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 how they feel. For some it's a lot more than that, but for many it is just a feeling

They feel they are a woman the same as me. I feel they are fundamentally different to me. Why should their feelings trump mine? Especially if they are not a man.

And as long as I can have protections then there is no problem. There is no denying their reality. I would go further, I would support their right to protections if needed.

But to those that say I feel like a woman therefor I can override your protections then we have problems.

This is why this whole business is such a threat to normal trans people because there is no easy way to distinguish between trans people who respect other people and those that don't.

Cross post with Supermatch.

Not having a GRC doesn’t mean not having gender dysphoria

Not having medical treatment suggests that.

A transwoman will never wake up in a woman's body.

Unless they are a fetus and they have woken up in the body of their mother before they get born.

Of course don't deny trans people exist or have rights!

But do you really think the way forward is prioritising gender over sex?

SupermatchGame I am entirely aware of how the numbers came about. And while the number of transsexuals is based on prevalence established in a large number of studies, the number who have a GRC can be looked up on the UK government website.

I understand from talking to a number of transsexuals that they consider the GRC an important part of their journey, therefore the number of post-op transsexuals without a GRC is unlikely to swell the numbers significantly.

My point is that protections were put in place to ensure that transsexuals have the right to live in their chosen gender role. The presentations to parliament before the GRA was passed into law were entirely focused on protecting post-op or soon to be post-op transsexuals.

The numbers projected forwards back then have turned out to be accurate. There has been no statistically significant uptick in the number of transsexuals applying for GRCs or waiting for genital surgery.

This is who politicians and the general public think self-id is intended for. This is who most people think of when they hear transwomen are women. Yet this is not who is pushing self-id.

So as intellectually interesting as it might be to explore how and in what way an M2F transsexual could be considered to be a woman, it's entirely irrelevant to the self-id debate.

I thought it was disgusting, the way the Royal Family announced that the Duchess of Cambridge had given birth to a boy, because how do they know? That "boy" may well be a transgirlbaby, and it's terrible that they have already assigned a sex to it.

Down with this sort of thing!

"Them" Light surely, not "it" !

"According to your explanation, the other 950 to 995 out of every 1000 trans people cannot lay claim to being the other sex. But self-id will give them the same rights as if they were. "

This is making the huge assumption that those 900+ out of every 1000 will take up Self ID should it be available. It is just possible, most of them may be OK with staying as they are. Are there figures available from the other countries that have introduced Self ID to show that there has been a massive increase in transsexual or transgender people transitioning and living in the role of the opposite sex?

Love the stats and the clarifying of common ground.

I just learnt from thebewilderness that in 2005 the Transgender Movement (btw who funded this minute minority to have such a loud voice) claimed sovereignty over all the LBGT community. I would be happy if they gave up that crown they sequestered and returned to just being the T in the LGBT community. And that their "leaders" stopped their sequestration of women and girls' rights and safe spaces for their own ends. #WAWAG

The problem I have is the legal fiction has been reversed to suggest that it's reflecting reality.

So the group 'Woman' is now 'someone who is female' OR 'someone with a GRC'

ie. it's no longer a cohesive group where the majority of the members share a majority of factors.

For example, I am a woman (I don't identify as or feel like a woman, I am a woman, and I work with what I have). What is my overlap with a transwoman? What shared characteristics do we have that makes us both part of the group 'woman'? Is that overlap greater or lesser than the overlap between me and my male partner? If I have a greater overlap of factors with my male partner, does that make me a man? Or does that make him a woman?

I think that this tinkering with reality with the GRC has actually caused no-end of problems here, because it just doesn't make practical sense.

GIRES, in their Home Office funded study estimate the number of trans people in the UK to be between 300,000 - 500,000, defined as ‘..a large reservoir of transgender people who experience some degree of gender variance’ (Reed et al 2009)"

Thanks for this - that makes perfect sense.

I'll be honest Charlie, I don't think the statistical extrapolation means an awful lot, given the definition of trans here. And rather than being more than 650,000 I think it's far more likely to be less (i.e. it has been rounded up to 1%, so 0.5%+), and these figures back that up.

Anyway, really interesting thread either way.

So the group 'Woman' is now 'someone who is female' OR 'someone with a GRC'

Ie. it's no longer a cohesive group where the majority of the members share a majority of factors.

Well look, even by the most generous stats above "women" is still a cohesive grip where the majority of members share the majority of factors.

It's not diluting the commonality to the point of meaninglessness to include transwomen in the definition is it?

The group “women” all share XX chromosomes. That’s kind of a thing.

Well look, even by the most generous stats above "women" is still a cohesive grip where the majority of members share the majority of factors.

It's not diluting the commonality to the point of meaninglessness to include transwomen in the definition is it?

Well, it is, if you can't now meaningfully define it. If two members of that group could share nothing in common at all, how can you meaningfully define that group?

For example if there are traits 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and people a,b,c

and person a has traits 1,2,3,4 person b has traits 3,4,5,6, and and person c has traits 1,2,5,6 then how could you say they are all of one group? You could say that the majority of these people share a majority of factors with another in the group perfectly truthfully, and yet person a and person b have nothing in common at all (ok, so it's 50/50 here not a majority, but how many numbers do you want to read in an example).

If, as a programmer I saw that in a specification, I would know that something's gone wrong - there are no common factors that justify putting all these people in the same set, therefore, they are not of the same set.

I know people on here constantly deny that they feel female

I beg your parden?

I dont constantly deny i feel female

I dont feel female

Happy to believe you do

Also happy to believe that a man does

Whether or not I feel female makes bugger all difference to whether or not I am female.

And you can extrapolate from there.

So as intellectually interesting as it might be to explore how and in what way an M2F transsexual could be considered to be a woman, it's entirely irrelevant to the self-id debate.

Exactly. And the endless walls of words distract from all the things women actually stand to lose under both social and legislated self-ID.

It's like an attempt to blind with (non) science. Doesn't work on me, I'm afraid.

P

Also happy to believe that a man does

I'm not. Crucially I'm happy to believe that a man doesn't feel like a man and thinks he feels more like what he assumes a woman feels but not that he "feels female" as he can have absolutely no way of knowing that, as a male person.

Yes that fairer to say ereshkigal

And rather than being more than 650,000 I think it's far more likely to be less (i.e. it has been rounded up to 1%, so 0.5%+), and these figures back that up.

As I mentioned, the 1% figure is based on scientific research in the Netherlands, which was applied to the UK 65m estimated population at a particular time to give 650k.

There are a few posters on here that just come up with utter drivel

I might engage for a while but if i disengage its not because your well thought out arguments' have proved the unprovable or that i have been impressed by another completely pointless link that doesn't mean what you think it means

Its just that i think you're a twat and you're boring the shit out of me

The short version is "some people's gender identity is different to their biological sex".
But gender identity is subjective.
It's still circular argument that makes no sense.