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.

@Impatiens

If people won't accept that their beliefs are faith based, not fact based - where to go from there?

Yes I think that's the problem.

We've been round this loop before with creationism. We ended up with a good solution in the UK, especially compared to the US.

I feel like much extreme trans ideology is imported to the UK from America through social media. We manage to resist their weird attitudes to guns, abortion, evolution and universal healthcare despite twitter wars raging constantly between Americans.

Society need to go through a process where the two definitions are explicitly recognised, then we can move to discussing one as a faith based position and one as a fact based position, then we can legislate and make policy accordingly.

This seems extremely naive as an idea...they don't and won't accept that their definitions are faith and not fact. And your intent to legitimise their notions with respect and debate are only going to entrench them further.

And your intent to legitimise their notions with respect and debate are only going to entrench them further.

This is my problem with it. It's not feminists who will benefit from conceding that there are "socially defined women".

Can anyone help identify which specific and meaningful situations where it makes a difference for transwomen to be classed as women by a third party for some activity or space.

Obviously, anyone can present to the world in any way they would like and be referred to by whichever name they wish but if women's sports are not available, women's single sex spaces are not available and it is determined that coerced speech is not acceptable, then what is left?

I'm not suggesting that there aren't any circumstances where someone being treated 'socially as a woman' makes a difference but I'm trying to think of what they could be.

I know some late transitioners locally and as far as I can see they are just treated like everyone else. I am not aware of any difference in their treatment (re. male/female) by other people, we all say hello in the street, they are regulars in the pub and use the men's toilets so other than outfits and names, how would they be treated socially any differently to any other person of their sex?

It's not about social interactions with individuals.

Who any person will decide to accept or not etc.

And if they don't accept they will likely avoid.

The actual threat is, as ever, from men.

I don't feel like giving up the words to talk about the vaginal mesh scandal, the pay gap, the imprisonment of raped women/ girls (or worse. Stoning. Death).

And even everything else that is done to women and girls around the world.

Sorry. I am sorry. I understand the importance of being seen as women/ girls to some males.

The harsh truth is that trans women are trans women. Not women.

Our oppression is due to our biology. And anyone who says that fact is transpobic and must be... Not mentioned. Verboten. Is a person who doesn't give a single flying shit about women and girls, the cunty type. Everywhere.

Recently it's been reported in the press that the Uighar women are being subjected to systematic torture and rape.

Females. Cunty people.

How should the news describe them? Who knows what their gender IDs are.

People with vaginas?

People with vaginas in the Uighar community are being subjected to systematic rape and sexual torture.

Is that right?

Or should it be. People with vulvas? People with a 'front hole'?

I'd like to understand the correct way of referring to that group of people please.

The root of the issue is that people cannot change sex, it is the GRA that allowed genderists to bring us to this point, by permitting people to change their sex legally when they can’t actually biologically change sex. The problems were pointed out at the time, and assurances were given those problems wouldn’t occur, now they have. This will all eventually have to be admitted and remedied.

OP if females (women and girls) give up the words to describe ourselves, by pretending that the words women and girls can be used at times by males who have an affinity to femininity, by saying it can also be a ‘social category’ as well as a biological category, females lose out and males gain. Neither should anybody have their speech compelled by being forced to refer to someone as if they were actually the opposite biological sex to which they are. Compelled speech harms everyone, but in this case especially females (see pronouns are rohypnol: fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/ )

The problem feminists who reject gender ideology have had, is not with convincing people we have spoken to on a individual level, of the merits and ethics of our arguments and our position on this issue. Instead our problem is with getting our arguments that support our position out in the public sphere, and not being permitted a public debate, where we can hold genderists arguments up to scrutiny. Some papers have covered our arguments, but TV has been very poor in this regard (although it is better than a few years ago) and politicians on the whole have been very silent until recently. Once we make the arguments supporting our position, genderists cannot counter them, many then resort to smears and lies, e.g. accuse us of being funded by the US right, claim no evidence exists that females are disadvantaged by gender ideology being enshrined in law and policy despite the overwhelming evidence, or make outright threats in some cases. This is why genderists cling to no debate with all their might: their arguments for their position fall down like a house of cards when held up to scrutiny and debate.

Also it isn’t just feminists that reject gender ideology. Although feminist arguments do reveal it as being regressive sexist, homophobic, illogical nonsense, rather than the progressive and ethical way forwards it proponents are trying to sell it as. This is one of the main reasons many more people will feel emboldened to stand -up and reject it in my view, and why genderists are so keen on trying to smear UK feminists as being funded by the US right. Once its revealed as being regressive and opposed by feminists for ethical reasons, it becomes increasingly difficult for genderists to claim they have the more ethical position and argument. This is one of the reasons so many became aware after JKR stood up. Indeed, dangerous, unethical, illogical and pseudo-scientific ideologies and practices have lost their power historically when they have been exposed by people willing to stand up against them.

So instead of making concessions to proponents of a dangerous, sexist, homophobic, illogical ideology the way to go in my view is to continue to expose it publicly for what it is. That means continuing to debate genderists, getting our arguments into the public arena, and inspiring more people to have the courage to stand up against it. The recent debate in the House of Lords regarding the maternity bill, demonstrated how easy it is to reveal the nonsense of gender ideology by using logical arguments, once people are not too frightened of what others think. Therefore, rather than trying to placate genderists, the best thing is to continue to push for more open debates, which is already starting to happen now. More and more people will feel emboldened to stand up, when they see others starting to stand up, as is already hapening. This has always happened historically, when people have been too frightened to stand up against dangerous ideologies or practices, they become more emboldened after seeing others stand up. Moreover, once the arguments are all very public and gender ideology is discredited, I think it will be impossible to avoid acknowledging how ill thought out the GRA was in the first place, and how it led to the ridiculous situation we now find ourselves in.

Hi @QuentinWinters

I certainly remember your name, you were here when I first poked my head round the door. Articulate and impressive.

And I can totally understand, seeing the domination of transgender issues on this board, that it's frustrating when you want to talk about other issues that affect women.

It's my opinion that there is a fundamental flaw, though, in your perception here.

Their belief is that "woman" is a feeling

I don't believe that's a belief. I don't believe that anyone thinks that. The smallest glance at any blog, Twitter account, or comment here, shows that.

Campaigning for the removal of sex-based rights has been going on for two or three decades. Culminating, now, in the automatic placing of a male rapist in a woman's prison.

The victim of the sex offences of that rapist, whilst in prison, has had to go to court in order to highlight the injustice.

The judges did not look in horror at the situation and say, a violent rapist in a female prison, are you insane? They stroked their chins, looked at the paperwork, and said hmmm, exactly how many rapists are we talking about here?

The notion that you have a bargaining chip in the shape of we will give you social transition, if you give us sex segregation has no basis in reality.

Socially transitioned transwomen are accepted across society. And in powerful positions in education, academia, the government, publishing, broadcasting, the law, the media, etc. All presenting as female, with names pronouns, everything, entirely accepted.

There is no negotiation over that, your bargaining chip doesn't exist.

So in terms ring fencing sex segregation, you have nothing to negotiate with.

The goal is the removal of sex-based rights. The Green party have just confirmed that on Twitter, sex based rights don't exist for them. Stonewall campaign for removing sex as a protected characteristic from equality law (and are responsible for children's 'inclusion' lessons in school up-and-down the country). The House of Lords, the bloody House of Lords had to ask that the word mother be included in a law about maternity rights!

It's extremely naive to think that we can negotiate over this issue. You compromising by allowing social acceptance of transwomen, is I'm afraid, a ship that has not just sailed, it's gone round the world three times and fallen off the edge.

Not only is it accepted, if you disagree, or raise public dissent, you could be, variously, threatened, fired, ostracised, financially ruined, arrested or hit.

This issue isn't a tributary of feminism. It's an issue that is leading, directly, to the elimination of women's sport, the closing down or defunding of rape refuges, homeless shelters and domestic violence services and the ongoing sexual assault committed against female prisoners.

Combatting it is coming up against women's representation, across-the-board, from politics to breastfeeding, being given to those born male.

I, for one, I'm really glad you started this thread. I hope you're still reading it. Because we need you. We need women like you. Strong women, knowledgeable women, articulate women, who have been 'doing feminism' for way longer than people like me.

The only reason these conversations go round in circles is because more and more women are saying no.

Otherwise they would be going in a straight line...

Superb post Datun. And yes thank you Quentin for starting this thread, I think it's been a very useful discussion.

@Datun - absolutely on the money - concise, clear, illuminating. It is terrifying actually. I discouraged a friend today from posting about this online out of fear for her. This IS where we are. And as you say the pushback is exhausting.

Either woman=female, where female = female DNA and female genitalia

OR women = a social construct that used to mean female=woman, but now means that woman=anyone who defines themselves as such.

[quote JoodyBlue]@Datun - absolutely on the money - concise, clear, illuminating. It is terrifying actually. I discouraged a friend today from posting about this online out of fear for her. This IS where we are. And as you say the pushback is exhausting.[/quote]
Just yesterday, a woman was threatened with death and her business trashed because her sixteen year old son said he was heterosexual, based on sex.

That's where we are. Where we actually are.

Datun

Superb.

Thank you, Datun.

Datun, as always, a fabulous post. In terms of the rapists in female prisons, people who haven't really been following this whole thing would assume, on being told about the situation, that's its ridiculous hyperbole - of course they wouldn't put rapists in female prisons. They would assume it's radical feminists trying to make a hypothetical point. It isn't until people realise the horror of the actual situation, that they realise the direction this is all heading.

It's the same with many of these situations of course they wouldn't make dv refuges mixed sex!, of course they wouldn't have mixed sex martial arts competitions.

But it is happening.

This isn't directed at you @QuentinWinters, but it's a truism, which is, by it's nature, chilling.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts.

Well said.

I am a bit calmer today, probably because I have genuinely enjoyed the “super straight” conversations which have brought some sunlight.

I do see what you are trying to do, but I don’t think it will work. There are so many brilliant posts here but just some of my thoughts in addition to that.

1. as many have stated (including OP) most of our oppression is sex based and most of the legal protection we need is due to sex.

2. the social construct of “women” that trans women seem to focus on is only a small part of the total social construct. Tran women seem to be all about clothes, makeup and some undefinable feeling whereas the role of “woman” includes all the non-glamorous household responsibilities, child care responsibilities, parent responsibilities. We wouldn’t even know where to start when to discuss what the social construct of woman is, it is miles apart.

3. Some TRAs are too emotional and too invested in their wish to be women. They cannot look at it logically. Their need to be women are so strong that they seem to convince themselves that there almost are no differences even in sex (attraction, sports, safety). They would never agree to their social construct not being exactly the same as ours. Add to this the fact that many young people have been sold the lie that you can change sex. I have seen people online argue that it only is a matter of time before trans women can give birth using womb implants. They are desperate to believe that there literally is almost no difference as they have made many irrevocable changes to their lives and maybe themselves.

4. Already church and state should in my opinion be separated as laws should reflect facts and not beliefs. But with TWAW it is even more difficult than religion. Ultimately, religion tells us that if we don’t behave in a certain way, there will be consequences for us. What others do have marginal impact on our chances of salvation. TWAW relies upon others validating ones belief. Trans women are not happy unless others believe that they are women. A Catholic can believe in transubstantiation without forcing others to believe in it.

I don’t know what the answer is. I would never be rude to anyone or misgender them. I feel desperately sorry for anyone that is dysphoric and I would of course be willing to listen to any suggestions.

But ultimately I think that any erosion of sex based rights and protections is so unjust and so wrong that the only thing we can do is to pay lip service to trans women. We cannot give an inch on this. And I think they will never accept that.

Not sure if this is the correct thread for this but seemed like it might be appropriate since the thread title mentions TWAW. My question is in relation to International Women's Day - has this now been redefined? I thought the whole purpose of celebrating this day was to celebrate women's rights fought for by our ancestors.

In fact, if you look at Wikipedia, it states that it is a day to celebrate "the cultural, political and socioeconomic achievements of women" and to bring attention to "gender inequality, reproductive rights and violence against women".

I am confused as to how social media today has had mentions specifically of TW in posts celebrating International Women's Day (for example, the Boots campaign mentioned on another thread on MN, and just in general on social media). I am confused as to how International Women's Day seems to have now become part of the trans movement when the very definition of what the day is about (see paragraph above) is very much about all the oppression that biological females have experienced in the past and present purely based on their sex? Apologies if this is not the correct thread for this question.

It's colonisation and ridiculous corporate pandering.

It's an interesting and fair point.

Part of it is to do with the piggybacking onto existing movements.

Anything LGBT + nowadays is usually pretty much about the T

Anything to do with women's rights has to centre the T

The utilising of other groups issues- those with DSDs, racism. Taking their arguments and repurposing them.

I for intersex was added to the LGB etc without checking if they wanted that- it's really nothing to do with sexuality at all.

Stonewall recently said they are going to start focusing on race, disability, intersex. There are orgs for these things already. They are not in stonewalls remit.

Trans women have been commonly centred at major us and UK women's events for a while now. And even then you get complaints about 'pussy hats' and that it's all too 'gynocentric' which is exclusionary.

The reason that trans women are centred on these days so often is probably a mix of

Fear of being seen as transphobic
One type of woman being seen as more relevant etc than others (for some mysterious reason)
Probably other stuff

With all the women in the world to choose from vs the numbers of trans women. Even if you're totally on board with it all, the focus is disproportionate.

Probably other stuff

Funding

True

And I think that in corporations etc a lot of stuff is still run by men. As this stuff doesn't affect them past maybe someone changing their name and clothes, it's a really good opportunity to look really progressive without having to actually do anything. The fact that most men don't see tw as women but as men who are having/ have had a tough time means they often empathise as well.

it's a really good opportunity to look really progressive without having to actually do anything

💯

@NiceGerbil

True

And I think that in corporations etc a lot of stuff is still run by men. As this stuff doesn't affect them past maybe someone changing their name and clothes, it's a really good opportunity to look really progressive without having to actually do anything. The fact that most men don't see tw as women but as men who are having/ have had a tough time means they often empathise as well.

I suspect that most men see TW as men having a laugh and encouraging TW is a great way to score brownie points, as you say, without having to actually do anything themselves.