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.

That’s funny rat because everyone I know doesn’t realise that self id means just that.

To be fair Teacup we probably can't hide our own biases in conversation, no matter how hard we might try. Inadvertantly we probably present only a partial story to those we speak to in virtue of presenting the information we believe to be right, so unsurprisingly people with no information to the contrary will agree.

Saying that, I really do try to present both sides when I talk to people, and to feel out their opinions before getting into too much of a discussion about it. But that's because I genuinely want to know if I'm as mad as mumsnet would sometimes have be believe

Give more what? The exemptions allow exclusions of those with a GRC.

Compromise from you: accept trans people can be treated in law as their acquired gender, including new pronouns. But retain right to exclude. If you have right to exclude them, why does it matter if they live for 2 years in their gender? You can exclude them in any event.

Compromise from them: accept that they can be excluded from all female spaces in some circumstances but that for other intents and purposes they will be treated as the acquired gender.

I think it’s been presented to the public in a very dishonest way.
All this stuff about all women’s shortlists, in pretty much every report about it it said the problem people had with t was having trans women on the list full stop, whereas for most people it’s about have SELF IDENTIFIED trans women on the list.
If the public think people just don’t like trans people then of course they are going to think people are being bigots.

I really don’t think the general public are as stupid or unaware as you think on this issue

As a member of the general public i do not think the public are stupid, i do think that some of us are not aware of or have thought much about the 'transwomen are biologically women' debate

I dont like the ' you think the general public are stupid' comments when no one has said that...apart from you

A bloke in a frock can be challenged now. After self id that wont be possible.

To me this is such a significant point and I don't know why people don't see it. Once it becomes impossible to challenge someone saying they're a transwoman, no matter what their presentation, then the whole GRC thing becomes largely irrelevant. There will be some transsexuals who will still bother but for the vast majority of trans people there will be no point in having a GRC.

That’s pretty much word for word what A Woman’s Place calls for

But surely Teacup its also about having trans women on the list full stop? You want the list to be reserved for natal females? That’s certainly the impression I get from the majority of anti self-ID posters on here. They say there is no such thing as a lady brain etc so surely they wouldn’t want people with a GRC on the list either? Because a man can never be a woman. Or have I got that wrong?

PeakPants
The exemptions allow exclusions of those with a GRC.

But they're unenforceable. If the individual has a female birth certificate and insists that he was born female, how can you prove otherwise to enforce the EA exemption?

If you are on a the Feminist board on a parenting forum claiming that a penis is a female sex organ because the man who owns it says so, then doesn't that make you stop and question your belief?

In the same way that most people don't spend much time thinking about Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn or the EU, I'm pretty sure that most people aren't aware of this topic. I also suspect that most men who are aware of it think it's a women's issue that doesn't concern them.

I am sure that I could walk down my street now and try to gather opinions, and all of my neighbours would politely agree with whatever I said until we moved onto a safer topic like the weather.

And we can exclude them, but most places aren’t upholding that right because of pressure from the trans lobby, if they backed off and let us uphold those exclusions then quite frankly this conversation wouldn’t be happening.

Nauticant there are zero rules on presentation in order to get a GRC. You can have intact male genitalia and get it.

On what basis can you challenge a man in a dress now? Even if he looks masculine he could have a GRC. After self-ID you have as much right to challenge him as you do now. He still might have a GRC, there will just be a change in the procedure to obtain it.

Self-ID does not mean that you can wake up and stroll into a changing room and pretend to be a woman. It will be easier to get a GRC but the majority of trans people don’t even have one at the moment and you have said that things are working fine as they are.

Well there isn’t such thing as a lady brain.
And I wouldn’t be skipping through the fields with joy about a trans woman on an all woman shortlist but the actual crowd funderbwas to challenge self id’d trans women.
Like I keep saying self id changes the culture, Labour have opened them up to ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ that could be a trans woman or a natal woman or a non binary Male, or literally any male who just says they do to sabotage all women’s shortlists.

Like I keep saying I don’t think that a man can change sex but the GRC is a good compromise to keep everyone’s rights intact.

Compromise from them: accept that they can be excluded from all female spaces in some circumstances but that for other intents and purposes they will be treated as the acquired gender.

That would mean they are obliged to reveal their biological sex in some circumstances, yes? According to someone (Peak or Rat?) that would breach their human rights, no?

I doubt very much a male presenting man who has done nothing to transition would get a diagnosis of dysphoria to be honest.

So as I said teacup the issue isn’t self ID, it’s the policy on applying exemptions under the Equality Act. That’s what needs to be tightened up. By focusing on self-ID it comes across as trying to restrict trans people’s rights (from an outsiders viewpoint), not that you’re trying to protect the rights of women. By arguing the toss over whether someone is really a woman, isn’t the point lost?

It really doesn’t

But we can’t argue for tighter exemptions if we’ve already said they are women.

@PeakPants
Teacup says "But we can’t argue for tighter exemptions if we’ve already said they are women." and the same point has been made repeatedly. I am interested to hear your response?

I think the personal information they're keeping private is that they've changed legal sex

But what is legal sex? If it is different to biological sex, why should everybody else have to reveal their biological sex? If it is the same, where is the legislative language that allows people to have sex based exceptions based on biological sex?

What about people who don't pass?

What about people who are non-binary?

It just seems to be a fudge based on the idea that you can change sex.

Self-ID does not mean that you can wake up and stroll into a changing room and pretend to be a woman.

That's exactly what it means.

I present to you Ibi-Pippi Orup Hedegaard, who is taking advantage of Denmark's self ID to enter women's communal changing rooms.

reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/35dm73/meet_ibipippi_the_lesbian_trapped_in_the_body_of/

They may be doing it as an 'artist' to be provocative. But if they can do it then so can any man.

the issue isn’t self ID

The issue very much is self ID. Because as someone else wrote it will change the culture. The culture is changing already. Not so long ago Travis Alabanza would not have been pandered to.

That would mean they are obliged to reveal their biological sex in some circumstances, yes?

They already are obliged to reveal their birth sex in some circumstances; it's written into the EA and the GRA. It isn't a breach of their human rights because it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end - so basically it is important for other people's human rights that it be known.

PeakPants You are completely missing the point.

Single-sex spaces and places for women are not compatible with self-id. So what you are asking us to do will not work.

And no, I do not accept the attempt to de-medicalise the process. The process was created for people suffering from a specific illness that has a specific treatment which leads to a specific outcome.

De-medicalising means that we are no longer protecting those who need society's protection because they are suffering from an illness, but we are prioritising one particular kind of individualised self-expression of healthy persons over the rights of everyone else.

I accept that you cannot see that. I know that the politicians I've spoken to are completely unaware that self-id is not aimed at protecting transsexuals suffering from extreme gender dysphoria. Once they are made aware - usually via an issue dear to them like sports or stats or medicine - they too question if self-id is the wrong path to take.

And as for your contention that the GRC already is given out based on feelings: that is blatantly false. To receive a GRC an applicant needs to provide two medical confirmations of suffering from gender dysphoria and at a bare minimum show evidence of a treatment plan for a medical transition in addition to living openly in a gender role of the opposite sex for two years.

Self-id means any person can fill in the form - no diagnosis, no treatment plan, no living openly in your assumed gender role but most importantly no changes in appearance required whatsoever. That's evidently very different from the GRC.

So we have two options: we can fight self-id. OR we can as you advise us to do fight for stricter and wider application of single-sex exemptions.

Coupled with self-id this will mean excluding all transsexuals from all single-sex spaces under all circumstances, no matter how long ago they transitioned because their GRCs will be rendered meaningless without gatekeeping and we must therefore exclude all members of the opposite sex no matter how they appear.

Do you understand that what you are suggesting will hurt transsexuals?

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.

And they believe this because they they think a sky fairy wrote it in a book.

However:

1. Marriage is a civil instituation
2. Who the f* cares who anyone wants to spend the rest of their life with as long as they are consenting adults and don't do anything worthy of an AIBU weddings thread.

Reason triumphs over anti scientific dogma.

On the other hand I have to accept legislation that accepts the idea that sex is a feeling in somebody's head?