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.

Italian obviously I am not talking about you re the aggressive tone. I am referring to e.g. Posie Parker, Jennifer James and Venice Allan on Twitter. If radical feminism is mocking people's looks and engaging in constant online spats then no thanks and I don't think I am alone on that. Also, the constant 'men can't be women' mantra is in direct contradiction to the current law which states that legally they can.

Juzza the Swedish study was not about self-ID though. I don't think Sweden has self-ID laws yet. It was about trans people in general. (I also think the author of the study has clarified that it doesn't quite say what you are saying it does (that trans people are dangerous crims), but in any event the study was not about self-ID). As I said above, there is no logical reason for thinking that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria makes someone less dangerous. If they are dangerous, they are dangerous, full stop. Self-ID refers to the process of obtaining a GRC. It does not mean that the profile of trans people will suddenly change. The doctors who sign off certificates for a GRC do not certify that a person is safe or of good behaviour- they merely certify that they have gender dysphoria.

Those that transitioned pre 1989, and had less support, had an increased crime rate

The group with the increased crime rate was female to male trans people, not male to female.

The author has said that in the later group with more support, there was no finding of MTF trans people having a male pattern rate of criminality. The study also covered all crimes, not specifically violent crime or sexual offences.

In the Californian Inmate study sexual crime rose after transition. We can also see in the UK that trans women commit crime at the same rate as males.

We can also see in the UK that trans women commit crime at the same rate as males.

What study is that based on? Just not seen that claim made in respect of the UK before.

The study also covered all crimes, not specifically violent crime or sexual offences.

They did measure violent crime in the first cohort. And the TIMs committed it at a rate 18 x higher than women.

The study also covered all crimes, not specifically violent crime or sexual offences.

They did measure violent crime in the first cohort. And the TIMs committed it at a rate 18 x higher than women.

If radical feminism is mocking people's looks and engaging in constant online spats

Thats not a rad fem thing...thats a people are stupid and some of them shouldn't be let out in polite company thing

Sorry

Peakpants

I'm not sure why you think the onus is on us to prove that this particular subset of males is any less dangerous to women than other males. You're making this claim. The onus therefore is on you. Why is this being ignored and we're being forced onto the back foot to "prove" what has never been disproved? Because women. Because female socialisation. Because lack of care or consideration for women and girls. Because male entitlement and bullying.

Peak Picking up on your point about wanting to frame the debate around the EA rather than self ID......

The EA is important and could address some of the issues relating to provision.

However, self ID is remains an issue for those who do not want the definition of 'woman' to be linked to gender.

The solution of having a term to describe people according to sex and a term to describe people by gender seems a sensible way forward. My hope would be that it would lead to greater equality whereby, for the most part, no distinction is needed. Where sex differences mean distinction is important,a distinction can be made, and where gender differences are important, a distinction can be made (although I struggle to think of any examples).

I realise that this solution does not work well for 1 subset of trans people (those with gender dysphoria) but this is where the GRA fits/ can fit.

We know that cross dressing is associated with sex crimes

We know that cross dressing fetishists are included under the trans umbrella

We know that trans identified males often indulge in violent ideation about women online

We know that they frequently have comorbid conditions like cluster B psychological disorders

We know that invading women's boundaries and lack of empathy is a red flag for an abuser or predator

We know that voyeurism is associated with sex crimes against women

We know that indecent exposure is associated with sex crimes against women

We are offered not one word of reassurance or acknowledgement of these concerns by the trans lobby. Instead we are mocked and DARVOed. Told we are responsible for male deaths (another flag for an abuser is emotional blackmail) and that being afraid of men, as women who have often experienced male violence, is like "being afraid of escalators".

Is it any wonder we have a problem with this?

I would very much like to know why 47% of Trans prisoners are sex offenders, compared with 16% of the general male prison population. It’s got to be one of two things - either being Male and Trans increases the risk of sex offending threefold or being Male and Trans means they are 3x more likely to be incarcerated. Both reasons are worrying and proper research needs doing.

I’ve been thinking about the GRC and why I’m so reluctant to take the diagnosis of gender dysphoria out of getting one and I am going to try to put it in words.

At the minute as the law stands you can be male or female, but there is a provision for the small amount of people who have an illness and therefore are distressed by their sex.

Taking away the diagnosis of gender dysphoria changes what trans is. It therefore says that some people who don’t have gender dysphoria can also be trans. Well by what claim?
It gives credence to the idea that people can literally be born in the wrong body, that it’s not an illness but just something that happens sometimes. It changes what being female means and legitimises all this stuff TRAs say about sec being a spectrum.
How can we fight sexism if we cant define sex?

Why would anyone who doesn’t have gender dysphoria want to be trans? I literally don’t understand it.

Why would anyone who doesn’t have gender dysphoria want to be trans? I literally don’t understand it.

They rarely answer this in any kind of intelligible way, so I've drawn my own conclusions.

I'm not sure why you think the onus is on us to prove that this particular subset of males is any less dangerous to women than other males. You're making this claim. The onus therefore is on you. Why is this being ignored and we're being forced onto the back foot to "prove" what has never been disproved? Because women. Because female socialisation. Because lack of care or consideration for women and girls. Because male entitlement and bullying.

Maybe we can agree that there are insufficient studies to prove anything conclusive either way. We just don't know for sure until a lot more research is done. And as I said, I do support the EA exclusions where this is necessary and proportionate.

MrsBeau gender is already linked to the word woman though. Under the GRA 2004, it provides for legal change of gender. That position is highly unlikely to change.

Teacup re why anyone who does not have GD would trans. I actually don't think that it is very likely that they will even post self-ID. It is simply that they won't have to undergo the long and often difficult process of getting a doctor to sign off that they have GD and they object to their condition being described as an illness. I cannot see any advantage for a man who does not have GD to obtain a GRC otherwise. The exception is of course prisoners serving a life sentence who want to be transferred to a women's prison. But that can be dealt with by rules restricting post-incarceration gender-based transfers. I don't think a man will do it for sports reasons. The trans women in sport clearly have gender dysphoria (Laurel Hubbard, Hannah Mouncey etc).

Also the fact that dementia patients revert to their natal sex behaviours is really telling that all of it is a facade.

Yes. I'd love to hear the explanation for this that suggests that "gender" is innate.

Also the fact that dementia patients revert to their natal sex behaviours is really telling that all of it is a facade.

Yes. I'd love to hear the explanation for this that suggests that "gender" is innate.

Peak

There are studies and those studies took place before the juggernaut of trans ideology being forced upon us.

And now any hope of a balanced and honest study is gone, academics are shunned and not supported if they choose to do real work in this area. The police do not record trans status of perpetrators, only victims. some sexually violent males get all the way to women's prisons without anyone reporting that they are a male.

Maybe we can agree that there are insufficient studies to prove anything conclusive either way.

That's not the case. Until you prove that they are safer than other males, there is no reason to think they would be.

The thing that particularly bothers me is record-keeping for statistics. If being trans-inclusive leads to increased sexual attacks on women, all women’s sports being won by trans competitors, women dropping out of sports/clubs/Guides etc, the pay gap artificially narrowing due to late transition by well-paid men (and transition by low-paid women), we just wont know. Those saying this just won’t happen - we won’t know whether we were barking up the wrong tree in 5 years or not, because no stats will exist to show any trends either positive or negative. I’d argue for two spaces on forms, sex and gender identity. Trans women could tick M and F respectively, women, while gritting their teeth at having to adopt a gender identity, could tick F and F. This would let us study and research the effects of transition in crime, sports, refuges etc. It would also move away from the problems caused by mixing up sex and gender by making it clear they are separate. People may choose to lie on forms, but they could do that now if they wanted and this would de-legitimise that option. I have a trans man friend who thinks this is the ideal answer and doesn’t want to erase his life by pretending it never happened, it’s an important part of who he is. So I think maintaining a distinction between women and transwomen (and men and trans men) is an important part of this compromise. Exceptions should be enforceable on sex grounds, not gender.

What improvements are there for women and girls if we accept the mantra trans women are women?

peak

I have had very close family friends go through the process and though does take two years it’s crucial that they get the therapy and support during this time and to be certain there isn’t something underlying that is causing the feelings. After all they wanted access to hormones and breast implants and ultimately they both wanted bottom surgery (though I don’t think bottom surgery should be a requirement). If you’re going to be pumping that level of hormones into your body you want to make sure that you’re doing for the right reasons. The actual diagnosis of gender dysphoria itself wasn’t difficult to get.

As a woman I’m used to medical gatekeeping, I practically had to beg for them to remove my implant and that’s just to stop me getting pregnant.

I think there ARE people without dysphoria who are wanting to transition, because being trans has moved from meaning someone with dysphoria (old school transsexual) to anyone who is uncomfortable with the gender binary. It’s shifted into being an ideology for some people.
They don’t want it to be classified as an illness because they want us to believe sex is a spectrum and sometimes you’re born in the wrong body.

I don’t think gender non conformity is an illness, but gender dysphoria is and I can’t see any other legitimate reason for letting people Legally transition.

We have sex-segregated services because they deal with MVAWG.

If these services are to be de-segregated, we will evidence that the word trans somehow negates risk. The onus is not on women and feminists to prove that the risk remains. We're not the ones asking for a change in the status quo. The onus is on the people who are proposing the change to prove that risk will not increase. That evidence is not forthcoming.

Ergo - no change to the sex-segregation of the status quo is justified.

If these services are to be de-segregated, we will evidence that the word trans somehow negates risk. The onus is not on women and feminists to prove that the risk remains. We're not the ones asking for a change in the status quo. The onus is on the people who are proposing the change to prove that risk will not increase. That evidence is not forthcoming.

This x a million.