This is a good thread about female trans allies

[Doyoumind]

twitter.com/overpow_erin_g/status/1156003798898241543?s=19

Thoughtful insights into how some women get drawn into the wrong side of the debate.

I’m not offended

I’m just waiting for clarification

OK, with you so far. what is womanhood determined by? I;d really appreciate an explanation

Good question. Not sure there is a clear answer yet. From a scientific perspective, it appears that there are both biological and cultural factors at play. Some evidence suggests that transgender identity has genetic or hormonal roots, but its exact biological correlates are unclear.

We don't always have scientific explanations for reality. I'm bisexual, and well aware that scientists have spent a good amount of time trying to identify the scientific explanation for sexual preference. We haven't been able to do that yet, but that doesn't mean that I don't exist or that my sexuality is invalid.

We know transgender people exist. We know how they feel about their gender. We know that for most transgender people, they are aware from childhood of the gender they know themselves to be. We can recognise the reality of this, even if we can't explain it yet.

Transgender people have been entitled to use the gender-segregated facilities of the gender they identify as since the Equality Act (and they haven't had to show a GR certificate to do so).

This is not true. The Equality Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of 'gender reassignment', but they should be treated the same as anyone of the same legal sex (so without a GRC, that means a man who identifies as a woman should be treated the same as any other man). It is more complex with a GRC, but it is still possible to exclude someone with a GRC in order to keep services single sex.

Rape crisis centres already support trans women. I live in Scotland, and Rape Crisis Scotland are fully supportive of trans rights

The funding for some of these organisations is dependent on them doing this. This is due to lobbying by transactivists.

I have listened to Alok, Vivienne — I listened to Alok explain that little girls are kinky and participate in their own sexual abuse and further listened to Alok explaining that our concerns about sexual violence don’t place enough responsibility on victims.

Further confirming to me that genderism in its present day incarnation is, at base, male sexual rights movement.

Whatever did happen to the transvestites of the 1970s, by the way? We do still have, now, transsexuals. And drag queens. And we have now transgender males who don’t transition.

But no transvestites. Scratching my head, here, trying to figure out where they went.

So? Language is redefined all the time.

So? As I already pointed out there are all sorts of vulnerable people in society who have no idea about this redefinition you seek to impose on them. They will suffer for it.

Do you care about them? Do you even know they exist?

Laws have to work for and be understood by all. That require plain, straight forward language where the words 'women' and 'men' mean what they have been understood to mean by all for centuries. Anything less leaves vulnerable people who do not and often cannot understand the newly imposed rules in danger of vilification and criminalisation, not to mention vulnerability to predatory men who are already taking advantage as evidenced by hundreds of cases across numerous countries.

I do not think the two sides will ever agree philosophically (just as well, since I can’t see it happening!). So we need for example, in relation to rape crisis centres:

(a) female-only for those who want or need them; and

(b) gender-affirming for TW and for self-identified ‘cis’ women, since these groups want to be together.

Service providers in Scotland will lose their funding unless they are explicitly TWAW. It is coercive control. You can make people say and do anything, when they cannot survive without you (no funding = you close).

They don’t keep stats on women who self-exclude.

I would also like you to explain what privacy, safety and dignity you are actually being asked to give up. Can you give specific examples? They can be hypothetical if that helps.

Really? After just posting about rape crisis centres? Do you not think women deserve a male-free space after they have been raped?

And a lot of us are objecting to the re-definition of the word "woman" and of womanhood. Womanhood does not include males, no matter what any particular male feels or thinks.

We're fighting this. And you can call us bigots until the cows come home - we're still fighting it.

I haven't called you a bigot. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to use tactics like that?

You can object to redefining language. Lots of people have, and do. We're undergoing cultural development all the time. Maybe your side of the debate will win (although I personally doubt it).

Really? After just posting about rape crisis centres? Do you not think women deserve a male-free space after they have been raped?

Rape crisis centres already support trans women. Rape crisis centres are almost all in favour of supporting trans rights. Trans women have been using the services of rape crisis centres for years.

Women who have been raped deserve safety. Rape crisis centres offer that support, and have done for years. I trust them.

The funding for some of these organisations is dependent on them doing this. This is due to lobbying by transactivists.

A completely unsubstantiated accusation that crops up time and time again with no factual basis.

I know I've missed responding to lots of posts - there are simply too many for me to answer all.

I am also now going to work, so won't be able to respond further.

What then, Vivienne will be the noun that encompasses that half of humanity whose physiology, whether functioning or not, gives them the capacity to gestate as opposed to the capacity to impregnate?

The category of woman will not be eliminated just because we understand it to include trans women.

If we expand the definition of 'woman' to include 'transwomen', what word do you suggest we use for adult female humans? Why should women roll over and accept this distortion of language?

Good question. Not sure there is a clear answer yet [regarding the definition of womanhood]
Oh, OK. Since you want to overturn a universally understood definition I assumed you'd have a well researched one to replace it?

From a scientific perspective, it appears that there are both biological and cultural factors at play. Some evidence suggests that transgender identity has genetic or hormonal roots, but its exact biological correlates are unclear

That sounds really interesting. Do you have links?

We know transgender people exist. We know how they feel about their gender

Absolutely. But since we're talking about reality here, like the reality of your bisexuality, we know that a male person remains male, regardless of what they do to their body.

Therefore does it not make sense to reference this reality when writing policy and apportioning funding, rather than things that aren't yet understood by science?

Don't forget, there are still plenty of people who are very sure that there is scientific evidence that some 'races' are genetically inferior to others . Sure science hasn't quite caught up yet, but we should definitely be legislating on that basis, right?

Trans women are women because womanhood is not determined by biology.

I accept that you believe this. I respect your belief. I do not share your belief. I ask you to equally respect my different belief even though you do not share it.

I want laws and social provisions that meet the needs of all people, and does not exclude women non believers from women's services, provisions and protections. A caring and ethical faith/belief in genderism surely can't feel that women of a different faith, culture, different standards of privacy and safety, women with disabilities, women who are homosexual, should not only be forced to self exclude by law and denied services? And that there is no other means of meeting everyone's needs in society other than forcibly redesigning the world for people born female against the will of many of those female born?

Or are we actually in a situation where the majority are in favour of trans rights...?

I'm in favour of trans rights. I believe transgender people are deserving of the same human rights as everyone else. But people can't change sex, so men who identify as women are still male, and cannot become women.

Oh, I see Vivienne is leaving. what a shame. it's really great to try to explore just how someone arrives at the conclusions she has

and I wanted to ask her about Alok, are the things BickerinBrattle says about him true? In which case, why is she referencing him as any kind of authority in anything?

What is wrong with (a) female only and (b) ‘cis’ (women who ID that way) and transwomen combined?

I don’t get the dismissiveness towards women who want female-only. It seems so callous and I don’t understand it.

• should not only be forced to self exclude by law and denied services but also be punished if they ask for their rights not to be removed, or state their own needs are not being equally met?

I haven't called you a bigot. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to use tactics like that?

We are called bigots every day on almost every form of social media by journalists, by our politicians. Simply for expressing the view that woman means adult human female, and that men cannot be women.

Good question. Not sure there is a clear answer yet. From a scientific perspective, it appears that there are both biological and cultural factors at play. Some evidence suggests that transgender identity has genetic or hormonal roots, but its exact biological correlates are unclear.

We don't always have scientific explanations for reality. I'm bisexual, and well aware that scientists have spent a good amount of time trying to identify the scientific explanation for sexual preference. We haven't been able to do that yet, but that doesn't mean that I don't exist or that my sexuality is invalid.

So you admit its nothing more than a belief then.

Good. Because I don't share that belief and so far science has pretty much disproved all this stuff about it being biological in nature.

Indeed I am aware that my sibling has been through genetic tests, brain scans and hormonal tests and they have all come back saying nothing abnormal.

They did however spend an extra ordinary amount of time online, to the point that they failed a degree because they stayed up all night chatting to people in north america.

Given that science INCLUDES the effect of socialisation and the effect this has on both the brain and our development, I think I'll stick to this scientific evidence until its been disproved. Rather than merely dismissing an entire field of science as not being relevant and being stuck in this belief that it MUST be biological in nature out of hand.

I find this very bizarre that this is done so often. Its almost as if there is an adversion to the idea that our lives might be significantly mapped out and influenced by the world in which we live. I do wonder if its because if we see it, we might be forced to tackle it and our own ingrained prejudices which we have been socialised to obey. The feeling of challenging yourself is a rather uncomfortable when you are confronted with it. Its almost easier to believe this notion of a biological lottery where something has gone wrong and as humans we were powerless as to when and where it strikes.

I guess Jenn and Vivienne are too busy to discuss how all this will work for the many people who aren't able to follow the academic flights of fancy of Queer Theorists.

Funny how Queer Theorists always seem too busy for that.

I never get my explanation of how a woman is defined if she is not defined by her biology, do I?

I don't believe your identity as a woman is compromised by another woman's identity. I would like to see an explanation for why it is without you retreating into bluster about how offended you are.

I don't care what you believe. Believing doesn't make it so.

Using the word 'bluster' is patronising, minimising the fact that I have the right to defend the fact that being a woman is biological.

Language is redefined all the time? Indeed. And when it happens by one (dominant) group dictating that it should to another (subordinate) group, there are problems.

It's why colonisers always focus on eradicating the language of the colonised, as I know from my own history. From the 1300s on the British (English, really) brought in law after law to try to wipe out the Irish language, which they felt was impeding the Irish from adopting an English identity.

I feel a bit mean asking the queer theorists to define 'woman'. it feels like demanding that a christian prove that God exists