Excellent article by Holly Lawford-Smith

[DancelikeEmmaGoldman]

Hitching Glitterbeard Carts to Transsexual Wagons

“In Philosophy, there’s a well-known problem called the “Sorites paradox”. The usual example given to explain it is a heap of sand. We start with a single grain of sand. Is this a heap? Clearly not. We add another grain of sand. Is this a heap? Clearly not. And so on… and so on… until what we have clearly is a heap, and yet it wasn’t clear at what point the accumulated grains turned from a non-heap into a heap. The part of this paradox that will be interesting for us is the side-by-side comparisons, say, six grains of sand compared against seven grains of sand. It’s clear that either both of these are a heap, or neither of these is a heap. The side-by-side cases are similar enough that we should treat them as the same.
I think this kind of logic also shows up in discussions about who counts as a woman.

The reasoning goes like this: clearly this type of person should be treated as a woman (say, a fully-passing transsexual woman); there is not enough difference between this person and the next (say, a fully-passing transwoman who isn’t able to have sex reassignment surgery because of its prohibitive expense), so she should be treated as a woman too; and so on… until we reach a person who clearly should not be treated as a woman (say, a male-bodied male-appearing person who merely asserts that ‘she’ is a woman, such as US trans activist Danielle Muscato or UK advisor to Stonewall Alex Drummond).”

medium.com/@aytchellis/clockwise-from-top-transgender-youtuber-kat-blaque-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf-8ef1b27c1610

Excellent article Holly, and excellent comment on the article Alessandra.

I think the thing with mapping the Sorites spectrum against potential legal rights is that there are only a few places on the spectrum where you can draw a legal line -- you can do it at each far end - sex means biological sex , or sex is a 'self identified' characteristic.

But there is no good place in the middle. You can't draw the line at passing (who is to judge? you can't give out rights based on grooming standards) and you can't draw the line at penises/ SRS (that's forced sterilisation, breaking human rights).

The GRA attempted to draw the line somewhere in the middle based on an administrative process. But its a mess because there is no good way of doing this.

In practice in most situations you can include everyone by having an "open/unisex/ gender neutral" category of provision and one for women only e.g. in sports. Or have three options: male, female and gender neutral/single occupancy e.g. in changing rooms and toilets.

Once you have a category of provision which safely and sensitively accommodates people at the Danielle Muscato end of the spectrum, who may not want to use facilities of their own sex, but by any sensible measure should not have the right to use facilities for the opposite sex..... then you have solved the problem for everyone

I'm hardline because as Greer pointed out, they all think they're women because they don't think women are really people. Doctors don't think so either. The existence of neovag literally makes my blood boil

CandidPeel

I think the 'legal line' needs to be drawn by clearly defining sex as a biological immutable fact and allowing for its 'social recognition' in limited circumstances, where there is no conflict with other protected characteristics. Practically, this would mean third spaces when there are specific vulnerabilities for both groups (toilets, prisons etc). Also no change of birth certificate (insistence of changing gender on BC is revealing of bad faith of campaign = there is no gender on BC, only sex, and, as an historical record, it should not be changed. Passports and IDs are not historical records, they are ID documents, so they can be changed).

The whole concept of “passing” is invidious and nasty. No transwoman truly passes, we all know this but we perpetuate the whole stupid myth out of an attempt to be kind. And what it actually achieves is it reinforces expectations on women to conform to arbitrary standards of what is and isn’t feminine.

Sakura184

What is 'neovag'?

PS I hope your 'literally boiling blood' isn't too painful : )

There's another dimension to this spectrum of transness which applies I think - what purpose someone is desiring to be "treated as a woman" for.

Should any transwoman be offered a pregnancy test or a hysterectomy? No. I don't think anyone (sane) would suggest it.

Should they be able to choose clothes from the "women's" department? Yes of course. (Indeed I choose many of mine from the men's.)

Should they be able to use a traditionally feminine name if they want? I don't see anyone objecting.

Many people are happy to use preferred pronouns too, or were until it was used as a weapon to hack into women's single sex spaces and sports.

Someone might think it's fine for a post-op very well passing transwoman to use the ladies' loos but still not think they should compete in women's weightlifting.

But yes generally passing is a terrible measure of anything. Who gets to arbitrate? People think they pass when they don't. Their friends tell them they pass to be kind. Or they pass in some lights and not others. Or they pass if they've plastered enough makeup on but not in everyday wear. Or they pass in pictures but it's obvious from their stance and voice.

I don't think "social recognition" can be legislated for Allesandra.

(I know they tried but that's the mess we are in)

I think we need to get back to a position were sex means sex on all official documents, and where it has been decided that it is not necessary for sex to be accurately recorded on a document (eg passports, driving licenses, workplace ID) it should just be removed for everyone. You can include a section on the back where people can fill in (in pencil if they like), the social gender by which they would prefer to be treated on any given day.

Third spaces may be open access (eg changing rooms, toilets for anyone who does not wish to use their own single sex), or based on specific vulnerability.

I don't think "social recognition" can be legislated for Allesandra

If I'm brutally frank, I don't think it can be philosophised for either. Women's rights, dignity, privacy and safety aren't thought experiments in the real world. Especially for non-elite women.

(Still love Holly though.)

Women's rights, dignity, privacy and safety aren't thought experiments in the real world. Especially for non-elite women

Spot on. This has been a blindspot in political thought for a ludicrously long time.

I tend to agree on leaving gender recognition completely out, but it might be too late. Males (overwhelmingly) have allowed this to become a recognised right (shudder) without a scintilla of thought on the consequences for women as a protected group (what are the chances of that, right?)

I tend to agree on leaving gender recognition completely out, but it might be too late.

Without doubt, too late for a quick fix. Things have gone too far. Best case scenario: years, decades of restoration. Worst case: far right gets there first.

If I'm brutally frank, I don't think it can be philosophised for either. Women's rights, dignity, privacy and safety aren't thought experiments in the real world. Especially for non-elite women

This. I work with people who are rough sleepers ( homeless). Nearly all of them have addictions, mental health problems and experience of the crimson justice system.

None of them have a philosophy or medical degree yet all of them know the difference between men and women. None of them think men should be in women’s safe spaces because they know a great deal more about male violence than most academics, philosophers or twitter pundits.

Its only the elite who need people like Holly to explain it to them.

Also, regretfully, have become hard line after direct experience of discussing this with both TS and TRA people here.

It is perfectly apparent that if any male under any circumstances can legally enter spaces reserved for women then the pushing at that open door is inevitable and will never be in women's favour. The GRA 2004 was the compromise, made by men for men without consulting women, and it has led to UK parliaments seriously considering legislation that ends women's rights to define themselves as a sex class and women defining themselves as homosexual as a 'hate crime'.

I have also seen that in the most sympathetic, aware and articulate TS speakers, some of whom I have the greatest respect for in their courage speaking up regarding their own rights and the damage done to them by trans activism, despite the awful treatment and harassment they have received - in speaking to women and regarding single sex spaces, there is still a clear underlying belief that women are a lesser species who may not set their own boundaries or have autonomy, and they will be using women's spaces regardless of how women feel about it. Being gently and kindly oppressed by a few isn't really any better than any other forms of oppression.

This is not about being 'kind' to men. This is about the right of women to be a separate sex class, unfogged by the needs of any males regardless of what those needs may be. This is a fundamental need for biological women, and must be definitively protected. Trying to be 'kind' and getting fogged about at what point a man becomes a woman is why currently sobbing, working class, disabled women are standing in witness boxes in Canada trying to defend their right not to have to intimately handle an open, harassing fetishist. And actually having their father/husband and the fetishist debate who has primary ownership and right to use her as they prefer.

None of them think men should be in women’s safe spaces because they know a great deal more about male violence than most academics, philosophers or twitter pundits.

Its only the elite who need people like Holly to explain it to them.

I'm afraid this is a rather unpleasant truth.

I might be an unusual academic, but I need no explanation on women vulnerabilities even if I have never been in prison or in a women refuge. I take a very dim view of any academic who cannot understand what is beyond his/her lived experience. But I agree there are many (especially males in my experience. Clueless does not cover it, for class as well as sex).

Brilliant post Rosemary46

Also Michelle articulates really well something that has troubled me for a while

I have also seen that in the most sympathetic, aware and articulate TS speakers, some of whom I have the greatest respect for in their courage speaking up regarding their own rights and the damage done to them by trans activism, despite the awful treatment and harassment they have received - in speaking to women and regarding single sex spaces, there is still a clear underlying belief that women are a lesser species who may not set their own boundaries or have autonomy, and they will be using women's spaces regardless of how women feel about it

By definition people who identify as trans believe that gender is important. I think that is seriously misguided. There are many people that I think are misguided, those who adhere to many religious or political beliefs for example, and I respect their right to do so. But I bear in mind that misguidedness

Being gently and kindly oppressed by a few isn't really any better than any other forms of oppression.

Pithy and good summary.

I increasingly find that variations on, "I asked nicely" with the unspoken, "But treat that as an instruction. We both know it's a social fiction that you have the right to assert your own boundaries and refuse" put my teeth on edge.

I need no explanation on women vulnerabilities even if I have never been in prison or in a women refuge.

And yet you have put forward "compromises" on this thread that would disproportionately affect the women Rosemary works with.

That's why we working class women are hard liners.

No, no compromises. Third spaces, which I would approve of, do not affect women vulnerabilities, in any of those situations. I only said that it is possible that transsexuals would be able to access women spaces and, while personally I think sex as a category should be immutable and spaces dedicated to women should be restricted to females, I can see that is a compromise that might be made in limited circumstances (where third spaces are not yet available).

Which men shall we entitle to override my consent?
I am female. Men are male.
Which men get to go where I go, seek me out, be present when I undress?
And my daughter.
Which adult men shall we entitle to do the same to her? Who is she forbidden from refusing?

The men without penises?
The men with certificates from other men?
The men with intense feelings that their desired destination is wherever I go and wherever she goes?

Either our sex has rights or it has none. Either we exist and can be recognised, or we are nonentities at the mercy of men's whims.

There will be no end to this until sex is recognised for what it is, and women are able to reject any and every man's claim to be with us, and be us.

Don't get caught up in dividing men into the ones we may refuse and the ones we may not.

The answer is always, we may refuse them all. Every last one.

^^ Barracker. Yes.

I do not like to make a fuss
but you do not belong with us
and when my sisters tell you no
the thing for you to do is go
...
I'm not like the others,see
will you say it just for me?
...
say it!
say it!
make it true
say that I am just like you
...
I will not say it just for you
I will not say what isn't true
I will not say it from a jail

I will always know...

Irischild: I will not say it

There can be no true feminist movement or politics if women are never to be allowed to associate without the presence of men.

And I think men in power fully grasp that.

The bright line must be sex because that is the basis of the oppression of women.

I may be going against at the grain somewhat but I wasn't that impressed with some of the article although the heap of sand analogy was a decent illustration of the issue.

I don't think it's okay to assume other women will be at ease with nudity around any kind of male regardless of surgery.

My unease at this statement as if it were fact was confirmed by a long comment by a TRA who of course immediately seized on this declaration as a 'win' on eroding the boundaries of GC women.

As a PP said philosophical arguments are interesting as an academic exercise but don't translate well to real life or when creating policy and laws which will often affect marginalised women the most. I wouldn't want to be stuck in a prison cell or refuge space with a male stranger regardless of outward appearance or surgery.

@AlessandraAsteriti

I think you will find that TRAs consider the argument for third spaces to be transphobic.

You may think that your willing to compromise (by which I assume you mean “ force other women less privileged than me to compromise “ ) in some unspecified way will earn you woke points but it won’t.