How can I argue this: female without ovaries etc

[omikron]

If the dictionary definition of female is:

1
Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

Then when a TRA says 'well what about women that don't have ovaries?'

I suppose all the elephants that have had their tusks removed are also no longer elephants

@Themyscira

“As bad as each other”. Now clearly the GC community isn’t as “bad” as the TRA community in terms of what it is doing to people.

My poorly articulated point is that both sides just end up in a shouting match, and the middle ground looks at both sides and thinks “hmmm I’m not sure I’m comfortable with being in either group, I’ll just bury my head in the sand again”. Like this thread, who gives a fuck about the semantics of it, why argue with someone who will never listen. All you do by going after things like this is provide them with a weak argument that “look, these people are transphobes they just hate me”. How people choose to define things is irrelevant to the end game, which (at least I thought) was to find a workable system that all sides are happy with.

Like you, people should spend their energy more productively. Push for solutions, push for awareness, scare the hell out of the corporates, but please just stop arguing with brick walls.

Cross post. Please see above.

@Themyscira

Perhaps, but sometimes these boards seem like winning those arguments is the be all and end all. Yes, practicing counter arguments is helpful and helps hone your own case, but that’s far more useful in terms of working on replies and counters to a major corporate - like the M&S emails.

Working out how to win an argument about “what about women with no ovaries” is just semantics and bullshit and helps nobody. No-one with a rational and open mind is going to use that expression so why bother working out how to win the argument, it’s pointless.

That’s a good point about the Lurkers, but it’s kind of making my point. Lurkers aren’t looking at this post and thinking “ah, yes, that’s the answer I need, the semantics of ovaries will make up my mind on this”

They are just seeing an OP that wants to score points in a destructive argument that aids nobody.

I've come across this shit in teacher training, so it is applicable ime.

I hear your frustration, but people are capable of wasting time on Twitter and writing to m&s.

And that’s my problem with how these boards are going about it, says
Usernumbers1234.

Sweeping assumptions much? This board is packed with resources, including letter writing campaigns, aimed at the government bodies, NGOs and big companies which are acting in ways that disadvantage women.

OP is replying to an AWA and you're almost certainly right that they won't take any notice of her arguments. But the lurkers may well be open to factual statements - and we know there are plenty of lurkers on social media.

AWAs often turn up on this board. We argue with them not because we expect them to reconsider but for the huge amount of lurkers here who are all ears as we set out the gender critical position and expose the misogyny, homophobia and incoherence that lie behind gender ideology.

I agree with the early post, that TRAs fundamentally do not agree that woman/man are objective biological categories. So 'what about women with no ovaries' is actually a disingenuous argument, its just trying to prove that our biological categories are vaguer than they really are.
Try asking them instead, well OK, what do YOU think a woman is?
And they will come out with some claptrap that ultimately depends on stereotypes. Then you can hit them with the 'pink used to be a boy colour' stuff.
Only a man, or a woman who has been substantially protected from the hazards of being female would ever question the category of 'woman'

I think these threads are useful for becoming familiar with the types of comments made, and developing a short pithy answer.

The first time you hear something as stupid as the ovaries gotcha, or cuttlefish change their skin colour therefore humans can change sex, it can really throw you.
They are not honest attempts to debate, they are more of a thought terminating cliche, or an attempt to frame the debate in the style of Ben Shapiro.

Very true - I just worry that the uninformed look at this and see the whole debate as a debate between two totally intransigent groups who aren’t prepared to compromise.

I think that’s true of one side. I’d like to think it isn’t true of the other, but often it doesn’t half look like it’s true of both sides on here, and that turns off the rest of them.

My mum had a full hysterectomy over 20 years ago. She has yet to produce any sperm so I’m gonna go with that she’s still female.

What sort of compromise do you expect from women?

@Inebriati

But that’s my point - they aren’t honest attempts to debate. So why even debate them.

Yes where are we supposed to compromise?

@Themyscira

Good question. Maybe that’s the problem. There’s no acceptable compromise to this.

Maybe compromise is the wrong word.

Let’s take the changing rooms at M&S.

Trans people want to be able to change where they identify as.

Women don’t want to feel threatened in dressing rooms.

Are three sets of dressing rooms the answer? Probably not, impractical and won’t tick the box of the TRA who doesn’t want to go in a third box.

To me the solution is that M&S don’t change the rules until they’ve adjusted those dressing rooms to be fit for purpose - floor to ceiling walls, lockable doors and a clear policy that anyone even bending the rules around acceptable behaviour will be banned and ideally prosecuted (that knickers weirdo for one). That’s the kind of “compromise” arguments I don’t seem to be reading.

There’s probably a hole in my case above. But that kind of illustrates it, why aren’t we working on a proposal for M&S as opposed to arguing over whether a hysterectomy makes you a man.

I don't know how often you visit the boards here but I see those sorts of discussions regularly? Floor to ceiling doors, clear policies that are properly enforced - these have been discussed. Here, Twitter, Facebook, Spinster, etc ...

I think you'll find that tra's don't want that option, however. Full capitulation or total decimation. See the trans reaction to guardian blind date for a recent example of that sort of reaction.

The GRA was the compromise. Women didn't get asked if it was ok, and not all are.

Meanwhile, there are TW proposing the 3rd space compromise. Take a look on the petitions board. Good for them - they're not assuming that it's women's job to figure out how to provide for their needs.

Hidden cameras are much more of a risk in mixed sex facilities and their use is increasing.

I tend to think

if this person had come to me as a 13 year old child and told me they’d started bleeding from their genitals, would I rush them to A&E or give them a sanitary towel?

That tends to be a pretty fool proof method of determining sex in my experience

@Fraggling

True - but probably more of a result of technological progress and societal decline than anything to do with the increased profile of the trans community. I don’t think being a hidden camera pervert is unique to any gender or sexuality.

I always see the hidden camera points and think it’s a related but unrelated thing. That’s just technology progressing faster than the law does and is a major failing of most governments, that are typically less tech savvy and respond far to slowly to such things than they should do. Look at mobile phone cameras and the decades it took for upskirting laws.

@Usernumbers1234 'They are just seeing an OP that wants to score points in a destructive argument that aids nobody.'

I wasn't looking to score points though, you have assumed so much.

I actually wanted answers to the argument for my own sanity.

You're really aggressive towards me for no reason!

Tell them that if they have had to transition in their life to a point where ovaries or lack of are being questioned then they already know the answer.

I don’t think being a hidden camera pervert is unique to any gender or sexuality

Then you are wrong Usernumbers1234

The people who plant and get off on hidden cameras are overwhelmingly male

I neither know nor care what their gender or sexuality is

My DC just said if someone dies and is buried, if after 30 years the grave is found and dug up the bones would reveal the truth.

@omikron

As it happens it wasn’t personal in the slightest. I also didn’t tell you to “get to fuck” any point as you did, but you crack on with calling me aggressive.

It wasn’t personal, you just happened to be the latest OP to start a thread about “help me to win this argument” which for reasons I’ve detailed above I think I fruitless use of energy that would be better used on other aspects of this issue.