'Because biology' is not a good argument

[spannablue]

A good summary of why the 'I have a PhD in science' gamete argument is redundant:

rosieswayne.blogspot.com/?m=1

'...I don’t know what it’s like to be trans, but I do have the relatable experience of having something integral to my life called into question “because biology”.

My adopted son is my son. I know it, he knows it, it is an unshakable truth to us. Yes, it is possible for a child to have two mothers. No, this is not because I ‘identify’ as being the actual person who gave birth to him and/or believe the sperm was conjured up with pure lesbian enthusiasm. But our children have two mothers and we have two sons - this is a reality, and we expect the same legal protection and respect as any other family.

However, if we apply “because biology” to my family (and there are plenty who are keen to), it isn’t actually a family at all - we’re just a couple of single mothers with bastard only children in an unusually cosy house-share situation.

Luckily for us, we live in a time and place where the law actively protects our family from this wilfully ham-fisted interpretation of how biology relates to actual human people. It is not something we take for granted.'

Illegitimacy is not biology. Totally social

It's a piss poor argument which has nothing to do with biology. You can't change sex. HTH.

the legal fiction that a person who adopts a child is their mother or father does no harm to others and is in fact helpful to all concerned

the legal fiction that humans can change sex actively harms the privacy, dignity and safety of women

this article is not a 'gotcha', it's a poorly thought out argument

I take it, you could not find the alleged scientific paper about the genetic female with natural penis that you announced with such great fanfare on that other thread?

Instead you make it all about a false equivalence in order to say Science does not count, because adoption. Oh well. You are aware that most of the women in the world don't plan on adopting all the transwomen in their spaces as their daughters, yes?

That's a false analogy.

A better analogy would be if a complete stranger was insisting on staying in your house and you couldn't say anything about it.

That's a stupid argument. 'Mother' is a role with two definitions, one biological, one social (ie a female raising a child, carrying out a parenting role). Sex is a purely biological concept, gender is a social construct and the two shouldn't be confused.

I'm failing to see any logic here. What has adopting children got to do with pretending that people can change sex?

As lesbians, what are your views on trans rights activists demanding that you “suck their lady dicks”, and calling you transphobic bigots for refusing?
Are you aware of the “Get the L out” campaign, from lesbians who are angry at Stonewall throwing lesbians under the bus to appease the Transgender lobby?
I’m very surprised that you appear to be drawing parallels between your situation with regard to adoption, and the utterly illogical “Transwomen are women” (in defiance of biology) mantra.

If doctors needed to know your adopted sons family medical history, what would you tell them?

I bet you wouldn’t say we live in a time and place where the law actively protects our family from this wilfully ham-fisted interpretation of how biology relates to actual human people.

The analogy doesn't hang together. She says "two mothers". She's not trying to pretend that it's one mother and one father. Nobody is denying the obvious biology.. Neither child will grow up thinking that either parent provided the sperm because that's a biologically-man's role.

A better analogy would be to compare themselves to step parents.

Also adoption is a legal process with gatekeeping. You can't adopt yourself into someone else's family without their consent. I, for instance, can't identify as Queen Elizabeth's oldest daughter and then expect to become queen.

When my husband (adopted) has been asked by doctors for family history, he doesn't relate the medical details of the people he called Mum and Dad. Because biology.

When his birth mother got in touch, relatively recently, it was to let him know of a medical issue that might be significant for him. Because biology.

Adoption is certainly not a good parallel. In the past, people used to adopt children and set up the narrative that it was their natural child. Of course, everyone knew that the child was adopted, except the child. This caused problems for the child, who would inevitably find out at some time in the future - sometimes well into adulthood.

The best welfare of the child should come first.

Oh, God.

Been there. Seen that. Got the t-shirt.

Piss poor article that doesn't address the substantive questions posed to transactivism. These substantive questions are never answered because even this lot of ideologues know that the answers would not be palatable to the population at large.

Try again but without the smoke, mirrors and faux analogies.

It's been a while since I heard the "it's like adoption" argument.

No, the parallels do not hold, for these reasons:

1. Adoption is a legal process with checks and balances. Similar to the GRA now (which requires evidence). Self-ID implies that ANY man for ANY reason can simply declare himself a woman, and we have to take him at his word. In other words, this would be like ANY person for ANY reason could simply declare themselves to be the legal parent of your child. You would have no say. They would be as valid as you. Can you see the problem here?
2. You are the parent of that child, but not the biological parent. That biology would become relevant in certain circumstances. Again, to make the parallels more to why women are protesting more clear, it would be like your child's biological family all shared an extremely particular and significant medical condition (such as all females sharing what reproductive system they were born with), and then you pretending this didn't matter or decided to ban your other family members from talking about it because it made you feel excluded. Biology matters. It REALLY does.
3. The arguments many of the trans activists are making are EXACTLY like: No, this is not because I ‘identify’ as being the actual person who gave birth to him and/or believe the sperm was conjured up with pure lesbian enthusiasm. Because they are insisting that there is no such thing as a biological female, or that biology is a social construct, or are saying sex is a spectrum, or that trans women were born female, or that penises can be a female organ. Hence, they are being quite obstructive when it comes to talking about biological facts. So women are trying to defend these simple truths, because they are being routinely denied.

I suppose the equivalent would be if an adopted child was being medically assessed, the doctor asking for the child's genetic history and the adoptive parents saying "OMG it is literal violence to suggest our child doesn't share our genetic history!"

He is not your biological son though. This matters in some circumstances. Medical history, donating organs etc.

So, the biological facts remain as that. The social bits remain as they are too.

Pile o' bollocks, but this is gold:

"the sperm was conjured up with pure lesbian enthusiasm"

Not this again.

I'm adopted. I have legal parents and biological parents, there is a difference, we all know it and nobody is trying to bend reality to fit a narrative.

When I'm asked about genetic health conditions I say I don't know. I don't give my adoptive parents family history because it's not applicable in that situation and potentially dangerous.

Just like pretending people can change sex is dangerous in some situations.

Also what SodTheBloodyLotofThem said. I think this is in fact the argument being made here, that 'woman' should also be a role with two definitions, biological and social.

The question is whether the legal definition should line up with the biological or social role, and how.

I hope you are not claiming to be a female lesbian
How bloody bigoted

This analogy could be used to support the position that

1. trans men are female and no one is saying they are actually male (she is not the woman who actually gave birth and they didn't conjure up sperm)
2. trans men are deemed men by the law (adoptive parents are the legal parents)
3. trans men are men to themselves and to the people who know them, whatever the law or biology says ( I know it, he knows it, it is an unshakable truth to us. something integral to her life.)

I don't know the criteria for being given legal parental status. But, this analogy can't really be used to answer the question: what criteria should we use to allow a female to be viewed as a man by the law? 3. Should a willingness to state 3 give someone admission to 2 on its own? I'd say no personally.

One of the reasons society is happy to accept that adoptive mothers are mothers in everything but the birth experience is this: we know that there is no significant objective difference in the psychology or behaviour of adoptive mothers that might get in the way of them fulfilling that role successfully. In other words, they are very, very similar to biological mothers in their behaviour and attitudes.

This is not the case with transwomen. Their socialisation will not have been that of a woman, and too many transactivists demonstrate this, by conforming to male patterns of behaviour with regard to aggression and entitlement, for example. They appear to have the same levels (as a population group) of criminality as men. Many of them clearly have the kinds of fetishes that are rarely found in women. There are simply too many differences here for ordinary people to accept that transwomen are women in everything but biology.

If transwomen were on average as similar to natal women as adoptive mothers are to birth mothers, we probably wouldn't be having these discussions.

The child has one biological mother and one social /legal mother.

You, quite rightly, have the same legal protections as any other family.

It is socially and legally correct to call the children your sons. It is not correct biologically. The biology part is objective - factual and may have implications in real life in a VERY limited number of circumstances (for example medical history.)
For everyday life, it is correct to call them your sons. The word ‘son’ has a long history of being used for a non biological child. Adopted children, fostered children, and also certain relationships.

There is no link or analogy that works with being trans here at all. Your children are your children. Emotionally, socially, legally and with a strong bond of love. That they are not your biological children is a fact but it affects nobody else but your family.

I think this is in fact the argument being made here, that 'woman' should also be a role with two definitions, biological and social.

Yes, it probably is. It's an argument which feminists reject. What the heck is the 'social' definition womanhood apart from regressive, sometimes downright oppressive and discriminatory stereotypes?