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?

I really think you're deliberately understanding me here. All I'm doing is laying down the legal position that already exists regarding the Equality Act.

I'm not say Muslim women are "other" to non-Muslim women in any way, shape or form. Just that groups of women can legally discriminate against other groups of women who differ from them in a certain protected characteristic. I.e. religion, race, gender reassignment etc.

The point being that even those of us who, for whatever reason, will say TWAW, that does not AT ALL mean services and facilities are not able to provide services for natal women ONLY. When that is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

I mean does anyone know what I'm repeatedly referring to here? The Equality Act exemptions? I just want to be quite sure before anyone does anything silly and goes off on one that I must be some sort of racist for saying the word "Muslim". Stranger things have happened round here...

MISunderstanding!

Rat, I really don't understand your point. Women can have different beliefs and engage in different behaviours. It doesn't make them not female.

Surely men and women should be treated the same in all areas of life except those where differing needs arise on account of biological differences? Where biological differences are significant, it is biological differences that count - not gender.

They know it not true. It's gaslighting.

Or (as someone else on MN described it) it's said with the knowing smirk of triumph seen on autogynephile's selfies - once seen, never forgotten.

"We've already decided that the definition of a woman has been changed. Didn't you know that? Wow, you women really are bimbos and need to catch up!"

"Be quiet, no debate. We've decided it. The ugly feminists at the back need to get over themselves and suck it up"

No, I think no-one's following me, doesn't matter. I can't even remember how we got here and I can't be arsed to go back and look.

In summary, all I'm saying is that simply thinking TWAW doesn't mean somebody think the two are exactly the same in every circumstance, and that there is no possible situation where they may need to be separated in a particular facility or for a particular service. TWAW doesn't mean you don't accept that.

Even the law says TW are LEGALLY women, but the law doesn't think their must be no exceptions either!

Rat I understand your point. There can be, for example, a Muslim women's coffee morning. That is allowed. Kind of like how there used to be events and spaces for women.
In summary, all I'm saying is that simply thinking TWAW doesn't mean somebody think the two are exactly the same in every circumstance, and that there is no possible situation where they may need to be separated in a particular facility or for a particular service. TWAW doesn't mean you don't accept that.
No offence but it doesn't matter what you think. If the law is changed, or even if judges agree TWAW, it sets a legal precedent to be exploited by trans groups.
Even the law says TW are LEGALLY women
No it doesn't.

I actually think I get Rat's point here. I don't agree with her point, but I can see how you can get to the point of saying TWAW and as long as you parse it extremely carefully, you can squeak through the gate of TW and women needing biologically different things in certain circumstances.

I don't think it works for anyone very well, and will go down like a bucket of cold sick with most of the vocal TRAs, but as my kids say, 'Issa look'.

Let's talk about K White shall we Rat? Let's talk about transwomen in women's prisons. You're not on that thread. I wonder why??

This is a nice cosy place to chat isn't it? Not locked up in a cell with your low social status and your brain injury and your history of domestic abuse wondering if he's out there with his cock poking out of his trousers waiting for you, waiting to touch you. Lovely. Cup of tea? We can have a nice cosy chat. Who has the best argument? Who's going to say what about the children? loudest. Maybe some sarky remarks about being called a racist. And then we can put down Mumsnet and toddle off to bed. Lovely.

Ah she's just saying that this week so she can SAY SHE NEVER SAID IT Floral.

She didn't mean those people she didn't mean the fur babies she didn't mean prisons. In two months she won't have said anything at all and there will just be a space where she used to post. Hopefully someone will use that space to recommend some really nice boots. Because winter is coming.

Oh I get it.

It disregards reality in exactly the same way that TWAW does.

Sure the EA allows justifiable discrimination under certain circumstances - but can Rape Crisis centres afford the legal fees every time they need to apply the EA to protect female victims of rape from the penises of narcissistic males?

Why should anyone have to justify their sex-based need for safety and privacy, simply because a narcissistic male wants what they have?

Even the law says TW are LEGALLY women

No it doesn't.

It does if they have a GRC.

No it doesn't.

13.57 If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.

13.59 Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.

These arrangements can include single-sex shortlists for election candidates, but not shortlists restricted to people with other protected characteristics.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/7/5

Sex is a protected characteristic, so is orientation.
''A woman who is attracted only to other women is a lesbian''
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/1/9/3

where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender

How can someone with a penis be indistinguishable from someone with a vulva?!

where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender
That's really unclear. Do they mean a man who looks like a man should be treated according to his acquired identity if he says he is a woman?
Or do they mean a man who looks just like a woman should be treated as woman. The latter makes no sense, if you couldn't tell, you couldn't discriminate, surely?

I can't tell if they mean sex by gender or gender identity by gender, so I have no idea what that says...

It barely matters what's legal when extreme TRAs will use everything from ostracism to bomb threats to stop all-female events.

I like your op, op!

I've tried it and it does create a pause. Generally the response I get is that it's mean to separate because you could be forcing a transwoman to out themselves - which is akin to opening the door on their shark cage or something.

So, I say that surely transwomen need - and should have access to - respectful and accurate words/spaces/treatments for their specific needs, which are necessarily different from women's - it's actually disrespectful to trans people to be 'sex blind' because it ignores their specific needs. That surely the way to progress on trans visibility and understanding in society is to be a proud transwoman - not to try and hide amongst another oppressed group and thus have your specific identities obscured?

Usually the response is either something along the lines of 'most oppressed group ever' and how they have to pass/hide (use women as human shields) for safety.

Or

Biology is really so complex, 'hormonally' intersex, wrong brain/body combination, hormone wash in utero, sex isn't nearly so clear cut as I think but people know their gender - which is apparently more clear cut? - so what they identify as is what they literally are.
Aka - nonsense world salad that doesn't actually define, answer or solve anything.

@jellyslice
A significant minority of transsexuals have surgery to remove testicles and invert the penis to create a "vagina". The jawline and Adams apple can be feminised. Take a look at Paris Lees. I would say that she is indistinguishable.

At which point the physical danger they pose to women is substantially reduced.

Thanks Vitriol

I don't think any approach will instantly win over any over-woke person. But a drip, drip, drip of little things that cause a pause, and a little think, could over time really help a sea change in a large amount of people. All you need is to get people thinking. Give them an "out" from current held positions.

I agree ABitCrapper

Even just seeing others speaking out and questioning will allow them space to feel able to think about it.

The big problems I see are the need to be nice and the tribalism. You can say a lot of nonsense if you're seen as kind/right side of history etc. You can make a lot of mud stick if you shout right winger (people legit think that t**fs are right wing extremists!). Then just bamboozle with esoteric word salad and you're done! No-one will want to even question.

Tribalism. That's the word I was trying to think of earlier.
I think it's a huge mistake to ignore the "well-meaning" liberalism-as-identity people and just focus on the extreme TRAs. The AC business has shown that there is a tightly woven core of extremists, and yes that needs to be challenged. But we also need to win over the lefty woke tribe. And pointing out that differences actually do matter as in intersectionality, then maybe the worst excesses can be stopped. The the guides policies for example.
You've got to provide a good excuse to start speaking out.

I don't think the women of FWR and all the things that spin off from that on Twitter and in real life have been ignoring the well meaning liberals. A significant proportion of us come from that tent. That's the essence of so much of the debate here - a sizeable contingent of left leaning women thrashing out exactly why we have such misgivings about this whole thing despite seeming tailor-made to nod along and unquestioningly cheer.

Yes I know you're right Floral. I am one of them as well! A few posts up thread though have been of the "well TRA s want it all with the moon on a stick so don't even bother" flavour.
I was wondering whether my idea would hold up with your average lefty-woke, not LM or AC which is why I started the thread - to see if better minds than mine liked the idea before I tried it out and got egg on my face.