The TWAW debate for beginners

[Sugarintheplum]

Hi All,

I don't know how to describe my position, but here goes. I am a black woman. I consider myself to be a woman. I respect trans women's decisions to think of themselves as women. I don't think of trans women as men, I don't think of them as women; I think of them as trans women. I'm not being 'goody' I'm being sincere.

I feel really stuck because so many of my friends take other positions and consider mine transphobic. I agree I haven't read or watched as much as I could to understand any side of the debate to be honest. Please point me in the direction of literature, videos, podcasts, any type of resource that will help me to feel improve my knowledge.

@FemaleAndLearning
"I would like to have a good answer as to why transgenderism is an ideology, maybe like a religion. A religion I don't won't to prescribe to so I can say I'm a gender aethiest (term I've seen on here and like as it is how I feel). But how do I articulate that? To me saying TWAW is like a belief system, but why to so many people believe and follow it?"

That is so on point. I agree totally. I think you already articulated it quite well. An ideology is a secular belief system. The difficulty is, trying to honestly expand on that involves using certain words and descriptions that can get posts deleted and threads removed.

If an ideology or religion has key tenets that can not be openly questioned without censure, it's a fairly good bet that it is one.

There are two c**t words Mumsnet are not keen and will delete,but the word ideology seem to be acceptible.

As to why so many people follow it.

Postmodern theory is not marxism but it evolved from it and shares lots of features (cultural marxism rather than economic marxism).
Yri bezmenov on the 4 stages of ideological subversion sheds some light on the well worn playbook that is being re-enacted with a new spin for the internet age. It is overt, open, you can see it.
The demoralisation phase he describes has been happening in universities , 15 - 20 years of generational brainwashing in the social sciences and university. Remember we used to laugh that so many mediocre students would choose the social sciences as a way of getting a degree...well. That generation is now coming into positions of power in institutions, civil service, politics, media and healthcare, education and are destabilising the general public via media. Useful idiots he called them, and they can't be deprogrammed, their perception of reality is permenantly changed. Fence sitter might be persuadable with reality.

I've seen and read a hell of a lot over the last few years - it's hard to recall that "well, this is a rabbit hole, isn't it?" feeling I had when first going down the sidebar of links on r/GenderCritical.

I've seen some good suggestions above - that "TERF Wars" is good.

I'm going to resist the temptation to give a huge list of links - that's just going to make it feel even more daunting.

But here some of my favourites that are suitable for beginners (who probably aren't yet ready for the 3-hour JCJ interviews or deep dives into gender ideology by RRC):

Jane Clare Jones' late-2018 Annals of the Terf Wars - how we got here in satirical screenplay form. An easy read.

Magdalen Berns channel. Short snappy, blisteringly honest videos. Any of the "most popular" ones from that link. Personal favourites are , and .

- one hour, but you can watch her get through to the hosts exactly how bad it is. They've been solid allies since then.

Channel 4: ‘Children have been very seriously damaged’ by NHS gender clinic, says former Tavistock staff governor - 10 minute interview. David Bell's testimony is so powerful even Cathy Newman seems to finally grasp it. Her face says it all.

. One hour - she's got a book coming up, which I think should be brilliant. The realisation driving her: "they're sterilising gay kids".

I like the answers of the expert witnesses Dr Stock, Prof Freedman and Prof Sullivan gave at the women's equality select committee when asked by MP Gibson:

"Could you each confirm for me your view as to whether a trans woman is a woman and whether a trans man is a man, please?

Professor Freedman: I will go down the law route because that is my expertise, and I think you would rather have my expertise than my personal opinion. In law, it says that a man is someone who is born male with biology in terms of chromosomes, gonads and genitalia, and a woman is someone who is born female with the same biological factors. Now, there is the legal fiction where a trans woman or a trans man may gain a gender recognition certificate that changes their legal sex but does not change their actual sex. Currently, in law, a trans woman is a trans woman unless she holds a GRC, in which case she is male, she is a trans woman, but, legally, she would be recognised as a woman for many but not all purposes.

That sounds complicated because the law is currently in a bit of a mess and that is why we need to change and streamline it. My opinion, therefore, changes depending on whether someone holds a GRC, but I stick in line with what the law currently says, which is that your sex is determined by biology.

Dr Stock: I think that we have two sexes, males and females. We have the human versions, the human males and females, and we have the adult and younger versions, adult and younger human males and females. We need a category to describe the adult human male and the adult human female because it aids communication about a vast range of things, given that we are a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces via heterosexuality. In other words, woman is adult human female and man is adult human male. That is the best understanding of those categories.

Professor Sullivan: I have been very clear. There is a distinction between sex and gender identity. Both of them are quite properly protected characteristics and we need to see them as distinct. The slogan “trans women are women” has been really unhelpful. Grown‑up, mature adults do not talk in slogans. We need to think about the fact that there might be contexts where we want to treat trans women as though they were women and trans men as though they were men. In other contexts, that may not be appropriate. For example, if we think about sporting categories, changing rooms or data collection, all sorts of different issues may come up and we need to have a sensible conversation about those different contexts"

Not sure what happened with my emphasis there. Here is the transcript for more info: committees.parliament.uk/event/2998/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

@Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud

That was really helpful. Thanks for sharing

Transwomen are Women

The best place to start is deciding whether you believe it

No. TWAW is reductive.
Does it mean:
Trans women are socially women?
Trans women are literally women?
Trans women are women but with some male advantages?
Trans women are female?

At this point we are not even talking the same language. The very definition of men, women, gender, even the understanding of sex is being warped and disputed.

The argument that I find quite upsetting tbh is that woman has always referred to a social role and nothing more.

The audacity to make such a claim.
The implication that it was a role all the time and not a word for us as a sex.
The implication that as it's just a role it could be played by anyone- so we could have just not played that role if we didn't fit.

The arguments they make I think many of them have no idea how they're handwaving away thousands of years of female oppression, and all the things still going on in the world.

They know

[quote AdHominemNonSequitur]@FemaleAndLearning
"I would like to have a good answer as to why transgenderism is an ideology, maybe like a religion. A religion I don't won't to prescribe to so I can say I'm a gender aethiest (term I've seen on here and like as it is how I feel). But how do I articulate that? To me saying TWAW is like a belief system, but why to so many people believe and follow it?"

That is so on point. I agree totally. I think you already articulated it quite well. An ideology is a secular belief system. The difficulty is, trying to honestly expand on that involves using certain words and descriptions that can get posts deleted and threads removed.

If an ideology or religion has key tenets that can not be openly questioned without censure, it's a fairly good bet that it is one.

There are two c**t words Mumsnet are not keen and will delete,but the word ideology seem to be acceptible.

As to why so many people follow it.

Postmodern theory is not marxism but it evolved from it and shares lots of features (cultural marxism rather than economic marxism).
Yri bezmenov on the 4 stages of ideological subversion sheds some light on the well worn playbook that is being re-enacted with a new spin for the internet age. It is overt, open, you can see it.
The demoralisation phase he describes has been happening in universities , 15 - 20 years of generational brainwashing in the social sciences and university. Remember we used to laugh that so many mediocre students would choose the social sciences as a way of getting a degree...well. That generation is now coming into positions of power in institutions, civil service, politics, media and healthcare, education and are destabilising the general public via media. Useful idiots he called them, and they can't be deprogrammed, their perception of reality is permenantly changed. Fence sitter might be persuadable with reality.[/quote]
Thank you, very helpful. I think I will refresh myself on the talk guidelines to make sure I use the allowed language as it would be easy to slip up.

Sexism - the women should do the dishes.

Feminism - men or woman can do the dishes.
Gender ideology - whoever is doing the dishes is a woman

Gender ideology - whoever is doing the dishes is a woman

I've seen that, but I don't think it quite works.

How about

"Gender ideology - whoever says they like doing dishes is a woman"

I think that better covers

a) the non-binary women who say they're not women because they don't like doing dishes - but they'll still end up doing them

b) the men who say they're extremely womany and like doing womany things, but never actually perform the "women's role" except when it comes to "fun" stuff like sleepovers, makeup and spinny dresses.

@NecessaryScene1

Gender ideology - whoever is doing the dishes is a woman

I've seen that, but I don't think it quite works.

How about

"Gender ideology - whoever says they like doing dishes is a woman"

I think that better covers

a) the non-binary women who say they're not women because they don't like doing dishes - but they'll still end up doing them

b) the men who say they're extremely womany and like doing womany things, but never actually perform the "women's role" except when it comes to "fun" stuff like sleepovers, makeup and spinny dresses.

And it's incredibly convenient for the middle age married transitioners who've only become "women" when all the hard work of child-rearing is done.

@zanahoria

Transwomen are Women

The best place to start is deciding whether you believe it

Yes, also I think the context and application has to be very carefully considered.

'TWAW' works perfectly well and is fine if we are using 'gender' (social and cultural stereotypes).

'TWAW' is factually untrue and potentially damaging if we are using 'sex' (biological sex).

For example: Gender: Transwomen who want to wear dresses and high heels are women: totally fine, I'm sure not many people really give two hoots and certainly not the feminists on here. Shop from whatever section of the shop you feel happy in.

Sex: When it comes to legal documents and policy: Transwomen are women - well, no. Because that means we can't protect women's sex based rights and our rights to single sex provision as outlined in the Equality Act.

The phrase 'TWAW' is most commonly accepted as referring to gender, and that is fairly uncontroversial. In recent years the context and referral has been slid into meaning 'sex'. That is a whole different kettle of fish.

The problems arise because people are not clear on the difference between the two words.

@jj1968

Jenn Smith describes himself (JS’s preferred pronouns are masculine) as:

Jenn Smith is embedded within the evangelical movement and has been linked to white supremicist rgoups. Possibly not the best example.

Who knew that only left wing people are allowed to be trans?

For example: Gender: Transwomen who want to wear dresses and high heels are women: totally fine, I'm sure not many people really give two hoots and certainly not the feminists on here. Shop from whatever section of the shop you feel happy in.

Going to disagree. Sure, at level 1, you can say "fine, whatever, you do you". That's basically where libfem thought stops, it seems. Total inability to see or acknowledge systemic problems or consequences (unless officially approved by dogma, in which case you can even see them where they don't exist).

But the problem is that if you accept that belief system, the corollary is - "if that's what makes someone a woman, and someone doesn't like those, are they not a (proper) woman?". It's reinforcing up all the cultural norms and baggage that proper feminists oppose, and worse than that, inducing young girls to call themselves non-binary - or worse.

"Not liking dresses and high heels" becomes a symptom of "gender dysphoria" for women.

But yes, sure, shop from whatever section of the shop you feel happy in, and wear whatever you want.

Just don't claim anyone's fashion preferences is what makes them a man or woman. That's the problem.

I thought that was what I was trying to say!

Maybe I've not phrased it clearly enough ...

Agree that the clothes don't maketh the woman, of course, just I mean that acting outwith gender norms isn't a problem ...

Hmm ... yes, you're right, because you can't say 'TWAW' without admitting that gender = sex. It only works from within a rigidly policed gender binary.

I suppose the only thing that makes sense is 'we are all non-binary when it comes to gender'.

Okay.

Thank you!

Although!

If we are using 'woman' as purely a term referring to 'gender', the idea of 'woman' - as described by Greer in the Female Eunuch about a hundred million years ago - then TWAW works. But it has to be entirely divorced from and unconnected to biological sex. Which in the real world, it never is.

Because people can opt out of the 'gender' of women, but women can never opt out of the biological realities of being female.

I think that this is what Butler was trying to do, isn't it? Sever any ties between gender and sex.

It might work in an acadmic text. Possibly in a Twitter anime avatar. It doesn't really work in the real world.

ArabellaScott - I think I understood your meaning, but it's just you

It might work in an acadmic text.

Well, yes, in an academic discussion you can work at the 2nd/3rd layer of meaning and do all that stuff.

But is it the sort of thing that makes sense to be taught at primary school level to children who still don't have a firm grasp of material reality?

Or can you trust the police to make sensible decisions after hearing about it on a training course?

I could certainly concede that "transwomen are women" in some sort of meaning of "women" four dictionary entries down from the primary meaning. But clearly activists and campaigners clearly aren't aiming at that - they're aiming at the primary meaning, including in legislation. People who go along not realising this are falling for a motte-and-bailey. Having realised that, I'm now implacable, and cannot concede on "TWAW".

This isn't just fun and games. Human females are a clearly defined group that need a word - the word "woman" is taken. Sure, you can use "woman" for some other metaphorical purposes in some circumstances, but the primary meaning has to remain "human female" so they have a word.

And in reverse, when "human female" is the primary meaning you intend, eg in this ongoing maternity legislation, you must use "woman" or you're conceding the word in it's primary meaning. If you wouldn't use it then, when would you?

(I think I didn't initially see the importance of making a fuss about that bill, but I grasp it intellectually now, even if I struggle to feel that passionately about it.)

Yes, absolutely agree, in everyday language and in life people are constantly mixing the two terms up. It isn't feasible to divorce sex and gender - just I think this is what the gender ideology is trying to do.

If we could carefully explain to everybody in the world the distinction between gender and sex, it could in theory work. My 11 year old son seems to grasp it quite clearly.

In practise, though, and in law (I believe this was discussed recently wrt Scots law, anyway) the two words are interchangeable,

and therefore one can't say TWAW without implying that TW are of the female sex, which is by definition incorrect.

I want to understand how anybody can chant this mantra with conviction, is all, and I think this is how - gender ideologists are running along on the 4th dictionary level of meaning, and using arguments that refer to that level of meaning, but also quietly in the background applying this definition to the 1st dictionary definition.

Thanks for the motte and bailey metaphor. Useful, and accurate.

Thank you all,

I am in no way new to feminism or the fight for women's rights, but I have not engaged in this debate until now, wilfully, women's issues are broad and I've been battling other fronts! My first encounter was about 10 years ago, I used to run a women's org for black women and there was a definitely a split between us on whether trans people could join, that was when it was first suggested that my position was transphobic.

I believe trans women are trans women. I do not consider them women. I believe they are male sexed, and I believe sex gives rise to experiences and social challenges for both sexes. These might include frustration or despair at our bodies and the way the world treats us because of our bodies. I support their rights and liberties to eschew the forces that would have them behave in stereotypical ways (of course, that would be hugely helpful to women also), but I am concerned that I have not gathered enough knowledge to make that statement confidently.

My black friends do say that the category women could do with some disruption and dismantling given black women were and are often excluded from it. I just don't see how expanding the category of women by including men is helpful in doing so. Black women are women as they share common experiences with all women in the modern world no matter their colour, race or ethnicity which are a response to their anatomy. They then have further issues springing from their race (insert any other social marker here). The is the same with any woman. At this time I do not believe this is the same for trans women - that they share those same common experiences. They appear to have their own distinct and important experiences and issues. Some men do oppress trans women, some men oppress everyone even themselves.

So, I am black. There is absolutely no scientific basis for that concept, it's a nonsense scientifically (as far as we currently know). However, those black friends would vehemently oppose white people identifying as black and taking positions created to empower and equalise black people in society. I don't understand how those positions can exist together. To me they are clearly in conflict.

I would like to hear from the trans activist side on these and some other questions, but I don't want to pose them on a board set aside for them, I can see how that would be unfair, offensive and an invasion of their space, so I'm here instead ;p

These questions are:

1. What does being a woman mean to you? Tell me more about how those things are not possible as a man?

I ask because I have a (black) son. Mama didn't raise no fool, so he wears the same baby clothes my daughters wore which means lots of pinks and red and frilly bits. Why spend money on blue clothes fhs? He's still boy. He will attend the same extracurricular activities as my daughters (swimming, ballet, martial arts, language classes, music). I'm not about to be running around to lots of venues and double booking myself! I'm raising him to be considerate, kind, allowing others space to think and speak, to be compassionate, thoughtful, not to shout for no reason, to use physical force only sparingly to protect oneself etc. I hope he comes to appreciate those values. He's still a boy.

2. Do you think it is important to be able to think about, discuss and attend to issues within female only spaces that face females ?

I ask because I think it is important for trans people to be able to have those safe spaces. I have been told that trans women are the most oppressed, and also oppressed by women so women should not be able to have spaces which exclude trans women, much like white women not being able to have white women only spaces apart from black women. It strikes me that black women have no problem with spaces that are likely to be majority white such as I don't know, Galway Women (I made that up, but why not?!) There are problems with whiteness vis a vis blackness and white women historically participated in that, so yes, a group for white women only is concerning. Women have not historically tried to obliterate trans women. That would be men.

3. Does the female anatomy have any meaning or significance?

I think it must as women are now being referred to as 'cervix-havers', 'vagina-havers', 'womb-havers' etc. Are we then moving towards referring to all people by their reproductive parts?

4. What makes the word 'woman' important to trans women? I'm wondering what it confers upon trans women given it is not necessary for their human or trans specific rights.

5. Would trans women lose anything by not being able to use the term 'trans women'? What if trans women could ONLY be known as women? And then also, how might trans women respond to having that term also encompass people whom they do not consider to be trans women (such as men).

6. what does cis mean? Does it just mean someone who is not requesting to be known as another gender?

I ask because I really don't want to be bounds by the restrictions typically placed on women, so I'm not sure I should be known as cis. It appears to me that these terms start to be meaningless.

So, if you have read this far, even if it is absolutely NOT what you believe, pleas also direct me to where I can be exposed to the most compelling arguments from the other side of the debate!

My black friends do say that the category women could do with some disruption and dismantling given black women were and are often excluded from it.

What does this mean? Or what are they attempting to mean?

They then have further issues springing from their race (insert any other social marker here).

That's the thing that sticks out for me - this "intersectionality" thing has some truth to it, and we are dealing with people who are extremely invested in the concept, and will - gleefully, almost - try to find new axes for their intersectional issues. Possibly to an unhelpful degree.

Yet in this one, solitary case, they work against that idea.

They're trying to insist that the axis of "sex" does not exist, or at least must not be acknowledged. They would deny that male "women" would have any different experiences from female "women". Or that male "nonbinaries" would have any different experiences from female "nonbinaries".

Where is your "intersectionality" now? How is this coherent?

Is sex just "too big" for this intersectionality? Can it only handle "socially constructed" squishy things like race, not actual real biological differences with hard boundaries?

You said it yourself there - "social marker".

I think about that a lot - a lot of social-justice activism seems to be based on the insistence that everyone is the same, and all "axes" are social artefacts. Groups actually being different is verboten. (Yet group boundaries are super significant? ) You might see group differences, but they must all be society's fault, as a faith position. But it's impossible to deny sex differences, if you acknowledge sex -- so they try to hide those differences by denying sex. Don't know if that makes sense...