Can TWAW be compared to being "colour blind"

[ABitCrapper]

Please bare with me on this as I'm not sociologically educated, or as academic or literate as lots of you on here.
But I remember a time when lots of people used to say they didn't "see colour" and explain that racism didn't really exist in our culture any more.
And now people don't say that as actually we need to recognise that BAME people experience racism, microagressions, discrimination and unconscious prejudice.

So people currently are saying TWAW, or not "seeing sex" but gender. When actually we need to acknowledge the differences in order to protect against discrimination etc. Against transwomen and women in various situations.

So could TWAW be seen as a meaning-well but ultimately unhelpful message to profess.

And if we take this tack, rather than a more confrontational approach (speaking for both TRAs and GC here) then there might be a better chance of meaningful dialogue.

Or am I just niaive and hopelessly optimistic?

No. TRAs want access to women's and girls' spaces, organisations, protected rights, etc.

They won't settle for anything else.

Actually I sort of agree with you OP.

What I would say though is that whilst I agree with you that if TWAW were a blanket, across the board, no exceptions proposal that would be exactly as unhelpful as being fully "colour blind". What I'm personally saying is that TWAW is completely fine, except in certain instances where sex really matters - as laid out in the Equality Act.

So that's the same as saying that not "seeing" race on a day to day basis is a really, really good thing, so long as you accept the times when racial factors come into play to disadvantage the BAME community; then you have to be able to see race.

Where I come to blows with folks on here is working out under which circumstances sex really matters, and what the best way is to go about managing those situations.

OP, you might find some useful reading material in the Break it down for me thread.

But separate the access argument out and just address the TWAW statement. By spinning it as well meaning but now a bit passe and we don't think like that anymore, you can out-woke the woke. Iyswim. Make the access a different battle.

rat I agree with what you have just said. Although I dont agree with a lot of what you post I do agree with that.
Personally I think schools and hospitals and refuges and prisons shouldbe single sex loos and changingrooms. Public loos I'm less bothered by. But I know others are.

Arran I will read when I get a chance. Toddler demanding attention now!

By spinning it as well meaning but now a bit passe and we don't think like that anymore, you can out-woke the woke.

Actually we do still think like that. We just don't take it as far as that.

So we try to treat everyone the same regardless of race, but at the same time accept that sometimes you have to see race in order to wipe out racism.

The opposite of that is insisting we see race all the time, and that we always factor race, even when it isn't in the least bit important!

And that's the same with this debate. There are some who would go too far towards TWAW that they can't see biological sex at all, and on the other hand there are those who insist biological sex is always considered and always the defining factor even when it is of little or no relevance at all!

But separate the access argument out and just address the TWAW statement. By spinning it as well meaning but now a bit passe and we don't think like that anymore, you can out-woke the woke. Iyswim. Make the access a different battle.

some recent events (documented on fwr) have totally convinced me that for some activists this astroturf (opposite of grass roots) movement does indeed have sinister aims. however your point is about addressing TWAW with ordinary civillians and i quite like your idea actually. as a relatively recently reformed woke person i think that could be a conversation opener at the very least. i think people need to be allowed to feel their own doubts rather than have somebody's entire thinking shoved down their throats.

Oh don't worry ABit, I'm used to being disagreed with

I just like it when I read an OP in here that might actually foster some common ground; love having the chance to half-agree on something every now and then!

Wow Rat you sound almost gender critical there.

The problem is that TWAW isn't factually true unless you change the current dictionary meaning of woman/man. There have been many threads asking what a new definition should be but no clear answer given.

An equivalent would be to say black people are really white people, when they aren't and they wouldn't want to be described as such. That doesn't mean they shouldnt be treated fairly in society and not experience discrimination though.

Ha! I'm really not But I really do think most people in this debate are somewhere on the sliding scale from "there is no difference between a trans woman and a natal woman AT ALL, EVER, how very dare you!" and "a Y chromosome means you cannot be in the same ROOM as me because you're probably a violent fetishist!", rather than at either extreme

I just think the current approach is making some people more entrenched. It's really hard to back down sometimes.
And actually most people are happy to be polite and accept a trans women's pronouns.
I lot of people s self worth is built on how liberal they are. And spouting TWAW is currently almost a badge of honour. But if it is pointed out that actually by ignoring the differences you are unable to adequately deal with discrimination, so it is well meaning but ultimately unhelpful - well then it becomes less desirable as a liberal flag to wave. So entrenched people have an "out".

I'm just trying to find a way to ease and enable dialogue really.

Such shamelessly misleading false equivalency, Rat.

"there is no difference between a trans woman and a natal woman AT ALL, EVER, how very dare you!"

...is pretty much the central tenant and non-negotiable doctrine of TRA activism, and we have seen many women rounded on for not toeing that exact line, notably Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Jenni Murray.

"a Y chromosome means you cannot be in the same ROOM as me because you're probably a violent fetishist!"

... is a hyperbolic made-up position (reductio ad ridiculum) that you'd like to ascribe to GC feminists to make their concerns seem silly, but which doesn't actually reflect the position of any GC feminist. Unless, of course, the 'room' you refer to is a women's or girls' locker room, or a girl's bedroom on a school residential, or a cell in women's prison, or a bedroom in a women's refuge, or a single sex hospital ward.

Transwomen are more likely to be colour blind than biological women (though I don't think this is the point you were making)

Such shamelessly misleading false equivalency, Rat.

Oh God, I come here to agree with someone for once and you still pick a fight with me!

...is pretty much the central tenant and non-negotiable doctrine of TRA activism

I'l have to take your word for it. I've never met a TRA. And it's not my trans-inclusive position, so it's clearly not the only position that comes in for some stick around here.

but which doesn't actually reflect the position of any GC feminist

To be honest I sort of meant both of the things I'd written were wildly extreme positions unlikely to be held by many, if ANY one at all! So you can't exactly tell me off for it seeming ridiculous.

So much for finding common ground.

Is disagreeing with you "picking a fight"? More hyperbole.

Well you language was somewhat inflammatory, no? Shamelessly misleading false-equivalence? Oh fine, whatever.

"To be honest I sort of meant both of the things I'd written were wildly extreme positions unlikely to be held by many, if ANY one at all!"

I mean this sincerely Rat and am not picking a fight. If you really believe that the 'TWAW, no differences, no exceptions, no debate' position is wildly extreme and unlikely to be held by anyone at all, you must have done very, very little reading or listening to the ideology GC feminists are pushing back on. That is exactly the position that many, many people are coming from! It is the only poaition you can hold without being labelled a 'terf'.

Maybe the strength of feeling among GC feminists has seemed extreme or unreasonable to you, simply because you haven't previously understood what an extreme and unreasonable position they are opposing.

ABitCrapper so the premise is that TWAW doesn't address the needs of trans women? I get where you're coming from and in theory it would work, but all it will take is for trans women to deny that they have different needs, and to say that they're quite happy being lumped in with women, for that argument to fall down.
Going on what I've seen so far, the trans women who would agree would be the ones who agree with us already, and they're being ignored as much as we are.

Perhaps I misread your tone Noodle, my apologies.

I've heard of nutters on Twitter (I don't use it myself) but that's what the internet's like these days. You'll get nutters everywhere.

The actual thing in law that is being proposed and a lot of the things I argue for on here are not as extreme as those views. The GRA has exclusions and the EA has exceptions. The things I argue for are not to not see sex at all (i.e. the same as being completely colour blind), but to take only what steps are proportionate and necessary to limit harm to women and girls whilst including trans women where possible.

Because in a good many ways trans women are the same as women. They are subject to the same discrimination when they are taken for natal women. They are physically disadvantaged compared to men in terms of hormones and muscle mass. These are just examples.

Believe me, my impression of the extremity of some GC views comes entirely from trying to argue that, and being told that only classing TW entirely, always, in every circumstance as just like men is the only way to think. And that the only answer is blanket exclusion. And that's not my position.

But anyway, not to derail. Probably not the thread to start arguing the toss on each situation, just saying that I think any position that says the only answer is unilateral exclusion and TW=M is, to me, extreme. I appreciate you might disagree.

I can't agree with your position, Rat. Its not ok to say 'I can't see colour', and assume that BAME people know you secretly mean 'except when it really matters'.

I don't think 'TWAW' is a sensible position or statement, and its being misused by misogynists to have a go at women. Its not just random nutters on Twitter.

'TWAW (except when sex matters)' is neither one thing or the other. As an attempt to placate both sides it wont work.

The GRA has exclusions and the EA has exceptions. Disingenuous argument, the EA probably won't interact with the revised GRA in the way you think it will. The current GRA is restrictive in that it was intended for 5000 post op transsexuals but already organisations are neglecting their duties under the EA. Expanding the number of people from 5000 to half a million isn't going to make that situation better for women is it?
They are subject to the same discrimination when they are taken for natal women. I'd argue they are more likely to face homophobic abuse instead of being discriminated against for being women, as most don't pass in real life.
They are physically disadvantaged compared to men in terms of hormones and muscle mass. This is a: not proven, b: irrelevant because many trans women aren't even on hormones and c: doubly irrelevant because what we are concerned about is trans women relative to women and girls, not relative to men. And a trans woman on estrogen is still on average much bigger and stronger than the average woman or girl, and appears to retain male levels of violent criminality.

So could TWAW be seen as a meaning-well but ultimately unhelpful message to profess

I think people who say TWAW can be split into lot of different groups.

I think some people say TWAW because they’re nice people and think “live and let live”. I might have said it myself years ago - long before I really put some thought into it.

Some people, handmaidens I guess, say TWAW because they want everyone to know how clever and woke and morally superior they are - a badge of honour, like you say. I know a lot of these and have lost friendships over it.

Then you have the straight male misogynists who say it aggressively because they hate women: especially women with opinions and women who want their spaces to remain free of males.

And so on...