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.

It's just more circular reasoning. Nothing to see here.

If some medical and political professionals genuinely think that a feeling in a man's head is something that can make him a woman then clearly those individuals are divorced from reality and are in danger of putting people at risk through negligence. This really is a training matter rather than a political one. No, it's not safe to treat a man who thinks he's a woman in the same way as a woman. No, its not safe to treat children with off label drugs because they feel uncomfortable about puberty.

A lot of professions have fallen out of step with common sense and their duty of care. This is down to the power of the men's rights lobby masquerading as concern for trans rights. Clearly we all have a lot of work to do to put things right.

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???

This.

Okay. Carry on along the path you’re going then. Unlikely to get you very far when very few politicians will support anything other than your right to free speech. Most of the supporters of this movement don’t even want to publicly identify themselves. All that’s needed to discredit the argument is that actually self-ID is very unlikely to lead to a load of men seeking GRCs for dubious reasons. You then instantly lose any moral high ground.

If this were 2003, I would say go for it. But back then nobody seemed to raise these points.

Now you could have a chance of retaining credibility by saying that you accept trans people and their rights but that in some circumstances you need sex segregation and focus on that rather than arguing the toss over whether Shon Faye is a real woman or not. I am saying don’t get drawn into the ‘real woman’ debate whatsoever, not the perverts or fake trans debate.

If this were 2003, I would say go for it. But back then nobody seemed to raise these points.

Because it was dishonestly slipped into law under the radar. Concerns were raised but it was perceived to only be a very tiny number of people. I've read the debates.

No one knew about it until it was a fait accompli. There should have been a fucking referendum if they'd known this is how it would turn out.

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?

You can only do that if you know an employee's sex, not their gender. If you don't have a right to know a person's sex you can't keep records whether your employees are trans or otherwise.

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.

But that is just arguing for the right of some people who pass and identify with a binary gender to hide the fact that they are trans. Why should there be stigma attached to being trans? How does this help people who don't want to identify as any gender? It's accepting discrimination rather than fighting discrimination.

Again, either it is necessary to know somebody's sex or it isn't. The current law is a fudge that just looks the other way. Unfortunately this has lead to a situation where any public discussion of biological sex is threatened, never mind the biological sex of an individual.

Peakpants

If self ID is such a minor change and will affect so few people, why does the trans lobby feel it's so absolutely crucial that the law is changed?

If you don't have a right to know a person's sex you can't keep records whether your employees are trans or otherwise.
If you don't know an employee's sex, how can you implement the Equality Act exceptions if the requirements for a post is that they are someone born female, not a man who has obtained a GRC and new birth certificate?

Why should there be stigma attached to being trans?

It isn't about stigma, it's about a person's right to a private life, as protected by the European Court of Human Rights.

It's not about saying "there should be no stigma to bring trans so you shouldn't have a problem with people knowing", it's about every person having the right to choose to keep personal information about themselves private if they wish, when it shouldn't matter one jot to anybody else.

That's their human right.

Yes, this:
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???
Truthfully, I dont give a shiny shit if Shon 'Erasure' Faye wants to describe themselves as a Woman. I don't care if a transsexual wants to use the loo, or change in the chnging room; if someone who has committed live for two years as the opposite sex then I will courteously use their pronouns and turn a blind eye. If someone with a beard decides tomorrow 'I am a woman' then no, bollocks, you're not. Get out of my space. In the real world the chancers don't pass because their actions and attitude reveal their maleness and the beards. The law has to protect us and our courtesy and female socialisation will protect genuine transsexuals. Of course there will be mistakes but, as with any sort of safeguarding, the greatest good of the greatest number MUST prevail.
Ps, I know whereof I speak; I am built like a prop forward and have often been looked at askance tho never actually challenged. If I ever were, I would be embarrassed but glad that the challenger had the interests of girls and women front and centre. I bet most genuine transsexuals would feel the same.

Ereshkigal because they feel that the current law medicalises their condition and is unnecessarily cumbersome. For trans people, it would make a difference and may lead to more of them getting a GRC. I really doubt it will make some random guy get a GRC. Why would he bother? He could put on a dress and say he was trans. Just as he could do now.
If people keep focusing on real versus fake trans and the potential for abuse, aren’t they then by implication suggesting that the real trans are not a danger, thus undermining the need for EA exclusions? Isn’t it better to just say that you don’t mind who is trans but that some spaces are exclusively for biological women? Regardless of GRC.

I am saying don’t get drawn into the ‘real woman’ debate whatsoever

Leaving aside all talk of legislation, language matters. How can we argue for services based on sex if we don't have the words to describe what sex is? How can we explain the reasons for discrimination against women if we can't define women? How can we talk about destructive concepts of gender if legislation endorses those concepts?

I think you are detached from the average person in the UK peak.

I think the general public have been silent not because they agree but because they were not aware of the move towards "transwomen are women" in law and social settings.

So I think that highlighting the fact that a fully physically male person can be a "woman" in law because he says so, is something that will shock 90% of the population because it is so obviously counter to reality.

Ordinary men and women encounter predators in their lives. We are taught how to protect ourselves. The general population soon see the flaws the system for trans rights being proposed, how open it is for abuse by bad sorts and how it is contrary to reality.

I understand that some people feel very very strongly that transwomen are women, that this is not a medical MH issue because the person is simply trapped in the wrong body and we should do everthing possible to make that person's life as much like that of a biological woman's as possible. OK. Some people believe that.

I can't argue with those people any more than I can with a religious person about their beliefs. When people are operating on belief, faith and magical thinking, then logic isn't going to change anything.

If those religious people start trying to passing laws to say we must all wear a purple hat on a Tuesday because their belief system says so then the general public starts to wake up. They don't have nuanced arguments about the pros and cons of purple hats and the importance of Tuesday. The public just start shouting and mocking the purple hat eejits. Then, the law swings back the other way too much, oppressing the purple hat people.

I think a lot of the things coming to the public's attention are going to end up badly damaging trans people. That's a sad state of affairs.

I think the twitterati and students in their echo chambers are going to get a nasty shock when the public engage with this, which is starting to happen. Brexit. Trump. It happens. They aren't interested in the finer details of the EA. They see fake woman, stupid London privileged elite laws, fake women in sport, predator's charter.

it's about every person having the right to choose to keep personal information about themselves private if they wish, when it shouldn't matter one jot to anybody else.

That's fine, but then shouldn't everyone's sex be private if they wish?

If self ID is such a minor change and will affect so few people, why does the trans lobby feel it's so absolutely crucial that the law is changed?

They're lying. It's not a minor change. It means any man can get a GRC, and hence a new birth certificate, saying he is a woman. He then has the right to be treated in all circumstances as a woman.

The exceptions in the Equality Act are unenforceable. If all someone's documents (including birth certificate) state that they are female, how can you prove otherwise?

As The Scottish Transgender Alliance said in their evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee's Transgender Equality report:
as well as violating trans people’s article 8 human right to privacy [under the ECHR] about their gender reassignment history, [it] is generally unworkable because the only way anyone could prove beyond doubt that they had not undergone gender reassignment would be to submit to an unacceptably intrusive medical examination.

Isn’t it better to just say that you don’t mind who is trans but that some spaces are exclusively for biological women? Regardless of GRC.

How can you enforce this? If someone says they are a woman and has the birth certificate to prove it?

I think you are detached from the average person in the UK peak.

Can I ask what makes you think that RunRabbit?

Because I agree with Peak. And I've said it before, but I genuinely don't know a single person who doesn't agree with her! And believe me, these people know about the issue, not least because I like to bring it up - in neutral terms, of course - simply to guage their reactions.

A big chunk of these people are sportswomen.

And in our very own MN terms, the very mildly phrased petition that's been touted in the national press, well that's got just shy of 11,000 signatures hasn't it? I mean that's not even a large proportion of Mumsnet users, let alone the national population! And you can't seriously be telling me that most MN users aren't aware of the debate?

Am I missing something?

peak thats the point: A bloke in a frock can be challenged now. After self id that wont be possible.
Plus, what merry said: We will courteously address transsexuals as women but they aren't. Not legally, biologically or genetically. Sex matters and language matters.

Erm I’m not getting drawn into who is a ‘real woman’ debate.

I’m speaking of keeping the slim safeguarding that we have right now.

It’s not about them being a woman it’s about them not being a preditor.

If people keep focusing on real versus fake trans and the potential for abuse, aren’t they then by implication suggesting that the real trans are not a danger, thus undermining the need for EA exclusions? Isn’t it better to just say that you don’t mind who is trans but that some spaces are exclusively for biological women? Regardless of GRC.

This would make sense, if we weren't being forced to parrot 'transwomen are women', on pain of being labelled a bigot. If transwomen are women, then how does strengthening EA exclusions help?

MrsBeaujangles is right, it's about being able to distinguish between sex and gender where necessary. I could possibly live with self-ID...maybe ....if there was a clear recognition that sex and gender are not the same thing and that getting a GRC changes your gender, but you remain the same sex.....or is that nonsense ?

That’s funny rat because everyone I know doesn’t realise that self id means just that. Most people think there will still be some safeguarding.

That's fine, but then shouldn't everyone's sex be private if they wish?

I think the personal information they're keeping private is that they've changed legal sex, not their legal sex itself.

Although I probably agree with you in many everyday scenarios. Can you state "prefer not to say" against sex on most forms? I honestly don't know. Obviously if there is a legitimate reason for knowing a person's legal sex (I imagine in employment there are a good few reasons) then it can reasonably be asked, but if there's no good reason then I'm with you - nobody needs to know:

Hmm I honestly don’t think they will be as impassioned as you think.
In order to be successful there needs to be compromise from both sides.

Some religious people have a deeply held belief that being gay is a sin, that it is harmful to wider society, that it is harmful to children and that it’s contagious and can be cured. They are absolutely against gay marriage because in their eyes it changes the meaning of marriage and undermines the institution. However, they have had to settle on EA and other exemptions. That has been the only way they can retain their ability to opt out of certain parts of the law.

I genuinely think that will be the way it will go with this issue too. Like it or not, the current laws allowing gender reassignment will not be taken away. You may think the GRA is stupid and goes too far but it’s provisions echo what the ECHR says. You really do not want to leave the ECHR- trust me.

I really don’t think the general public are as stupid or unaware as you think on this issue. They might sometimes feign shock but they won’t care enough to fight for it. In any event it will be politicians voting on this, not the public.

It’s ‘you’re not a woman but the world isn’t perfect and gender is crap so let’s make a compromise where we have a system that can alleviate your distress without putting women and children in danger’

It’s a compromise.

I’m not trying to fight the GRC,
I think the GRC as it stands now is the exact compromise we need.

Or by compromise do you mean we need to give more?

Because where is the compromise coming from the other side?