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.

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

Was that to me?

Sorry babe, I have spent much of my working life fighting inequality!

From food banks to social and health care. That's part of what I do to earn a living!

I know that. I don't appreciate being patronised when I've posted on this board since before it got over run by trans threads. I didn't start the thread to argue that woman is a social construct. I started it to say that I can see why people might have that view and trying to tell them they are wrong doesn't move us forward
Anyway. I think I've neatly proved my own point so I'm out now.

started it to say that I can see why people might have that view and trying to tell them they are wrong doesn't move us forward

Well we're not going to start telling them they are right, are we?

I know we're in a post truth world but somethings just ARE. Opinions are not substitutes for facts. Someones feelings on a fact don't matter. The things just IS however you feel about it.

No it wasn't you curious. It was this: Women as a class exist. Stop trying to erase us.
I have been fighting this fight a long time. I get called a transphobe by my children and friends because I stand up for women's rights. I get called a militant feminist at work because I stand up for women's rights. This board used to be my place to get support. Then I come on and post something that isn't even about my personal views and get battered for it, and told I don't understand and am part of the problem.
Fuck that.

Then I come on and post something that isn't even about my personal views and get battered for it, and told I don't understand and am part of the problem

Probably best not to write posts that make it look like they are your personal views then?
You said the viewpoint was valid. It isn't. If you really have been fighting this fight a long time, you seem to have lost sight of which side you are fighting for, because your post reads very much like you are on the wrong one.

OP, whether playing devil’s advocate or not, your posts read as if you give credence to the viewpoint that woman can be a purely social construct.

If you’ve been on these boards for as long as you say - and I have no reason to doubt you - and you can’t understand why some of us are so pissed off at yet again being asked to engage with something not only untrue but to our own detriment, then perhaps you’ve been reading the wrong threads.

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure that can ever completely work...

We need a word to distinguish our sex class. It used to be women, it used to be female; but the fact the word woman was described as 'problematic' to be used in the MOMA bill last week - means we do not currently have such a word legally.

I dont know how to solve this without addressing transwomen are / are not women. Unless we make a new word.

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 think that ship has sailed. I was maybe willing to concede that woman as a word could be used by some people as a way of describing a social construct but then they came for female too, and for woman being used (correctly) to describe a sex. I think there is room for compromise but only if the importance and existence of sex is recognised.

I think that ship has sailed.

I agree.

@OnlyTheLangoftheTitBerg

OP, whether playing devil’s advocate or not, your posts read as if you give credence to the viewpoint that woman can be a purely social construct.

If you’ve been on these boards for as long as you say - and I have no reason to doubt you - and you can’t understand why some of us are so pissed off at yet again being asked to engage with something not only untrue but to our own detriment, then perhaps you’ve been reading the wrong threads.

Quite

@SabrinaMorningstar

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.

Well said

I totally agree with some of what you are saying OP. There is no point in a GC person and a TWAW person endlessly arguing over the definition of woman. Neither is going to suddenly change their mind.

I think discussing the practicalities is a much better way of having a useful discussion. E.g. explaining to someone why you think it's a bad idea for male-bodied people to be in women's prisons, or for teenagers to be given puberty blockers, seems much more fruitful then arguing esoteric points about gender identity.

I've only been brave enough once to discuss this on social media but I ended up briefly discussing it with some friends who were dissing JKR. I said I supported trans people but shared some of her concerns which were xyz. One of them responded with TWAW and I just ignored that because a) I didn't want to get into a philosophical discussion of yes they are, no they're not, and b) it's very emotive and I thought they'd all just think I was a bigot and therefore be less likely to listen to what I was saying (in the end, none of us changed our view, but none of us fell out over it either!).

Disclaimer: I guess this only applies when discussing it with reasonable people who happen to disagree on this issue. Discussing anything with militant TRAs is probably entirely pointless!

If we want to have a debate about a true intersection of trans rights and feminism, then how about we don't start with transwomen at all? Wouldn't it be more productive to engage with transmen? A very nice, sensible transman showed up on one of today's threads - I think the 'is MN friendly to trans people' one - and I hope found it was.

I think the difficulty here OP is it's not just about the word woman.

It's about being able to access all the stuff that is or should be just for women.

And say women say ok you can have that.

What is the new word to mean all the cunty people in the world? Because we definitely need one.

Not women of course. And girl goes as well.

Female? That has been claimed by some trans people. As have biologically female and female at birth.

Any new word for us would be attacked as well, as exclusionary.

As for cis. Well obviously it's not good but even then it excludes many females and some trans people claim that as well.

Also I'm pretty sure all languages in the world have words for woman, girl. It means female, adult or child. Man and woman are surely some of the first words that any language would have. Along with child, food etc.

It can't just be changed because a group want it to. It's an utterly basic concept in language.

@QuentinWinters

No it wasn't you curious. It was this: Women as a class exist. Stop trying to erase us. I have been fighting this fight a long time. I get called a transphobe by my children and friends because I stand up for women's rights. I get called a militant feminist at work because I stand up for women's rights. This board used to be my place to get support. Then I come on and post something that isn't even about my personal views and get battered for it, and told I don't understand and am part of the problem. Fuck that.

Yeah, unfortunately sometimes it's impossible to have a worthwhile conversation about ideas on here, even important ones, because there is no willingness to think through the implications.

For what it's worth, you are right that definitional arguments can often be unproductive. And in terms of a larger social debate where we have to make social policy, where everyone is allowed to be heard, sometimes the best way forward is to find points of commonality.

I'm not sure how fruitful an approach that might be with this issue, mainly because I don't know if there are any. But I would tend to think that two things biological females wold need to assert are a) that there is a category of reproductive role that needs to have language to describe it and b) the law and policy in the past has often used the word woman to refer to a particular reproductive role and any change in use of the word would have to take that into account.

I'm not sure that personally though I would ever be willing to accommodate a change in the usage.

There is no point in a GC person and a TWAW person endlessly arguing over the definition of woman. Neither is going to suddenly change their mind.

But that isn't why you debate stuff. You don't debate to necessarily convert your debate opponents. (Of course people do sometimes switch positions; it's always possible.)

As a matter of tactics, maybe it's better to focus on concrete issues like prisons etc.

But it depends. How good a case is there when it comes to definitions? If the opponents can't sensibly even define "woman"; if their definition(s) are nonsensical when examined, compared to a much more "common sense" definition on the GC side, why shouldn't you push that issue hard? It may be just as persuasive to some people as talking about biological males in female prisons.

If this was a case where, well, it's subjective, and either way of looking at women is equally valid, then sure you probably don't push the issue. If you have the stronger case, however, then you can (perhaps should) focus on the definition of woman. Maybe don't concede ground if you don't have to.

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

This isn’t true though.

Social constructs are created and enforced by society regardless of how an individual identifies.

There is no point arguing over the existence of a belief. What is being discussed is how much the existence of that belief should influence policy and laws.

That is a fundamental and unavoidable part of living in a society with human rights/equalities legislation.

I’d also argue that we don’t give all forms of belief and opinion (scientific, ethical, spiritual, political) equal value, and choices and evaluations must be made to make policy. This requires discussion and debate.

@QuentinWinters

It’s more like evolutionists arguing with creationists. One has science and tangible evidence behind their position. The other has only belief in something that can never be proven. Yes. Totally fruitless and anger inducing argument

We had the argument long ago and now ignore creationism in policy and law.

*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?*

I think @NecessaryScene1 has expressed it well.

It's not about the definition for it's own sake. I've got no problem with people believing that "woman" is an internal feeling. But I still need to be able to talk about, be counted as part of, and organise as my sex class.

Maybe we should be calling it 'penis privilege?' I am white, I didn't ask to be born white but I am and I accept this gives me white privilege. If you are born with a penis, you have privilege. You didn't ask to have it, you may not want it, but it cannot be denied. Everyone should be treated with respect regardless of who they are and how they identify, but no one should demand respect if they are not prepared to give it to others.

Social constructs are created and enforced by society regardless of how an individual identifies.

Exactly so.

And in the case of women, the major constructs are created entirely on the basis of our biology. Whole societies can be based on controlling women and their fertility - it's often not as obvious as it should be because it kept them home and out of the history books. Women have only recently (in historical terms) started to acquire democratic rights and basic equalities. The 'social construct' was that 'women' should be powerless, and who was a 'woman' was based 100% on biology.
Statement such as '"Women" is a social construct and so a woman is defined on the basis of how she socially identifies.' are ridiculously ignorant drivel.