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.

And, by the way, it's not only the intellectually challenged that can be fooled by ideologies. Look at cults throughout history.

Self ID will massively weaken the gender critical position and normalise men in women's spaces in a way which is not currently the case.

@PeakPants "...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."

Well, according some (although I may disagree) natal females who want same sex spaces are a small group of women, and for us this is also " very important." Does the "... size of the group (unless totally negligible)" still "not affect the availability of legal rights."?

"We know that chromosomally trans women are not female. It’s about gender identity." Well firstly, really, some trans women do dispute this, by disputing that female biology of a real thing, honestly they do.

Secondly, toilets are not segregated on gender identify. They are sex segregated, like sports used to be, and prisons.

The males legal right to come into single sex spaces negates my legal right to have same sex spaces. Whose rights trumps whoms?

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 it is as effective as a bunch of men chanting that transwomen are women for the past 15 years I think it has a good chance.

Italian I may not entirely agree but I do not think I have been unfriendly. You can consider it- you may think it's stupid advice but I wouldn't dismiss things just because I say them and I do not agree with most people on here. We can all learn from each other.

As for the EA provisions- they apply regardless of whether someone has a GRC. They can still be excluded from certain spaces. The government has not suggested removing these (although Maria Miller's report suggested they should). So the EA provisions would apply even if self-ID came in, meaning that trans people would be excluded from certain spaces. This is why it's the EA, not self-ID which is the issue. If you lose the exclusions, that is a major issue obviously, but currently the exclusions are not being removed. If I were fighting this fight, I would put my emphasis on retention of the exclusions and tightening up of policy about how the exclusions are applied. But that's just me...

Look at cults throughout history

YY.

But that's just me...

Yes, it is. I'll decide what I prioritise as a feminist, thanks.

Well firstly, really, some trans women do dispute this, by disputing that female biology of a real thing, honestly they do

I know they do, but I am fairly certain that the majority of politicians and law-makers or judges do not believe that female biology is not a real thing. I really am.

Well, according to some (although I may disagree it is a small amount)

I know they do, but I am fairly certain that the majority of politicians and law-makers or judges do not believe that female biology is not a real thing. I really am.

Except it's all covered up in that little weasel word "gender".

This is the tyranny of the minority, they demand "liberalism" grants them access that common smell would rightly send them on the merry way. But who doesn't want to be woke?

smell..... sense.

Every day more and more men and women come to the realization that "trans rights" is a stalking horse for rolling back women's rights.
Now that transgender advocates are stating in public that women's rights are anti trans they make it clear that the goal is now and has always been, to strip women of their right to safety, privacy, and dignity.

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"

I am surprised to hear this. A psychiatrist would not have access to e.g. a patient's criminal convictions. It would be inappropriate for them to speculate on whether they might be a risk and try to refuse a GRC (presumably by saying that the patient does not have gender dysphoria). I really am surprised that they were stricter 'in the past'.

This is the tyranny of the minority, they demand "liberalism" grants them access that common sense would rightly send them on the merry way. But who doesn't want to be woke?

Me. If I never again hear the word "woke" it will be too fucking soon. Catatonic more like.

@PeakPants "Italian I may not entirely agree but I do not think I have been unfriendly. You can consider it- you may think it's stupid advice but I wouldn't dismiss things just because I say them and I do not agree with most people on here. We can all learn from each other."

I think you have been very friendly.

But I am afraid your lack of care or interest in women's rights makes me seriously question your judgement.

I do not know if you are male or female, trans or not, but your repeated assertion that (to paraphrase) 'it will all be alright' reminds me of what I said to my little boy just before the doctor took a blood sample.

I said it because I hoped it would be. And in the long run it was. But it bloody well hurt him!

And I am afraid I really do not think this will all be alright. Because it is gaslighting young women and girls. It is telling them a male can be a female. They cannot. And it is saying because that male feels better in the changing room with you, budge, over don't complain. Think of that other person.

Did you read about Lila Perry and the teenage girls unhappy at being forced to change alongside a natal male? Do you think that was OK?

And for so long we want along with this to be nice. And now, look where we are. Fighting to even be able to shower and get changed away from males. Do you really think this is alright? You've admitted yourself, they are male. Do they belong in with the females?

And, of course, to drive us out of the public sphere. Men kept us out as best they could until the 1850s by depriving us of public toilets and now they do the same by changing the sign on the door making it clear that all toilets are for males.

"As for the EA provisions- they apply regardless of whether someone has a GRC. They can still be excluded from certain spaces. The government has not suggested removing these (although Maria Miller's report suggested they should). So the EA provisions would apply even if self-ID came in, meaning that trans people would be excluded from certain spaces."

Could we exclude them from all single sex places?

"If I were fighting this fight, I would put my emphasis on retention of the exclusions and tightening up of policy about how the exclusions are applied. But that's just me..." Why don't you join us then, you can work on the keeping and 'beefing up' the exclusions. Come over to the pink side...... Not really pink is not just for girls!

You will be pleased to know that I never use the word 'woke' other than in a sarcastic sense then....

Anyway, getting on for bedtime now (maybe this thread will hit 1000 posts tomorrow). Good night.

I would repeat though that just because you don't like me or my views does not mean that I may not potentially have a point about framing debate around EA rather than self-ID... I believe one of your own suggested something very similar at one of your meetings in fact.

"I am fairly certain that the majority of politicians and law-makers or judges do not believe that female biology is not a real thing. I really am."

Yes, I know but I am also pretty sure many politicians don't give a shiny shit. I really am! (The men are not worried about trans men in their spaces. Maybe some of the women are too busy holding on their jobs! Maybe they don't think they will end up in prison with a male showering with them.)

Why don't you join us then, you can work on the keeping and 'beefing up' the exclusions. Come over to the pink side

Awwww thank you (I think). In all honesty though, what puts me off joining the pink side is the way the debate is currently framed. As you can see from my posts, I do support retaining exclusions based on biological sex. I genuinely do. I cannot get involved in something that takes an aggressive tone (and some people on twitter, some of whom are heavily involved in this issue) spending their time flinging insults at the TRAs who of course give it with both barrels too. You may think that is a rubbish and pathetic reason but when I see the debate often being reduced to taking delight in informing everyone that 'X has a dick and is a man', I cannot join in with that. As I said, most of us are not thick. I am not thick (apart from some of the time). But there is something off-putting, something that also means that many many supporters will not even publicly identify themselves. It doesn't mean that all these people who are put off are anti-feminist- far from it.

Anyway now I WILL go to bed.

@PeakPants night night. Thank you for debating so politely.

"you don't like me or my views does not mean that I may not potentially have a point about framing debate around EA rather than self-ID"

No one has said we do not like you. I am just a bit busy tonight to take on the EA all by myself.

Come back and debate some more. You might convince us, we might convince you.........

"aggressive tone" I do not think I have been aggressive, but I do get where you are coming from yet you are willing to argue for trans rights when masked yobs harness middle aged women

What's that old saying... “Somewhere beyond right and wrong, there is a garden. I will meet you there.”

― Rumi

Night again...