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.

Can I identify as a man as a social construct? I’d like that.

It would mean that that other men won’t shout abuse at me if I go out running or cycling. I’ve tried not wearing pink exercise clothes so it’s not that. There must be another way.
(They never shout at my husband when he goes. How do they know not to?)

@Zinco

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...

That was supposed be ironic, but by then I had forgotten how that actually works

I sort of agree, but also not

The situation is so stuck, so infuriating and so painful that I look for any way to try and move on to some other way of tackling it. I also tried the split between 'woman' and 'female' but that was a sandcastle which the advancing tide has long rolled over imo.

The trouble is that this is the issue, and it's the only one. How are women defined in law, public policy and statistics? How are women, children and the vulnerable (definitely including some men and some transwomen there) to be kept reasonably safe and appropriately visible? Nothing else matters at all. It would be a lot more relaxed seeing famous transwomen chunter on in vacuous interviews about their femininity and woman power if the law and single sex provision were secure.

The social definition of women exists imo, and it means women as seen by others. The reality that it's surprisingly difficult to pass 100% - though imo fairly easy to reach the point where the signals are blurred enough to prevent instant clocking - is intolerable and creates such huge anger and pain. Someone in pain is not rational, not able to see past stopping the pain.

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. Yesterday I spent a lot of time posting about the implications of changing tghe meaning og the word woman to include males. The OP didn't respond to that.

I also outlined the difficulty in every day speech, no response. Can I ask you to give that a whirl. Write a sentence or two about a service that is by its very nature for natal women, that clearly outlines which kind of woman you mean... woman, trans, any other variant the world has presented to you! Remember, the idea is that woman means all of them and that adding additional labels is illegal, nasty, trans insults transwomen and cis insults women. You cannot use them in a fair manner.

Now apply that to writing laws!

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. For what it is worth I suspect every poster here agrees that argueing about definitions is pointless. That OP is quite correct in that.

The difference in viewpoint, as I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to be clear about, is that those 'points of commonality' don't really exist and that everone being heard has, until very recently, in law, only been one sided. Which is why so many women now see the issues, and say no!

When the EA2010 is presented correctly by every aorganisation that Stonewall as mis educated, when the words woman and female are presented as only meaning what hey actually mean THEN we can have a discussion that won't have any misunderstandings.

But we know that won't happen because that is what many have been trying to do for years. The only response from "the other side" has been neat little slogans like "Die in a grease fire cis-scum" or real life physical violence.

Asking this here, at this time, when the courst are hearing the MoJ case, after the HoL passed the Maternity Bill back to HoC witha flea in its ear, which the HoC accepted, when MN Towers has given an open Twitter invitation to all who want to stop the GC voice being heard is the most arrogant, tone deaf act of BE NICE I've seen in a while.

And OP wonders why she got the backlash she did.

Read the room, maybe!

For what it is worth I suspect every poster here agrees that argueing about definitions is pointless. That OP is quite correct in that.

As I said, I think it could easily be worth "arguing over definitions" assuming the other side has a weak position and their definition(s) don't make much sense when examined.

Even if you could make some sense of a "woman" as a social construct thing, I'm thinking it has to piggyback on biology; therefore pointing to a biological definition as being a core underlying thing.

It might have had some chance of success even 5 years ago. But the bastardisation of so much that relies on the EA2010 makes that impossible now - in a give an inch and find they've already taken a mile way!

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.
I agree. I had my fill of debating beliefs when I was young and frankly, if the current legislation was being correctly followed and not constantly under threat, then I probably wouldn't be on here.

What I'm not clear about is whether you're saying this too, op?

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. If that wasn't me (I stepped off MN when I got a bit too annoyed) it was exactly the point I was trying to make yesterday.

@merrymouse

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.

Hear, hear.

I don't care if someone calls themselves a woman, a goth, a puppy. I care a lot about the definition in law though.

So, I can go along with TWAW for purely social reasons. Like when my American friend claims to be Irish despite being ineligible for an Irish passport because he's not Irish in any immigration-passing way. I won't mock or deny, I will smile politely while dodging questions about Guinness and the suggestion that he and I are the same (as he misses the fact that I'm from Northern Ireland and that makes feelings of Irishness a highly political topic). But hey, in a bar in New York after work, I channel the Penguins of Madagascar. Smile and wave boys. Fine.

Immigration, no. Law, no.

The thing that came to my mind with the discussion about beliefs, in conjunction with the Scotland hate crime Bill 'consultation' was that I'm minded of 'interfaith focus group' type of committees which can get a real say in decisions at a local level - very nice and ecumenical sounding, but there's no place on them for representatives of people who don't have any supernatural beliefs. DH was allowed to attend one as a humanist observer once, wasn't allowed to speak.

I delurked yesterday to post on the why is cisgender offensive thread. I think it is relevant here...

I object to cis because it is part of the drive to redefine the well-established word "woman" to mean something other than adult human female in law.

On the other thread I posted...

Law in the UK has evolved over hundreds of years using the word woman, which at the time of debating and drafting everyone understood to mean adult human female, a sexed term.

Some people are now trying to reuse the existing word woman to mean a loosely defined group of people that includes some males and most but not all females.

Then they try to enforce all the existing laws, policies and regulations mentioning women as if the revised definition applies, despite that not being the original intent of the laws and regulations referencing women.

This ends up with situations like male rapists being put in women's prisons and male athletes winning medals in women's sporting classifications.

All this could be avoided by sticking with woman always meaning sex, while introducing as many words as you like for genders like transwoman, transman, non-binary, two-spirit, etc. Then we could set about writing deliberately tailored laws for situations where gender matters without unintended consequences for laws where sex matters.

So, if I used the term ciswoman today I would be implicitly agreeing to this push for reclassification. I do not agree. No.

OK I'm a bit calmer today and the thread has got more productive.
floisme that is what I'm saying and also that to get there, I think we need to name and recognise the two viewpoints.

So to use the evolution/creationism analogy, we recognise and respect the two viewpoints of where life came from but are clear in this country one is a belief that should be respected, one is tangible and is taught in schools/written into law.

I think we need to acknowledge a belief based definition exists for some people and they have good reason for that belief.

And then I think we need to assert a biological belief to the same extent.

Instead it just gets into TWAW!

I want the people coming here calling us transphobes to recognise that and engage like that. It may well be impossible but possibly worth saying while there is an influx of newbies

*assert a biological fact to the same extent and have it respected

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.

Completely agree.

I don't think biological facts should be on the same level as pseudoscience. People believe in lots of things. I appreciate your frustration, Quentin, but I don't think it's productive to pretend all viewpoints are equally valid. That's what has brought us to this point.

So to use the evolution/creationism analogy, we recognise and respect the two viewpoints of where life came from but are clear in this country one is a belief that should be respected, one is tangible and is taught in schools/written into law.

Honestly, society doesn't respect both beliefs. When we decide that one belief should inform science, policy and legislation and the other shouldn't, we are judging that belief in creationism has less value and should be tolerated, but not endorsed.

Similarly, when the National Medical Director for NHS England said that Gwyneth Paltrow's Covid advice was "really not the solutions we would recommend", he was not signifying respect, but measured tolerance.

If he needs to explain why the NHS isn't funding infrared saunas, he can only do that by explaining his belief.

I think we need to acknowledge a belief based definition exists for some people and they have good reason for that belief

I think you're still missing the point: we don't agree they have good reason for that belief.

And then I think we need to assert a biological belief to the same extent

Again, missing the point. We're not asserting biological belief, but biological fact.

Why are you continually trying to put both on the same level? What for?

Honestly, society doesn't respect both beliefs. When we decide that one belief should inform science, policy and legislation and the other shouldn't, we are judging that belief in creationism has less value and should be tolerated, but not endorsed.

Similarly, when the National Medical Director for NHS England said that Gwyneth Paltrow's Covid advice was "really not the solutions we would recommend", he was not signifying respect, but measured tolerance.

Yes, exactly!

Why are you continually trying to put both on the same level? What for?
Because I don't think dogmatic, black and white argument helps.
I don't think "them and us" helps either.

Ground is made with measured debate abd facts; we can't even start that when there is a "TWAW, transphobe!" going on.

They are attacking the male / female biological binary too though, because this isn't about trans equality (which they already have)

It's the Queer Theory prime directive; comandeer language, blur meaning, control the narrative, gain power

I think the OP is quite right, ridiculous as it sounds, and even though it is already enshrined in law multiple times, the solution might be to debate and formally define the meaning of man, woman, sex, gender, gender identity.

Of course if they have captured enough people it might end up getting formally redefined in favour of crazy

the solution might be to debate and formally define the meaning of man, woman, sex, gender, gender identity.

This has been tried for years. Trans activists won't debate it, most organisations are captured by queer theory identity politics, and no one non-GC will host the debate because they don't want to piss off activists. And then it is accused of bias.

Because I don't think dogmatic, black and white argument helps

But the basics of it are black and white, that's literally the point here. There is a biological reality that no amount of debate, belief, opinion or arguing can change.

@DontTouchMyHairISwear

Because I don't think dogmatic, black and white argument helps

But the basics of it are black and white, that's literally the point here. There is a biological reality that no amount of debate, belief, opinion or arguing can change.

That's right. And where it isn't black and white - as with 'gender' and 'gender identity' - years of debate have failed to make these terms any clearer.

Of course if they have captured enough people it might end up getting formally redefined in favour of crazy
And that's a very real danger because enough people have been captured.

the solution might be to debate and formally define the meaning of man, woman, sex, gender, gender identity.

There's a perfectly clear meaning for sex. There are perfectly clear meanings for man and woman in terms of it.
Gender role and gender stereotype are pretty clear aren't they?
If people who want to focus on 'gender identity' can't define its meaning that's really not feminists problem.