Could someone explain the differences between same-sex marriage and TWAW?

[cheeseismydownfall]

I am relatively new to the gender identity shitshow and, like many of us, have been grappling over the past month or so with having to rethink a lot of what I had previously accepted as Correct Opinions (Guardian, left wing, being kind, good! Daily Mail, Tories, bad!).

Part of this has involved reading more, questioning more and simply thinking more than I have done before. In doing this, I want to make sure that I stay balanced and fair, and keep trying to think of alternative points of view. I don't want my indignation and rage to make me as blinkered as the TRAs.

So, something I was pondering over yesterday is the argument that denying trans women the right to define themselves as women (something which I instinctively disagree with) is no different to the (now legally unacceptable) desire to deny same sex couples the right to marry (something I instinctively agree with).

At the time it was being debated, same sex marriage was something I didn't give any real thought to - it seemed at face value a perfectly reasonable thing for gay people to want to be able to do, and I personally didn't have a problem with it. And I would have almost certainly judged someone who did, and thought, frankly, that they were a bit of a bigot.

But what I'm now realising is that I didn't have any skin in the game. When DH and I got married, the motivation was the legal status of marriage, and, to a lesser extent, to make a personal and public commitment to each other. DH re atheists, so we had a civil ceremony. Religion didn't come into it, and if it had have been available at the time, we might have formed a civil partnership instead. So when the word marriage got legally redefined to mean a partnership between two people, rather than specifically between a man and a woman, it didn't take anything away from my marriage*.

But presumably for many people to whom marriage had a deep religious significance, this may have been deeply troubling. It forced them to accept a new definition, a new ideology being forced upon them against their will, against their beliefs. Presumably many of these people enthusiastically welcomed the rights of gay couples to form civil partnerships in order to achieve (almost) the same rights in law as married couples, but that concept of marriage wan't other people's to give away. I understand that Baroness Nicholson objected to gay marriage. Was this how she felt, I wonder?

I can't quite reconcile my position on this and would really appreciate some view points. Is the crux of it similar to the idea of proportionate response? That while one can recognise that a person with religious faith may legitimately disagree with gay marriage, their sense of 'harm' caused by the existence gay marriage is, on balanced, trumped by the harm caused to gay people by denying their right to marriage. Whereas in the case of TWAW, I can argue that the harm that would be caused to biological females through dismantling single sex provisions is much greater than the harm caused to trans women by denying them the right to be legally indistinguishable from natal females?

That reminds me, there’s a conspiracy theory going round that the whole TWAW thing is actually a ploy by MRAs to undermine the progress of some feminist policies, in particular ones that aim to force equity by minimum numbers on women in leadership, women’s prizes, women’s sports etc. by inserting male bodies into those reserved spots.

You think that's a conspiracy theory? I suspect it's a bona fide truth.

Fundamentally, marriage had already been redefined - it went from being a contract in which the woman was essentially owned by her husband for the purposes of procreation, to being a relationship of equals motivated by love. Once that redefinition had happened, there was no reason to prevent same sex marriage.

If 'woman' is redefined to mean 'a person who aligns themselves innately with femininity' then there would be no reason to restrict it to females. But that hasn't happened (yet).

Something like this was bound to happen with the postmodern anything is valid, and lived experiences and feelings trumping anything else position.

We land up in a place where in the rush to make everything fair everyone is now struggling to wrestle the levers of government power from everyone else to force their vision of fair on everybody else.

When I stop to think about it it’s not all that dissimilar to the denominations of Christianity trying to control governments during the historical religious wars in Europe.

If homosexuals had argued sex was a spectrum and men were women so they were really heterosexual and so no one - not even churches with a religious belief opposed to it - could refuse to marry them it would be more comparable.

This.

Fundamentally, marriage had already been redefined - it went from being a contract in which the woman was essentially owned by her husband for the purposes of procreation, to being a relationship of equals motivated by love. Once that redefinition had happened, there was no reason to prevent same sex marriage.

And this.

My thoughts

Interesting post and I agree with much of it, but with a key proviso:

It's no skin off my nose if a man wants to wear a dress and call himself Esmerelda. I might find it uncomfortable, but I fully recognise my comfort should not impinge his rights.

His right here being to express himself however he feels fit. Agreed, absolutely. And to experience no discrimination in terms of jobs/equal access to law etc etc, harassment, etc, based on outdated stereotypes or toxic masculinity that males shouldn't wear/do/be called etc (which will in the massive majority come from other men.)

If that man wants access to my women's only spaces, takes awards that are meant for women and cleans up all the first prizes in women's sports, then Houston we have a problem. His rights should not supercede mine.

Agreed that we have a problem. Where I don't agree is that it is a 'right' to access and take resources allocated to a defined group when you do not in fact belong to that group. I don't agree that it is a 'right' to be included in all ways and treated as a member of a group classification you have opted into, when it is a group the genuine members cannot opt out of, when it is based on a physical reality that does not in fact ever change however you may choose or feel, and particularly when being born stuck with that characteristic that puts you in that group is a basis for inequality and oppression.

So while I have no problem with someone of 52 wearing nappies and calling their partner mummy/daddy and doing finger painting as part of their identifying as a child, (which is nothing to do with me) I do not agree that they should be allowed to join a preschool and the local brownie pack. While I have no problem with someone able bodied identifying as disabled and using a wheelchair (nothing to do with me) I do not agree they should be able to apply for benefits and a carer or an adapted car. While I might think it's offensive, it's none of my business if someone obviously white Caucasian identifies as BAME and likes to talk about and explore their chosen heritage, (nothing to do with me) I do not agree that they should be able to force the local Black Lives Matter group to change their title to something more inclusive of other skin colours, or to apply for roles listed specifically for BAME candidates to raise representation.

Because these things impact on the whole of society. They damage and take resources needed by the group who did not choose to have this life and situation, and have to live with all the genuine realities of it instead of the preferred and selected parts.

The complication is that vice versa is also true my rights shouldn'tinfringe his - so we reach stalemate. He shouldn't be allowed into women's only spaces because to do so infringes women's rights. He shouldn't be denied the right to fully live as a woman because that infringes his rights (if you believe that).

I don't agree there is a stalemate. I do not believe that your rights to sex based provision infringes his wish to have all boundaries removed from others for his benefit. I do not believe this is a 'right', this is a want. And his 'right' to live as he likes and express himself as he likes can be absolutely accommodated in other ways by the provision of additional spaces: it cannot only be achieved by stripping all female people of all sex based rights regardless of the impact on them.

And if you look at the outcomes and proportionate damage: third spaces are not the preferred outcome but meet the need for privacy, dignity, safety, recognition and freedom of choice for less than 1% of the population, to not have to use sex based provisions. The only failure is in validation that female people as a class still exist. To remove all female sex based rights: there are no wins at all for females, there's a significant loss to privacy, dignity, safety, equality and freedom of choice to half the population, plus excludes some female people from all provisions and services of any kind.

To believe this is ok, you have to believe that the harm to females is merely acceptable collateral damage for the betterment of people born male.

And to believe this is ok, you have to believe that male people matter more than female people, and it is right that female people should have less and suffer for male people to be properly catered for. Welcome to male supremacism.

(Incidentally you can also only believe that female people should suffer collateral damage for the better social justice of TW if you know exactly what biological sex is, who is of which sex, and accordingly make all your judgements and thinking based on this.)

Thank you all for your input. So many insightful comments, as always.

Just to be clear, I don't think that the issues concerning same-sex marriage are the same as those surrounding TWAW. But I have heard the comparison made, and I was/am trying to understand my justification for feeling the way I do.

The main point of similarity I was trying to question was around the idea of redefining something in the face of objection from people who have a material interest in that definition. Some of the reponses have helped me clear that up. There are two main differences I think: a) sex is a fact, not a concept and b) 'religious' marriage already was a subset of the more general concept of marriage. Creating a new definition of marriage did not force that new definition onto those who centre marriage in their religious faith.

That does make me reflect on the case of the evangelical bakers who won their supreme court appeal against a previous ruling that they had acted in a discriminatory way when they refused to ice a cake with a pro-gay marriage message. At the time I disagreed with the ruling, but now I can see the difficulty. I am a graphic designer and I would object to being legally forced into working on TWAW campaign, especially if I felt that I was being deliberately manipulated by TRAs. So now on reflection I think I support that the ruling went in favour of the bakers, even though I very much disagree with their views.

@Michelleoftheresistance, great post, thank you. You have explained that very clearly. It it not contradictory to fully support someone's choice to identify however they want (even if you can't understand it/disagree with it/think it utterly bonkers) while also being very clear that the right identify in that way does not entitle you to behave in a way that impinges on other peoples rights.

Some people seem to feel that the 'right not to be offended' is quite real, however.

I'm a practising Christian but, while I've heard others getting aerated about same sex marriage and the sacrament of marriage between woman and man, etc, it's not an issue for me. I just point out that marriage is older - much older - than Christianity and probably older than religion itself. The church doesn't own marriage and cannot dictate its terms or gatekeep who marries whom, except in terms of whether a church ceremony will be offered if requested. That's a different question, of course.

For what it's worth, my sister married my mother; that wasn't a same-sex marriage, though. 😉

My church just hasn't picked up on the gender/language/rights issue at all yet on a local level and if I raise it I get rolled eyes because they think there's a bee in my bonnet. I like to think I'll be ready to steer them safely through when it hits. All the transgender people I know I've met through church, though!

Anyone remember the 2017 election and controversy about whether Tim Farron believed that gay sex was a sin?

There were many discussions about how far someone's private beliefs were important when they exercised political leadership and people had different views. There was no suggestion that arguing that Farron's private views were irrelevant meant that you should be cancelled or were yourselves homophobic.

My understanding is that ‘common law marriage’ doesn’t give you rights - so you won’t necessarily get your partners estate, pension, say in medical care, etc. Marriage gives you rights and protects you/your partner in the event of death.

He shouldn't be denied the right to fully live as a woman because that infringes his rights (if you believe that).

I don't, no.

Hi Serenity, you are right, today a friend would be badly advised to be financially dependent and only married under “common law” or some religious ceremonies which aren’t legally recognised in the country where they live/have assets.
Modern law in most countries reflects the right that formally recognised civil marriage options exist and usually doesn’t extend rights to those that don’t take those steps.
Marriage did exist prior to the religious ceremonies though.

@NiceLegsShameAboutTheFace ha! It’s definitely the most credible I’ve heard this year (and by this point I have heard so, so many, nothing like a lockdown to get folk a thinking).

There are some important similarities between these things, OP, and I think it's something that gets missed at times because, like you say, for most there is an instinctual support of SSM.

Marriage legally is socially defined, in a way, and culturally most western nations see it as a committed sexual relationship that involves the creation of a new family, particularly from an economic POV. But historically, this idea has tended, across cultures to a large degree, to be centred around the potential for the couple to have children. Although family structures do vary somewhat across cultures, there are real limits to that which are mostly about biology - that is, mother-father-children.

Sometimes there are variations, for example with adoption, but those are things which are based on the basic, biological model. The legal or social rules around marriage tend to be formalisations of practices which help manage the potential problems around procreation and maintain social order.

In many cultures, even ones that didn't care about homosexuality, SSM hasn't really been a thing, because there was no real reason for it to be - it wasn't going to produce children, so those problems weren't relevant.

In our culture though, we've weakened the link between sexual activity and babies, and tend to interpret marriage as being companionship and fulfilment. We also have attached certain administrative things to it, like pensions and health insurance.

So socially, the question became, doesn't it make sense for marriage to be for any couple? Or is there still a reason to maintain a legal/cultural structure that is centred around the needs of procreation? Could there be separate legal institutions for these?

Christian churches typically have maintained the view that centres sex, and sexual activity generally, on procreation, which is why they often maintain a fairly traditional approach to marriage.

Here is the interesting thing though I think - in many countries that have changed their definition to include SSM, it was not done as a result of this kind of discussion about whether SSM would make the institution as a whole less useful, or what we have marriage for anyway.

Instead, it was approached as a rights issue - the idea being that to differentiate between men and women in this way amounted to sex discrimination - men and women needed to be treated the same.

I think this approach has has some significant influence on the way people have thought about trans issues, as something where it would be wrong to tell people the law differentiated between them in terms of biology. Those advocating for gender ideology have really drawn on the public's response to SSM with their own arguments.

SSM wasn't really a think in ancient Rome, BTW.

The other thing is that 'marriage' means different things in different cultures, anyway.

So in the U.K. - two people of whatever sex who want to enter into a legal contract that ties together their financial affairs & obligations to any dependents of that marriage, with the proviso that neither is already in a similar contract with someone else. Religious aspects optional.

Where I live now - must be between opposite sex individuals; one man can with certain provisos, marry additional women; possible to enter a short term 'marriage' contract if a couple wish to share a hotel room but are not planning on staying together long term (generally used by local men to seduce gullible female tourists).

I believe that there has also been a campaign for civil partnership to allow 2 people in a non-romantic relationship to link their financial affairs in order to take advantage of tax breaks, avoid inheritance tax etc (eg. 2 sisters sharing a house).

So lots of different models.

All socially constructed, & (with the rather large exception of forced arranged marriage), affecting no one but the married partners.

If I wanted to marry my cat or my sofa, even, it still wouldn't affect anyone else.

Re-defining sex as gender identity affects everyone.

Actually that wasn't 'the other thing' as I x posted with about 6 other people!

My brother is gay and was in a long term loving relationship with his partner for many years (sadly, his partner died a couple of years ago).
They welcomed civil partnerships, having had to go to a great deal of trouble and expense to ensure legal security for both (mirror wills and so on). The wore wedding rings and considered themselves pledged to one another.
However, my brother is uneasy about same sex marriage. He sees heterosexual and homosexual relationships as categorically different, as one clearly is predicated on reproduction and the other is not. In our discussions, he told me he feels that co-opting marriage for homosexual relationships undermines the status and worth of women and their reproductive capabilities.
My brother is older (in his 60s, like me), a cradle Catholic and a medical doctor, which may have a bearing in his opinions.

on his opinions

At my church we had a special sermon where the vicar explained that our parish very much embraces homosexuality, so it's not all Christians against gay marriage.

As a Christian I have nothing to lose by gay people being married, our vicar often does sermons where he re-evaluates the bible and explains what parts are no longer really true today (sex before marriage/homosexuality etc)

He sees heterosexual and homosexual relationships as categorically different, as one clearly is predicated on reproduction and the other is not.

This always puzzles me, mostly because plenty of hetero couples get married with no intention to have children, but also because of the attitude that marriage has to be for any purpose other than two people committing to each other.

TBH I never understood the need for civil partnerships. We have faith weddings for people who believe that marriage is a sacrament, and civil weddings for people who don't hold that belief. If religions will not permit gay marriage because the faith position is that marriage is for reproduction, that's up to the religion. I do not understand why civil partnerships were ever created, rather than simply opening up civil marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples.

It doesn’t matter that some (heterosexual) people get married without intending to have children. Or if they can’t. The point is that men and women generally do reproduce.
You wouldn’t say that eyes are not for seeing just because some people are blind. Or that legs are not for walking because some people choose to sit on their sofas all day long.

Of course people well past child-bearing age get married all the time and have church ceremonies. Saying marriage is only about having children is misleading. And same-sex couples can build happy, nurturing families in different ways, through gamete donation, adoption, surrogacy etc.