How to respond to this...

[Motheroffeminists]

..."I believe, after some thought, that transwomen are women and transmen are men. I don't think you can change sex, it's just that gender identity doesn't always match with biological sex for all people. In addition to this, I believe in equality for all oppressed groups, and I don't think you further the rights of one group by undermining the rights of another. Men kill, rape and abuse women every day and don't need to ID as women in order to access women's safe spaces. Karen White was a failure of the prison service to segregate a sex offender from other inmates in that prison. The trans debate involves some horrible discussions around the issues and these seem to be based on women worrying that self ID will lead to more violence against women. As I said before, men don't need self ID to access women's safe spaces and commit crimes, they'll do it anyway."

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to this. I had asked someone their opinion on trans issues and women's rights. The bit that had me was about furthering the rights of one group by undermining another unless they meant that trans rights should not trump women's rights although I interpreted it the opposite way. Their thoughts seem confused and contradictory and to follow popular opinion rather than be based on critical thought. There was something about what it feels like to be a man or a woman too but as this board has shown repeatedly, no one can answer that. As a woman, I just feel like me. I've never been anyone else so I can't possibly know what it's like to be someone else whether that's another woman or a man.

”men don't need self ID to access women's safe spaces and commit crimes, they'll do it anyway”

Men don’t need to join the priesthood or train as teachers. They don’t need to volunteer as scoutmasters. Yet they still do. Predatory men will go to enormous lengths to secure easy access to their chosen victims.

Beyond that, there is the issue that the more men there are in women’s spaces, the more socially acceptable it becomes for men to push those boundaries without being called out, the less women will be able to object or prove that nefarious reasons were at play when a man invades a single sex space that women rely on.

men don't need self ID to access women's safe spaces and commit crimes

Yes they do, that literally the point of the Karen White case. No sex offender in a male prison will ever be able to gain access to a woman's prison unless he IDs as female. You can't just walk in on a whim! Does he (I'm assuming its a he) think we should just have all our prisons mixed sex then, and just separately segregate the sex offenders?

Maybe it's true of toilets and changing rooms that a dangerous man will go in without needing an excuse, but previously women were "allowed" to recognise that he was male and therefore likely a threat, and shout for help/ leave. Now we have to pretend like we can't see them, pretend they're actually female, and risk being accused of a hate crime if we call for help or try to leave. Not only has the ability of men to enter our spaces increased, our ability to protect ourselves has decreased.

Your friend doesn't sound like they've given this anymore than the most superficial though.

Gender identity is a stereotype.

"Men kill, rape and abuse women every day" because of biology - not because of gender."

Men who have a "gender identify" of being a woman are just as likely to kill, rape and abuse a woman as any other man.

Self id makes it significantly easier for any predatory man to kill, rape and abuse a woman.

Tbh though an easier way to peak him might be to send him on Twitter to talk to some TRAs. He might think that he's an ally but lets see how far his "I don't think humans can change sex but..." ideas get him. I give it 5 minutes before the "DIAF cis scum" comments start pouring in.

Also, back to the very simple. If we can legally separate people using biological sex, which is easily observed and verifiable in the vast majority of cases, then why swap to something as undefinable as “gender identity” which requires a reliance upon a person’s truthfulness and can easily be lied about.

If a group of men (most of whom retain their genitalia) are demanding that women’s rights are extended to them, isn’t it up to those men to prove there will be no increased harm to women?

If not, why not?

And if they’re so unsafe (statistical evidence required for U.K. transitioners) then why don’t they do as women and disabled people, and campaign for suitable spaces to fit their needs, rather than demanding access to womens’.

Men kill, rape and abuse women every day and don't need to ID as women in order to access women's safe spaces.

Men will do it anyway so lets give them even more opportunities and even more potential victims! Make it really easy for them, instead of putting up boundaries and protections against their criminal behaviour.

Are you going to bother responding? It seems a bit pointless given this person appears not to want to think.

men don't need self ID to access women's safe spaces and commit crimes, they'll do it anyway.

So Karen White would have had access to vulnerable female prisoners while they slept, showered, used the bathroom if he had identified as a male? Hardly.

I believe in equality for all oppressed groups, and I don't think you further the rights of one group by undermining the rights of another.

Yes, That is why sex needs to remain a protected class. Adding gender identity removes the legal category of female.

I'm finding it less and less helpful to start the conversation with horrendous instances of crimes and TRA nastiness. We all know the miniscule number of trans people pales in comparison to regular men who would abuse these" rights".

Agree with everything angryprion says

We really need to agree on an objective definition of gender identity
before any meaningful discussion or policy making can proceed.

Sadly this was a woman in a public role who I asked to give me her opinion. She hasn't actually thought much about it despite knowing how relevant the topic is to her role. She claimed to be pro women at which point I wished her well and gave up.

Ask her what she means by this:
gender identity doesn't always match with biological sex for all people.

What is gender identity, and in what ways is it expected that it might 'match with biological sex'?

If she is in a public role she has a duty to understand the law, even if she doesn't agree with it. Services and spaces are segregated by biological sex, not gender identity. Removing women only spaces should not be a goal for any woman or something to be proud of.

Public role
Sounds like my fucking MP
A woman who got her job by being on an AWSL
She now has no issues with AWSL being all TW

Ah, someone in a public role, that makes more sense, they're only saying it to keep their job, as we all know how dangerous it is particularly for women, to go against the TRA line.
I feel quite sorry for her. No one genuinely believes that shit.

The analogy I find most helpful is, if I offer you a sweet from a packet of 100, and 10 of them are poisonous, would you take a sweet? No, and same with men in women's spaces. With all the self ID bullshit and men who look exactly like men saying they are women, who can we trust? Who are we safe with? Best bet? Don't take a sweet and don't have men in women's spaces.

Read Laura Bates for the everyday hassle that women put up with most of it never reported and nothing would happen if it was. A recent study of everyone coming forward for a GRC in Oxfordshire over a 5 year period found that 2 of the 39 men were rejected on the grounds they were paedophiles who wished to facilitate access to children by appearing as women. A system with no checks like self I’d will be targeted by such people.

www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/04/26/trans-woman-objects-to-contract-requiring-her-to-act-female-to-stay-in-bc-womens-prison.html

This s a great story of what happens when you take TWAW to its logical conclusion:-

Please can you ask on my behalf what the thought process that led her to believe that transwomen are women was? I am desperate to understand this, and nobody can explain.

Not recognising that tw are male means you do not recognise that abused women can have serious ptsd around any males. It is furthering their abuse to gaslight them and everyone around them into believing that twaw and therefore 'equal' rights from a point of view of access to a safe space for females.

Trans people's 'rights' are uniquely different when it comes to medical health care.

'Trans' actually means much more complications for a variety of reasons and they can be discriminated against within medical settings by not recognising the trans part.

It's not that TW are 'dangerous because they're male' by any means. Obviously NAMALT nor NATWALT. It's that women need and have a right to safe spaces based on the actions of a numerically significant number of males in our society.

Also, as ever, where are the TM? When you consider the sex based needs of TM, you start to realise why it's absolutely not TWAW.

Though I would say a number of people in the GC community have pointed out to me that TM also can look so male that they are also potentially visually intimidating to women. And yet can be raped and abused as a female. It's extremely complex and the blanket mantra ignores so much that's hiding beneath the surface.

Oh yes and where does she fall on the fact that many /most TW haven't removed their penis, and nor do they want to - and to be fair, I understand that.

Women do not have penises. Abused women cannot be around penises.

Futher to my TM comment, a significant number of females have gender dysphoria and transition to male due to sexual assaults and abuse.

It's always about the TW.

Focus on the women.

And the children of course.

And safeguarding.

I believe, after some thought, that transwomen are women and transmen are men.

What was that thought process, bearing in mind 'I don't think you can change sex'?

Responses to moral and practical issues raised by cognitive mistakes have their place, of course they do. But my own response to stuff like this usually focuses on the original mistake(s).

In this case, for example: 'There is no such thing as gender identity. So talk of it 'matching' or not with biological sex is, quite literally, meaningless.'

Sometimes, ime, people find it difficult to swallow the fact that they can be talking complete nonsense without knowing it. But with goodwill all round, they can learn to understand.

If goodwill is lacking, of course the dialogue goes nowhere. Even if that is the case, though, my response remains the same: 'I'm sorry, but what you are saying makes no sense.'

I think it important such a response be given more often. People too often get away with talking nonsense, in many areas of discourse. It is obviously a bad thing.