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 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

Seems very strange that it’s still legal to insist on gendered clothing

Seems very strange that it’s still legal to insist on gendered clothing

Indeed. I think that if a woman is permitted to wear a skirt and heels to do a particular job then so should men, regardless of how they classify themselves. The current law offers no protection to transvestites, cross-dressers and other people under the 'trans umbrella' who don't intend to permanently switch from one gender to another.

Under my proposed changes it would also mean that it would be illegal for any dress code to require women to wear heels (unless men are required to wear heels too ).

AllyMc. Ah right thanks for clarifying. I still don't see any of those old cases as being relevant to today's legislation because the ECHR both protects an individual's right to privacy and their right to be recognised as their acquired sex (now seems to be referred to only as gender).

Council of Europe - structure of which contains the ECHR and The Commissioner for Human Rights:

Full legal recognition in all areas of life

"Member states should ensure that the change of name and gender on official documents effectively guarantees full legal recognition in all areas of life. CM/Rec(2010)5 states that the content and scope of procedures relating to the legal recognition of a person’s gender identity need to be sufficient for “making possible the change of name and gender in official documents” and “corresponding recognition and changes by non-state actors with respect to key documents”. Thus, member states need also to ensure that documents provided by non-state actors, such as educational and employment certificates can also be changed to match a person’s legally recognised gender. Legal gender recognition procedures should also ensure protection of a transgender person’s private life by making sure that third parties cannot obtain information on gender reassignment."

I agree legislation for 'identity' is messy. But it does essentially mean that those older cases are not as relevant any more. People do have a right to be recognised in their acquired gender (also referred to as sex in GRA).

because no rational person believes that transwomen are biologically the same as women.

Of course not. I never said they are. I've never heard anyone say that.

SMG that ECHR quote you give seems great to me, because it says gender not sex. If we could get back to clear separate definitions of gender and sex, stop conflating the two, and ensure good sex-based protections are enforced, everyone might be reasonably happy and stop worrying about it!

AllyMc. Ah right thanks for clarifying. I still don't see any of those old cases as being relevant to today's legislation because the ECHR both protects an individual's right to privacy and their right to be recognised as their acquired sex (now seems to be referred to only as gender).

Well I don't want to get too boring and technical, but there's no freestanding right to be recognised in a new sex/gender - it is purely a consequence of the right to privacy (art 8) (and in certain countries, art 9 - see below) but even then only in certain circumstances - as I mention in the recent Garçon case the ECtHR said it's fine for states to refuse to grant a GRC (or equivalent in other countries) to anyone who doesn't have a diagnosis of dysphoria, which seriously restricts its application of course.

Goodwin also refers to the right to marry (art 9) - but that part of the judgment is no longer relevant in the UK because we have same sex marriage, so the right to a GRC in the UK only arises out of the right to privacy.

because no rational person believes that transwomen are biologically the same as women.

Of course not. I never said they are. I've never heard anyone say that.

OK I'm really missing your point then. What did you mean in your post if 21:26 in relation to the GRA 2004?

And if they are not biologically women the in what sense are they women? I have read the full thread but I still fail to understand the logic here. Do you believe that transwomen have a woman's brain and/or soul in a man's body? There are stereotypes associated with womanhood - do you believe that performing those stereotypes makes someone a woman? If so, is a woman who rejects all those stereotypes (and dresses androgynously etc) not a woman? There are stereotypes and cultures associated with race - do you think that Rachel Dolezal who has adopted black culture is now a black woman?

I just really don't understand.

Agree flowers but as someone said the other night it is always going to come down to where the line is drawn with regards to sex-based protections.

I’m not sure that either the ECHR or the UK government have coherent policies on gender or sex. It’s apparently possible to change gender, which might be the same as sex, but the ECHR doesn’t protect any right to same sex marriage and a man wanting to wear a skirt is on his own. A man may get from 2 days to year’s parental leave. Joint same sex adoption is not available across Europe.

All sounds a bit of a lottery. Almost as though it all requires a lot more thought.

AllyMc But the ECHR's own guidance maintains explicitly that there should be full recognition of acquired gender in all areas of life. I can't see how they would ignore their own guidance when interpreting the law. This guidance now stands in its own right. (As guidance dealing with Protecting Transgender People).

What did you mean in your post if 21:26

I meant that medically transitioned trans women are a lot less strong than men. So much so that the IOC currently allows them to compete as women. Surgically transitioned - will also share some of the same vulnerabilities. Some 'look like women' (hate that phrase) to many men and could be harassed/ attacked/ violated just for being female (as opposed to targeted for being trans - which can also happen). I don't think that's the same as saying they are biologically identical in all ways. Obviously they are not, or they wouldn't need a GRA to change their legal sex.

believe that transwomen have a woman's brain and/or soul in a man's body?

No that's a gross oversimplification. But I do believe that gender identity (the sex with which one identifies) has genetic, biological, environmental and sociological precursors. Most scientific published research reaches that conclusion. I don't think human aspects of identity are tangible and I don't really know what a 'soul' is anyway. Does anyone? I don't think it's about stereotypes either. I also believe that regardless of how it develops, once gender identity is established, it is generally immutable. So do most of the medical and mental health professions.

I don't want to comment on the individual you mention as I don't know enough other than what I've read in the media. I don't know what their real motivations are, what has gone on in their life or if they are diagnosed/ undiagnosed as mentally ill.

Lang I wasn't insulting you. I was just observing that you have decided to be more blunt in your posting style.

It was the use of 'sophistry', 'abandon' and the exclamation mark at the end, and what that implies. Perhaps it's just how I interpreted it. Only you will really know I guess.

RatRolyPoly Crikey, do you honestly think anyone can have hundreds and hundreds of friends? Your definition of friend and mine are obviously not the same. No, I'm actually guilty of talking to complete strangers about the issue. Aquaintances and friends and family, too, of course, but mostly strangers.

And I'm not presenting a thing. I do that when I debate, I'm not debating with these people. Total chatterbox me and a good listener. I start conversations with anyone and everyone. Cashiers, mechanics, teachers, receptionists, fellow shoppers etc.

They tell me stuff, about their problems, what happens to their families, what they love or hate. Like my hairdresser who brought up the issue of her primary school kid being taught that girls can actually change sex and become a boy. That pisses people off no end when someone messes with their kids' education. Or when the boys at our now unisex swimming pool changing rooms harrass the girls and a staff member shares their exasperation about that with me.

Etc etc etc

Like I said, I'm fully aware this is anecdotal. The reason, I confidently state that most people do not think TW are actual W is because I haven't met a single person, not one, who thinks they are. And I'm not asking "do you think TW=W", nah we chat about aspects of the issue that concern them. Like single-sex hospital wards, or carers or a scholarship for women their daughter is applying for or the girl guides new policy that upset one of the mums at school who only allowed her daughter to go on the camps because she knew there'd be no boys.

That kind of thing. What should make you happy is that everyone also agrees that no one should be discriminated against for their self-expression and that transsexuals need to be protected.

They just don't agree that society should undergo a massive change for the sake of a small minority who place their personal preferences over other people's rights (the non-gender-dysphoric trans person that is, not transsexuals for whom this is far more serious than a mere quirk of their personality).

And they don't agree women should have their rights interfered with for the sake of men who feel they are women. And they're outraged about the intimidation normal women face who want to go to a women's rights meeting to discuss the issue.

I'm sure you don't consider me a normal woman as I'm here on a feminist board, but when I attended one of those meetings I did so not as a feminist, but as someone who wanted to understand what self-id could and would mean for me and all the other women and girls I know. And so were a lot of women there who like me had never even been to a women's meeting, let alone a feminist one.

So when I tell people about the protesters outside dressed like thugs with their balaclavas over their face and their pots and pans banging and their hate-filled placards and slogans and the police having to protect us, they are appalled. No one in Scotland likes that kind of behaviour.

At which point, I am not "showing my bias", I am sharing a personal experience I've had. Me, totally boring, middle aged me. I'm not a feminist warrior, I only work part time and the rest of it I look after the house and kids and before that I was just a housewife and SAHM. Which is why it has quite an impact when I share that story.

But I do find it quite funny when you say I just believe what I want to believe. I constantly seek out different opinions and have changed my position on several issues in the last few years, positions that I've held for decades. I just put more stock in science, logic and facts than feelings, ideologies and articles of faith.

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.

Yep, it's Groundhog Day today as well! Of course I can only aspire to be as nuanced and undogmatic as an intellectual giant like you, Supermatch.

Lose this silly, irrelevant analogy about free speech. The reasons there are exemptions in the Equality Act is because the law recognises that trans identified males are in fact biological men by sex, whatever their legal fictional "gender". That's why it's called the Gender Recognition Act and not the Sex Recognition Act.

AllyMc But the ECHR's own guidance maintains explicitly that there should be full recognition of acquired gender in all areas of life. I can't see how they would ignore their own guidance when interpreting the law. This guidance now stands in its own right. (As guidance dealing with Protecting Transgender People).

I don't want to get too in depth on this point (particularly as it seems a little off topic to the question of whether trans women are women), but I will try and set things out as briefly as it might vaguely interest some people.

• The UK had signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. It contains a number of rights (eg right to privacy). The Convention rights have been incorporated directly into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).
• Since the HRA was created, people can sue the Government for breaches of human rights in the UK courts, rather than needing to go to European Court of Human Rights every time a right is breached. The UK courts have rights to award compensation for breach of rights, read additional words into legislation where possible in order to interpret it in accordance with human rights and make a declaration that the Government should repeal/change a law to comply with human rights.
• The European Court of Human Rights can still rule the interpretation of the Convention rights, and can say that compensation should be granted, but they can't go as far as the UK courts in terms of effecting change. The UK courts have to take the ECtHR's rulings into account but can disagree (eg the ECtHR has repeatedly ruled that the UK's prisoner voting ban breaches human rights, but the UK Supreme Court has come to a different conclusion, so the law remains).
• Basically, it is the human rights from the Convention and their interpretation by UK Courts which have most weight, then ECtHR cases (including Goodwin v UK) and then Council reccomendations which will have a much lower weight.

I'm unclear what part of the Council's recommendation you think is important anyway? The Council has not said transwomen are women (again, you'll note their carefully worded phrase was 'full legal recognition').

What did you mean in your post if 21:26

I meant that medically transitioned trans women are a lot less strong than men. So much so that the IOC currently allows them to compete as women.

OK I am very confused. Are we talking about the same post as I can't see anything related to this in you 21:26 post from this Saturday evening? It's the one where you quoted the GRA.

I'm not sure I get your point anyway. Transwomen will inevitably be bigger and stronger than 90% of women and so women may feel threatened to have them in their spaces (and might feel uncomfortable being naked in front of someone of the opposite biological sex anyway). I'd personally advocate for safe private unisex spaces in addition to single sex communal spaces, especially as if self ID comes in and any person (regardless of how they look) can enter women's spaces unchallenged then we're all in danger from dodgy men - both transwomen and women.

I do believe that gender identity (the sex with which one identifies) has genetic, biological, environmental and sociological precursors.

I still don't really get what you're saying to be honest. For me, being an actual woman is purely about being inside a female sexed body. Growing up, I didn't have any kind of connection with feeling like a girl/woman. All my friends at school were boys, I didn't have any real connection with any of the girls, I studied a STEM subject at uni (before switching to law after graduation) where I was the only female student in the department, I didn't wear girly clothing or make up. It was only later that I started wearing skirts/dresses, makeup and dating. I see gender as something that is thrust on us by society. Men are expected to perform masculinity and women femininity. There are aspects of femininity that I have grown to enjoy and others I find oppressive, but at the end of the day I still fundamentally feel like I am just who I am and all this gender stuff is kind of bollocks. I do worry that if all this trans stuff had been around when I was younger I might have got sucked into it, whereas now I'm just happy being me, embracing whatever bits of gendered stuff I like and rejecting (as much as society permits) anything I don't.

Jeez. I don’t think anyone actually believes they can change biological sex. I really don’t. Yet so many posters on here say that is what we believe. No.
However, being a woman is not just about biological sex. Yes it’s not entirely possible to explain- it’s a mixture of psychology, biology and other people’s perceptions of you. I could throw it back to you and say explain what makes you human. Explain what makes you British etc. It’s not always possible- identity is a very complex thing. The gender critical people pretend that everything is super simple and that psychology and feelings do not come into it whatsoever. That view would probably have worked in 1965 but as a pp said- we have moved on since then.

Yes it’s not entirely possible to explain

It is entirely possible to explain. A woman has female reproductive organs, a man has male reproductive organs. Where it's not possible to make this distinction somebody is intersex. I am female in exactly the same way that any other mammal is female. You can make no assumptions about my identity because I am female, however there are unavoidable consequences to being female.

I cannot think of any aspect of being a woman that isn't about biological sex.

I could throw it back to you and say explain what makes you human.

I'm sure there are better sources but:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

Explain what makes you British

www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship

I am no more or less British than any other British national. Please don't assume anything about my identity because I have a British passport.

identity is a very complex thing

I will agree that the word 'identity' doesn't have a precise definition, which is why it's odd to think it's possible to put people into identity boxes.

However, being a woman is not just about biological sex. Yes it’s not entirely possible to explain- it’s a mixture of psychology, biology and other people’s perceptions of you.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement.

Being a woman is biology. That's it.

Being a transwoman is being biologically male with some psychological stuff going on too.

The problem arises when you say one is the other.

I want a campaign to let transwomen be transwomen. They should be free to live their lives as men who are transwomen. Same as men who are gay, men who are disabled, men who have ASD, men who are bald. Live and let live. Just don't try to tell me obvious facts are now false and it's not entirely possible to explain

Yet despite your conviction that you have the right answer, almost every country in Europe (and indeed the Western world) believes it’s not as cut and dry as you say. Scientists do not believe it is as cut and dry as you say. Psychologists and sociologists don’t either. But yeah, I am sure they’re all entirely wrong and you’re right.

we have moved on since then.

Because in theory we no longer believe that there is something wrong with somebody who doesn't conform to outdated gender norms.

However, given earlier discussion about whether a gendered uniform policy can be enforced, the law is taking a while to catch up.

Okay Charlie don't take it to heart. What I meant about "believing what you want to believe" (as you put it) was simply that as humans we do some things on a completely subconscious level for basic human reasons; so unconscious bias that you won't even know you're showing, but you undoubtedly will be - as would I!

But hey, look, you just sound like a perfectly nice, normal person to me. The way you describe the subject coming up, the people you raise it with, that's exactly how I pictured it to be honest. Doesn't make it mean all that much. And whilst I can't stop it meaning all that much to you, I can tell you why it shouldn't; mostly because of unconscious bias.

We could do a little experiment if you like; we could both ask 50 strangers in the street tomorrow and I bet you a statistically significant greater number of those I ask will agree with me, and a greater number of those you ask will agree with you. Unconscious bias on our part.

And in fact if we just asked 50 people in natural conversation rather than approaching them specifically to ask the question, then I doubt anyone we asked would disagree with either of us at all! It's just human nature; we don't engage our brains too much for a simple, social conversation and mostly they're about ease, enjoyment and politeness, hence biased towards agreement.

Anyway, I go on. It's really a very small side point, just one I find interesting hence the blah blah blah from me! Hope you find it interesting too, just a little bit.

But sex-exclusive spaces (toilets, sports, prisons, AWS etc) are based on sex, not identity.

If we all agree that no one can change sex then how is it even an argument that trans women use female spaces?

almost every country in Europe (and indeed the Western world) believes it’s not as cut and dry as you say.

I'm not sure how you are able to conclude what a country things, but countries in Europe are not in step when it comes to gender expectations. The UK is comparatively progressive on parental leave, but fathers still don't receive equal pay. Italy doesn't appear to think the father's role should extend further than taking a couple of days off for a celebratory drink.

Scientists do not believe it is as cut and dry as you say.

I believe that 'identity' is not cut and dried and that therefore grouping people according to binary gender identity is regressive. Women sometimes need specific protections, services and rights because of their biology. Beyond that nobody should make assumptions about anybody's identity.

almost every country in Europe (and indeed the Western world) believes it’s not as cut and dry as you say.

I don't think that's a good argument. Most of the countries in Europe have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, so they will have been forced to allow changes in legal status since Goodwin unless they want to be sued too.

And again, creating a legal fiction to allow someone to change their legal sex, is not the same as endorsing that they are actually in any real sense a woman.

Scientists do not believe it is as cut and dry as you say.

I don't think this is a valid claim either. The limited number of studies I don't provide any evidence for a 'ladybrain' and in the few that do show any differences between men's and transwomen's brains, there still isn't much similarity between transwomen's and women's brains.

I would bet that most scientists believe that transwomen are not women, but psychologists will say in the case of men with body dysmorphia the best treatment available is reassignment surgery and treat the transwomen as if they were a woman, because there is no effective psychological treatment yet.

Scientists do not believe it is as cut and dry as you say. Psychologists and sociologists don’t either.

I think you forgot the word 'some'

Some scientists do believe some do not, some psychologists believe some do not

Some posters on mumsnet believe some do not

I am both a scientist and a mumsnet poster. Humans are sexually dimorphic, that is cut and dried, not much debate on that in the scientific community. Those stating otherwise would be considered in the same light as flat-earthers.

Gender is definitely not cut and dried. The biology underlying gender identity is largely based on studies of individuals where this is non-typical (which is often how such things are initally understood), but there is little to no information available on the biology underlying gender identity in the general population, I am not aware of much data on whether most people consider themselves to even have a gender identity.

The GRA currently applies specifically to people with gender dysphoria, a clearly understood condition. Extending it to self-ID includes a whole other tranche of people with different reasons for questioning their gender presentation. I don't think we understand enough about that to legislate around it, and I am not clear on the rationale for doing so. Plus there are all the potential unintended consequences, that are a massive concern to some of us, particularly in the light of the conflation of sex and gender in the GRA, and how that could nullify the sex exemptions in the EA.

in the few that do show any differences between men's and transwomen's brains, there still isn't much similarity between transwomen's and women's brains.

And in the ones that control for sexuality, the brains of heterosexual trans identified males have no similarities with women, and more with men.

However, being a woman is not just about biological sex

Why not?