TWAW

[Billi77]

Thought it might be an idea to start a thread for women who support TWAW. I understand ‘Feminism chat’ should also include us and give us our own space?

Lets play with some numbers here.

There are no reliable figures for the UK Trans population. Stonewall says that their 'best estimate' is that 600,000 UK people (1%) are Trans or Non-Binary to some degree.

Let's suppose that all of them are transitioned/transitioning (they aren't but whatever) and let's ignore "non-binary" for this exercise.

So that would mean there are a maximum of 300,000 "Assigned-Male-At-Birth" people in the UK, and let's say they all want access to women's single-sex spaces.

A certain percentage of the UK population are scary dangerous people. Let's say for argument's sake that that figure is 1%. (I have no idea). That's also 600,000 people.

Lets say that men are 10x more likely to be scary dangerous people than women. (I tried to google some stats for this but trust me, you don't want to go there. It's nothing like 10:1 whatever way you skin it)

So these figures (that I admit I've pulled out of my digestive system) would state that:

5,400 UK Trans women are scary and dangerous
60,000 UK Women are scary and dangerous.

So, based on my shitty numbers, you are about 11 times more likely to meet a scary dangerous woman-woman than a scary dangerous trans-woman.

Anyone care to reality-check these figures?

Delighted to, Nellle, honestly. I mean,you know I disagree most strongly, and I will not vouch endless caveats, I will be direct. But I would very much like to have a conversation about this without the flouncing.

So, with that in mind, you do know that most of the women here are going to boil your post down to 'Why can't you be nice?', yes?

I think you're definitely trying to approach this with nuance, but it seems your argument there, as Billi77's was, is that trans people have a tough time and need support and fairness (agreed) therefore we can say the word 'woman' includes male trans people because it's only a word, and if we do that, we can focus back on other feminist issues.

Do you honestly believe the people haranguing JKR (and I'm not even talking about the threatening stuff) are really interested in feminist issues, as in issues which are genuinely about liberating women? The people who were hideously dismissive to Jana Cornell, for example?

I just don't follow the logic of thinking an ideology which has so far flatly refused to acknowledge self ID would conflict with women's rights in anyway and whose followers are apt to issue increasingly extreme demands is going to suddenly give a shit about women if we all say male trans people are women because it's only a word.

If transwomen are women then many women are not women.

There are many women whose only point of identification with other women is based on biology.

The biology is significant because it's the basis of sex abuse ,as well as being the basis of gender discrimination

So these are women, who just like transwomen, don't fit with the gender identity they are expected to express , but their option to identity as transman is limited by their needing single sex support on account of the sex violence and their option to identify as none binary is mocked

And there is no name for them at all

Michelleoftheresistance
Thank you for replying. Though I'm disappointed you feel that KW is the only bit you think worth replying about.

I'm certainly not saying KW should be airbrushed out of history - what a terrible, vile criminal. But KW represents trans people no more than I represent Mira Hindley as a woman, or Harold Shipman as a medical professional. KW does not exist in a vaccuum, no, but nor should KW come up EVERY trans debate, unless you think KW represents the MAJORITY of trans people?

I think the obsession undermines your valid points. It also makes people like me scared to try to learn more about the argument, as we are thought to sympathise with a rapist.

But can we call TWW? Fucking yes. Why the hell not? Maybe if we gave up a bit of language, we wouldn't have to give up all the rest? Surely, we want to align ourselves as allies with the 99.99% of trans people who pose zero threat and sympathise with the legitimate feminist debate. Maybe if we could all be women together, we could move the debate along and come to some solutions?

We were doing that. And then the AGPs came along and the activists who said we couldn't call ourselves women, it had to be "cis" women and we couldn't talk about our bodies because that's upsetting and exclusionary.

And then they said we had to change the language used about women's unique anatomy and bodily functions (only today I saw that we should call a uterus an "internal organ" and a vulva "external genitalia"). And then they said girls and women had to compete with males in sports and it would "make us try harder" and if we couldn't beat them it was because we "weren't working hard enough".

I could go on - but ceding the definition of "woman" means we no longer have any recourse to sex-based protections, facilities, sports or laws.

So - no.

I think we have to accept that transwomen appear to have behaviours on average more like men than women.

If we look at the statistics around trans prisoners, we see that transwomen are no less likely than men in general to be in prison for sexual offences

@MadBadDaddy, I have no idea what all that jibbering about numbers is meant to prove. When I run up against a woman who is "scary and dangerous" I have a hope of defending myself or I can run away. If I am in a small space with a man, whatever he is wearing, then I do not have that option. He could pick me up and throw me and both of us know it. If I tried to run he could outpace me without trying. That is why women are so worried about the biology. Because it counts.

Nellle

Thank you. I hope we can make you a bit more comfortable here. I completely understand about the weight of numbers - and I hope the others come back to join you, because it is so important to have conversations and it happens to rarely that we hear voices of those prepared to state their position when it differs from the majority.

You know to expect frank responses - and they can feel hectoring at times. I hope that most of us can step away from the keyboard for a minute when we are feeling frustrated.

Please stay... even though we will disagree...

nor should KW come up EVERY trans debate, unless you think KW represents the MAJORITY of trans people?

No, KW represents male violence against women, which is a key reason we have separate, segregated facilities for women.

My brother is gorgeous and no threat to women at all - but I don't want him in women's facilities, either.

Anyone care to reality-check these figures?

You need to do better than just pulling numbers out of the air. The ONS site is quite good for figures on crime.

Over 98% of sexual crimes are committed by men, so thats over 50 times the female rate.

I think the obsession undermines your valid points. It also makes people like me scared to try to learn more about the argument, as we are thought to sympathise with a rapist

The thing is though that if there is no gatekeeping then that's what happens. Most men are decent but are still excluded from women only spaces because there is no way to tell which ones will he predetory and which ones wont be.

Without a blanket policy how di you ensure that there won't be another karen white.

What is this Magical gatekeeping that ensures no abuse of the loophole takes place that will still satisfy trans activists who want self ID?

I am not a predator but I cannot go into a mens changing room. Safeguarding is not an attack on identities but blanket policies designed to keep peope safe.

Thank you Coyoacan (I'm not @tagging because I've been bollocked about that before)

I suppose I say TWAW because kindness, solidarity and respect is something I can afford to give. There are other things I absolutely can't afford to give - as I'm sure many women here agree. But I don't mind if it says 'female' on someone's birth certificate.

I think sport and safe spaces are issues that need to be looked at separately, but as long as this is done it doesn't harm me if transwomen are legally recognised as women.

Is it impossible to extend the linguistic olive branch while still dealing with the sport/safe space issue?
(I hear cries of "yes!")

Genuinely, why?
I'm here to learn.

So, perhaps that means I don't wan

But I don’t understand what this reasoned debate is supposed to look like...

? start with definition of woman so we can agree we’re debating the same thing with the same understanding of the word....

Generally that never happens. You can say Twaw if you believe that a woman is a feeling. You can’t if you believe a woman is the human mammal which produces large gametes and births young.

Everything else stems from this.

In most walks of society, people should be able to live their lives as they choose as long as it hurts no one else and I definitely agree that tolerance must always be the goal In a civilised society. In most areas where people are grouped/segregated it is for a good reason and based on measurable characteristics (eg weight category for boxing, age for starting school, claiming pension etc)

The trans debate seems to be the only thing where someone believes something inwardly about themselves, and everyone else has to agree that it’s true. In the case of single sex spaces, it also means taking this completely on trust and ignoring your own boundaries and sense of risk to accommodate someone else.

I will go along with respecting that someone feels like a woman (whatever that feels like) and treat them with courtesy and kindness... but I’m not going to lie or gaslight my daughters to ignore their boundaries when it comes to safe spaces etc.

This is because language has power

Indeed. So we all agree that we will never again say transwomen are men because we are essentially kind and don't want to hurt feelings.

Meanwhile, to help avoid hurting feelings, children are being told by their teachers, who suposedly know more about life than they do, that you just have to choose what sex you want to be, then see a doctor and voilà. They walk out of school and the rest of society is chanting transwomen are women.

Have you seen what is involved in transitioning children? Have you seen the long-term effects of these drug treatments on their health? Do you realise that transitioned children not only end up infertile but also without a libido? And all because we thought that being kind entails everyone telling a lie about reality.

But KW represents trans people no more than I represent Mira Hindley as a woman, or Harold Shipman as a medical professional. KW does not exist in a vaccuum, no, but nor should KW come up EVERY trans debate, unless you think KW represents the MAJORITY of trans people?

You're missing the point.

It was through allowing TW to identify into female single sex spaces that those victims suffered the appalling attacks they did. Allowing males to identify into single sex spaces is not policeable - you cannot pick the safe ones from the unsafe ones, this policy resulted in disaster for those female people. It's not a safe or good policy for female people. There was only one Ian Huntley but laws were changed to close the loophole in safeguarding he laid bare through his actions. He isn't the representative for all school caretakers, is he? But every single caretaker and every other person working for schools now has to go through a DBS check because of him, to keep any further people being harmed.

And even if the male identifying into a female only space or service is completely safe and lovely, what are you going to do with the females who cannot share space with a male person regardless of how the male person identifies? Where do they go? What happens to them?

Sorry, not sure what that last half sentence is about!

Hi Old Crone,

I don't know of any 'general' attributes that all transwomen share with cis women, except that they want to be called women.

And if we do that, we might get over this almighty stumbling block and we can discuss the safety issue at the heart of this debate without turning one another into enemies.

And even if the male identifying into a female only space or service is completely safe and lovely, what are you going to do with the females who cannot share space with a male person regardless of how the male person identifies? Where do they go? What happens to them?

This crucial question - if it ever gets an answer - tends to get something like "They'll have to get over it".

In other words, like it or lump it.

"I know we can't change chromosomes, but I believe trans women are women (and trans men are men). This is because language has power and everyone has the right to own their own identity and how they label themselves."

From what I can see, it's just not commonly accepted that 'everyone has the right to own their own identity.' This is ONLY accepted in the context of sex/gender. For example, Rachel Dolezal tried to own her own identity as a black woman, and requested that people use the label 'black' and she was completely shut down and cancelled. So in the domain of race it's clearly not true that everyone has the right to own their own identity. In fact, it's seen as highly insulting and colonising for white people to request the label of 'black'. And it's the same for any other social category, really. I can't seriously identify myself as a child, or a different species, or blind. If I tried I would be called a liar, a fraud, and an appropriator.

The thing I struggle with is this. If the trans movement is really just about letting people identify in whatever way they want then surely this would apply to every social category across the board. I begin to get suspicious when I'm told that, no, this only works for sex/gender. Why is that? Why are the boundaries of race, class, species, age, disability seen as fixed and immutable whereas only sex is sufficiently flexible to enable a male to label himself as a female? Isn't this massively inconsistent?

The trouble with a slogan such as TWAW - it demands total complicity. In for a penny, In for pound. Once any element is questioned or probed, then the rest tends to come unstuck. Women's sport is one that is going to test the absolute faith in the mantra going forward......because nobody really believes this is fair at all. 'Identity' has got nothing to do with it.

We really need to keep pressing the issue oftrans racialism too - and make it plain that if identity trumps all, then there can be no issue with a white person identifying as black and applying for black only scholarships, and demanding access to spaces and other categories reserved for black people.

Nellle these things don't happen in a vacuum, though. It's not like the campaign is simply to have a nice new birth certificate altering a historical record and there's an end to it. The campaign has been for a male or female person to say they are the opposite sex, and should therefore be able to access and benefit from everything that is afforded to the opposite sex by way of rights and provision. That's what the debates are about,or the lack of them. That's what TWAW is for. It's the little key that unlocks the protective gates. Gates serve a purpose, so I'm quite comfortable with gate keeping. It was quite the important task in times gone by.

And if we do that, we might get over this almighty stumbling block and we can discuss the safety issue at the heart of this debate without turning one another into enemies.

Have you seen the abuse and actual threats women get for asking simple questions about this? For pointing out the fears girls and women have?

Just to add - it's not women shouting NO DEBATE!

I don't know of any 'general' attributes that all transwomen share with cis women, except that they want to be called women.

The problem with anyone who wants to be called a woman being called one, means that the word 'woman' no longer has a definitive meaning. So according to you, anyone who wants to be called a woman is entitled to be so called. This includes not only transwoman, but also all men. So if you define 'woman' as 'anyone who says they are a woman', then the word 'woman' no longer means anything at all.

Yes, FloralBunting I knew that 'being nice' was going to be the Mumsnet bat of choice to swing first at my post. I had hoped that I'd at least begun to address it in my first post.

(Though, whatever your sex, I still value manners and think you're more likely to get an argument through without being an arse)

No no no on the JK thing - I've seen the abuse directed at her. It's disgusting, it's criminal and it's NOT feminist. Those people who threaten rape while claiming to be feminists represent feminists as much as Karen White represents trans people.

But, what if it WAS only a word? If we managed to somehow all agree that 'woman' could be claimed by all, but safe spaces and sport were protected for cis women, would that be enough?