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.

Self ID will remove the last tiny hope of gate keeping, hot will further embolden men to enter women's spaces without hesitation.

Let's remember predatory men didn't always just abuse kids they joined the Priesthood, became counsellors or teachers or scout leaders in order to do it with unguarded access.

So men that see women's space as just for women and know they will be noticed in those spaces will quickly take advantage of easy access. Plus trans women are as likely as all other men to abuse women, 7000 cases of lesser sexual assault is mostly carried out by strangers in public places. And then there's the issue of women's comfort and vulnerability, this is routinely diminished by men (including trans women) they seem to have no idea what being fearful of men when semi nude feels like,.

but what does a meeting with a psychiatrist actually add? I mean I would understand it more if you said that in common with many other EU countries there should be a requirement for medical sterilisation to get a GRC (though I wouldn’t necessarily agree). But the role of the psychiatrist is simply to confirm that the patient feels they are born in the wrong body. It’s not to certify that this person poses no danger to anyone. I don’t know if there are stats on people being turned down for a GRC but I would be surprised if the number was particularly high.

It's a medical condition. It should require medical gatekeeping and a medical diagnosis. I don't accept that there is any other basis for males to take female roles, access female spaces.

Yes to all your post Posie.

The last tiny hope of gate keeping? I am not entirely sure that is right. Someone could be a serial killer and get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It doesn’t gate-keep anything in terms of safety. As you know, most trans people don’t even have a GRC and still live their lives. I am not sure there will be a huge surge in applications under self-ID but the ones who do want it have said they would find this process more preferable.

Transgender advocates want hormone and surgical treatment for an illness they say they suffer from while claiming it is not an illness.

This. They want to have their cake, eat it, and have yours too.

Someone could be a serial killer and get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

They could and should tighten up the rules. I don't believe a man who is a danger to women should be allowed a GRC.

"But do other people have a stake?" yes, if you get to redefine what it means to be a woman, yes, women get a stake. I wonder if you think black people would feel the need to have a stake in discussions about whether white people can self identify as black?

" it doesn't look to me like self-id makes any odds to anyone else at all really!" But lots and lots of women on here have said repeatedly it does matter. And we have told you why.

Women as a sex class are oppressed because of our biology. We don't want to be appropriated. Why is that so hard to see? No the GRA is not great, a legal fiction etc etc but it gave genuinely dysphoric people a chance to transition, it gave them medical support and they could live their lives presenting as they chose. And very few people bothered. Especially very few people. Now lots of women are really angry and upset because we finally release that all that being nice counts for jack shit.

I do not care how people dress, what they call themselves, etc etc. I do care that my biological reality is being appropriated.

I am not sure there will be a huge surge in applications under self-ID but the ones who do want it have said they would find this process more preferable.

I'm sure they would. But there are other people who need to be considered. Something many transactivists don't seem to grasp.

(I am told the bins are expensive.) Maybe they are subsidized in Sweden (we are big Sweden fans and everything is different there.)

This is not about the already thrown away rights or the consistent boundary pushing males aka trans women already smash for their own ends.... this is about the last stragglers who still think female space is a place they don't belong.

I find nothing more male entitled than trans women who gleefully tell women they already piss on in our toilets. They understand that this is something women find uncomfortable and they couldn't give a shit.

And like @OlennasWimple I too am a mum by adoption and by birth and both processes for me were very arduous but there you go. I can't just identify out of my C-section scar!

@PeakPants "As you know, most trans people don’t even have a GRC and still live their lives. I am not sure there will be a huge surge in applications under self-ID but the ones who do want it have said they would find this process more preferable." If they can already live their lives as they like then what difference will it make?

If lots of trans people may not even bother, (no huge surge) so why is it so important. I could hazard a guess. I wonder if it is about validating feelings. How is that something the law should enshrine? Seriously how are we making laws based on how people think? This really is just like the blasphemy laws.

Ereshki that is an entirely different issue. There is currently zero provision for psychiatrists to make any form of assessment as to whether a person is a risk to others. The question is solely whether they have gender dysphoria. Nothing to do with them as a person.

Also the issue that there is no provision saying that a person with gender dysphoria must have surgery or hormones. Some do not, despite diagnosis.

So no logical reason to think that there will be a change in appearance in how trans women who self ID present versus those with GD. Self ID refers to the process of getting a GRC which also requires swearing a star dec. I don’t think many men who are not trans would get a GRC. They can put a dress on and say they are trans now and they can do that of self-ID comes in.

I would understand better if there was currently a requirement to have surgery and the proposal was to remove that.

Those are also the reasons I think the feminist fight would be much better viewed if the emphasis was on retaining EA protections rather than hypothesising about what might happen when people fake being trans. That undermines your own argument which is surely that you believe that some spaces need to remain single sex? So why even get into the issue of real trans versus perverts?

Oh so many spelling errors. Hopefully you can understand it...

Not about fake trans. This is about the fact that trans women are men,

Italian because for a small number of people it is very important. The size of the group (unless totally negligible) should not affect the availability of legal rights.

The GRC process isn't a certificate of good behaviour - doctors aren't being asked to certify that a) this person believes that their life woudl be improved by living as the opposite sex; and b) they do not pose a risk to the opposite sex.

The two big things for me about self-ID is that people are not getting any medical support at a difficult time in their lives, which cannot lead to good outcomes for them. And it encourages organisations to "get ahead of the law" (like the changing rooms in Top Shop) to the extent that sex based protections almost completely fall away

The question is solely whether they have gender dysphoria. Nothing to do with them as a person

And they could apply those diagnostic criteria responsibly. Psychiatrists make judgement calls all the time.

But Posie what good does it serve you to keep repeating that? I said earlier, people who support trans rights are not all thick. Many are very highly educated. We know that chromosomally trans women are not female. It’s about gender identity. Do you genuinely feel that the way to ensure that this is taken seriously by politicians is to keep saying ‘trans women are men’? If so, good luck to you, but you may find yourself appealing less to the mainstream and more to a small minority of supporters.

"I don’t think many men who are not trans would get a GRC" Since trans is such a massive umbrella including those who are agender (do not have a gender) then pretty much anyone can self id if they wish.

My feeling is it's literally meaningless to those identifying into it. Since you have already observed they are already living their lives as they wish.

My guess is if they get it, there will be the next thing, whatever that is.

However, for women and girls it is a very bad thing. It potentially reduces us to an idea in a man's head.

"They can put a dress on and say they are trans now and they can do that of self-ID comes in. " This dress stuff is such a red herring. I walk my kid to school daily and I see maybe one or two women in dresses or skirts out of maybe 100. Trans women don't need to put on a dress to id as women. I went into Next and the men's clothing looked very like the women's.

if this is about putting on a dress, then they can go ahead. I hate tights and heels and all that. This is about natal women and girls, it's not about anyone putting on a dress.

"Those are also the reasons I think the feminist fight would be much better viewed if the emphasis was on retaining EA protections rather than hypothesising about what might happen when people fake being trans."

How do you want to focus on exemptions when literally anyone who wants to can say they are female?

"That undermines your own argument.." That advice would be welcome from a friendly quarter, (not necessarily listened to) but since it appears you deeply disagree with us, why would we assume you have benign motives in steering us in any direction?

Ereshki I am not sure I get that. They have no obligation to do so. How would they even know or be in a position to make an accurate judgement? There is no suggestion (unless you have evidence to the contrary) that psychiatrists are currently refusing to diagnose patients as GD if they have a suspicion that they might also potentially be dangerous.

The GRC process isn't a certificate of good behaviour - doctors aren't being asked to certify that a) this person believes that their life woudl be improved by living as the opposite sex; and b) they do not pose a risk to the opposite sex.

I know. But I'm told in the past they were stricter. There could be more safeguards/judgement than accepting "I think I'm a woman" . But the fact that it is relatively onerous does in and of itself provide some limited gatekeeping.

Gener identity cannot be considered as anything in law, it's utter nonsense. I believe this should be taken seriously and I give no concessions in what I know to be the truth. We have seen what happens when you give these activists an inch, one minute its just pronouns the next it's transphobic to say females have vaginas. Let's stop being naive or wilfully ignorant and pretend changes in law won't have huge consequences to compel people to pretend they think black is white.

I certainly don't think it should be relaxed any more. Or that there is a basis to access women's spaces without gender dysphoria.