Why I can no longer use the term transwoman...

[loveyouradvice]

... this actually makes me sad.

It is a term I have used for ages, comfortable with the compromise it encapsulated .... seeing it as a word much like seahorse - not horses, but sharing some characteristics ... and wanting to be generous to those who had had a tough time being able to express themselves and be accepted by society

But now - thanks to this board and especially to the MRAs - I can no longer use it.

I realise that it is a strategic move on their part - so that eventually there will be two groups of people:

transwomen and women ... i.e. the class of women
men and transmen ... i.e. the class of men... though I'm not sure the transmen get much of a look in

And yes, every time I now read the term trans woman with that all important gap signifying no greater difference than "tall woman" or "Asian woman" .... it makes me truly frightened for our future and for our daughters

I will follow mumsnet guidance on the new language we must all use... this forum is too important in enabling the world to see what is happening: I love the fact that the media and politicians take a peak here to see what women are saying.... so yes, I will play the strange new game of verbal linguistics.... while recognising that my own position is shifting (and continues to do so)

Legally they become 'women' though. There is no such legal categoriy trans woman or transwoman. There is no gap. There are of course some biological differences and some differences in experiences to non trans women. But they are still women.

There are legal exemptions in the EA but there has to be a good reason to use them in specific cases - not as a generalisation.

It's a legal fiction.

Means nothing to me.

You cannot change your biological sex and we should not be telling children that it is possible.

They don't legally be some women. Legally they have the right to be treated as if they were the opposite sex, except in certain specified circumstances. So, in fact, legally they are confirmed to be their natal/lifelong sex. Legally by the actual law.

They are not specific cases: they are specific circumstances relating to sex. They are the expression of the legal principle that sex does not and has not changed. That principle obtains even with a GRC. The law expressly acknowledges that no one is changing sex.

The law doesn't say they have the right to be treated as if they were the opposite sex though.

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

It states really clearly: becomes for all purposes. You can't equivocate that away no matter how much you want to. It is in black and white.

The exemptions are applied only in specific situations on a case by case basis. It does not change the: becomes for all purposes.

Legally they become 'women' though. There is no such legal categoriy trans woman or transwoman. There are of course some biological differences and some differences in experiences to non trans women. But they are still women.

Legally they are treated as though they are women. They are not actually women. It is impossible to change sex.
'Some biological differences'? They are as biologically different as men and women are always biologically different. They are not women.

That's talking about gender? So not sex. Do you know the difference? Sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The exceptions make it clear that no one changes sex.

Tbh 'Becomes for all purposes' diesnt mean 'becomes' or the law would say 'becomes'. It means exactly what I said - they get the right to be treated as if they were the opposite 'gender' whatever that means. They are given this right because they are not the opposite sex - as acknowledged by the law.

It states really clearly: becomes for all purposes. You can't equivocate that away no matter how much you want to. It is in black and white.

How does this 'all purposes' work for reproduction then? If they've actually changed sex? In black and white.

The Law is not an objective reality is it though?

To wave around this answer 'legally this and legally that' means nothing. Like we are supposed to be dumbfounded when someone states their birth certificate has been changed so that's the end of it. Eh?

To be honest this changing the birth certificate thing just baffles me. I'm horrified and fascinated in equal measure that somehow there is a true belief that they've wiped out however many years of their life and proven they were born of a different sex.

People truly believe that reality is constructed in their heads. That they shape the narrative of, well, life. That's why they can't handle intelligent argument and instead of reflecting and trying to understand its fingers in ears 'lalalala I'm not listening, I'm telling off you!' Type arguments rather than come face to face with reality. It's staggering.

I agree the law confuses the terms sex and gender and woman/ female. However it doesn't change the intention of the law. The change in birth certificate registers a change in sex/ gender - I think they are the same in law for this purpose? I'm sure someone more legally qualified can confirm.

But if it says 'becomes for all purposes' is that not the same and would you not agree they start off legally one sex and then become the opposite?

Not for all purposes actually. A transman cannot inherit a title or estate meant for the eldest son:

the lawyers who thrashed out the [2004GR]act must have debated the issue of trans toffs, because they made one exception. Section 16 states: 'The fact that a person's gender has become the acquired gender under this Act (a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and (b) does not affect the devolution of any property.' So, as the law stands, the marquess's transgender brother would not get the dukedom.
(Tatler 2016)

Funny that.

It’s a legal fiction it’s not magic.

This whole thing makes me think of Baudrillard and the simulacrum. Not that anything JB wrote was intelligible. The simulacrum replaces the original

www.critical-theory.com/the-only-explanation-of-baudrillard-youll-ever-need/

There you go.

Here's a weird question I've never thought of before - can a law really say that someone can change sex? I'm not arguing the wording here but the actual reality of it all.

If you assume that sex simply equals chromosomes and these aren't a choice and can't be changed, then how could legal rules say they do? Surely that would be like having a law saying "gravity doesn't exist"?

(If actually it means gender then shouldn't it say that?)

Legally this and legally that. Piff, paff, puff well fancy that.

I'll tell you what Kettle, let's you and me go and rob a bank and we can reassure each other in the process that The Law is not an objective reality is it.

An interesting project. We could film it all and put it on youtube and be the next big youtube stars.

This all reminds me of the thread on class issues in feminism recently - with the differences in perception between “men in dresses” and “performing femininity” (basically the same phrase, but the one is “okay” and the other is not - why?)

How many women won’t post here now because they have no idea how to word something carefully enough?

Mogle how can you have a law that says a woman who has never biologically had a child can legally be a mother?

Eh?

Funny that.

It is.

You'd think it was men that made the law and were feeling threatened and insecure and so made sure nothing could affect their supremacy and dominance. Or something.

Oh I think I get what you mean.

Isn't it because "mother" doesn't necessarily mean biological mother - it never has, whereas "woman" is just biology, so the two aren't equivalent?

(I'm not being difficult, I swear, I just can't get my head round the logic there.)

It doesn't matter what you call them, they are still men dressing up.

(Wouldn't the equivalent actually be if the law said "child out of X's womb actually came out of Y's"?)

The law is not objective reality. The law is about context. The law has to be open to interpretation. That's the point.

Try taking/selling speed at a club and getting caught. Then see what happens if your Dr prescribes a type of amphetamine for narcolepsy or depression. Same thing. Different context.

Take the example you gave. There's plenty of people who think theft goes on in various forms every day. Legitimised theft. But try robbing a bank..

Law is not set in stone, biological fact. Not all law is about right and wrong. We have to adhere to the law, that doesn't necessarily make it 'right' nor 'wrong'. We all hopefully know what is right and wrong, but that doesn't make it objective reality all the time.

'Mother' used to mean biological female parent until the definition was changed by the Adoption Act. You don't have to be a biological mother to legally be a mother.

The legal definition of sex has changed to include those that were born biologically as one sex as well as those that have transitioned to that sex.

Both adoption and gender (sex) change are recorded on a register. Both expand categories that were previously only biological functions to legal definitions that go beyond biology.

You asked how it can happen that something seemingly contradictory could be legally endorsed. I'm just discussing a parallel. Shoot it down if you like!