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.

Because when we women say No, men can't be women, they cannot appropriate women's spaces, we do not allow it - the abuse comes thick and fast.

Yes.

You don't give a sh!t about women - otherwise you would listen to what they say instead of dismissing them as 'handmaidens' at every opportunity.

There are plenty of women I don't agree with, and no I'm not required to accept their views. I do give a shit about women though, thanks.

Supermatchgame - you ask why you have had no posts removed - well I don't report posts, even of people I disagree with. I value people's free speech, and that is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You would actually seek to silence my voice, to delete it, here and everywhere. Because I don't agree with your gender ideology.

That's exactly it, and I am the same as you. I rarely report posts.

Other than the recent spate of Midnight Misogynist threads I've only reported one comment, for making a direct threat. I think free speech is important, and I'm not afraid of the public seeing what TRAs have to say. In fact I think that it's when they're at their most aggressive and unpleasant that the public most needs to see what they're saying.

They are currently all over the Mumsnet twitter - trying to have us shut down.

They could come on here and chat about it - if self ID really is nothing for us to fear, then they will counter our opinions. We will discuss and argue, debate, whatever, but at the moment, the whole thing sounds like they just want MN feminist section shut down. Because that's the way they roll - shut down, no debate - women you will not talk about this. Repeat the mantras, do not engage thought....

Ah adding a little misyogyny to the mix?

No merely holding up a mirror to illustrate the misogyny of posters trivialising other women as 'handmaidens'.

I don't have much respect for women who throw all other women and girls under the bus.

I value people's free speech, and that is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You would actually seek to silence my voice, to delete it, here and everywhere.

Thats ridiculous Anita - I've been on here every day engaging with the debate, providing evidence and discussing my views as well. I am participating in discussions with you and others. What would make you think I don't value free speech?

I don't report posts either. I reported myself the other day because of a misunderstanding but I don't think that counts. I tried my best to get involved reporting posts after the TGLWGH discussions a few weeks back but honestly? It's just not in me. I've given up again. I think people should say what they want and people reading should make up their own minds about it. I agree with others that this seems to be the most commonly-held view on the GC/feminist side of things while the TRA/authoritarian left prefers to shut down speech it doesn't like.

Supermatch - how do you know that you've never had a post deleted? Nobody tells you. You'd have to go back and religiously check every post you've made in every thread you've contributed to know if any of your posts had been removed. You don't do that, surely?

I would agree that disagreeing does not mean seeking to silence. If you are free to air your viewpoint, dissenters must be free to do so too. If I tell someone I disagree with what they have said, I am not seeking to silence them. I don’t have that power. Seeking to silence would be shutting chat rooms down, banning or reporting to the police. That is silencing. Saying ‘I think X, which is the opposite of what you think’ is not silencing at all.

I agree. I don't think that was what Anita was referring to.

Seeking to silence would be shutting chat rooms down, banning or reporting to the police.

Exactly. You mean - like what's happening to Mumsnet right now? There is a targeted campaign to shut this forum down - being led by certain high profile transactivists - India Willoughby calling us Nazis, mass reporting of people here by people that have joined MN just to do so, targeting MN's advertisers etc etc.

Posie Parker reported to the police by Susie Green of Mermaids.

Masked protesters trying to shut down women's meetings, cancelling venues, blocking stairways and entrances.

Yeah that’s attempting to silence, I agree. I thought you meant that people who disagreed on here were trying to silence the majority. By the way, I don’t think any of us support the TRA tactics to shut down debate at all.

Yeah that’s attempting to silence, I agree. I thought you meant that people who disagreed on here were trying to silence the majority.

No, my exact point was that this forum allows disagreement and dissenting views - but is being attacked just for allowing this, because they don't want us to talk about it at all. All discussion is to be shut down, according to the TAs. No debate is their mantra.

Hopefully MNHQ will stand firm on their position to keep it open.

Agree with peak

Morning, folks. Just a reminder to please post according to our talk guidelines. We'll delete any personal attacks or other posts that break the rules. Thanks.

Would any of the 'pro self id' posters like to address the concern that without a diagnosis of dysphoria allowing anyone who self ids into female spaces is potentially very dangerous.

This is not about genuine trans women but about any male using self id for cover.

I'm happy to discuss that with you Italian :)

There are spaces where transwomen can be justifiably excluded, or have conditions placed upon their inclusion, in virtue of their being trans.

If having a GRC meant someone could suddenly have unqualified access to those spaces or services when previously they couldn't then yes! I would agree with you that making it easier to get that GRC would be a risky move.

But what are the spaces and services that a GRC buys you access to without safeguards?

Not toilets; you don't need a GRC to use those.

Not changing rooms; you don't need one for that either.

Not sports; because the GRA contains the clause that sports can set their own entry criteria, up to and including exclusion, if they deem it necessary.

Not prisons; because you can already self-ID into the prison of your gender identify, and even if your GRC were your ticket in, the prison service can still deem you a risk to other prisoners and house you elsewhere, and they're rather good at spotting a chancer!

Not Girl Guides; kids don't even have GRCs.

Not refuges; they can already exclude transpeople with a GRC, but most simply don't, and don't require any form of ID to access their services.

So really I'm looking at it and I'm weighing up the risk... and I can't see that self-ID changes an awful lot at all in real terms.

@rat I think to some extent self id even as an idea has already done harm (e.g. Girl Guides). Also if 'So really I'm looking at it and I'm weighing up the risk... and I can't see that self-ID changes an awful lot at all in real terms."... If it changes nothing why do the trans lobby want it. And do you not see redefining woman as an idea on a man's head is bad for women and girls. It is gaslighting. (But thanks for not leaving Mr hanging!)

me danm autocorrect!

Would any of the 'pro self id' posters like to address the concern that without a diagnosis of dysphoria allowing anyone who self ids into female spaces is potentially very dangerous.

Sorry, been at work all day. My personal view is that a diagnosis of dysphoria doesn't really change much in terms of danger. I think that if a person is a dangerous person, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria will not remove that danger. That's why I see self-ID as more of a procedural thing- making the process simpler for trans people who dislike the connotation that their identity is a mental illness (I know that many think it is though). I don't think it is the distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous. I think that the EA exceptions that apply should enable people to deal with this sort of thing on a case by case basis and do risk assessments (and also endeavour to make all spaces safe generally). For example, I would prefer unisex lockable toilet cubicles in clearly visible places, making the possibility of attacks on anyone less likely. I don't like toilets that are down a dark corridor or alley with nobody to hear if someone were to cause you harm for example.

Obviously the EA exemptions would cover things like refuges, but I would also welcome the creation of other safe spaces for trans people, males, and females with an emphasis on trying to make all people feel safer at all times. Those other spaces would of course have nothing to do with refuges or take away any funding from them or anything like that.

But I guess my basic point is that self-ID in my view is a bit of a red herring. I don't think a doctor signing a form is some sort of magic solution to distinguishing between good trans and bad trans. I have little knowledge of the process but I doubt you get much time with the psychiatrist on the NHS (think of how easily the GP diagnoses depression and how little treatment you get etc). I am really not sure it is the gate-keeping that many people think it is. I would also want assurances from the gvt that trans people will still get access to medical/psychiatric services should they need them.

... If it changes nothing why do the trans lobby want it.

Because it would make it easier for them to get their documents and go about their daily life in the way that feels right to them.

Many believe the current GRC process is protracted, demeaning and unnecessarily arduous.

That's why self-ID was proposed in the first place.

When I started posting here and got a mighty hard time for it too! I thought I would come out of this pro-trans but anti self-ID.

The more I've read and the more I've engaged in these discussions, the more I feel that in fact self-ID makes very little odds to anyone except the transpeople applying for a GRC themselves. And if they want it, and if noone else is affected, I'm happy for them to have it.

I agree that things like the Girl Guides issue and similar are far less cut and dried, but to me these things didn't happen because of self-ID, they simply came about for the same reasons as self-ID; which to me looks like a societal shift towards awareness and acceptance of transpeople. And okay, sometimes the measures that result from that can be ill-considered and inappropriate.

I don't think that's down to self-ID though.

I'd also like an answer to this:
If self-ID changes nothing why do the trans lobby want it?

They want it so badly that they're constantly trying to shut down any discussion about why it might not be a good thing. And yet it apparently changes nothing.