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.

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

YY. Great analogy.

RunRabbitRunRabbit that was a brilliant post

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

Quite

And just to clear up the misconception that adopted children are given new birth ceritficates, they aren't. They are given an extract from the register of adoption, which looks incredibly like a birth certificate and you would need to know what you were looking at to twig that it isn't a birth certificate, but it isn't. My DD has a birth certificate which states her biological parents' details, and another document which states that DH and I are her parents. It implies but does not say explicitly that we are biologically related (because most people will assume that "mother" means "person who gestated and birthed the child")

No other details are changed on the certificate, BTW, so the fact that DD was born on X date and in Y place is included even though I wasn't even in the country at that time.

But, as others have said, modern adoption practice is to recognise the situation not try to pretend it didn't happen and we are all biologically related, even if we very much wish that were the case.

Great responses, everyone, it's interesting how desperate some of the TRA arguments are starting to sound.

Just wanted to say on the question how do you know that most people don't think TW actually = W. That's quite simple for me. For the last six months or so (since I got wise to this issue), I've been talking about it with everyone I meet.

I don't actually know any "woke" people, anyone into postmodern thinking or gender studies, no one in the LGBT scene who's not at least middle aged. Just loads and loads of average joes, of all classes, professions and education levels.

And in all that time, on this subject the question people ask the most about self-id is "who the fuck thinks that's a good idea" closely followed by "our politicians really are useless twats these days".

I might have only met hundreds and not millions of people in this time, so it's definitely anecdotal, but not a single person thought transwomen were actual women. And by TW they meant post-op transsexuals. The information that even crossdressers get called TW now was met with universal disbelief and derision.

Based on a sample size way larger than most studies about transgender people, and the fact that 100% so far have disagreed with the notion that transwomen are actual women, I am confident when I say that only a tiny fraction of people buy into the TW=W claim.

And on the petition - it's completely opaque to the people I've met. It's a feminist request regarding the intended change of a law most have never heard of. Of course they don't know about it.

Based on a sample size way larger than most studies about transgender people, and the fact that 100% so far have disagreed with the notion that transwomen are actual women, I am confident when I say that only a tiny fraction of people buy into the TW=W claim

Good point. Most of the studies that Mermaids et al cite are less rigorous than a Pantene "tens time more shiny" shampoo study. I've also discussed the issue with a variety of people (ages, nationalities, social backgrounds) and not one has suggested that they really believe that TW = W. I will admit, though, that this doesn't include any woke young uni students, so maybe that's the missing piece in my anecdata

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.

The law states "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)."

The law recognises that you cannot always say whatever you like through legislation such as the GRA, the Equality act and The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, but that doesn't mean you don't actually have free speech.

We need a groundhog emoji. Get on it MN.

That's because you keep making the same incorrect statements over and over again.

''for all purposes'' means legally, not biologically.

When a woman is compelled to call a biological man 'she' in court, then no, we don't have free speech.

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

Spot on Rat

Trans gender people have the protected characteristics of trans gender.
Women have the protected characteristic of sex.

And how exactly are we supposed to tell the difference?

Teacup why would you even want to?

Peak I agree with everything you say here - so much that I wanted to repeat your entire post.

With regard to the population believing that 'trans women are women', I think you are right that the vast majority of people do not think that someone can literally change sex and actually change chromosomes. They of course recognise that the person in question was born male but has now undergone transition.

Where I think you may be wrong is thinking that everyone agrees with you that trans women should not be treated like women. I actually think that you might be surprised there. Things like deliberately misgendering and then acting all innocent and saying you're just telling the truth do not help your cause- it makes you look like dickheads. For instance, people like Venice Allan make a huge point of calling trans women 'he' and bleat on about linguistic accuracy and then admits that she calls the trans women that she likes 'she'. Okay then. So it has nothing to do with linguistic accuracy. Watching some of her rambling videos on youtube seriously puts me off the entire movement and I suspect that many other women feel the same. Not to mention Jennifer James on the other thread with her adoration of George Galloway.

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.

Will they feel the same about William Jaggs having the legal right of access?

''for all purposes'' means legally, not biologically.

This. 100%.

And if you had any doubt this is a quote from the case that gave rise to the GRA (emphasis mine):

"While it also remains the case that a transsexual cannot acquire all the biological characteristics of the assigned sex (Sheffield and Horsham, cited above, p. 2028, § 56), the Court notes that with increasingly sophisticated surgery and types of hormonal treatments, the principal unchanging biological aspect of gender identity is the chromosomal element. It is known however that chromosomal anomalies may arise naturally (for example, in cases of intersex conditions where the biological criteria at birth are not congruent) and in those cases, some persons have to be assigned to one sex or the other as seems most appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case. It is not apparent to the Court that the chromosomal element, amongst all the others, must inevitably take on decisive significance for the purposes of legal attribution of gender identity for transsexuals (see the dissenting opinion of Thorpe LJ in Bellinger v. Bellinger cited in paragraph 52 above; and the judgment of Chisholm J in the Australian case, Re Kevin, cited in paragraph 55 above).

"The Court is not persuaded therefore that the state of medical science or scientific knowledge provides any determining argument as regards the legal recognition of transsexuals."

It's a fairly crappy judgment (especially dragging intersex people into things), but even this doesn't support the argument that transwomen are women, merely that they should be allowed to legally change their sex/gender for the sake of their privacy.

merely that they should be allowed to legally change their sex/gender for the sake of their privacy.

It’s not difficult to see why a law created to protect privacy in 2004 isn’t capable of reconciling the needs of women for sex based services and the aims of organisations like stonewall in 2018.

That is why it is necessary to go back and clearly define terms.

Sheffield and Horsham
Did you actually just post that AllyMc?

This old case from 1998 (you forgot the date) is why at that time transsexuals could not change sex legally.

Fast forward to 2018 and the world knows more about transsexualism/ GID/ GD, thinking has progressed and changed on a mass scale, and in most countries they can now legally change their sex.

Your views belong to an era when it was acceptable for mainstream media to refer to transsexuals as "bed-wetters in bad wigs", "screaming mimis”, “trannies” and "shemales". Sad that you can't see it but it highlights your prejudice and ideology.

Charlie, I'm really sorry but I had to laugh. If you'd like I'll take your anecdata and raise you mine! But what would be the point? All you've done is what your mind desires to do, which is to re-enforce the belief that you are right. You go to your friends and tell them over all the skewed, biased misapprehensions reasons as to why you think a certain thing, and with neither the information nor the inclination to counter your points they agree with you!? Well fuck me sideways if I'm not surprised.

But I'm not blaming you for that, we all do it. We all want to be right, so we really really struggle to present things neutrally, even when we're really trying - and that's assuming we even have a reason to try. Forgive me for thinking you might be presenting the issues on the grounds of, er, "raising awareness" (shall we say) of something you believe to be a pressing issue? Hardly a reason for you to present it neutrally is it. Quite the opposite I'd say.

But hey, you're not alone, although at least I admitted in a previous post that my anecdata would be similarly meaningless. I'm not singling you out on that front, but hopefully you can see why I think your confidence might be misplaced.

I think Super has become tired of sophistry and just decided to nail their flag to the mast with complete abandon!

Fast forward to 2018 and the world knows more about transsexualism

Nobody can even agree what the word means. You appear to believe that all trans people take hormones, while schools are being advised that the trans umbrella includes transvestites and people of a third gender, not yet identified.

Rat

The plural of anecdote is not data is not the same as the plural of anecdote is not anecdata. You might be right about the first one (although I would probably beg to differ on this point as I am sure is predictable) but you're definitely wrong about the second.

HTH.

I think Lang is resorting to insults because their inability to argue from a logical, rational, factually correct and ethical evidence base has just been exposed for all to see.

Did you actually just post that AllyMc?

I'm quoting the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin v UK (2002) (link if you're interested www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/588.html) which is the reason why we have the GRA. I'm not quoting from Sheffield and Horsham - the Goodwin case refers to Sheffield and Horsham. The British Government fought against transsexuals being able to change their birth certificates in Goodwin, and would not have created that law if they hadn't lost. I posted the above quote in response to your post of 21:26 which seemed to suggest that the GRA somehow endorses your belief that transwomen are biologically women.

I can see if I can find any more recent quotes from the ECtHR, although frustratingly there doesn't seem to be an official English translation of the recent Garçon case, which endorsed the practice of having to get a dysphoria diagnosis before being permitted to legally change sex. I am absolutely certain that the ECtHR will not have changed it's mind on the above point in any event (because no rational person believes that transwomen are biologically the same as women).

As for my views, I don't believe transwomen are women. I'm liberal so I believe people have a right to dress and behave how they like as long as it doesn't harm anyone (I am actually more progressive than the current law in this respect, as I feel that men should have protection under the Equality Act to wear women's clothes at work etc even where it's not part of a gender reassignment process). I understand that dysphoria is a medical condition and there might be some alleviation of distress if those individuals are allowed to change their ID etc to say that they are the sex that they would prefer to be, but any such process must be tightly controlled with a focus on protecting women and girls at all times. I don't think that my views are outdated. If anything, I was like you until fairly recently and then I peaktransed and my views have evolved beyond what they were.

Lang I have literally no clue what you're banging on about. I have said from the start anecdotes are not data, reread my posts if you will! I even gave reasons now and previously as to why they're less than useless, just in case anyone was in any doubt.

And here I am arguing against someone's anecdotal evidence because i have already said anecdotes on the subject are bull, and you're talking to me like I'm trying to prove ghosts exist because my granny saw one

Or am I missing something? Do you actually think I think the plural of anecdote is anecdata, and that I wasn't using the term in its dictionary defined meaning? No, seriously, you've lost me.

Lang I have literally no clue what you're banging on about. I have said from the start anecdotes are not data

I was mucking about!

The plural of anecdote is not data is a well known phrase.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes not anecdata.

Just joshing you woman, honest.

I think Lang is resorting to insults

I wasn't insulting you. I was just observing that you have decided to be more blunt in your posting style. Nailing flags to masts is a good thing in my book. We can all argue our points with more clarity when we know exactly the positions taken by others, no?

Okay, hang on, so I was telling a poster who is very confident in their belief because that that's probably not a very good reason, and... You tell me the plural of anecdotes is not data? Which is precisely what I'm telling that poster?

No, I don't get it :( I wish I did though, I like a bit of joshing, honest! Or was it a dig at my word count? Because I'll admit, you'd be onto something there