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.

It’s not that biology is all that matters, but it does matter very much in some cases and if we take biology out of the equation entirely then that will harm women and that is what some TRAs are trying to do.

merry yes, I am sorry about that image!

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.

Was having this very conversation with a group of people last night. Yes.

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.

What's your point? We get that legal fictions exist. But they don't change objective material reality.

My point is that you keep going on about how the GRA is ridiculous because it denies biological reality. You always jump on anyone who points out that legally, trans women are women. Biology is determinative of truth you say. The law should not be permitted to ignore biological reality. I have seen scathing criticism of the right of trans people to get new birth certificates. But you don’t seem to have an issue with the other instances where the law does the same thing. It’s impossible for a child to be born without some involvement of a man. Yet no GC person on here has questioned why this is permitted for same sex parents.

yes they do because legally that person’s name is not on the birth certificate which is a document of fact

But nobody is actually claiming that there was no sperm donor. It’s a legal document to facilitate parenting.

There are definitely claims from quite prominent activists that the word ‘woman’ has nothing to do with biological sex.

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.

LOL! Quite!

I will clarify for Rat, who does enjoy making us go through thirty thousand posts so that we can all be thoroughly deflected from any discussion focusing on material reality.

A proportion of the general population so tiny that it is barely worth measuring believes that human beings are not members of a sexually dimorphic species. Of that tiny proportion, only another tiny proportion believes that medical intervention in the case of transgender treatment actually changes a male from a female or vice versa.

No amount of pomo-addled waffle can distract from this. Believing that human beings can change from male to female or female to male is an extremist fringe position.

But you don’t seem to have an issue with the other instances where the law does the same thing

Nobody calls anybody a bigot because they say a company isn’t actually a person.

It’s not just a legal document to facilitate parenting- it is a public record of a birth with details of the parents. If it’s impossible for two women to conceive a child, why are you not worried that there is a public record suggesting that they did.

The same point applies to trans women. Yes we know they were born male. It’s not some huge revelation. But legally they are female. Same as two women cannot conceive a child but legally they are noted as the two parents. It’s a fiction but it still makes them the legal parents and nobody else.

No amount of pomo-addled waffle can distract from this. Believing that human beings can change from male to female or female to male is an extremist fringe position.

Yes.

But legally they are female

Yes. It's a legal fiction. The law recognises that they are not actually female in the existence of exemptions to both the GRA and Equality Act.

We need a groundhog emoji. Get on it MN.

But nobody is actually claiming that there was no sperm donor. It’s a legal document to facilitate parenting.

Yes. And not just to facilitate: to put statutory responsibilities onto the legal parent. This adoption thing seems to be a new argument - Supermatch used it the other day on here and I've seen it pop up elsewhere recently too.

Adoption and/or sperm or egg donation does require a legal fiction but this legal fiction is not analogous to a transgender GRC. Its purpose is not to validate the identity of the parent as a parent: it is to confer statutory duties onto a person legally responsible for a child. Apples and oranges.

Merrymouse they may well call you a bigot if you started talking about two women on a birth certificate being a biological lie though.... Which is probably why you wouldn’t raise that one. But it’s as unreal to suggest that two women can conceive a child as it is to suggest a man can become a woman. But I don’t see a problem with either of them existing in law. Yes, I know it’s not biological reality because I am not thick. Biology is not the only thing that matters though.

Believing that other people mostly share that position is a perfect example of the cliche that hope springs eternal.

In reference to this - No amount of pomo-addled waffle can distract from this. Believing that human beings can change from male to female or female to male is an extremist fringe position.

Yes. And not just to facilitate: to put statutory responsibilities onto the legal parent. This adoption thing seems to be a new argument - Supermatch used it the other day on here and I've seen it pop up elsewhere recently too.

@OlennasWimple did a fine response to this on another thread, as an adoptive mother.

Lang it’s actually not as different as you state. The point is that legal fictions are not as problematic as you state. The GRA is here to stay.

If the law were to legally declare me an actual cat tomorrow I'm fairly sure that a. people would still not approve if I attempted to pee in a litterbox and b. nobody would accuse my husband of bestiality. Because people aren't stupid.

@RatRolyPoly

‘Transwomen are women’ is pretty meaningless anyway. First you have to define what you mean by transwomen and women.

Oh my god, I completely agree that isn't as good as meaningless! 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 once you remove all definitions, like allowing people to self id, or equating people who do id as women (aka female) when they are not women, then you make the whole thing meaningless. The trans movement is intent on destroying any meaning of what 'woman' means.

Did you read about the young lesbian told it was transphobic to say she could not get pregnant by lesbian sex?

Do you see how crazy that is. How lesbianphobic.

"My feeling is that transwomen are women, except in some situations where they're transwomen. And the law rather agrees with me. In fact that's almost exactly what it says."

So once again, what does it mean to be a woman? You cannot really say unless you can define what makes women women. It's not a feeling in the head. Women share in common a biology with each other, whether they will ever get pregnant or becomes mums the vast majority will have the same biology which will lead to very similar outcomes in a variety of ways (periods, breast growth, some degree of unwanted sexual attention, menopause etc).

What do we share with trans women? The only thing I can think of is that almost all women and some people identifying as trans women will be perceived by others as women and as such sexism might be directed at both. However, nowadays increasingly trans women are very visible as trans women, they are on the media talking about their experiences. They are standing for roles and identifying as trans. They are taking out crowd funder ads for surgery or whatever.

In one sense this is great because it means they are talking about their cause. But it does rather make a fiction of the idea that they will be subject to sexism because they will be perceived as women. If they receive prejudice it will be because they are recognized a trans. Why not work on irradiating genuine transphobia. If this is really the issue why is the attention on forcing women to accept males in their spaces? The violence that is directed at trans women and at women comes in the vast majority of cases from males. So why the tragetting of women as being opposed to trans people. And what about trans men. All this talk of women rejecting trans people it never mentions trans men. Who we do share biology with and history with. Who will have had similar experiences to many/most women prior to transition and may still share biology with.

Biology is not the only thing that matters though.

No. The problem occurs when self-interested people and their allies try to claim that it doesn't matter at all, which is what is happening.

Well, OK, to be fair - most people aren't stupid.

The GRA is here to stay.

And? Doesn't mean it can't be changed, either loosened up as is being demanded, or tightened up.

Or got rid of and replaced with a different piece of gender identity legislation.

Realistically though some of the stuff that TRAs say is not what the public says at all. They can accuse who they like of being transphobic on the internet. If you say you cannot get pregnant by another woman, nobody is going to criticise you or you punish you.

The women who have been disciplined by the Labour Party- Venice Allan and Jennifer James, both posted very inflammatory stuff online, eg calling Lily Madigan a dicksplash. They then acted all wide eyed and innocent and said they could not understand how anyone would be offended by their ‘truth’. Bullshit. If I did what they did at work, I would rightly expect to be fired. The fact that they are both able to call some trans women ‘she’ just shows their hypocrisy. Venice’s own account of the Labour Party Christmas so would have led me to chuck her out.

The whole thing about there being a thought police is so exaggerated. There isn’t but if you make inflammatory comments you have to face the consequences.

I don’t think anybody said that legal fictions are problematic in themselves. It’s clear that a company needs to be able to enter contracts that are separate from its shareholders.

However, it’s also clear that I as an actual person need services, protections and rights that a company doesn’t. That line is not clear when talking about trans issues.

The parenting issue is different because there isn’t a difference between the needs of biological and adoptive parents.