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.

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.

Quite. But you won't be able to exclued anyone from anywhere, because you can't ask what a trans person's birth sex is without breaching their human rights.

RatRolyPoly
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.

It may say this in the legislation, but how does it work in practice? The Scottish Transgender Alliance want the EA exemptions removed completely, because:
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

If a law cannot be enforced, what is the point of it? One answer here is to repeal it, the other is to take a look at what it is trying to achieve and see if there is another way of achieving that aim, and replace it with something more effective.

but we are prioritising one particular kind of individualised self-expression of healthy persons over the rights of everyone else.

This, exactly.

^^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 saving money for the NHS Ever wondered if this is why it tabled by the government in the first place

By arguing the toss over whether someone is really a woman, isn’t the point lost?

No. It is critical to an understanding of why women need sex based protections to be upheld, and yes, strengthened.

Sorry missed this from Rat

"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."

OK, good. In that case, yep, the GRA needs updating. Any updating needs to reinforce that getting a GRC does not mean you change your biological sex, and that, in some limited circumstances you will be legally obliged to reveal your natal sex.

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?

At the moment, given that we can't repeal the bad law which creates this legal fiction, I'll settle for only the small number of eligible males with GRC to be on there. That ok with you?

Any updating needs to reinforce that getting a GRC does not mean you change your biological sex, and that, in some limited circumstances you will be legally obliged to reveal your natal sex.

YY. As a compromise I'd be happy with that.

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

If someone took a sterile cotton bud, wiped it around the inside of their mouth, and put it in a sterile tube, I would be able to extract their DNA and determine their biological sex. It's not really intrusive... And if there was a clear cultural acceptance of sex based segregation, as there is now, it would virtually never be required.
The problem arises when we lose cultural expectation of sex-based segregation, which would be strongly 'nudged' by self-ID.

But surely Teacup its also about having trans women on the list full stop? You want the list to be reserved for natal females?

Perfectly happy to confirm that is my position. I don't think natal males - with or without a GRC - should be eligible for inclusion on any affirmative action programmes to reduce sex-based inequalities, including AWS.

If trans people, or gay people, or BAME people, or any other marginalised group feels that they need and would benefit from affirmative action programmes, I'd be more than happy to support them.

Sex-based affirmative action programmes should be for natal women only.

At the moment, given that we can't repeal the bad law which creates this legal fiction

why not?

This talk of the EA is purely academic anyway. I have not heard a single TRA suggest we should uphold single sex exemptions, not one.
In fact when Jenifer James crowdfunded to test the equalities act she got hounded for being transphobic.

If that was what was on offer we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but it’s not, so we are.

lang

I’m not going to disagree with your points but that isn’t what the crowdfunder was for it was to test the equality law around self id.

My point is that self id has been very badly presented to the public.

I’m not going to disagree with your points but that isn’t what the crowdfunder was for it was to test the equality law around self id.

Oh no, I appreciate that. Just confirming to Rat, who seems to think it's a bad thing that some of us wouldn't want to admit, that I definitely think sex-based affirmative action programmes should remain sex-based.

I think the vast majority of people have the attitude of ‘well if you would go to all that trouble then of course you must be serious’, with the idea that in order to transition you have to go on this long arduous journey to get a GRC and no one would do that unless they were in a lot of distress, without considering that self id means that you don’t have to change a single thing.

So saving money for the NHS Ever wondered if this is why it tabled by the government in the first place

In my mind that's exactly why specifically this was tabled. I've read that Maria Miller put forward a number of other suggestions which would arguably be more beneficial for transpeople, but self-ID is a media-friendly change that is more importantly cheap.

In that case, yep, the GRA needs updating. Any updating needs to reinforce that getting a GRC does not mean you change your biological sex, and that, in some limited circumstances you will be legally obliged to reveal your natal sex.

That IS what it says!

Well, a paraphrase talking about revealing your reassignment status rather than natal sex, but I guess one wording is less contentious than the other where the transpeople involved are concerned.

That IS what it says!

No, Rat, that is not what it says.

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).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/crossheading/consequences-of-issue-of-gender-recognition-certificate-etc

Well, a paraphrase talking about revealing your reassignment status rather than natal sex, but I guess one wording is less contentious than the other where the transpeople involved are concerned

But isn't that part of the problem - for one group of people sex is a contentious issue.

For others it is an unavoidable reality.

Wouldn't it be better if we could talk about sex objectively?

You have to have legal fictions in law sometimes but that is a really wrong-headed one.

I have not heard a single TRA suggest we should uphold single sex exemptions, not one.

They only do it, like Peak is doing, disingenuously to convince women that don't need to worry. When we all know they'd like to get rid of all the exemptions and that they are very aware that they don't generally get used because of TRA pressure.

(Me) At the moment, given that we can't repeal the bad law which creates this legal fiction

(Merrymouse) Why not?

Peak says it would conflict with our obligations under the ECHR.

flowersonthepiano
If someone took a sterile cotton bud, wiped it around the inside of their mouth, and put it in a sterile tube, I would be able to extract their DNA and determine their biological sex. It's not really intrusive...

I disagree. That is extremely intrusive. Taking someone's DNA, analysing it and that person having no idea how it is going to be stored/used.

RatRolyPoly
Well, a paraphrase talking about revealing your reassignment status rather than natal sex, but I guess one wording is less contentious than the other where the transpeople involved are concerned.

Can you link to where it says this in the legislation? Or say which section(s) it is in?

How does it work in practice? If someone says they are not trans, but appear to be, is there any way to establish the truth?

OldCrone fair enough. I was thinking of physically intrusive. It would only be necessary under exceptional circumstances; for example, if it was suspected that someone was circumventing legally enforced sex based exemptions. If there was no changing of birth certificates in the first place, it wouldn't be necessary of course.

What worries me here, and on many other threads, is that some posters are deliberately reducing the debate down so that it becomes "nothing to see here, move along."

This reductionist tactic - achieved through the use of stats, links, circular and microscopic arguments, post after tedious post - nullifies engagement and distils the actual reality down to a few "reasonable" headlines.

The actual reality is that the trans debate is multi-faceted and extremely complex. With a huge number of potential problems, worries and pitfalls for our society and communities.

There are so many concerning issues: self-id of course which hides within it so many repercussions, the surge of children and young adults experiencing gender identity crises and dysphoria, the denying of biological reality, the explosion of 'group think' especially among young people, the co-opting of the trans agenda by activists with many radical and disturbing views, the attempts to change (and in some instances eradicate) language and scientific facts, the appropriation of women by men and the threat to our right to safe spaces, the threat to the existence of lesbianism as same-sex attraction, the deep concerns surrounding medicalisation of children at or before puberty, the worries of young adults becoming dependent on hormones and drugs for life, the worries about surgery. All this and so much more.

How on earth can the general public - however intelligent, concerned and informed - be expected to get to grips with all of this in the current climate? When those who question are called bigots, radical feminists, TERFS etc and when politicians, community, health and social workers, GPs, medical and psychiatric professionals are too afraid to speak out as the debate has become so toxic and filled with untruth and mis-speak.

I speak out as someone who has been forced into this debate. My child - after 20 happy years living as a female - suddenly announced she was non binary. Then over the next 6 months developed a dysphoric hatred of her breasts and now says she's a trans man who is pursuing testosterone treatment and a double mastectomy. She is a sensitive and highly intelligent person and this all happened after she went through a long drawn out traumatic experience.

I was a witness to the first 20 years of her life and I question whether she is genuinely trans.

She believes she is. She is convinced. But the stakes are too high - once she has taken testosterone and has surgery it is too late for her to return. She will be rendered sterile and will have suffered irreversible side effects.

I know her and her friends share lists of 'trans friendly' GPs and counsellors, and are careful to give the scripted responses they know will work to get their gender dysphoria diagnosis. And therefore their hormones and surgery. I know they set up an online trail to "demonstrate" and "prove" this diagnosis. There is so much more they do, but you get the picture.

Reducing the arguments down to generic and neutral sound bites is not helpful. It's disingenuous and is another way of closing down the debate. We need to reveal the extent of this, to say the truth without fear, so that we can protect the vulnerable and provide as much safeguarding as we can. With care and kindness and respect to everyone involved.