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.

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

No, it isn't. Radical feminism and its gender critical analysis has been around a lot longer than gender identity ideology. It hasn't changed - it is just applying the same analysis of gender to trans issues as it has applied to all other issues of concern to women.

Why must all language and history be changed to accommodate trans?

But they aren’t managing the tents appropriately, the guides are saying trans girls are girls and are being treat exactly as the other girls which means staying in the girls dormitory and if any of the girls object then they are to be ‘educated’ and they won’t tell the parents when their children is sleeping in the same dorm as a member of the opposite sex.

I don’t think many people would object to ‘trans girls’ being in the girl guides if they were kept separate for changing and sleeping, but they’re not.

I am in favour of the GRA, as it stands now it is the best compromise between two conflicting needs.

I am against self id.

How should most people go about hiding their biological sex?

The idea is they wouldn't hide it, but that in their appearing indistinguishable from people who may not share their reproductive biology, their sex could not be confidently assumed.

So if I apply for a job, I'm a woman of a particular age, they think I'm likely to get knocked-up some time soon so give the job to a man. If at some point in the future they've realised that loads of women don't have kids anyway, some don't even have the equipment, and the last two men they hired both took lengthy maternity leaves, it puts a rather different complexion on the decision.

Of course that's a complete hypothetical, but it's a way of looking at things.

You are throwing women under the bus when you pretend that female biology isn't important and insist that there is such a thing as a normal male or female identity.

And I don’t think trans women are literally biological women, but I think this is a pretty new development and don’t know any trans women in real life who would say this.

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.

Yes, and none of this will change. There will still be employment protections for pregnancy etc, but actually it's a good thing if biology is de-emphasised with parenthood. The assumption that women are biologically better suited to care for children etc is really not good for women overall. Therefore, I prefer terms like parental leave rather than maternity leave.

There is no suggestion that medical services will change either or that biological women will be treated differently or lose their status as women. You will always get the odd deranged person on twitter saying women shouldn't talk about X or Y, but that does not represent mainstream view.

I actually think that less emphasis on biological features of womanhood might be a good think long-term. Constant association of women with motherhood (even if they aren't mothers) has hindered women from getting ahead in the workplace and earning equal salaries. That experiment on TV about the gender neutral school actually seemed to have positive impacts for both girls and boys. Yet people on here get angry when a school uses a gender neutral term for head boy and head girl.

You're certainly throwing lesbians under the bus.

My favourite person to hear this said to on here was Stillscreaming. Much easier for her as a lesbian to ask people to stop using lesbians as a stick to beat transpeople with than for me as a heterosexual woman. And she didn't pull any punches with her turn of phrase!

but that in their appearing indistinguishable from people who may not share their reproductive biology, their sex could not be confidently assumed.

I agree that a small number of trans people can 'pass'.

However, the ability to determine sex pretty much underpins the ability of any animal to reproduce.

I don't think we are ever going to reach a point where nobody can tell anybody else's sex.

PeakPants and RatRolyPoly*

There is no reason to have girl guides as a separate club from scouts.
but how the fuck would anybody know who the hell to oppress??

I honestly am gobsmacked.

How will an employer know to sack a woman who had the bloody gall to get pregnant? Have you missed all the research on the discrimination of women?

How will a sexual predator know who to rape? Have you missed all the stats on male violence and crime?

No reason to have things just for girls? Have you missed all the research on socialisation?

By age 4 boys show more confidence
By age 8 girls consistently underestimate their abilities, boys consistently overestimate their abilities
...
By their teens girls perform better in STEM subjects at girls schools than mixed schools
...
And so on, to the grave.

What that tells me is that you do not understand that the oppression of women is not based on their presentation but their biology. I don't wear makeup, skirts or do my hair. Life is too short for all that crap - I don't present in a feminine way. I still got fucked over for being a woman.

Being a woman not performing some notion of femininity.

Material reality - XX chromosomes, ovaries, uterus, vagina. Which has real consequences for women from the day they are born.

I am happy (and probably just a little envious) that you have never been oppressed. Hang on though... I've supported lesbian rights all my life even when that wasn't an accepted standpoint. Even though I have never been oppressed for being lesbian, because I'm straight.

So, because I've never been oppressed for being lesbian, shall I now declare such oppression doesn't exist? Coz in essence that's what both of you seem to be doing with your most recent posts - you are denying that women are oppressed because of their biology and what society expects from us and how it treats us based on that biology.

It certainly explains a lot about your viewpoints.

You are throwing women under the bus when you pretend that female biology isn't important

There, look, there's that gross over-simplification again! Of course it's important!

...except when it's not.

Like it's important when working out what healthcare I need, but not when deciding whether or not I should study physics or fashion.

So just like it would be throwing women under a bus to say it isn't important ever, it would be throwing them under the same damn bus to say it's important all the time.

You're certainly throwing lesbians under the bus.

I know many lesbians who do not share the MN gender critical stance. Again, Riley J Dennis saying that lesbians are transphobic for not sleeping with trans women does not represent some mainstream view. Nobody in the real world is actually telling lesbians that they have to sleep with men. But at least I have respect for their position if they are gender critical and are arguing from their minority viewpoint. Middle class, white, heterosexual women who are convinced that this is the end of the world because they might have to lay eyes on a trans bra fitter, not so much.

I actually think that less emphasis on biological features of womanhood might be a good think long-term

Until about 30 years ago, pregnant women were supposed to hide. We're still not supposed to talk about periods or miscarriages.

I really don't think there is too much recognition of the biological reality of being a woman.

You will always get the odd deranged person on twitter saying women shouldn't talk about X or Y

And then they get invited to advise the Labour Party or make a documentary for Channel 4.

However, the ability to determine sex pretty much underpins the ability of any animal to reproduce.

Which part of someone's sex do you think it is you're seeing? Their chromosomes? Their hormones? The way these things have shaped them through puberty? What if they transitioned pre-puberty? What if their hormone levels are exceptional?

But actually that all doesn't matter, if I remember the oft-quoted study on this correctly. I believe it found that people can reliably determine another person's sex 99% of the time.

What percentage of the population are thought to be trans again...?

No reason to have things just for girls? Have you missed all the research on socialisation?

And actually the gender neutral school showed that treating them all the same and making no distinctions based on sex was actually beneficial. Could it be that the stuff about socialisation could be because society is incredibly sexist, telling kids from birth that there is a huge difference between girls and boys? Giving them their own girl guide group is like plugging a small hole on a sinking boat.

In societies that have much more equal representation of men and women, such as Scandinavian ones, single sex schools and clubs are virtually unheard of. Very often toilets are unisex over there too and there is simply not as much attention given to sex segregation. And the result seems to be that there is more equality actually.

So no, I don't think that Guides should be segregated and I don't think it's throwing anyone under the bus by allowing trans girls in there (but I think they should allow boys as well).

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?

The recent discussions about data mostly concern the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) which is a new piece of EU legislation which governs specific things like whether companies can put you on mailing lists and sell of your contact details to others without your permission. These kind of laws are amended from time to time (my understanding is that the GDPR is basically replacing the old Data Protection Act 1998, although this isn't an area of law that I have had to deal with much recently).

The right to privacy under article 8 of the ECHR/Human Rights Act is a separate and broader concept and is in the main concerned with the Government's obligations to protect its citizens' privacy. The wording of the right won't change, but it's meaning evolves through case law.

When someone alleges that their human rights have been breached, the court will consider what protections they have under relevant domestic/EU law when assessing whether the Government has done enough to protect their rights. So changes in law can be relevant, but I don't think they will be in this instance.

The ECtHR had previously held (prior to Goodwin) that the UK Government was doing enough to protect privacy by allowing people to change various IDs other than birth certificates, but by the time Goodwin came out it was clear that this wasn't enough, and the applicant had suffered discrimination from their employer after they had found out they were born male. I have wondered recently if we changed the law so that all ID did not mention sex/gender and the only record was held by Government under lock and key whether this would get around the privacy issue. I think that it might, but would it practically be any better than the situation we are in now?

The following quote from the Goodwin judgment is interesting and IMO still relevant:
"The coherence of the administrative and legal practices within the domestic system must be regarded as an important factor in the assessment carried out under Article 8 of the Convention [ie the right to privacy]. Where a State has authorised the treatment and surgery alleviating the condition of a transsexual, financed or assisted in financing the operations [ie via the NHS] and indeed permits the artificial insemination of a woman living with a female-to-male transsexual (as demonstrated in the case of X., Y. and Z. v. the United Kingdom, cited above), it appears illogical to refuse to recognise the legal implications of the result to which the treatment leads."

Rat, I did not say that biology is important all the time. However, it's the only difference between men and women and it does make a difference.

I think we are agreeing that people should be free from any expectations based on gender. I just don't understand how you go from there to thinking that it's possible to hide your sex or necessary to have a gender? I don't even understand how anybody's gender is being defined as male or female.

pants

Do you think the trans girls should be in the same sleeping quarters as the other girls?
What about self id’d trans women girl guide leaders?

Until about 30 years ago, pregnant women were supposed to hide. We're still not supposed to talk about periods or miscarriages.

I really don't think there is too much recognition of the biological reality of being a woman.

I think it's slightly untrue that in 1988, pregnant women were supposed to hide. How so? As I said, there are extensive employment rights based on pregnancy, but using terms such as parental leave rather than maternity leave is actually beneficial because it removes the assumption that infant care can only be carried out by a woman.

There is increasing awareness of e.g. miscarriages. There are various charities and awareness days dedicated to it. There's loads of attention given to breast cancer and other women's illnesses.

What more recognition do you want? So many women actually don't want to be defined by their biology and find this regressive. And as 99.5% of the category 'women' will remain biological women, I really doubt that we will be 'erased' at all.

Rat, you said:

But actually that all doesn't matter, if I remember the oft-quoted study on this correctly. I believe it found that people can reliably determine another person's sex 99% of the time.

but you also said:

The idea is they wouldn't hide it, but that in their appearing indistinguishable from people who may not share their reproductive biology, their sex could not be confidently assumed.

I'm struggling to reconcile the two.

Do you think the trans girls should be in the same sleeping quarters as the other girls?

It depends on their age but I think it should be down to the discretion of the leaders to ensure safety. Have there been many incidents of assaults by trans girls in these situations?

What about self id’d trans women girl guide leaders?

No, I have no problem with this, same as there are often male teachers in girls' schools and vice versa. Even if the organisation is single sex, why does the leader have to be the same sex? At school, we had male sports coaches for girls' teams. What is the problem with a trans woman being a girl guide leader?

If you are talking about sleeping arrangements, I am pretty sure the leaders never share tents etc with the children.

1. How many assaults do you think are acceptable before you separate childrens sleeping quarters by sex?

2. For the millionth time, its not just assaults that are the problem. Many girls wont be allowed to use mixed sex sleeping quarters so will be prohibited from joining Girl Guides.

Have there been many incidents of assaults by trans girls in these situations?

Why do we have to wait until an assault is reported to have basic safeguarding?
As I’m sure you’re aware assault is rarely reported and when dealing with underage children it’s more complex than dealing with adults.
It’s not just assault that we need to be wary about, what if they are have consensual experimentation and one of the girls gets pregnant?

Why do we not allow boys to sleep in the same dormitories as girls?
I believe all these answers apply to trans girls too.

I think it's slightly untrue that in 1988, pregnant women were supposed to hide. How so?

Remember all the coy pictures of Diana in a tent?

So many women actually don't want to be defined by their biology and find this regressive.

I don't want to be defined by my biology, I want to be defined as a human and my biology to be recognised. Most of all, I don't want to be defined by gender, because I have no idea what it means or what I am supposed to have in common with other people who it is assumed have the same gender.

Why not just treat everybody as a human, some of whom have different reproductive organs, which is sometimes relevant. Why separate anybody according to gender?

I accept the caveat that some people are dysphoric and it is helpful for them to be treated as women.

Unfortunately that isn't where the debate is at the moment.