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.

What?
The exemptions

MrsBeau as far as I can tell though there are no surgical requirements for currently getting a GRC- you just need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and 2 years living in the new gender.
Given all the concerns from people on here, why are you happy with the current definition of woman meaning adult female or male with GRC? The definition already includes males. It will still include males- it’s just that a doctor won’t certify that the male really believes he is a woman.

Surely the Equality Act is the real point here, not self-ID. If that will not be amended (and reports can recommend anything- they don’t need to be followed) then the exemptions will still apply and refuges can refuse to admit trans women. So it does not actually massively change the situation. You might have a few more people with a GRC but they can be excluded anyway. People on here have already made plain that they don’t think anyone can change sex, regardless of having a GRC either under the current or proposed rules.

If the focus was on retaining EA and tightening policy on its use, I would understand better. But by constantly trotting out the phrase self-ID, it makes the whole thing lose credibility.

That's an awfully morbid autocorrect you have there, Ophelia.

I think the problem is that one word is being used to describe two completely different things.

Identity is personal and subjective.

Biological sex is objective and unavoidable. A woman who has sexual intercourse with a man may become pregnant. It doesn’t matter how she identifies or whether the sex was consensual. (I know people have attempted to argue that sex is a social construct, but the continued survival of the human race suggests that a particular group of people are continuing to grow humans inside their bodies.)

‘Trans women are women’ deliberately obscures that difference.

Peak I didn’t say anything about surgery, not sure why you directed that comment at me?

My interests lay in disaggregating sex and gender where sex is important.

I would be happy with have a category that is inclusive of sex and gender identity for all circumstances where sex is not a significant variable. But where it is, we need to distinguish between the two.

Some examples: victim of crime statistics, career progression, longevity of life etc, etc, etc.

It is in the interests of everyone to make sure we monitor equality of opportunity using the different variables.

Then there are examples where provision based upon by the privacy and dignity afforded by segregating those with male-sexed bodies and female-sexed bodies. It is nonsense for access to be determined by identity.

Self id does matter peaks because that two years ‘living as the opposite gender’ and the diagnosis of gender disphoria is vitil in creating a culture where not any male can just decide they are a woman that day and enter women’s spaces such as changing rooms etc.

When self id comes through it will become impossible to tell the difference between a non binary person who’s just decided to be female 20 minutes ago and a male person who just wants to push boundaries.
It’s not the actual law that’s the issue it’s the culture that law creates.

Unlike some posters on here I’m ok with people being able to get a GRC I think the system we have now is a good compromise between two conflicting rights but self id is where I say no.

Thank you SupermatchGame for taking the time to answer those questions and share your viewpoint.

Off the RTFT now.

MrsBeau I was just curious why you were so sure that self-ID would have such a detrimental impact on women when the law already allows people to obtain a GRC simply on the basis of identity and feeling. Has done for 14 years.

There are already provisions that allow exemptions based on natal sex, which you have clarified are important. While there is a report recommending changing the EA, politicians have confirmed many times that they will not do that. They will leave the exemptions in place so that refuges etc can keep single sex spaces.

Therefore, the only change in the self-ID legislation is that it will be a bit easier for people to get a GRC.

If you had framed your debate in the following way, I think people would understand it better:
-you accept trans people can legally change gender
-you accept trans people have rights and want to de-medicalise their status
-there are very small exceptions where single sex spaces need to be retained. These are already in the EA 2010. You want confirmation that these will be retained.
-you are concerned that in some cases, many places are not applying the EA properly, so you want legal clarification on the guidance.

Then it sounds totally reasonable. Currently the impression to outsiders is that Woman's Place etc is mainly against self-ID and questioning whether there is such a thing as trans at all. I keep reading fearmongering stories about how men will use the legislation to access women's places and lots of weird tenuous arguments about how 'the problem is not with old-school transsexuals but with perverts' and stuff like that. You wouldn't even need to have those arguments if the sole emphasis was on the EA and retaining a limited category of exemptions.

I genuinely think it would be in everyone's interests if the debate were re-framed.

But how do you live as the opposite gender?

I have the same problem with the argument that people who ‘falsely’ applied for a GRC could be prosecuted under self ID rules - how do you show that somebody isn’t living as the opposite gender?

Wouldn’t it be better to start again and create legislation that isnt a fudge?

Self id does matter peaks because that two years ‘living as the opposite gender’ and the diagnosis of gender disphoria is vitil in creating a culture where not any male can just decide they are a woman that day and enter women’s spaces such as changing rooms etc.

That is not what self-ID means and this is the misconception. Self-ID means that you can swear a statutory declaration in front of a judge or a solicitor that you intend to live as the new gender from now on. You then get your GRC rather than waiting for 2 years for it.

It does not in any way mean that you can self-ID on the day and get access.

It refers only to getting a GRC, not to the general population and their feelings on any given day.

When self id comes through it will become impossible to tell the difference between a non binary person who’s just decided to be female 20 minutes ago and a male person who just wants to push boundaries.

Honest question- how can you tell the difference now? You absolutely can't. A male person could tell you that they are a woman now and you don't know whether they are genuine. For all you know, they could have a GRC as there are no surgical requirements to obtaining one. There are often stories on here that trans people commit crimes so surely for safety reasons it doesn't matter whether someone is 'genuine trans' or 'fake trans' because both could be potentially dangerous.

This argument should have been made at the time that the original GRC was proposed. It was not. Now things have moved on and the law accepts that people can change gender. Self-ID will have little impact- it just makes it easier to get a GRC and fake trans people don't want one of those anyway. If you focus on the EA, you have a greater chance of being heard but that does mean accepting the status and rights of trans people.

Now things have moved on and the law accepts that people can change gender

Wasn’t this a work around that enabled things like marriage and pension rights?

The world has moved on in many ways and I agree that we need to go back and ask why the law needs to recognise gender, particularly when recognising gender seems to mean it can’t recognise sex.

Well know that’s not what the law means but practically that’s what it means.
Not one person is going to be prosecuted for going back on their GRC, the swearing in front of people thing is utterly meaningless. I can’t even imagine how you’d prove a crime had been committed.

Of course changing legislation changes culture otherwise they’d never have bothered with a smoking ban, or a sugar tax, or many of the other laws that they bring in simply for the purpose of changing culture.

As the culture moves away from the idea that trans people are transsexuals that just want to pass and get on with their lives quietly and starts to accept the idea that you don’t need to transition in anyway to be trans, then women will become unable to question a male in a female space. The living as the opposite gender for two years is problematic but it does cut out the majority of chancers.
And why would anyone want to transition if they didn’t have dysphoria???

Wasn’t this a work around that enabled things like marriage and pension rights?

Not entirely. That is another myth. The case that led to the GRA being enacted was also about the right to be legally recognised as the opposite sex and to prevent e.g. employers from discovering that you used to be a man etc. So not quite as simple as saying to trans people that all is OK because we have same-sex marriage.

If the GRA were repealed, the UK would be in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As the culture moves away from the idea that trans people are transsexuals that just want to pass and get on with their lives quietly and starts to accept the idea that you don’t need to transition in anyway to be trans, then women will become unable to question a male in a female space.

Which is why you frame your argument around the EA and retaining rights to exclude biological males for certain safety reasons.

By having people like Sheila Jefferys proclaiming that trans people are all perverts and people repeatedly saying that they are blokes in dresses, it's not really helping the cause.

Anyway, might be something to consider... Imo an EA based argument and focus on how it is implemented is an infinitely stronger one.

Well in order to get a GRC you need to have dysphoria and people with dysphoria aren’t just going stay presenting as a man.
I think if a man hasn’t transitioned in any way and is saying he’s trans it’s a strong bet he hasn’t got a GRC.

The case that led to the GRA being enacted was also about the right to be legally recognised as the opposite sex and to prevent e.g. employers from discovering that you used to be a man etc.

But if you can’t change sex you still are a man.

Aren’t the more relevant questions, why does an employer need to know an employee’s sex and why would it be a problem to know that an employee is trans?

Anyway a change to the EA isn’t on the table, what’s in front of us is self id.
Self id will mean more people getting grcs and make it even harder to repeal in the future. I don’t think a government wanting to push through self id is going to start getting rid of grcs.

Aren’t the more relevant questions, why does an employer need to know an employee’s sex and why would it be a problem to know that an employee is trans?

I thought the argument was that it's important to keep accurate records etc? Surely then it is essential for an employer to know an employee's sex so that we know things like how much men get paid in comparison with women? As for why is it a problem? Well, stigma and people's right to privacy. According to the European Court of Human Rights in any event.

Self id will mean more people getting grcs and make it even harder to repeal in the future.

The point is, it won't get repealed any more than all the rights afforded to gay people will be repealed. It would put the UK in breach of the ECHR and put it out of line with nearly every single democratic country in the world. Who is honestly going to do that?

I thought the argument was that it's important to keep accurate records etc? Surely then it is essential for an employer to know an employee's sex so that we know things like how much men get paid in comparison with women?

They won't be accurate records though if males are recorded as females.

Well exactly. That’s my point peak. I don’t want them to be repealed but I don’t want them to be easier to get either.
Saying ‘oh don’t bother about that, bother about this’ isn’t helpful when this is what’s on the table right now.
If no one objects to self id then the government will think it’s a popular move and then why would they look at EA?

you accept trans people have rights and want to de-medicalise their status

Why would anyone want to do that? The only basis that there should be for special protection of this nature is the medical condition gender dysphoria, with appropriate medical gatekeeping.

The point is, it won't get repealed any more

It could be changed. It went further than the UK needed to. It's a stupid law.

Surely then it is essential for an employer to know an employee's sex so that we know things like how much men get paid in comparison with women?

They wouldn't know their sex though, only the legal fictional one.