#notalltranswomen

[BadasIwannaB]

An argument people often make when women voice their concerns about women only spaces:

‘Well hang on a second, I know quite a few trans women and they are just considerate nice people who just want to get on with their lives etc.’

Why can’t people see that this is spectacularly missing the point in just the same way as arguing ‘well NOT ALL MEN are [rapists/sexual harassers/misogynists/a danger to women]’?

I mean, I’m friends with a lot of men - they aren’t all bad. I’m even in an intimate relationship with one. But would that be a legit rebuttal to the arguments that women should have protected spaces without men? Clearly not! I’m not insulting my (or your) friends who are men, or implying men are all rapists etc. by agreeing that women should have protected spaces without men in them.

Similarly, then, why think that those who argue that these protected spaces should not be available to trans women must be assuming that all trans women are rapists/sexual harrassers etc., and must be saying something that’s terribly insulting to their (or your) friends who are trans women?

And honestly, I'm not seeing how it helps transsexuals. The relation between gender and sex is rather vital to their condition. If 'gender' is kept clearly separate in law from 'sex', how does a transsexual access help in their belief that their sex doesn't match their gender? Because why should it if these things are completely separate?

I also don't think it would help the trans population.. As far as I can see trans women want to be legally considered women and be included in any legislation which pertains to just women. That would not happen if you keep the definition of woman for legislative purposes as = sex.

GardenGeek you're ignoring the motivations and objectives of the transwomen who are so opposed to us. For pretty much all the new crop who want to keep and use their penis, having access to single sex spaces is an absolute must, whether it's for validation or as part of a kink. Transsexuals may care about women but transactivists do not. It's a characteristic they all seem to share.

So gender won't cut it. Look how the goal posts keep moving. First it was TWAW. Now it's TWA female. Makes no difference what word we use for women - bio women, female - the transactivists will insist on adopting it.

The transactivists want in to every sexed space or opportunity. If there's an AWS they will frame not getting on to it as "othering". Any recognition that they're not absolutely as female as us is bloody othering.

Well, they're not wrong. Because they are other.

My point is that not only is gender an incredibly waffly thing to legislate on, but you'll never get enough transactivists on board for it to make any difference.

In that case floral, I’d say that a transsexual doesn’t have any separate issue with gender, what they have is a feeling that their sex is wrong - so they could access treatment based on that, rather than just be “transfemme”. Which would include talking therapies etc to decide what is the best treatment for them.

In my world ( ) belief that you have your own GI would be covered against discrimination in the same way belief against a god is covered - it does not give you the right to either a) “change sex” or b) force everyone else to bend to your belief. What it does do is prevent you being sacked, beaten etc for your belief.

I realise this is all pie in the sky, and that TRAs want sex erased, this is just me thinking aloud (as you can probably tell from the random stream of thoughts I’m posting!!)

And I’m now posting from my phone, so it will look even more like a random stream of thought

Beyond, I agree with you, tbh. Which is why I don't see helpful legs on this. It's not what influential TRAs are pressing for anyway.

gender as a concept in itself could be observed as a mismatch between the expected visual presentation of someone and their sex, which does lead to abuse.

Note this definition is only possible if sex is distinct to gender.

Now having expectations of how someone looks and dresses is wrong, but here the wrong is clearly the person who makes that observation that there is an expected presentation that the victim should have because of their sex.

If the tras are pressing for something but a group of feminists and transpeople have between them some agreement that works for both, then the tra position is severely weakened.

Now having expectations of how someone looks and dresses is wrong, but here the wrong is clearly the person who makes that observation that there is an expected presentation that the victim should have because of their sex.

Isn't that just sexism?

TBH I've been arguing that sex and gender are different things for about 10 years now.

All i've seen is all the language I've used to explain it co-opted by TRAs. It's predictable. For example I remember saying 10 years ago 'gender is a social construct'... give it a few years and the slippery fuckers are now saying 'sex is a social construct'.

What ever language you use to try to differentiate, they will simply say the same thing back to you but swap sex and gender around.

As a little game garden why don't you have a go at writing down the difference between sex and gender in an unambiguous, meaningful and practical way and we see how long it takes an MRA/TRA to do the switch and add it to their arsenal of gaslighting bullshit.

In fact I remember about approx 7-8 years ago saying 'Sex is fixed and gender is mutable'. An [acronym] retorted "No, gender is fixed and sex is mutable". ie they believe that their innate sense of gender is something they were born with and hormones and surgery mean you are literally changing sex.

Such gaslighting bullshit.

Wheredo, yes, I have become increasingly aware of the notion that 'gender identity' is immutable and that bodies are entirely malleable.

For the purposes of what is being suggested by Garden, I think this is relevant, because it's one thing to make clear the distinction between sex and gender, but you have to know that the TRAs are just going to come back with a new hierarchy. Yes, they'll say, sex and gender are different. We'll say that sex segregation is important. They'll say gender is higher up the chain, just as they do now. We'll be left scrabbling around for scraps.

I was defending the Pride protest - mate was denouncing the terfy bigots to loud applause from his echo chamber.

So I said, well, FOS & all that - also what'd wrong with lesbians saying no to cock?

I said actually NO to cis, don't call me that. I don't do gender, but I accept that people do & fair play to them, & their gender presentation should be protected (& indeed is).

So I feel we have work to do, & I'm not convinced separating gender & sex in the discourse will actually help. However superficially sensible it appears.

Indeed. It has been tried.

I still think it is worth GardenGeek and whoever else is on board with that approach going for it, it can't hurt. But it's not a silver bullet.

Floral in terms of what you do, you continue to allow people to obtain a gender recognition certificate. You just limit what that actually means by protecting and preserving sex segregation in certain circumstances. So yeah, have a GRC- it doesn’t mean very much but we know it makes you feel good to have it.

Things that won’t happen:
Full scale repeal of the GRA and a return to the position where gender reassignment is not legally possible
Removal of gender reassignment (or gender identity) as a protected category under the EA 2010

Just won’t happen. People can argue for it all they like but unless we get some hardline Christian Right wingers in government, nobody will effect reform that appears to remove existing rights that trans people have. It won’t be enough to reassure them that they are free to present how they want- they are seeking some legal validation and recognition which trans people have in most other countries in the Western world. Protecting sex as a category is a separate matter though. We don’t live in an ideal world- we have to work within the framework we have.

Ok. I'm not arguing for repeal of the GRA or for a lessening of rights for transsexuals. None of my business, frankly.

My only concern is the rights of women and girls and the need for them to be able to maintain their boundaries. So, how would the proposed gender coded into law idea help them? Because from where I'm sitting it would just codify class oppression. Unless you include as part of the definition a qualifier that makes clear that gender is not something everyone believes in or subscribes to, I'm not sure how to avoid that.

Well you reform the EA to place a duty on service providers to provide single sex facilities in a limited number of circumstances and make clear that gender identity does not impact on provision of these single sex services.

Isn't that what we've been arguing for?

(Confession, I'm knackered after a broken night, so I may not be following very well)

No, many people have been arguing that the GRA should be repealed. Many have been wholly unconvinced that reforming the EA is the way to go to protect women and get away from the toxic debate over whether trans women are real women.

Oh I see. Is reform of the EA even on the table at this stage?

It has been suggested but from TRAs and in the opposite direction- to remove sex based protections.
Thing is, even if you stop self-ID you don’t stop any of the current problems that exist without self ID even being law yet. To have proper protection for women and girls, you need reform of the EA.

PeakPants, yes, I can certainly see the case for that.