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.

I’m an not a social construct. That is so offensive to women.

“I’m really focused on the idea that we don’t have to convert everybody to our way of understanding gender,” Nancy Kelley said in her first interview since taking up the position as head of the UK’s leading gay rights charity.
This is the nub of the problem. Its like religions that try to obliterate any alternative beliefs rather than seeking a compromise in the public space. There will always be conflict while transactivists continue to demand that there beliefs and rights should take precedence over all others.

But you can still make a coherent argument that trans women are women in a sense limited to social aspects
Yes. This is what I meant.
The whole debate reminds me very much of listening to atheists and Christians argue about the existence of God. Fruitless and neither side will change their mind based on the argument of the other.

where that can be accommodated comfortably by both sides and build out from there.
I meant, treating trans women as women in social situations (work, respecting pronouns etc) can be comfortably accommodated by both sides.
Jumping straight to Trans women are women so you can't ask for a female to do your smear, transphobe! Is never going to work for people that believe "woman" is biological.
Saying "I should not have to call you "she" as you are male" is equally never going to be acceptable to people who believe a woman is a social construct.

My issue is I actually think we have done most of the accommodating, maybe the time has come for the red lines to be drawn to protect the rights of people who believe gender is based on biology, as well as those who believe gender is based on social perceptions

Perfectly put BlackWaveComing

I’m not a social construct. That is so offensive to women.

That's it in a nutshell.

Why is OP asking women to accommodate men?
Why isn’t males, however they identify, being accommodated by, want to be accommodated by men or asking men to do the accommodation?

The only reasonable answer I can see is misogyny, pure misogyny, they are demanding/ want women to give up their rights and do the accommodating, in the guise of victimhood, trans rights, hurts feels, gender etc..

I’m not a social construct. That is so offensive to women.
I'm with you, but essentially that's the same type of argument as "you are reducing me to my genitals"
Thats why its not worth trying to agree

The whole debate reminds me very much of listening to atheists and Christians argue about the existence of God. Fruitless and neither side will change their mind based on the argument of the other.

Massive difference... women tangibly, irrefutably exist.

My biological reality is not a social construct.

I also don't believe that gender is based on biology. I don't believe in gender full stop. I am a woman because I am biologically female, and that biology does not mean anything at all about how I present myself to the world or what job I do or who my friends are or how I dress, except where repressive forces in society enforce gender stereotypes.

Gender is oppressive.

But the problem seems to me, @QuentinWinters, to be that in TRA eyes looking on "woman" (and I mean the concept, not the actual people) as a social construct means that you can't look on women (and I mean the people, not the concept) as being anything else. So the gender critical position that women have the right to organise as a sex class to fight for their rights as a sex class becomes impossible. And, well, a "transphobic narrative". So how to we get past this?

Massive difference... women tangibly, irrefutably exist.
Good point. Female humans exist.

Womanly gender identity - I'm on the atheist side of the fence there. I don't think there is such a thing but the other side think there is and its fundamental to their existence and sense of themselves. Like a divine figure to a religious person.

So how to we get past this?
I suppose by not getting drawn in to defending our entirely reasonable position and by asserting our own needs. We believe women are adult human females. We want our sex based rights as females to be protected. Just that. Not getting drawn in to the definition of woman as a fundamental starting point.

Anyway now I'm arguing with myself.
I can't believe feminism as a movement has been so totally derailed by this

I miss talking about other issues that affect women on this board

There is no concession that you can give TRAs that would satisfy them.

I once suggested that we just give up on the word "woman" and keep female. It was pointed out that they'd just come for female next.

Which of course is exactly what has happened.

@QuentinWinters

I miss talking about other issues that affect women on this board

Same. I filled in a government consultation on violence against women and girls. I had to waste so much time reminding them of why single sex services and spaces are paramount. They are already enshrined in law ffs. I shouldn't have had to do that!

Once upon a time I had other ideas regarding tackling male violence, but I feel as though I've had to put that aside to fight a fire which is about to engulf us all.

@QuentinWinters

I miss talking about other issues that affect women on this board

We really shouldn't have to talk about this so much, but it's because of the annexation of 'woman' that we have to fight to protect rights we previously took as a given. Like males in the female prison estate.

Surely a social construct is something most if not all people agree with. And I am quite sure TWAW does not fall in the category. So TWAW is a belief not a fact, so yes I agree its as pointless as arguing with a Christian over whether god exists.

We don't need to debate this. They do.
It's semantic angels dancing on the head of a pin.

All that happens with so called debate is "meet me half way said the unreasonable man." and look where that gets us...

Women didn't choose this situation, it was thrust upon them.

I'm not an activist I'm a re-activist, reacting to an all out assault on the rights of the sex class that is female and I will not stop defending those rights no matter what conclusions the semantic angel dancing throws up.

So I'm not interested in that particular debate, I'm only interested in defending our rights as is already set down in equality legislation.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/penny-mordaunt-is-wrong-to-repeat-the-trans-allies-mantra

I didn’t know where to post the above article and not sure if it’s been posted before!

You've heard people saying ''no debate'' so your first mistake is to assume that what is happening is a debate.

We don't need to debate this. They do.

It's semantic angels dancing on the head of a pin.

All that happens with so called debate is "meet me half way said the unreasonable man." and look where that gets us..

Women didn't choose this situation, it was thrust upon them.

I'm not an activist I'm a re-activist, reacting to an all out assault on the rights of the sex class that is female and I will not stop defending those rights no matter what conclusions the semantic angel dancing throws up.

So I'm not interested in that particular debate, I'm only interested in defending our rights as is already set down in equality legislation.

Yes, I completely agree with you.

Totally disagree with you. The idea that "identifying" as a thing can make you that thing is circular and incoherent. There's no evidence base for it, there couldn't be as it is totally illogical.

And this is the heart of the debate. Discussions about policy go nowhere and just end up with everyone just shouting past each other if one side thinks that you can define sex in terms of these weird circular souls. Once you have accepted that, the rest just follows - of course anyone who has the special woman soul should be treated as a woman.