis.

Mine is 'how can you identify as a woman without a set group already providing a material reality of what 'woman' is? ie biological women'.

If woman is nothing more than a feeling in someone's head then the word is reduced to an empty shell, it means nothing. unless you acknowledge that the undercurrent of your meaning is 'someone can to name themselves as one of those biological women'. Which acknowledges a) you fully understand that biological women are a separate, specific and objectively provable thing by biological sex and b) the person 'identifying' is not one of that classification.

It's an emotional choice, not a fact. Everyone knows this. It's a polite and expected social lie, a belief no one believes.

Here's a much briefer version:

If the difference between the sexes is NOT biology, what IS the difference between the sexes?

or

How are men and women different, if not biology?

Why do you think men and women have such different life outcomes? If biology isn't the main factor, what is?

"What's wrong with widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a man, rather than trying to appropriate what it is to be a woman?"

"Do some cultures practice FGM on the basis of self-ID or biological reality?"

"Are the females aborted before birth in overwhelmingly larger numbers than males killed for their biology or not?"

I don't see the need to complicate things.
My only question is "What do you have between your legs?"

I think most people don't know that a majority of transwomen retain a penis

Following on from BarrackerBarmer's point: if the difference between the sexes is NOT biology, then what is the need to "identify" as a woman at all? If it makes no difference that you have a penis, where is the "trans"? Surely what you're saying in that case is "I'm a penis owning person who likes to behave in a certain way/wear certain clothes or whatever". So really, just being a man who doesn't conform to gender, ie, made up, stereotypes. Surely it would just be better if there were more societal accepted ways of "being a man".