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.

AllyMcBeagle

Could you clarify some of this?

You said:
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).

From this, it looks as though the breach of human rights in Goodwin v UK could have been challenged in the same way as the prisoner voting ban, but then in a later post you say:

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.

My question is why could the UK overrule the ECtHR on the prisoner voting ban issue, but not the Goodwin one?

@SupermatchGame and @RatRolyPoly why are you so keen to defend the rights of natal males over natal females?

Do you think that reinforcing old fashioned gender roles is actually in anyone's benefit?

I think all people deserved freedom, protection, the right to dignity etc.

Males don't get to trump our rights as females.

If it's all about privacy then think how the world has changed since 2004. Now trans women are all over the media, talking about being trans! Raising money on crowd funder for surgery, giving interviews expressly about being trans.

So the need for privacy is not there for them or for those trans women who clearly can be identified as male. For those who want privacy and to go stealth, there is GRA as it stands.

My question is why could the UK overrule the ECtHR on the prisoner voting ban issue, but not the Goodwin one?

Essentially the Labour Government got the ruling back in Goodwin and admitted defeat on this issue and changed the law by creating the GRA.

I'm not much of an expert on the prisoner voting issue but my understanding is that the first ECtHR judgment came out in 2005, the Labour Government tried to change the law to comply with the ruling but couldn't get enough votes to get it through Parliament, the Tories then got in and Cameron said that he was so against it that they weren't going to change the law even though there could be further cases. Then the Supreme Court ruled and reached a different view to the ECtHR (which to my knowledge is the first time they have done this). Then I believe that there were further cases and fines at the ECtHR. I have just googled and apparently in the last few months the Government has come up with some minor changes to the law which don't need to go through Parliament which they think should make the UK human rights compliant (although this may be tested in further ECtHR cases in the future).

So the prisoner voting issue was a particularly tricky one for the Government, and they won't put up the same fight for most issues.

@AllyMcBeagle, your posts are amazing.

@AllyMcBeagle, your posts are amazing.

Oh good I think they're too long-winded and technical. Typical lawyer - never use 10 words when I can use 100 ;)

@AllyMcBeagle, your posts are amazing.

Seconded. I'm always learning from yours. So thank you for taking the time to explain.

Oh thank you both

I note btw that there still hasn't been an answer from the OP to the question of how anything from the ECtHR, Council of Europe etc supports the notion that transwomen are actually women - only that they should be allowed to change their legal sex.

I love long winded and technical!

The right to privacy doesn't seem straightforward - there are a lot of arguments about data at the moment, and it seems that the circumstances in which you would enjoy a right to privacy can change depending on current legislation.

Doesn't that mean that while the concept of a right to privacy remains, laws can be changed as circumstances change?

"...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"

Actually, what some trans women argue is that there is no such thing as female biology. Then they start talking about intersex and how you can't be sure if anything. If women had known in 2004 that this crap was coming then there would have been a massive push against allowing biological males to appropriate being 'female' in law.

Italiangreyhound this is it, isn't it? If no one believed it, we wouldn't have to have half the discussions around the issue. And even while making that statement Peakpants muddies the water by saying what makes a woman is not just based on biology. That's precisely what TW=W is based on.

RatRolyPoly what you're saying wouldn't even be true if we were asking people whether French food is better than American or whether football is better than rugby. You make it sound like you don't meet any people who know their own minds. People have their own opinions, you know, even if they don't know anything about the subtleties of the law or what medically transitioning means in practice.

I am confident because we aren't debating an inconsequential matter of individual preference. TW=W contradicts a fundamental reality of life. We are dimorphic mammals - animals who do not change sex. Anything else is secondary to that.

You might have had a little more luck prior to the redefinition of trans. Now that the overwhelming majority of TW are non-gender dysphoric, non-med, non-op individuals with no apparent desire to see a doctor and transition medically, TW=W makes even less sense in the eyes of people.

Juzza12 I didn't give stats on post-op people. GIRES estimated that 1% of the UK population is trans, of that number so far they say 30,000 have sought medical help (that's top of page 2)

And from the GRC stats we know there's just under 5000 who got one. Originally, you had to be post-op or soon to be post-op to get a GRC. There's also stats on genital surgeries which show about 1000 per decade, but I have no idea whereabouts those are.

why are you so keen to defend the rights of natal males over natal females?

Hi Italian, hope you're well! I don't think there is a hierarchy of who should have what rights. I could respond to each of your questions, but I'll just take this one for starters...

Do you think that reinforcing old fashioned gender roles is actually in anyone's benefit?

No. I actually think my position will be better for dissolving gender stereotypes than yours.

I think rigidly sticking to sex-based pronouns reinforces the archaic notion that whether one is male or female must be super important to one's interactions in everyday society.

I think insisting that all and sundry must know the sex of those around them damagingly reinforces the same, and allows women to be stereotyped and discriminated against with far more ease.

And finally I think that in almost every scenario not covered in the equality act (where sex is obviously important to protect women from harm), the not knowing someone's biological sex despite knowing their gender presentation could actually be theoretically good for freeing women from sex-based oppression, but how the fuck would anybody know who the hell to oppress??

So there we go. In fact I really hate that the anti-self-Id, anti-GRA, anti-gender-identity or anti-whatever-else group of feminists have bagsied the term "gender critical" as if they're the only feminists in the world who reject gender stereotypes.

I was brought up rejecting gender stereotypes, and I have never met a single feminist who isn't out to liberate us from them!

I just don't agree that you're going the right way about it, and actually I think to call the viewpoint "gender critical" (not that you personally have done this) is deliberately conflating the fight against gender stereotypes with the resistance to trans ideology.

Much more honest to call it "gender-identity critical".

But doesn't piggyback off the gender stereotype debate with quite the same ease.

Much as I feel for people with dysphoria the attempts to destroy all meaningful definitions of woman is the crime of erasure.

If you are defending their right to do this, you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. You are throwing girls under the bus for a tiny number of natal males.

but how the fuck would anybody know who the hell to oppress??

This should say BECAUSE how the fuck...

You are throwing girls under the bus for a tiny number of natal males.

You may believe that, but I'm afraid you haven't convinced me.

And finally I think that in almost every scenario not covered in the equality act (where sex is obviously important to protect women from harm), the not knowing someone's biological sex despite knowing their gender presentation could actually be theoretically good for freeing women from sex-based oppression, but how the fuck would anybody know who the hell to oppress??

What is the relevance of somebody's gender presentation to anything? How should most people go about hiding their biological sex? Burka? Voice simulator?

I just don't agree that you're going the right way about it, and actually I think to call the viewpoint "gender critical" (not that you personally have done this) is deliberately conflating the fight against gender stereotypes with the resistance to trans ideology

Much more honest to call it "gender-identity critical

I agree with this. The concept of sex segregation other than for safety reasons is actually pretty outdated. There is no reason to have girl guides as a separate club from scouts. In many other countries, children of both sexes are free to join one single scouting organisation. Yet people on here act as if its the greatest crime in humanity. There are also many other more progressive countries e.g. in Scandinavia who do not have single sex education- again really doesn't seem to do them any harm. By separating girls and boys based on natal sex when there is no real reason to do so, you are reinforcing that there is a huge difference between the two. In your debates you also seek to hugely victimise women and girls as if they are always at constant risk. i am not sure whether all women would agree with that perception.

I think more and more toilets and changing rooms should be single cubicles which would end the stupid toilet debate. There should be exceptions in professional sport, intimate medical care and DV refuges. But the fewer categorisations we make (other than when strictly necessary), the better for everyone, to break down the perception that biology is hugely important.

You are throwing girls under the bus for a tiny number of natal males.

My guess is that most of the people on here do not work with trans people, do not have trans friends and generally are not hugely affected by trans people. It's like immigration. I keep reading about how our country is going to shit because of it. Yet, my life appears to be absolutely fine and I am not impacted by it, despite it being made out to be such a huge problem. If it's a tiny number (which I agree with), I don't agree that you are throwing all girls under a bus. In fact, if you ask girls under 18 about this, I think the vast majority would think you were mad.

I think most people are talking about sex segregation for safety to be honest.
I don’t have a problem with their being mixed sex groups for scouting etc, I do have a problem with them having mixed sex dorms.

My guess is that most of the people on here do not work with trans people, do not have trans friends and generally are not hugely affected by trans people

Oh we’re back to this.

You’re wrong.

My mother was in a lesbian relationship when I was growing up and we were right in the centre of the lgbt community. Many of my close family friends are trans and I’ve been aware of and fighting for trans rights my whole life.
Many of the women here have trans family members, friends and some shock horror are even trans themselves.

Teacup that is fair enough but if you read the thread about the girl guides, people were making out that it was the crime of the century to make girls be in the same society as boys.

I am sure the tent thing can be appropriately managed by the scouting staff. But many posters were opposed on principle to ever let someone born male in the Guides, despite the fact that girls can join the Scouts.

Same with same-sex schools- so many of them actually allow the other sex to join, especially in 6th form, that it's wrong to actually call them single sex. Yet when there is a sniff of a trans girl attending a girls' school, people are up in arms about it.

Teacup if you say you have been fighting for trans rights, I presume you were in favour of the GRA then? To be fair, I find your posts a lot more balanced than many others, so your background does show. However, I don't think you represent the majority of the GC people on here.

The concept of sex segregation other than for safety reasons is actually pretty outdated

Agree.

However, women still have to deal with the consequences of female biology including periods, contraception, pregnancy, breast feeding unwanted pregnancy, miscarriage and menopause. None of that is going to change any time soon.

I think the reason this issue is discussed so much on Mumsnet is that you breeze along just being yourself, and then suddenly you try to conceive or you have a baby and you can't escape the impact of being female.

Being female is all biology. The rest is just being human.