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?

[Kit19]

the sport one is a very good one to start with

my DH is involved in umpiring a team sport which like all team sports is divided along the lines of sex.

The level he's at involves a lot of university teams and one of the university womens team before the pandemic hit turned up with a TW on the team. The opposing team lodged a complaint saying it was unfair to expect them to play against a mixed side. Their governing body wet their knickers and said "TWAW dont be mean" but the umpires do not see it that way. The umpires are responsible for players safety during the game and were saying that they were very unhappy at the idea to the point of quitting at umpiring a game where they belived the safety of the female players was at risk.

to his relief the pandemic then happened and sport stopped but in that scenario what should happen? should umpires be forced to umpire a game which they believe is unsafe to accomodate a male bodied person in a team of women?

[BigGee]

When you really think about it, the only way to continue to provide safety, privacy and dignity to all is third spaces. Two designated single sex spaces, and one mixed sex, which all can use. It's such an easy solution. I genuinely can't find a single good reason to refuse it. Plenty of bad reasons spring to mind, but not good ones. Emma Watson and Rupert front could pee side by side, whilst those of us who prefer single sex places are left in peace.

[BigGee]

Grint. Bluudy autocucumber

[Langbannedforsafeguardingkids]

When you really think about it, the only way to continue to provide safety, privacy and dignity to all is third spaces. Two designated single sex spaces, and one mixed sex, which all can use. It's such an easy solution. I genuinely can't find a single good reason to refuse it. Plenty of bad reasons spring to mind, but not good ones

Exactly. The only possible reason to refuse it is if you WANT to take away rights from women and children.

[CharlieParley]

I am saying that if you characterise trans women as the single greatest threat to women’s rights, and give absolutely no time or attention to the far more significant threats women (including trans women) already face, then your motivations are clearly prejudice and not genuine concern for women.

Good then that we are not doing that. At all.

We are highlighting the negative impact a proposed law change here in the UK would have on the lives of women and girls as well as the negative impact already experienced by women and girls worldwide because of the adoption of policies harmful to women and girls in advance of the law being passed.

Currently, female people in the UK have the right - in language and in law - to define themselves in a category of their own, separately from males.

All males, regardless of how they identify.

As the root cause for the particular disadvantages uniquely experienced only by women and girls and the discrimination against us is rooted in our sex, our rights are protected on the same basis.

This has been achieved by creating a protected group (women) being given a protected characteristic named sex, defined in law as "females of any age", and allowing this group to exclude all those who do not share their protected characteristics of being of the female sex, but only in limited number of circumstances set out under the name of sex-based exceptions (or variously sex-based exemptions) in the Equality Act 2010.

This is why here and elsewhere we talk about our sex-based rights.

From this right flow a number of female-only legal set asides, such as female-only services, spaces, sports, scholarships, study programs, all women shortlists and so on.

The single-greatest threat to women's rights is the campaign to abolish this particular right in law by campaigners seeking to reform a second law passed to protect a different group on the basis of a completely different characteristic.

The systematic misrepresentation of the existing law by the very same campaigners to large numbers of public and third sector organisations as well as private businesses has already resulted in the gradual erasure of our rights even before the law.

This has led to worsening outcomes for women and girls in all areas of their lives where their sex may lead to disadvantage, discrimination or oppression. Not one aspect has been spared and the damage wrought is made worse by stringent penalties inflicted on women and girls raising the issue.

That's what we are talking about. In this we are neither anti trans nor anti trans rights. Our campaign is focused on defending and upholding our sex-based rights and highlighting why undermining and abolishing them is harmful to us. None of us are campaigning to abolish the current legal rights enjoyed by those who identify as trans in the UK.

Without our sex-based rights, women as a class have no rights in law and therefore will no longer have access to any remedy for the systemic oppression we continue to experience in a society built for and dominated by the male sex class.

[FreddieMac]

@FlippinFumin

If this was actually believed by those in power, they would not have added exemptions. As much as activists have tried to break down some exemptions, it is strange they have never mentioned primogeniture. I have been waiting, but it is never mentioned. And in my opinion that is the most unfair exemption of the whole charade.

Exactly !

Men can be women in a women’s prison
Women can’t be men in the House of Lords.

Shows it all for what it is. Plus none of the trans activists mention it.

[Tootletum]

@Winesalot yes sorry I've not RTFT, obviously DSD is relevant in sport, I just think it's such an edge case that it pretty much needs individual medical assessment, and the way they went about it with Semenya all seemed a bit humiliating for her.

[Winesalot]

I just think it's such an edge case that it pretty much needs individual medical assessment, and the way they went about it with Semenya all seemed a bit humiliating for her.

I think it is an edge case and I hope that people are treated with more dignity going forward. However, I also don't know what the solution for their future participation is if the IOC meetings are failing because they cannot agree on a definition of woman to even start with. (A bit like this thread).

[DickKerrLadies]

@BigGee

When you really think about it, the only way to continue to provide safety, privacy and dignity to all is third spaces. Two designated single sex spaces, and one mixed sex, which all can use. It's such an easy solution. I genuinely can't find a single good reason to refuse it. Plenty of bad reasons spring to mind, but not good ones. Emma Watson and Rupert front could pee side by side, whilst those of us who prefer single sex places are left in peace.

Yup.

This is a solution that would not only help trans people. It could also be used by:

• People who identify as non-binary
  
• Mothers with sons
  
• Fathers with daughters
  
• Families
  
• Anyone who happily declares they couldn't care less who's peeing next to them
  

It wouldn't be outing in any way because they would be for everybody, so there's no problem there.

Either that, or we stick to two spaces - female and unisex. But I doubt if feminists suggested that it would go down too well.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

You can't protect a group in law without being able to clearly define who does and does not belong to that group. That's why women here care so much about this. If we lose the ability to define women as a group then every other domino falls one by one. And the MRAs cheerleading all of this know that.

[HH160bpm]

How would know I was a woman if I wasn’t born female and treated as female?
As a girl my clothing was different, less practical. My behaviours were treated differently from my brother’s. I was expected to be feminine and have female gender based interests. If I tried to not comply it was made to clear to me that I was wrong. I was bossy, not a leader. I was blunt, not kind enough. I was expected to be pretty and to care that others found me so. I was not expected to acknowledge whether I knew I was pretty. I was tasked with helping the rowdy boys at school. I was my younger siblings default babysitter, my brother was not asked. My body changes were scrutinised by boys/men and I would be told whether they met with approval or not. I had horrific periods which I was supposed to not mention and conceal their existence. I was groped, sexually assaulted, raped, a victim of male domestic violence. It was made clear to me by men that I could go to uni and be an engineer but I shouldn’t be here. I’ve been paid less than equivalent men. I’ve had to do the bulk of the child rearing and domestic load. I chose NONE OF THAT. It was foisted on me because I am female.

I’m a woman. My biology makes me a woman. Female gender is what was pushed on me without my consent. The only time I feel “like a woman” is when my biology is involved or I’m being viewed as one by other people, and the second bit usually involves being judged as lacking or being viewed as a sexual object.

I’m proud to be a woman. I think women are amazing. I have no internal gender identity apart from stop foisting gender on me due to your perception of my sex because it’s reductive and damaging.

[prolefeed]

@Kit19

the sport one is a very good one to start with

my DH is involved in umpiring a team sport which like all team sports is divided along the lines of sex.

The level he's at involves a lot of university teams and one of the university womens team before the pandemic hit turned up with a TW on the team. The opposing team lodged a complaint saying it was unfair to expect them to play against a mixed side. Their governing body wet their knickers and said "TWAW dont be mean" but the umpires do not see it that way. The umpires are responsible for players safety during the game and were saying that they were very unhappy at the idea to the point of quitting at umpiring a game where they belived the safety of the female players was at risk.

to his relief the pandemic then happened and sport stopped but in that scenario what should happen? should umpires be forced to umpire a game which they believe is unsafe to accomodate a male bodied person in a team of women?

I hope he is following up with this, kit.
It’s extremely dangerous. Kindness isn’t kindness when it compromises physical safety for the majority for the sake of one. Sorry, but no.

[Kit19]

Don’t worry I have been on his case about this for a while. I warned him last summer to prepare for when a team turned up with a TW

the safety angle and tbh the subsequent insurance angle should have far more sports bodies worried than they are.

He won’t back down & you know, no sport without umpires....

[BigGee]

Insurers will probably be what makes the difference. Money will be far more important than women's lives and safety.

[Winesalot]

Kit19
I read an article last year about the umpies who were refusing to umpire games with male bodied players as they felt that it was irresponsible on account of safety. And with the studies regarding concussion, I can see that changes need to be made and quickly.

I am waiting for the results of that symposium that International Women's Rugby Union had recently. Hope some decisions made soon... unless I missed it.

[Justhadathought]

@Justhadathought are you saying caster is male because she fits male stereotype

No, she is biologically male although she also seems to have aligned with and identified with the masculine roles and stereotypes of her community, even when thinking she was a girl.

[Justhadathought]

She was born and raised female. Just because a child behaves like a boy or is a “tom boy” doesn’t mean they are male

No, i know...but it just so happens she does identify more with boys than with girls and always did, apparently.

[Kit19]

I was only thinking about that the other day Wines! I’ll go & have a google

[PurpleCrowbarWhereIsLangCleg]

Nellle, I'm glad too that you're sticking around to argue with us, but you must see that your position doesn't really work.

You're basically saying that TWAW - unless they are sex offenders.

But whilst it's rare, there are female sex offenders, so it a TW commits a sexual offence, & you say 'Right that's it! You're obviously not a sincere identifying as a woman person! Off to Bloke Chokey with you!' then you've just instantly demonstrated that you don't actually believe that the TW is a woman.

Same with sport. You're saying 'TWAW, but not if they want to play rugby!'.

Well, I'm 6' & generously proportioned. Obviously I'm smaller than yer average male rugby player, but in an amateur game I guess I might be able to take on the weediest player without actually getting folded in half. So a 5'10 TW player could, again, point at me & say 'But Purple is bigger than me! How come she gets to play as a woman, if we are both women?' So again you're resorting to TWANW if you want to exclude them from sports.

You can't have TWAW, & then instantly say 'except if they are criminals...or they want to play competitive sport...or in a rape refuge...or in a closed psychiatric ward...' etc etc.

Firstly, because you'd be going round in legal circles FOREVER arguing over precisely the degree of unwomanliness you were relying on to exclude various TWs from various situations, if you couldn't have the absolute 'this person is not a woman because they are male'.

& secondly because as far as the TRAs are concerned, you'll be in TERF gulag with the rest of us witches. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

You can't protect a group in law without being able to clearly define who does and does not belong to that group. That's why women here care so much about this. If we lose the ability to define women as a group then every other domino falls one by one. And the MRAs cheerleading all of this know that.

This is so true. Please try to digest this, even if you don't believe it at first. Think it through.

[Winesalot]

You can't protect a group in law without being able to clearly define who does and does not belong to that group. That's why women here care so much about this. If we lose the ability to define women as a group then every other domino falls one by one. And the MRAs cheerleading all of this know that.

This has been said time and time again in so many different ways on this thread, but it is really like hitting a wall. Like one made of Stone has permeated people's thinking.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

If you concede that sometimes transwomen are not the same as women, and sometimes separate provision should be made, you're agreeing with the GC main point.

This is the heart of the matter. If you post this on social media, however reasonably you frame it, people will treat you like a bigot. Why do you think that is?

[Ninkanink]

It’s almost as if some people really cannot grasp that in law and legislation, words matter. They matter a great deal. Every word or phrase has a clearly defined and exact meaning, and that meaning is relied upon to enact and apply the law. There are whole dictionaries of terminology relating to law, because everyone needs to know exactly what is meant.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

You can't have TWAW, & then instantly say 'except if they are criminals...or they want to play competitive sport...or in a rape refuge...or in a closed psychiatric ward...' etc etc.

Firstly, because you'd be going round in legal circles FOREVER arguing over precisely the degree of unwomanliness you were relying on to exclude various TWs from various situations, if you couldn't have the absolute 'this person is not a woman because they are male'.

& secondly because as far as the TRAs are concerned, you'll be in TERF gulag with the rest of us witches.

Again. Ask yourself why. This is not like other civil rights movements. This is denying rights to a disadvantaged class of people, rather than taking them from the privileged.