Trans women are/are not women is a pointless place to start a debate

[QuentinWinters]

Just reading threads about trans rights and feminism, which seem to rely on whether or not trans women are women. I want to reply this to all of them so I thought I'd create a post.

There are two different definitions of women in play:
"Women" is a social construct and so a woman is defined on the basis of how she socially identifies.
"Woman" is an adult human female and a woman is defined on the basis of biological features.

Both these viewpoint have an evidence base supporting them and so are valid. Both are based on an individuals opinion of which definition they prefer.

There is a trend to say it is "transphobic" to be of the second viewpoint because it excludes trans women. It isn't transphobia. The second view point is in some ways a more evidence based definition than the first, because it relies on observable facts and truths that apply throughout nature.

Trying to start a debate with "the other side" from either of those two viewpoints is going to be a hiding to nothing. Let's not do that.

Similarly focusing on areas where the viewpoints are inevitably going to clash will just end in argument as both sides defend their opinion (trans women providing intimate care to female patients for example).

It is far more productive to recognise those view points and what they lead to and see how and where that can be accommodated comfortably by both sides and build out from there.

Here's my accommodation (which is way more than I'd get in return). Trans people share the same rights as others of their sex, including freedom from discrimination in housing, education, and medical care, and trans adults have a right to access legal forms of cosmetic surgery and cross sex hormones in the same way anyone else accesses cosmetic surgery and hormones meant for the opposite sex. I'm addition, they, like all of us, have a right to freedom from violence (the actual kind).

Beyond that, transmen, being female, have a right to access the female estate, receive maternity care, including abortions, and maternity leave, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of their sex, including pregnancy and breastfeeding discrimination.

Beyond that, no compromise. Transwomen are male, not female. Not women. Transwomen. I don't have any further solidarity with them than I do with other males. Transwomen and their allies need to back off and stop colonizing female experience, which they, by virtue of being male, cannot access.

It comes down simply to there needs to be a way for women to have a class recognition and word that they are able to use for those needs and rights required for the equality of just that specific group.

Forced teaming in all contexts removes and subordinates those needs and harms rights and equality.

That is usually what is underlying women having to say transwomen in this context are transwomen: the ability to distinguish the two groups in language to express all women's needs otherwise becomes impossible. Which surely isn't a good thing?

Is there an evidence base that "women" is a social construct?

Intellectually, I absolutely agree with you.

There is simply no point having an argument when the same word is being used by two sides to mean completely different things.

But in reality, one of those viewpoints is now socially and politically acceptable and one is taboo, even if the word "female" is used instead of "woman" . It has become taboo to assert that there are ever scenarios where a transwomen might be thought of as, or experienced as, male.

Given that this is a feminism discussion board and given that the loss of ability to define the sex class of woman has implications that touch almost every single topic related to women's rights, I don't know what constructive forward moving discussion it would be possible to have?

Sorry didn't mean to sound so glum. I would like to think you were right.

"Women" is a social construct and so a woman is defined on the basis of how she socially identifies.

Both these viewpoint have an evidence base supporting them and so are valid

What evidence base and how are they valid? That suggests that, as someone who doesn’t ‘identify’ as a woman, I am not a woman, when I clearly am to any independent observer.

It also implies any male who presents in a more corrosively stereotypical ‘female’ way than me -
long hair/makeup/long nails/refers to crying etc is more of a woman than me women and that I am only a woman on days when I wear make up/a dress.

Both are based on an individuals opinion of which definition they prefer.

The second definition is biological, evolutionary fact. Opinions don’t come into it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts.

where that can be accommodated comfortably by both sides and build out from there.

How? I would be interested in the views points of girls and women whose lives would be transformed if they were boys/men:

-women/girls murdered due to femicide
-the 3 women a week killed in the UK who nobody gives a shit about because they are women and it’s so common nobody notices.

• millions of girls aborted due to sex selection

-girls affected by FGM - a crime against humanity -girls/women dying in childbirth (the biggest cause of death of teenage girls in low income countries), -girls dying in/confined to menstrual huts. -9 year old girls married off to old men when they start their periods, -girls denied an education - even when they say, ‘but Dad, please let me learn to read, I’m really a boy’ etc etc...

Ask them first and then we can build on from there.

My 'accommodation' is the existing UK legislation. The lobbying to change that legislation was not initiated by feminists.

Aligning with the 'idea' of woman as a social construct is such a privileged Western-centric position. It dismisses the reality of women's lives across the globe. It assumes a static 'social construct' that does not acknowledge that lipsticks and skirts are a privileged Western view of gender stereotypes and that many countries across the globe have different standards and stereotypes concerning women.
Why do we have to indulge people's ignorance at the expense of being able to fund and campaign on issues that are costing women their lives? It's insulting.

Until someone can actually come up with a clear coherent description of what your your first 'definition' means ( of itself it explains nothing) I don't see how we can sensibly consider it.

Whereas the second definition is accurate and meaningful.

Also why does the social construct of woman always include the set of stereotypes based upon looks but not the set of stereotypes based upon behaviours? My idea of the social construct of "woman" would be very different to that of a trans rights activist.

I don't see any evidence for other people treating transwomen as women. In the media and politically, transwomen often seem to be centred and lauded and catered for in a way that women are not. The trans rights movement has had an astonishing amount of influence in a short space of time.

Both these viewpoint have an evidence base supporting them and so are valid.

"Evidence base"? Definitions don't have "evidence bases". They're just useful or not. They're just words.

In this case one definition is useful when discussing things which are specific to the specific group of adult human females. That's a clear set of people with a clear set of common issues. Helps to have a short term for that group.

In what situations of policy/rights etc is the other definition useful? What do "people who identify as women" have in common? And what distinguishes them from people who don't?

I guess the designation might be needed for deciding how many "woman" badges to order, but beyond that? You can't say any more about those self-identified "women" then you can say about "people whose names begin with S". When would you ever need to say anything about that group in policy?

There are two different definitions of women in play:
"Women" is a social construct and so a woman is defined on the basis of how she socially identifies.
"Woman" is an adult human female and a woman is defined on the basis of biological features.

No. Woman is not a social construct. Women are a biological reality; one half of human mammalian reproduction.

Men’s fantasies about what they think women are, bears as much resemblance to the reality of women as Narnia does to wardrobes.

The only evidence for women as a social construct is in fiction, imagination and delusion. None of these are a proper basis for policy decisions. We do not make policy decisions based on men turning into giant bugs, because that is a fiction, and neither should be excise women’s hard fought for rights on the basis of random fantasies.

Femininity is a social construct, but a stereotype embedded in cultural practice, is, again, no proper basis for policy.

Women’s oppression is a simple matter of lesser strength and reproductive potential.

What does woman as a social construct look, sound and feel like to you? How do you define that without resorting to crass stereotypes and insulting many biological women who have battled to free themselves from those stereotypes? I'd really like a detailed description of what it is that people born biological male identify with in that social construct...

To me "Women" is a social construct and so a woman is defined on the basis of how she socially identifies." negates the discrimination women and girls face (and have always faced) due to being biologically female. Women and girls aren't raped, assaulted, and killed because they identify as women. They are raped, assaulted, and killed because they are biologically women.

Or biologically female if you prefer.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

That is not the only serious logico-semantic point Lewis Carroll smuggled Through the Looking Glass .

Still relevant.

Yes I agree, there's a social aspect to 'woman' which is why I have no truck with people who wish to try and look like women, whatever they consider that to be, or call themselves she etc. On a social basis I generally don't care. Where its taken as a literal thing, where it strays into confusing the two, to the detriment of women, to the detriment of being able to make the distinction, that's my line.

^^In other words, the 'gender' aspect of being ab adult human female is indeed a construct.

@QuentinWinters

Just reading threads about trans rights and feminism, which seem to rely on whether or not trans women are women. I want to reply this to all of them so I thought I'd create a post.

There are two different definitions of women in play:
"Women" is a social construct and so a woman is defined on the basis of how she socially identifies.
"Woman" is an adult human female and a woman is defined on the basis of biological features.

Both these viewpoint have an evidence base supporting them and so are valid. Both are based on an individuals opinion of which definition they prefer.

There is a trend to say it is "transphobic" to be of the second viewpoint because it excludes trans women. It isn't transphobia. The second view point is in some ways a more evidence based definition than the first, because it relies on observable facts and truths that apply throughout nature.

Trying to start a debate with "the other side" from either of those two viewpoints is going to be a hiding to nothing. Let's not do that.

Similarly focusing on areas where the viewpoints are inevitably going to clash will just end in argument as both sides defend their opinion (trans women providing intimate care to female patients for example).

It is far more productive to recognise those view points and what they lead to and see how and where that can be accommodated comfortably by both sides and build out from there.

tro

@Thingybob

Is there an evidence base that "women" is a social construct?

I would like to see an answer to this too.

If people want to argue that males are entitled to the same rights and protections as women, as laid out in the Equality Act, then they are required to come up with good, solid evidence and proof of how 'transwomen are women'.

The words and language have to be clear, and understood by anyone involved in any discussion or debate. It's not possible to discuss anything when people are ascribing different meanings to the same term.

Any other discussions are only going to come up against this fact - whether it is possible to change sex.

We have to have this debate, we have to clarify the terms, we have to have clear terminology.

Well... I think maybe the OP has proved it's a fruitless point to start a debate!

Yes, there is an "evidence base" of sorts that "woman" is a social construct, and the construct includes both biological aspects and social aspects. There is no evidence that the social trumps the biological, though. But you can still make a coherent argument that trans women are women in a sense limited to social aspects. But that does not in any way detract from the assertions that adult human females are marginalised on the basis of their sex, and that sex is a division of sexually reproducing organisms based on their role in the reproductive process. The evidence base for those assertions is stupendous.

There is a big problem in that respect only goes one way, if we are talking about the most vocal TRAs anyway.
I respect that for some people identifying with a particular gender is very important. I don't have the same belief but I respect their rights to believe in the same way I do with religion
I want sex based rights for women and girls and meaningful statistics. There is little respect for my rights even though it is easier to prove sex than gender
The trans group are organised and powerful.
If woman is a social construct where do you stand with transwomen who claim to be women but present as men.

What is needed though, in the real world, is to set out both definitions in a clear way. Then work out, where we need to segregate by men/women, is it because of biology or because of social identity, and use the appropriate definition. The default has to be biological as the laws and categories were set up FOR the biological definition of man/woman. Anything else represents a change.

Biologists will easily deal with defining the sex one and doctors help out in the tiny number of cases where the biological categories are not immediately obvious. There have been attempts to make out there aren't clear categories but they involve massive misunderstanding of the meaning of intersex/DSD conditions.

The social one is a lot more problematic. Are you going to insist women (biological) who are certain they don't identify with a social concept of womanhood nevertheless sit in the social-category-woman box? If so, how do you reconcile that with it being a purely self identified categorisation? If not, you already have a significant population who cannot be categorised at all. And even ignoring us tiresome feminists, there's the problem that this categorisation cannot exist without biological sex existing, the majority selecting social category according to biological sex and acting in ways sufficiently different on average to maintain a social category that differs between women and men for the remainder to identify in and out of. Otherwise you end up with entirely random members' clubs.

@TwoBreakingIntoOne

There is a big problem in that respect only goes one way, if we are talking about the most vocal TRAs anyway. I respect that for some people identifying with a particular gender is very important. I don't have the same belief but I respect their rights to believe in the same way I do with religion I want sex based rights for women and girls and meaningful statistics. There is little respect for my rights even though it is easier to prove sex than gender The trans group are organised and powerful. If woman is a social construct where do you stand with transwomen who claim to be women but present as men.

This where the goalposts get moved, and "woman" stops being a social construct and becomes a psychological, or even theological, one, something one feels as part of one's inner being. This confusion makes it impossible to discuss the issue in any constructive way. If you look on all knowledge as being discourse and narrative, then science, which is an attempt to create an understanding of how the world works without resorting to narrative, becomes impossible. So why not talk of sex as a spectrum, if the term spectrum is defined by the discourse it happens in rather than technically as a value varying over a continuum?

How can you debate when there are no rules?