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.

@OnlyTheLangoftheTitBerg

JustSpeculation I don’t see this as a conflict of rights any more. Transpeople have the same rights in law as any other protected minority to ensure they are not discriminated against, and more than some (transphobia is recorded as a hate crime, got example. Misogyny is not). What they don’t have, and shouldn’t have, is the right to colonise single-sex spaces or to make policy on the basis of gender rather than sex. But that seems to be what the majority of those who are actively lobbying are striving for, including the major charity supposedly acting in their interests. They’re not fighting for third spaces, for safe trans-only wings in prisons, or against male violence. They’re trying to get extra privileges, not rights.

Yes, I get that and agree. That's why I used the phrase "rights and interests". Perhaps "conflict over rights" would be a better way of putting it! Or just "conflict".

What's the next step from there OP? How do we arrange society to the satisfaction of both groups? I'm all for third spaces, but third spaces are "transphobic".

I understand the point of difference in our perspectives, really I do!

If you give both viewpoints equal credence, you can start protecting sex based rights. Otherwise it just reverts to where we are now, not getting anywhere because we can't define "woman" to the satisfaction of both sides How would that work?

I agree that gender is a reality, that TWAW if they say they are and...? I have just destroyed any chance I had for keeping male bodied people who say they are women out of single sex spaces because I have said, using their parlance/your parlance/ whatever works for this, all sorts of women are female, even the male ones.

How then do you make sense of the next bit, the overhaul fo legal language, social norms etc. If 'woman' is a social construct that can include male bodied people then how do we ensure that sure that some women cannot access single sex female spaces and, remembering that transmen exist too, and some men are female, meaning some men can access single sex female spaces too?

How do we even beging to talk about it, what language do we use. What words? That would mean transwomen and ciswomen, nonbinarypeople and a whole host of others could, sometimes, but not always, be woman, or is that female? And can, or maybe cannot, be excluded from single sex female spaces in law!

That language upheaval is why so many here just say

"No Fuck that! A woman is a woman, an adult human female. A cohort whole unto herself"

Stuff the nonsensical, self parodying, periphrastic NewSeak!

@QuentinWinters A lot of people hold the view that gender identity exists and is a more useful way of defining people than sex. They have reasons for thinking that.

I don't think they do have reasons, that are articulable and that make sense though. It is why there is no debate, because the subject is not logically arguable. I have never heard an articulate description of gender.

I guess its what someone said upthread. Recognise "woman" as gender and "female" as sex. Keep female protections where it matters (medical care, intimate spaces) but provide legal recourse for discrimination against gender identity in social settings (e.g. make persistent misgendering a crime).
This does require trans women to accept third spaces - but if we start from a position that respects both definitions it should be possible

However my OP was really aimed at new joiners wanting to start from the TWAW position. It just gets us nowhere. I see none of them on here

@Gcnq

I personally don’t mind changing the definition of woman to be a purely social thing that includes males. It means I’m not a woman but that’s fine in so far as it’s just a label

Right, so how does this "just a label" translate in reality?

How do you ringfence anything for women only?
Women's sports
Women's prisons
Women business awards
Women only evening courses
Women's changing rooms

Shall we just rename everything "adult human female sports/changing rooms etc etc" even though Feminists already fought for these things in the first place? Now we have to go back and rename them all?

If you're okay with the word "woman" to be taken by men, you're basically stuck with men using all "women only" spaces and services.

You didn't read my post then?

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.

No. One of these definitions is based on fact, while another is entirely a belief. Woman is a discrete biological category, not a gendered 'soul'.

Recognise "woman" as gender and "female" as sex. Did you engage with anything I wrote?

I'll ask again - HOW!?!? How will that work in practice. From the very first second you say that in law, women are not the only females, not all females are women.

Think it through... Changing the meaning of words that are in constant, global use, is NOT how societal mores evolve.

Enforcing such changes won't work in the real world. See the threads on the HoL and MoJ!

I agree that gender is a reality, that TWAW if they say they are and...? I have just destroyed any chance I had for keeping male bodied people who say they are women out of single sex spaces because I have said, using their parlance/your parlance/ whatever works for this, all sorts of women are female, even the male ones.

Exactly. This is the problem. It's well meaning but naive to think that you can protect sex based rights with this approach.

OK then. What is your answer? Because actually refusing to engage with the TRA position does no good at all.

This does require trans women to accept third spaces - but if we start from a position that respects both definitions it should be possible

I think it's really clear from the testimony of high profile Transwomen that this won't be possible because this is "segregation".

@QuentinWinters

OK then. What is your answer? Because actually refusing to engage with the TRA position does no good at all.

Perhaps TRAs should reconsider their position? Given that the 'TWAW' is nonsense on stilts?

It's possible to engage without legitimising false beliefs.

TWAW does not make sense. What is a woman? What is trans? What are they transitioning from and to? What does a male have to do to become a TW?

You will get different answers on this. Because it isn't coherent. "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" ok, what are they identifying with? What is a woman?

You can engage without agreeing. There has been a lot of that going on. Just getting a debate going is progress.

The Equality Act defines a woman as a female of any age.

It’s objective and measurable. Feelings and identities are not a good basis for policies and law.

@QuentinWinters

OK then. What is your answer? Because actually refusing to engage with the TRA position does no good at all.

No, I don't agree because it's not possible to 'engage' with the TRA position because they will only tolerate complete capitulation to TWAW and all it entails - if you disagree in any way you're 'transphobic'. End of engagement.

“Woman” does not equate to a gender. It is tied to biological reality as much as “female” is. Woman is the equivalent of mare (as opposed to filly), to cow (as opposed to heifer)...it is a factual descriptor of a mature female human, as opposed to the immature form, which is girl.

The gender descriptor that’s relevant here is feminine, not female or woman. I’m happy for men to present in as feminine way as they want. Really, I am. Make it acceptable for men to wear dresses, make up, high heels, pink from head to toe and still be seen as just as much a man as the beer-swilling weightlifter in the football strip. That would be truly progressive.

When you try to use gender as a means of segregation, what it comes back to is how closely or otherwise do you align yourself to the social stereotypes we notionally attach to the sexes. Women as a sex class need spaces away from men as a sex class because we are oppressed on the basis of our biology and our potential reproductive function, not on whether we like skirts and high heels and lipstick or went into nursing rather than engineering.

It’s a hard no from me, and TBH I’m getting pretty fucked off at the idea that it’s yet again up to women to be the reasonable ones and find the answers and do the negotiating and make ourselves uncomfortable. NO. We have a right to define ourselves, we have a right to single sex spaces, we have a right to have some situations free from men. We have a right to our boundaries. There’s a name for men who would transgress women’s boundaries, ignore our “no” and put their penis into places we don’t want it.

For a start women have very little power here
Even if we did have power you will never give enough to the TRA position. I have seen female used to describe transwomen. I have seen it suggested that transwomen should be called women and women cis women, that transwomen have a vagina and women a front hall
If women have something TRAs will want it

Did we ever get the evidence base that "woman" is a social construct?

@QuentinWinters

OK then. What is your answer? Because actually refusing to engage with the TRA position does no good at all.

My answer is that womne, females are what they are and that singe sex spaces are much needed, long fought for and are for women to guide.

I have enough fights to fight, boats to rock for women's rights. I have noo need to engage in anyone elses. BUT I am politically active and so will support anyone in need.

So if transwomen can say clearly what it is they feel they have been deprived of I will listen.

But if they say they have been deprived of being women then there is no conversation to have.

Because of everything that has been said here a squillion times. Transwomen are transwomen. They have the legal right and protections of transwomen, as they should. They have al of the usual human rights too, as they should. What they cannot have is women's rights. Because to do so would harm women - see the many threads, court cases etc

When it comes to harm being done there can be no comprmise and little accommodation.

But I would stand up and be counted if transwomen started to campaign for their own safe spaces, ones where the violence of men cannot reach them.

And before you ask, yes, I have done, and have posted here about it a few times. I am, as I said, politically active in the comunity I live in.

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

They don't. They aren't. My definition of woman is not based on what I prefer, it's based on reality. A woman is an adult human female. It has always meant that. Woman does not mean anything else.
A transwoman is not a woman.

You're right that its a pointless place to start a debate because there is no debate needed. What a woman is is not up for debate. And we are tired of being told it is.
Women as a class exist. Stop trying to erase us.

Oh ffs. I've been posting here for yonkers. Stop being so fighty.

Did we ever get the evidence base that "woman" is a social construct?
Women and men occupy different social positions. Women more often do childcare, wear dresses, are drawn to certain occupations. So there is an observable social difference between "men-as-a-class" and "women-as-a-class".
Some feminists (including me) see this as bollocks stereotypes that shouldn't be used to define people. Others see it as innate differences that point to a "gender identity" and should be used to define people.

I am not in the business of dogmatism and can see how some people could choose to define themselves and others based on social role rather than biology.

Did we ever get the evidence base that "woman" is a social construct? Women and men occupy different social positions. Women more often do childcare, wear dresses, are drawn to certain occupations. So there is an observable social difference between "men-as-a-class" and "women-as-a-class"

All of that is based on their biology, not an unconnected construct. And all of it is also outdated nonsense. Women are not women because they do more childcare or wear dresses. Men can and do both.
Women are women because they are adult human females. The rest comes after that.

Oh ffs. I've been posting here for yonkers. Stop being so fighty.

Nice tone policing there.

And why shouldn’t we be “fighty”? This is the most important fight for our rights mant of us will see in our lifetime. We are angry at not being listened to, at being the ones expected to “be kind” and move over for men (again...) and at being told our womanhood is no more than a feeling. Damned right we’re fighty, and it’s bloody well justified.