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.

Why do we have to wait until an assault is reported to have basic safeguarding?

Safeguarding exists to prevent assaults. We are expected to bin it to privilege dysphoric males.

This is what Rat and Peak want. The are 100% behind protecting males and just drone on and on and on about it.

And this push to use the trans argument to erode sex segregated spaces that you seem so happy with is a worry to me.
In a utopian society then yes we could just have everything mixed sex but actually we don’t live in that society. Girls deserve to have somewhere where they can be in a single sex environment and have a break from the patriarchy for a while. Unfortunately as it stands in mixed sex spaces girls are often bulldozed and sidelined.

MRA’s are clapping their hands in joy at this, self identification ruins all women’s shortlists, it ruins women’s sport and it basically makes everything mixed sex.
You might think the outcome will be a utopian gender free society but there are people on the other side pushing for an entirely different outcome.

Saying ‘I think all spaces should be mixed sex anyway’, is totally different between, ‘trans women are women so should be treat like women in all cases’.

Some people are using the second statement when they mean the first.

It's not Riley Dennis, Zinnia Jones, Kat Blaque, Ash Hardell, Chase Ross, Stef Sanjati and other activists online.

It is happening in real life that lesbians, (mostly young lesbians) are being harassed to date "trans women". They are being pressured in school and uni to not be "terfy" by saying they're lesbian, and they're being told "just be bi" and "just date trans women anyway".

Lesbians are aware of what's going on with our own community and how the T movement turns a blind eye, (when not actively supporting) that behaviour from some of its members.

I'm struggling to reconcile the two.

The first is the situation as it currently stands, the second is a theoretical extrapolation which I have been at pains to state would be hypothetical for exactly the reason of their being so few transpeople and noone really knowing what a stereotype-free future would look like.

I hope that helps, because I'm aware the two don't tally. But that's because one is useful for a thought exercise imagining the future, and the other is right here, right now.

Just realised the above is useless with just that little bit of your post copied. The post I'm replying to is this one :)

"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."

But teacup, societies that do not fixate on sex segregation are often much more progressive and egalitarian. 'Having a break' for two hours a week is not the solution. Constantly saying one group needs to be protected from the other is not helpful. The solution is to stop treating boys and girls differently for no genuine reason. That is what is causing the problem- not a few male born children (who will hardly be representative of the patriarchy anyway) joining a club.

Peak lives in a little world all alone.

Saying ‘I think all spaces should be mixed sex anyway’, is totally different between, ‘trans women are women so should be treat like women in all cases’

And I have never said they should be treated like women in absolutely all cases because there are some limited exceptions. I have also never said that they are biologically female and that a person can change sex.

Whether or not boys should be able to join guides is a completely different question.

The issue is should teenage boys and girls share sleeping accommodation and should parents have a right to know about the arrangements.

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.

Teacup, I think lots of people would object to making Guides a unisex organisation, even if they had sex-segregated sleeping arrangements. The fact that Guides is single sex is important for girls for a variety of reasons, not just safety and privacy when changing/sleeping.

For the same reason, I value women-only spaces for reasons beyond safety from men. The transformative Second Wave feminist analysis of rape, abortion, sexual harassment and male violence emerged directly from female-only consciousness raising groups. Women got together away from men and started sharing experiences that they would never have felt comfortable speaking about in the presence of men. They discovered that traumas they had thought were unique to them were in fact shared by many other women, and deserved a political analysis.

Non-feminist female-only spaces have also been valued by women across cultures and throughout time (e.g. women's country clubs, Turkish public baths) for camaraderie and support. Of course women can share camaraderie and support with men too, but the dynamic is always different, usually to the detriment of women's ability to speak freely and refuse their emotional labour to men. The dynamic of Guides will certainly change with the admittance of male children, regardless of where they sleep, and it will be doubly disempowering for the girls because it will be taboo to admit that that they know these new members are male.

I agree ‘having a break’ for two hours is not the solution but I also don’t think the solution is to basically outlaw sex segregation in any circumstance through the back door.

constantly saying one group needs protection from another group is unhelpful

Now I don’t think that’s very fair, men DO commit the vast number of violent crimes and DO commit acts of voyerysm and sexual assault on women. It’s not just made up in women’s heads, we aren’t being precious when we ask to have female only domestic violence shelters or single sex hospital wards.

The times when we need sex segregation is very small, but the times we need it are vital.

If you want mixed sex services for everything fight for that, don’t pretend that trans women are literally women because that comes with a whole other kettle of fish to fry.

I think we are agreeing that people should be free from any expectations based on gender.

I think we are too!

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 think it's necessary to have a gender, I just think some people are pretty damn sure they have one and some people are adamant they don't.

And some people neither know nor care either way.

And that those in the first camp aren't in any way advocating for the perpetuation of damaging gender roles, simply in virtue of this assertion. And that one needn't furvently be in the second camp to be able to recognise and reject gender stereotypes either. And just for information really, I would put myself in the third camp.

I don't even understand how anybody's gender is being defined as male or female.

Yeah, I don't really know how you'd recognise that feeling. I can guess; I can speculate; but all I can really say for sure is that some people reckon they know they're someone who should have been made with a differently sexed body. And that if I were that person and felt I needed to convince a pretty sceptical audience that that truly were the case, I might resort to employing a few well-known stereotypes to do so too.

And I have never said they should be treated like women in absolutely all cases because there are some limited exceptions. I have also never said that they are biologically female and that a person can change sex.

Sorry cross post with this.

Well in that case you’re a massive TERF
The ability for us to keep the limited exceptions is what A Women’s Place is fighting for, this is what is being eroded.

And I have never said they should be treated like women in absolutely all cases because there are some limited exceptions. I have also never said that they are biologically female and that a person can change sex.

Absolutely agree.

The times when we need sex segregation is very small, but the times we need it are vital.

And that, Teacup, is why the GRA has exceptions written into it and why we have the Equality Act.

Especially as the right of premogenture will stay intact and gentlemen’s clubs will have a workaround I don’t really see this as progress.

Only works if the exemptions are withheld which in many cases due to pressure from TRAs they are not.

all I can really say for sure is that some people reckon they know they're someone who should have been made with a differently sexed body.

This is a dissociative disorder. It's not possible for humans (or any animal) to be born in the 'wrong body', and in any other instance where people feel their body is fundamentally 'wrong' (e.g., anorexia), we recognise that this is a severe condition and don't validate the belief.

And it doesn't even describe many trans-identified males anyway. Many are happy with their male-sexed bodies, hence the campaign for lesbians to accept 'lady dick'.

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

How devastating to all gender critical people.

Oh, actually I think someonecan change sex. Legally speaking. So I don't completely agree.

How devastating to all gender critical people.

Which is of course who I was addressing that remark to isn't it.

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

What bullshit. This is about women's rights, women's privacy and women's dignity, and women's feelings and concerns not blatantly being ignored in favour of pandering to the feelings of a group of male people.

Which is of course who I was addressing that remark to isn't it.

No one cares what you are or aren't personally convinced by. It's irrelevant to this issue.

And that, Teacup, is why the GRA has exceptions written into it and why we have the Equality Act.

Yet schools and councils are being advised that a teenage girl who doesn't want to play rugby against somebody with a male body because she is worried about injury should stop playing rugby and deal with her transphobia.

@RatRolyPoly I am good thank you. A few tough times at home and hurting my leg doing something silly! But all is well now. And you?

"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 disagree but anyway, the only people affected by this are those who are seeking to appropriate women's spaces. And actually I have no issue with referring to a person presenting in traditionally 'female' clothing as she. We don't need to allow me to go into women's prisons, hostels, hospital wings and toilets etc just to call them she.

Some trans women don't want to just be
called 'she'; they want is to believe they are female. If you have not encountered this you'be not talked to as many trans women as I have. Or rather you may have let them think you really do think they are women. Maybe you do believe it. So they have no need to badger you to buy into their beliefs.

And it doesn't even describe many trans-identified males anyway. Many are happy with their male-sexed bodies, hence the campaign for lesbians to accept 'lady dick'.

Again, it's worthwhile looking past the attempts to deflect from this fact. Always.