Trans women are women answers to Terfmore's questions

[SupermatchGame]

Terfmore. I don't want to override the ASD discussion that's developed...
but SupermacthGame: you gave your explanation why "trans women are women". I was hoping for a coherent argument.
Could you respond to my request that you clarify your position; I found it difficult to understand tbh I found it incoherent.
You could start a new thread if you like.

Ok, as you suggest:

upthread you say -
"Trans women are women because 'woman' (or female) is not only a legal designation but having a gender identity of 'woman' is a legitimate female gender identity with some basis in biology and physiology. No-one said this is an exact science. It's pragmatic." -
Could you break this down -

1. what do you mean "woman" is a legal designation? what law are you referring to? do you mean "adult human female"?

I mean the category ‘female’ not only has a biological definition, but it is also a legal category that can be conferred to a person following GRC. I’m using ‘woman’ and ‘female’ interchangeably here. Eg as specified in the Royal College of Psychiatrist’s Guidance on gender dysphoria:
"Once a Gender Regulation [sic] Certificate has been issued, the applicant must, in accordance with the provisions of that certificate, be identified as a man or a woman and not a ‘trans man’ or ‘trans woman’. "

Quoting the Gender Recognition Act 2004:
"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)." (my bold)

2. what does "gender identity of woman is a legitimate female gender identity" mean.

It means that regardless of natal sex, if a person identifies as a woman, and they have been diagnosed or confirmed as having a ‘female gender identity’ then to all intents and purposes they are classed as having a female gender identity that legitimises medical and legal transition. I’m not sure taken in isolation this clause makes much sense because it is part of a larger sentence.

3. in what way is an identity legitimate (and presumably there will be non or illegitimate identity?)

Legitimate as in confirmed by psychiatrists and/ or psychologists. As in a (cross sex) gender identity that is not caused by some co-morbidity or underlying pathology. (Not caused by anything other than GID/ or 'transgenderism'). An identity that can then be further legitimised by changing legal status.

4. do you mean identity "has some basis in biology and physiology"? what do you mean by identity? (it means different things to different people).

I mean gender identity (the sex with which an individual identifies with or feels they are) has genetic, biological, environmental and societal causes. (Although you could say that about most aspects of identity - using the biopsychosocial model). What evidence there is points to this. I’ve highlighted a lot of it on the other thread. I was abbreviating my language and focusing on the non environmental causes - by biology I meant genes and biochemistry including hormonal influences. By physiology I meant the physiology of the brain as in brain structure. Is There Something Unique about the Transgender Brain? www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

5. What is "pragmatic"? I think you are referring to "trans women are women" not being exact but we just have to live with it. but I may have that wrong?

Not 100% perfect solution. No-one has yet found a way to ‘cure’ transsexualism. Treatment alleviates dysphoria. In many cases it supports the person to lead a happier life in which they can function better psychologically, emotionally, socially and occupationally. Sometimes also in terms of sexual relationships. It’s not a perfect transition - trans women do not acquire wombs, trans men do not have real testicles (not that they all want to?) Not all trans people can resemble their new sex as much as they would ideally like. But it can be good enough. It can support improved health outcomes for some individuals. It is also a solution that most of society (and it’s main organisations) seems to accept. Hence pragmatic, not perfect, solution.

Rat
I expect that people who sign up to the transwomen are women' narrative think of 'women' as being a category determined by gender identity

I expect that people who reject the narrative that 'transwomen are women' think of 'woman' as a category determined by biology.

I think number of people who do not conform with the above expectations are infinitely small.

Anecdotal evidence is not real evidence, everything has to be a proper accredited survey of some sort, unless its the opinion of a man that he feels like a woman.

This x100

if you asked ‘Is a trans woman female’ then I don’t think it would be your average woman on the street who would say yes.

Yeah, I agree, I reckon that would split the pack much more.

Because it's about context isn't it. Female implies science and biology; the physiology of a body and the genetic makeup. "Woman" implies social and societal context where someone's chromosomes and genitals tend not even to be known, let alone acknowledged.

I think most people have that rough distinction in their understanding as second nature. Which amuses me actually that I've seen so many posters try and say they literally do not know what it might mean to live as a woman in society. Because yeah, in gender-role and stereotype-free utopia it might not mean an awful lot, but right now most people have a common-sense understanding of what that might mean.

If you ask "is a transwoman a type of woman" I think it wouldn't be your average woman on the street who would say no.

But would they be able to explain why?

Which amuses me actually that I've seen so many posters try and say they literally do not know what it might mean to live as a woman in society.

No, they are trying to get slippery disingenuous sophists to define their position. That's why they ask the question.

jelly you use she/her pronouns and refer to them as women. You allow them to access services for women other than in the limited circumstances where it is necessary to segregate based on biological sex.

We all know what it feels as actual women to live our lives in society. And most of us would acknowledge that there are common experiences shared by most of us.

peak

And as always I think it depends on what you mean as trans women. I think most people have a lot of sympathy for people with dysphoria who just want to live their lives (Hayley), but wouldn’t feel the same way about a cross dresser who now fall under the trans umbrella.

I think this is why the law as it stands at the moment is the best compromise we’re going to get. As long as the law is upheld.

Just to get clear re stats - didn't we get down to the fact that in the UK there's 47 TIMs in total that believe they are women /s.

Guess building them a refuge of their own would seem a sensible way for them and their supporters to focus their energies - but no, they seem to prefer trashing women and their spaces - I wonder why /s

You allow them to access services for women other than in the limited circumstances where it is necessary to segregate based on biological sex.

That's not treating them like women then is it? You're acknowledging that they're not. I think you missed the point there.

So you think a legal fiction is objective material reality?

Um, no, how did you come to that conclusion?

Either they are women (adult human females) or they aren't.

It's your dogmatic oversimplification here that's creating such a gulf between us. This black and white thinking, this lack of nuance and denial of context is means there can be literally no common ground - no matter what I say to you.

No, I agree I have very little common ground with you, Rat. That's something at least

Rat, what is a woman?

I'd like to challenge my dogmatic oversimplification you see. What am I missing?

Yup your big mistake is hugely oversimplifying everything and claiming that the ONLY relevant thing about being a woman is female biology. No, we cannot define the term woman without relying on stereotypes- yes, you have already proven that and have made your point. Despite that, the law makers in the vast majority of European countries allow gender transition. Yes, it doesn’t precisely match biological reality. Nor does a birth certificate of a child born to two gay parents or a child born of a sperm donor. Do you want to start attacking that too? Biological reality is not the be all and end all. Most people realise that and do not have such rigid thinking.

But would they be able to explain why?

I'm interested to hear why you think that would matter?

I'm pretty sure I had way better arguments as to why Britain was better off in the EU than loads of folks I've met. They might not be able to tell me why we'll all be better off in shiny Brexit-land, but that didn't stop them for a second believing it - and bloody well voting for it! Still sore

With that in mind can you give me any insight as to why some people are so hung up on pressing the point one way or the other??

Because I think the question - ‘what is a woman?’ is very, very important indeed.

I think jelly said up thread that most of the time everyone just wants to be treated as a human being. We don’t want to be treated differently because of race/disability/sex.

There are, however, occasions where sex matters - where you can’t avoid the consequences of being female.

I need to have language to explain the causes of discrimination against women. Period poverty/pregnancy/menopause/miscarriage aren’t just things that happen to random people. They happen to women.

Equally, I completely reject the idea that I need to be classified randomly as a woman because of some vague reason that might have something to do with hormones/shoes/girl power/being naturally caring/I don’t know because nobody will explain.

Language matters.

That's something at least

We agree on something Ereshkigal! (Don't leave me hanging!)

Okay actually thinking about it, you should start a campaign requiring that donors must be named on the birth certificate because of biological reality. I am sure it will be really popular among the many who have had IVF. But surely biology is all that matters? It is literally lying to the world that the father on the birth certificate is not the one who provided the sperm. Look forward to seeing the campaign.

I'm pretty sure I had way better arguments as to why Britain was better off in the EU than loads of folks I've met. They might not be able to tell me why we'll all be better off in shiny Brexit-land, but that didn't stop them for a second believing it - and bloody well voting for it!

Yes, it was silly to have a referendum on staying in the EU when even now it’s unlikely that most people in the U.K. can explain the difference between the single market and the customs union.

Scarily, it’s not even clear that all MPs knew the difference in 2016.

Again, information, words, definitions matter.

Nor does a birth certificate of a child born to two gay parents or a child born of a sperm donor.

Nobody pretends that the sperm donor didn’t exist.

Companies are treated as people for legal purposes, but nobody is offended by the idea that a company isn’t actually a person.

"I remember watching Corrie ages ago when Hayley was in it and her boss tried to stop her using the ladies toilets at work. The general public was hugely supportive of the character and deplored the way she was treated. That was 20 years ago and now people are wanting to do the exact same that Hayley's boss did."

That was, of course, a fictional TV programme, and the part of Hayley was played by a female actress. I honestly think if the part had been played by someone who did not look totally female then the audience reactions would have been different.

I think when we are talking to the general population (in person or anonymously on line) people who are quite unaware of the 'issues' would have the same view as I had about four years ago. They would assume all trans women had had surgery to remove their penis, hat they all took hormones and dressed in 'clothing normally associated with women'.

This is what I assumed. When I started seeing pictures of males with a bear and a skirt talking about bringing out the lesbian in their female partner, I realised we were not talking about old school transsexuals. Which I believe is the role Hayley's character was playing n Corrie.

males with a bear and a skirt

Sorry but that image is quite funny!

beard clearly not a bear!

Which I believe is the role Hayley's character was playing n Corrie as an old school transsexual.

Merrymouse yes they do because legally that person’s name is not on the birth certificate which is a document of fact. It’s impossible for a child to be born without biological matter from a man and from a woman. Yet a birth certificate for a child born by gay parents following IVF makes no mention of the sperm donor.

It’s the same thing I am afraid- a legal fiction that does not match biology. It just happens to be one that you don’t have an issue with.