My GC DD wants to do presentation about Self ID. Help!

[hopingforhappiness]

She's 15. She goes to a highly academic, all girls school.
I am GC. I have given her lots of factual info but tried to let her make her own mind up. (It's been hard not to just give my opinion).
She understands the difference between gender and sex.
She's been reading Woman's Place website, a lot.
Her teacher thinks it will be very interesting. No sign of her being censored on the subject. Which I am pleased about.
She must provide an anecdote.
I can only tell her about my friend Gina, who went through full reassignment a long time ago.
She wants to talk about self ID and potential issues with that.
It's been a while since I read anything on this ( obviously I will try and catch up with the latest developments).
Can anyone assist with what way we should go with this.
I want it to be a reasoned, well thought-out presentation.

She wants a PowerPoint display of "Posie's lightshow" as her backdrop.
Help!

My daughter tried to raise the sports angle in her Philosophy class in her final year of Uni. She isn’t particularly GC so in a small breakout group just asked if others thought it was fair (Rachel McKinnon) as I think this has made her start to question the whole TWAW. Everyone, (90% women) said of course it was fair, absolutely refused to believe there could possibly be anything wrong.

I’d ask them if they would get into a ring with a male bodied person for a physical contest (wrestling, boxing, martial arts). No? Why ever not - isn’t it all fair?

A few random thoughts that reading and thinking about this set off... in no particular order!

• the importance of language in all of this - people can be quick to shout transphobia and make others jump up and listen just because they’ve said it but there’s no equivalent to turn back on those that are screwing women - misogeny just doesn’t work in the same way. Shifting the meanings of words so that the general public don’t realise what has happened until too late (eg broadening definition of transgender, people not liking to use sex even though that’s what they mean, trying to co-opt intersex)- deliberate misuse of stats to ‘prove’ their point when it’s actually completely irrelevant but shutting down discussion so when you try to have a sensible discussion you get accused of being transphobic

• the wanting of serious grown up organisations wanting to seem woke and cool so adopting without thinking through the consequences

• the male make up blogger in Birmingham this week - he’s 19? 20? And wears (and blogs about) heavy duty makeup. He’s said his parents asked him if he was trans and he said no, he was happy being gay, that’s what he was. Wondering how long until some of the tras accuse him of being trans and transphobic for being gay... a lot longer than if he was a lesbian methinks! But wondering too how long it will be until people are more accepting of guys wearing makeup...

• crime says being distorted by the recording of crimes committed by trans women as female rather than male.

• I would get her to do a question to the room to start to find out what people think transgender means - will help her gage the mood and knowledge of the audience and give her a reason to define everything precisely

There are some great links in this thread for her to look at OP, and I think ROwantrees post is essential reading.
Good luck to your DD, her idea is excellent and I hope it goes down really well.

Thanks to nauticant and feministfairy - that was indeed the woman I meant, particularly her own thread which nauticant posted. She writes very thoughtfully.

hopingforhappiness I was not meaning to suggest you were writing it, not at all. Just that the challenge for me with my DD is to let her get on with it because otherwise she will get annoyed with me for interfering. I will certainly be pointing out helpful reading if she wishes. But there is a limit to how much she wants my help. So my comments were not meant to suggest anything other than that.

I think it is good that this is being discussed by young people of their own volition. Debate and discussion needs to come among the peers of those affected along with acceptance and understanding for homosexuality and same sex relationships and presenting how you wish.

She should read www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Power-Professor-Mary-Beard/dp/1788160614/ref=asap_bc?tag=mumsnetforum-21&ie=UTF8

And listen to www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_we_should_all_be_feminists/up-next?language=en#t-486860

We would do more good for the world if we accepted people for who they are without requiring conformation to a set of gender roles and characteristics. Let people be people and respect all of those around us without marginalising or forcing our views on others.

I'd encourage her to use examples of things that teenagers tend to be squeamish about - the men in changing rooms, self-iding health care workers, the Canadian waxing story. That should get them thinking about what self-Id means forcwomen in a day to day basis. Good on her!

So impressed by all these young women who want a conversation about this.

Also suggest she looks at transwomen representing women's rights and how that impacts the focus of where effort is directed and who looses is this scenario.

Also suggest she looks at transwomen representing women's rights I second this. She should include a few quotes from people like Miranda Yardley and Debbie Hayton to show that many trans women don't agree with self-ID and recognise that they are still biologically male.
She might also say something about Sylvia Rivera and Marsha Johnson, who were at the centre of the Stonewall riots. Both were drag queens who used female pronouns for themselves, but both denied being transgender and never had gender reassignment treatment. They, along with more recent celebrities such as David Bowie and Prince, are good examples of how people can be gender non-comforming without denying their biological sex.
Goodness, she'll have a lot to cram in!

Dd wanted to do her epq on transwomen in sport. I told her not to touch it with a bargepole. She is GC.

Also suggest she looks at transwomen representing women's rights I second this. She should include a few quotes from people like Miranda Yardley and Debbie Hayton

If doing this, have a look at SevenHex's blog. sevenhex.com/
I used to follow her on twitter until she was targetted by TRAs and banned.

See also Fionne Orlander:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385912-fionne-orlander

Interview with "Germaine Greer yesterday on R4 Front Row

"As she turns 80, Germaine Greer reflects on her career as a Shakespeare academic, public intellectual, feminist and provocateur.

Germaine Greer discusses her passion for Shakespeare and how reading his comedies influenced her thinking for The Female Eunuch; her work championing the work of female writers and painters; how much things have really changed for women; and she shares her thoughts on censorship and pornography and why being outspoken is the best way to provoke change."

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00026y1

For balance, she could refer to some of the prominent transsexuals who are also against the TRA movement, eg. as someone else mentioned, Miranda Yardley, but also Debbie Hayton, and some others who are on Twitter.

Their argument seems to essentially be that they were suffering from dysphoria and so felt the need to transition and are happier being seen as and treated as women in their day-to-day lives, but they maintain a rational viewpoint, that essentially they are still biologically male and still had male upbringings, so there are still some areas where it would not be appropriate for them to be treated as females. I even saw India Willoughby tweet that she doesn't think it's fair for transwomen to compete in women's sports too. There are some transsexuals who are against self ID because they feel like they made a massive effort to integrate as women, including trying to pass physically as best as possible and “culturally” so to speak (in terms of behaviour), whereas the self-ID TRAs are taking the absolute proverbial, by not even trying to pass and putting the burden on everyone else to pretend that they do when they don’t.

Thinking about it some more, it could be useful to present the "other side" just because, in juxtaposition with the facts it just comes across as so mental. So, for example, mention that the TRA argument essential boils down to people thinking that there are “feminine” brains, “masculine” brains and brains that are “in the middle”, and that biology doesn’t matter. But then talk about how feminism for the last century has been all about fighting those stereotypes, and saying that boys and girls should be able to wear or like or do whatever they want without changing their bodies and claiming to be the opposite sex, and also that in some situations (eg. sport) bodies DO matter, and why should we put brains before bodies in sports?

As it's an all girls school, those 'moving towards being trans' will possibly become transmen. The sporting angle (if she wishes to go with that) can garner much sympathy for trans men (no chance of being perceived transphobic).

If a transman wanted to compete against men in sport they will be unlikely to qualify, let alone win against men, because of their female muscular skeletal physiology / smaller lung capacity etc etc.

Trans men in sport will be practically non existent, while transwomen in sport will almost all be gold medal winners, if gender identity is to be the factor in competing categories.

For fairness in sport, transwomen should compete with males and transmen with other females taking into consideration performance enhancing or limiting drugs, eg testosterone in females is doping, testosterone blockers in males reduces some ability, which leads to the idea of trans-only competitions but more research is obviously needed to ensure a level playing field.

Good luck to your DD, whether she decides to do the presentation or not!

Sorry about the essay in response.

There are some amazing suggestions here, but I agree it sounds like she is informed and could tackle this amazingly. It's a HUGE topic, so keeping it focused will probably be a little hard.

Maybe just aim to encourage a little bit of discussion/thought around the subject rather than try to cover everything? If presenting, I'd second the suggestion she is crystal clear in her definitions of sex and gender from the onset, especially if she is using Posie's lightshow and the controversy around the dictionary definition of the word "woman."

You can even consider framing the discussion around when there is a clash around "sex" and "gender identity" in the more abstract than turn it into different "sides"? Like, when is SEX actually incredibly important?

I'd advise not to get bogged down by any arguments that conflate trans with intersex conditions, or who is "true trans" or "fake trans", because they are irrelevant to the self-ID debate. As bowlofbabelfish always asks: "Can humans change biological sex?" (No, no they cannot, and certainly not by just loudly declaring that they "are" the opposite sex).

These questions from Rebecca Reilly-Cooper are important, because they highlight the work the category "female" and "woman" do. rebeccarc.com/posts/

Some basic questions about sex and gender for progressives

1. Do you believe that being born with the kind of body that has the potential to gestate children – a body with a uterus, ovaries, and a vagina – is of any political significance? Does having that kind of body have any bearing on a person’s likely opportunities and outcomes?

2. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have historically been subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination? Have they historically been subordinated to the people with penises and testes?

3. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies continue to be subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination?

4. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies often suffer physical and sexual violence, abuse and harassment perpetrated by the people with penises and testes?

5. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies ought to have a label with which to define themselves? Does our language need a word to refer to the people with uteruses and ovaries?

6. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to organise politically around their shared experiences, and to campaign and work for policies to secure their own interests?

7. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to associate freely with other people with those kinds of bodies, and to have some separate spaces for their safety, privacy and dignity? Do people with those kinds of bodies have a right to some spaces where people with penises and testes are not permitted to enter?

8. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies sometimes have a right to policies and resources designated towards rectifying their historical and continued marginalisation and oppression?

If your answer to any of these questions is “yes”, you should reject the ideology of gender identity, and policy proposals based on that ideology such as the self-declaration of legal gender.

I think your DD's instinct around sports is good. It's visual (you can have pictures of the athletes in question), and any young woman dreaming of athletic success should understand it.

If your DD hasn't spent time on Fair Play for Women, that site is a treasure trove of information on the self-ID issue.
fairplayforwomen.com/sport/

She could pull up some basics about the differences in male and female physiology (extending FAR BEYOND just hormones), show figures of the gaps between male vs female records in sports, and if she had a favourite female record holder in (for example) the Olympics, she could argue that this woman would never have seen success or recognition if there was no female-only category; a mediocre man would have beat the woman every time.

To look at an anecdote, one could perhaps just focus on a high-profile example?
There was significant discussion around Laurel Hubbard (MtF weightlifter from NZ) around the time of the Commonwealth Games. Even some of the people supporting Hubbard's right to compete understood it was impossible for the females to win, but said "them's the rules" so technically it's allowed. So the question is whether the rules are actually fair to women?
Hannah Mouncey is also one to look at, because of legitimate safety concerns. Presenting it from "both sides" can be hard, but you can pull up Hannah Mouncey's own opinions and critique them?
www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/03/afls-trans-participation-policy-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-for-women
Here commentary around Laurel Hubbard and the Commonwealth Games:
www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/disquiet-over-transgender-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard/news-story/12f7647ddbe54aceef2241e80c9e05a3?nk=d91a28cc2e262a8a1a27faf2fd813901-1548757818
And a professor of physiology on the unfairness of this:
www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/99434993/professor-of-physiology-says-trans-athlete-has-advantage-in-speed-and-power

It may also be worth quoting Renee Richards (one of the first MtF transsexuals who played in women's sports):

Despite all this, Richards has expressed ambivalence about her legacy. She continues to take pride in being “the first one who stood up for the rights of transsexuals.” But she also mused, “Maybe in the last analysis, maybe not even I should have been allowed to play on the women’s tour. Maybe I should have knuckled under and said, ‘That’s one thing I can’t have as my newfound right in being a woman.’ I think transsexuals have every right to play, but maybe not at the professional level, because it’s not a level playing field.” She opposes the International Olympic Committee’s ruling in 2004 that transgender people can compete after they’ve had surgery and two years of hormonal therapy.

The science of distinguishing men from women in sports remains unsettled. And Richards has come to believe that her past as a man did provide her advantages over competitors. “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.” She adds, “There is one thing that a transsexual woman unfortunately cannot expect to be allowed to do, and that is to play professional sports in her chosen field. She can get married, live as woman, do all of those other things, and no one should ever be allowed to take them away from her. But this limitation—that’s just life. I know because I lived it.”
Slate article, archived here:
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150208113015/www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/10/jewish_jocks_and_ren_e_richards_the_life_of_the_transsexual_tennis_legend.2.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20150208113015/www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/10/jewish_jocks_and_ren_e_richards_the_life_of_the_transsexual_tennis_legend.2.html

I would say the other instinctive issue is prisons. The classic case there is Karen White. But be aware that the common argument against it is NAMALT (not all males are like that, whether trans or not), and you may need to drill into the facts of male-pattern violence, plus it could be hard to talk about sexual assault in class. Or another angle could be healthcare, and here it's quite easy to illustrate "both sides" as it were. Because you can say that trans people may find it intrusive to be asked about their biological sex, but there are SO many reasons that a healthcare professional will need to know the basic facts of anatomy and physiology that are related to one's actual reproductive system plus any "cross-sex" interventions.

In any case the focus from the feminist perspective is about fairness for women, and how essential it is for females to be allowed to have their own category based on the actual biological reality of sex. It's about protecting the most vulnerable women, risk-management, and allowing women something of their own where their interests are prioritized instead of everyone else's.

It's really about a conflict of rights, how to balance these, and letting females retain autonomy over their spaces and advocate for their own needs. Frankly, it's my opinion that we can't do that if the female identity is being questioned and re-defined as simply a nebulous "feeling." This should be in transmen's interests as well (and "assigned female at birth nonbinary folks"), given that they will share the biology of females who call themselves women, and have certain specific needs. If looking at language, I think anything that obfuscates the reality of biology is profoundly unhelpful and makes it harder to focus on the real needs of females as a sex.

Still wrestling with whether I should try and talk her out of it.
QCng,
Your point is an excellent one.
And thank you Rowantrees, very helpful. I've read many of your posts on here and have admired you for a long time.
She has a lot of material here.
She's thinking perhaps she should give the definition of gender v biological sex in her opening, briefly explain Self ID, then highlight the difference between males and females re: sports performance.
I think she should touch on Qcng's point about FTM and how they are at a DISadvantage in sports.
Still struggling a bit for a closing remark. This is where there should be an attempt at balance. But how?
She doesn't have very long, which is a blessing or a curse, I'm not sure.

hopingforhappiness Personally, I think this quote from Sylvia Rivera (one of the original Stonewall Riot leaders) would make a good closing remark:
"I'm tired of being labeled. I don't even like the label transgender. I'm tired of living with labels. I just want to be who I am. I am Sylvia Rivera. Ray Rivera left home at the age of 10 to become Sylvia. And that's who I am."
It would emphasis that being GNC is not the same as transgender.

hopingforhappiness

Finishing with a reminder of women's rights and achievements.
Emphasising her commitment to human rights for all people.
Humans can't change sex.
Biology is not bigotry etc.
Courage calls to Courage?

Worth looking at some of Dr Nic Williams interviews she makes very these point very clearly.
she's at the end of this Sky program:

I would think about the structure first, then flesh it out.
In very general terms, if I was doing this, I’d structure it as:

General overview, very brief, of history of women’s rights- married women’s property act, voting rights, marital rape, sex discrimination act, 2nd wave feminism, gender pay gap, domestic violence campaigns, me too, FGM.

Then ask- all these campaigns presuppose there is a thing called ‘woman’ but what is a woman?

Discuss the ‘biological’ approach- our biology makes us female.

Then move on to the ‘feelings’ approach- you’re a woman if you feel like a woman.

Briefly discuss the logical problem with this- if you know you’re a woman because you feel like a woman, and a woman is what you feel like, there’s a circularity.

Them move into the practical consequences of accepting the ‘feelings’ approach with particular reference to-
Women’s spaces: toilets changing rooms refuges prisons hospital wards;
Recording gender pay gap;
Recording violence against women;
Recording criminal offences;
Women’s sports;
Women’s representation for instance women’s officers;
Women’s health needs- assessment of public needs for eg female cancers menopause support cervical smears;
Recording sex discrimination in academic and other fields;
Accepting gender stereotypes that reduce personal freedom and fulfilment;
Possibility of women being forced to have intimate contact with male bodies eg beauticians with reference to the Canadian complainant who we are not allowed to name.

And end by mentioning the violence and threats directed at women who try to talk about this. Maybe give specific examples.

Your daughter is principled and brave to do this.

I wouldn’t bother too much about putting the ‘other side’ so long as it is well structured.

I would avoid any discussion of eg autogynephilia.

I would avoid any discussion of eg autogynephilia.

I'd expect some or most of the audience to not get what was being said. To many it would sound like some kind of tall tale made up as a slur against trans people.

Autogynephilia doesn't make sense unless someone has had enough life experience to understand that it can exist.

This might give her something to think about.

Well, DD did her presentation.
She concentrated on transwomen in sport. Used Rachel McKinnon as an example, with PowerPoint image of her on podium as her backdrop.
Touched on #nodebate and used Posie's "Woman" light projection whilst closing; suggesting a third space and more debate.
Think teacher might be GC herself.
I'm a very proud mum.

So you should be. Glad it went well and that she wasn't stopped from speaking about it. Your DD should be right proud of herself. Very heartening to hear of young women like this.

DD has just done her GCSE English speech, and she said a boy in her class did his about gender from a GC perspective. She said nobody was particularly scandalised, which surprised me. Maybe the young aren't as woke as we fear.

(Although one thing she reported that he said, made me laugh as it was a bit extreme even for me, was that Trans people should compete in the Paralympics!)

I'd like to meet the boys mum as I suspect we might be kindred spirits.