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.

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.

Some of us don't want those gender-based stereotypes to be validated and codified in law. It's extremely regressive.

Realistically though some of the stuff that TRAs say is not what the public says at all.

Absolutely agree that loud people on the internet often only represent themselves.

The problem is that loud people on the internet are invited to advise the Labour Party, appear on TV etc. In fact the current US President is a loud person on the internet.

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

That was VA, not JJ, in a secret, private feminist Facebook group. It was infiltrated by a doxxing TRA and women's private conversations posted online. It wasn't VA who called LM that. Get your facts straight. And if you think Orwellian thought policing is a good thing, more fool you. It's fine when it only happens to people you don't like. The problem is when it happens to people who share your opinions.

If "living as a woman" did mean anything it would mean being an unpaid carer for someone (probably different people at different points in your life), performing the majority of domestic labour, and being expected to be the emotional center and chief organizer of your family.

But that's not what Rat or Pants mean, obviously, since very few TIMs fit that profile.

Venice’s own account of the Labour Party Christmas so would have led me to chuck her out.

Why?

@PeakPants "You allow them to access services for women other than in the limited circumstances where it is necessary to segregate based on biological sex." What services for women are not based on biological sex?

Of the Xmas party or the Labour party?

If Labour chucked everyone who might possibly have been a bit of a dick* to someone else out of the party there would be about 3 members left.

*Not my interpretation of Venice's behavior, but presumably yours.

Can I make a rule that say, Paris Lees, as someone who went to prison for a violent crime, and has both slandered feminist women and made extremely dismissive and hurtful comments about women's concerns, should be barred from being asked to be a pundit by the BBC, a supposedly balanced, public, licence fee funded organisation?

The fact that they are both able to call some trans women ‘she’ just shows their hypocrisy.

No. It's a polite courtesy. Its not a human right to make people lie.

@PeakPants "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 know you are being sarcastic but as someone who has had (unsuccessful) treatment with donor eggs and someone who has adopted a child not biologically related to me, yes biology does matter.

My pretending my son is biologically related to me at the doctors would do him no favours when the doctor asks "Does diabetes run in your family?"

And had my donor eggs taken then we would have been explaining to our child their genetic history in age appropriate language.

Personally, I think it is very harmful to attempt to write out of history the biologcal parents of any child.

I am fully supportive of gay and lesbian parents. However, you will see many children do have an interest in their genetic and/or biological make up.

Most who go through donor IVF or adopt will have thought long and hard about all this so don't appropriate their/our struggles for this argument.

Because adopters and people having IVF may well not want to deny biology at all. It is a route to parenting and no one really benefits by pretending that things are not the way they really are.

Or Lily Madigan, for setting up a group to collect evidence of "transphobia" by mining female Labour Party members social media posts for often mildly gender critical comments? And at one dim point allegedly publishing their membership numbers, which is a huge breach of data protection law and potentially could cost Labour £££? Shouldn't the Labour Party have kicked Lily out for misogynistic harassment and bringing the party into disrepute?

eg calling Lily Madigan a dicksplash

Can we clarify this one? What do you see as the offence here? Using a sweary pejorative? Or are you seeing it as a case of misgendering-by-swearing?

Some of us don't want those gender-based stereotypes to be validated and codified in law. It's extremely regressive.

Exactly.

The Scottish leader of the Conservatives announced that she and her wife are expecting a baby and it was just treated as a good news story by the press and politicians.

This didn’t happen because people accepted legislation that endorsed harmful stereotypes or because everyone accepted the status quo and hid.

It is literally lying to the world that the father on the birth certificate is not the one who provided the sperm.

No, it isn't. It is clarifying to the world who has parental responsibility for the child; a responsibility that comes with a raft of statutory duties towards it. The purpose of this legal fiction is not to supplant biological reality but to assign the child the same legal status and protections as every other child. The absolute polar opposite of purpose to a GRC.

My point is that you keep going on about how the GRA is ridiculous because it denies biological reality.

I don't think it's ridiculous, I think the way it is worded is dangerous to the legal protections of women and girls.

No, it isn't. It is clarifying to the world who has parental responsibility for the child; a responsibility that comes with a raft of statutory duties towards it. The purpose of this legal fiction is not to supplant biological reality but to assign the child the same legal status and protections as every other child.

It's not actually. If it were, there would be a new birth certificate issued if a child were adopted. It is simply a record. Adopted children use birth records to trace their birth families. They are also widely used by those wanting to trace their family tress. I think it's fine to have two women on the birth certificate even though it does not present an accurate record. i also think it's fine to allow people to change gender legally even if it doesn't represent biology.

As for Venice and Lily, Venice (who is 24 years Lily's senior) engaged in very immature behaviour online. She then went up to Lily at a party and made her feel uncomfortable by saying that she hoped she was okay and that it 'wasn't personal', while she was handing out flyers about the GRA at the party. She then took a selfie with Lily clearly in the background and without asking Lily's permission. Her excuse was that Lily was 'famous' and she wanted a celebrity photo. More like she was going to tweet it with some dumb caption about Lily invading a feminist xmas party or something. Most people see her exactly for who she is and she is extremely damaging to the whole movement.

No, it's not great that Lily started an anti GC women group at all. But seriously, there is so much tit for tat between these two groups. Lots of you seem to think that the GC women have the moral highground and never do anything wrong while being hounded and silenced by TRAs. It does not look like that from an outsider's perspective.

Can we clarify this one? What do you see as the offence here? Using a sweary pejorative? Or are you seeing it as a case of misgendering-by-swearing?

Both. At the time, Lily was a teenager and Venice was in her mid-40s. The word was used intentionally, both as an insult and as misgendering. There was also some horrific comment that Lily would fake a suicide. Seriously? What kind of grown woman writes that about a teen who has confessed to feeling suicidal before?

Nobody is agitating for birth certifcates to be true for children born of sperm donors because nobody is doing anything harmful with those certificates. If parents started behaving like transactivists then before long there would be a movement saying the birth certificate rules for donors must be changed.

Imagine if a father said that clinicans must assume his child has inherited his genes because the birth certificate says he is the father. The clinicians point out that this will lead to poor outcomes. The father shouts about how they are donorphobic, they want to erase him, he truly feels like the child's father, he will be suicidal if anyone denies he is the child's father. Then he reports the clinicans for being bigots. The birth certificate says he is the father so then lawyers get involved. Then similar things happen with lots of parents who used donated sperm/eggs. People would start saying we'd maybe better roll back the birth certificate thing.

Of course parents are not doing that. They are being sensible and pragmatic about it. For most purposes everyone around them behaves exactly as if the child were biologically theirs. When it matters the parent states the biological truth, e.g. medical treatment. If the child looks significantly physically different to the parents the parents will expect to get the odd question about it and will likely have a stock repsonse perhaps saying the child was from a donor. It's uncomfortable but nobody is massively offended. There's no claim of literal violence or bigotry or that biologically the child is the parent's. Everyone involved understands the unspoken agreement around how to behave and largely follows it. If someone keeps going on about the father not being the real father, the others find a way to tell them to shut up and stop being a dick mentioning it unecessarily.

Until a few years ago, transwomen would behave like that so it wasn't a problem. Now there are people breaking the unspoken agreement. A loud group are saying a transwoman is a woman so can be in female sport, female prisons, female refuges, female shortlists, female awards. The birth certificate says the transwoman is a woman so she is eligible. Then a bunch of other people start saying they are trans too now.

And so it all kicks off because now we have to go back and look at the law because some people are being dicks, loudly abusing the well-meaning law.

Great post rabbit

Great post rabbit

Seconded.

Great post Rabbit.

The only person with an automatic right to be on a birth certificate is the mother and her husband or wife. Unmarried couples can both be on the birth certificate if they register a birth together or complete a statutory declaration.

A surrogate mother automatically goes on the birth certificate and her husband or wife is automatically given parental status, unless a parental order is obtained showing that at least one of the intended parents has a genetic relationship with the child.

In all cases one person must have a clear genetic relationship to the child and the other person may or may not be related to the child. Nobody does a DNA test. Same sex parents aren't on birth certificates because everyone is being nice to same sex parents. They are on birth certificates because to do otherwise would be discrimination.

Adoption is a completely different process.

It does not look like that from an outsider's perspective.

It doesn't look like you are an outsider.

As for Venice and Lily, Venice (who is 24 years Lily's senior) engaged in very immature behaviour online.

In a group she thought was private which was invaded by a TRA who impersonated a gender critical feminist and doxxed her and other women on Twitter. If you bug my private meeting with my friends can you blame me for the things I said when I thought I was among friends?

She then went up to Lily at a party and made her feel uncomfortable by saying that she hoped she was okay and that it 'wasn't personal', while she was handing out flyers about the GRA at the party.

She can't win, can she? And it wasn't actually Lily's party, it was a Labour "feminist" party.

She then took a selfie with Lily clearly in the background and without asking Lily's permission. Her excuse was that Lily was 'famous' and she wanted a celebrity photo.

Not exactly Crime of the Century is it?

More like she was going to tweet it with some dumb caption about Lily invading a feminist xmas party or something.

That's just your unfounded speculation. And IMO Lily was. And fully knew it.

Apologies to everyone else. Im not going to indulge this derailing any more,