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.

When I was young, I struggled massively with the fact that there were beautiful advertising campaigns for cigarettes. This, despite the fact that we were also told "don't do it, it will kill you, and take all your money etc"

I listened to the advertising. In the end I managed to quit despite and not because of public health support. It was really hard.

In 2007 advertising, indoor smoking, and public display of tobacco was banned. This was in response to groups lobbying for the truth, that actually supported people's health, against rich and powerful corporates. Our kids are now a bit safer for it. (Granted, there is now the vape market).

But do you see the point I am making? There is a policy that is best for everyone, if we uphold the obvious and truthful. It is not an easy road, but it is worth it, in the interests of the many.

Believing that your body needs changing by linguistic camoflage or by big pharma is in the interest of none of us. I am fully in support of all people living the life they want, if it doesn't conflict the boundaries, rights and needs of others.

That's a great analogy SomethingWitchy. I have my own:

Definition of "Cat":

Felis Catus
Pekingese dog because they like to sit on laps
Rabbits who use a litter tray in the house

This is what is going on.

@SomethingWitchy

I think Eresh has it.

Regardless, although the English language can bear having a single word that can mean different things in different contexts, you'd better make it damn clear which one you mean at any given time.

If you tell me someone's outside with a bat looking menacing, I'll need more information before knowing whether to call the police or the RSPCA. If you're looking for a row, I'd be grateful to understand whether we need to find a spreadsheet or a river (or - if you've told me in writing - whether I need to avoid you for a bit until you've calmed down).

I don't think there's an honest to goodness push to use the same word to mean different things, in this context. I think the hope is that, by virtue of using the same word, nobody will notice or mind whether you're playing cricket with a hunk of wood or a small, blind animal.

Living your work here!

Loving!

@SomethingWitchy and @Ereshkigalangcleg agreed with both - gotta love a rabbit that uses a litter tray though :)

@merrymouse

Loving!

I re-read - very good

@JoodyBlue

When I was young, I struggled massively with the fact that there were beautiful advertising campaigns for cigarettes. This, despite the fact that we were also told "don't do it, it will kill you, and take all your money etc"

I listened to the advertising. In the end I managed to quit despite and not because of public health support. It was really hard.

In 2007 advertising, indoor smoking, and public display of tobacco was banned. This was in response to groups lobbying for the truth, that actually supported people's health, against rich and powerful corporates. Our kids are now a bit safer for it. (Granted, there is now the vape market).

But do you see the point I am making? There is a policy that is best for everyone, if we uphold the obvious and truthful. It is not an easy road, but it is worth it, in the interests of the many.

Believing that your body needs changing by linguistic camoflage or by big pharma is in the interest of none of us. I am fully in support of all people living the life they want, if it doesn't conflict the boundaries, rights and needs of others.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that.

But very often in politics what we see is not one side winning out entirely, but a creation of a compromise, a middle way, even the emergence of a consensus.

In some ways I think this issue is not especially easy to deal with in that way compared to some others, but I don't think that the OP is wrong that it is always a good idea to look for these points where it might be possible to build a consensus or move forward while leaving issues that can't be resolved aside.

Personally I think that at moment the best strategy is to wait and try and hold off changes, as I think more and more the science is weighing in against gender ideology.

@SmokedDuck - a lot of people suffered un-necessarily through the legal promotion of untruth. Those on the front line maybe don't feel like waiting.

But very often in politics what we see is not one side winning out entirely, but a creation of a compromise, a middle way, even the emergence of a consensus.

But to do that you have to at least agree that there are two sides.

‘TWAW’ explicitly denies that.

I think people are hoping that trans lobby groups are suddenly going to turn reasonable and concede that female single sex spaces are a reasonable accommodation. The problem is that this is not about what is reasonable for many trans activists. It's absolutely about power. And no compromise or concession will ever be enough.

It is absolutely about power. Power over those who disagree. Equally power over those agree and are not permitted by the "community" to not hold the line.

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

Who in the real world uses this definition apart from genderist academics and sexist lobbyists?

Ask everyone you know, colleagues friends, family, neighbours, the man on the Clapham omnibus.... They won't say women are a social construct based on social identity. 🙄 They will say (in various terms) a woman a person of the female half of the human race.

OP, what do you think women have in common with trans women in the work place?
Nothing at all.
I think recognising "woman" in terms of gender identity in the workplace is far less impactful.

I'm also not suggesting the definition of woman is changed or expanded - I'm suggesting we recognise there are two definitions of "woman" in place and tailor the provisions accordingly.

Sadly I think the ship has sailed for saying trans women aren't women. There is too much socially and politically at stake for that. But we can fight to have female sex based rights protected without arguing about whether or not TWAW.

I just can't see another way out of this. I'm not trying to be offensive or erase women - I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Ask everyone you know, colleagues friends, family, neighbours, the man on the Clapham omnibus.... They won't say women are a social construct based on social identity. 🙄 They will say (in various terms) a woman a person of the female half of the human race.

Similarly if I ask most people of my acquaintance if trans women should be treated the same as women they agree and think I'm transphobic for thinking differently. So there is also contradiction and cognitive dissonance for most people, they recognise TW and females are distinct but also think its fair to treat them equally in social situations

I do get what you are saying :) @Quentin and I understand it and you are making articulate arguments. However, I don't think we can. Children are at risk. Women are at risk. Saying the ship has sailed is giving in. For a long time I didn't want to stand up for this, I badly want to bury my head. But we can't ...... people will suffer too much if we do.

equally doesn't have to mean the same

believe gender is based on biology, as well as those who believe gender is based on social perceptions

Can I ask what you mean by gender here? Most people in the real world barely say the word except when they don't want to say s.e.x. and think of sex as "having sex" "no sex please we're British" etc.
General day to day conversations even on Mumsnet don't talk in social sciences language. That is for the over privileged who are disconnected from the actual issues women suffer.
Clarity is essential.

Eresh Thank you for the education (I'm on a learning journey, etc...)! The next time somebody tells me about their pet cat, I will be sure not to assume its species!

Just catching up.

I would repeat that, I am sure, every human language in the world has words for woman, man, boy, girl, baby, mother. Along with food, shelter etc.

These are the utter basics in human existence.

They are based on sex. They just are. In history and in some parts of the world people wear fewer clothes. We are just upright monkeys. Or course we know what man woman girl boy are. The idea that these words have never had clear meanings is nonsense.

The social aspect comes in enforced roles. Women are supposed to do these. Jobs. Wear these clothes. In different cultures boys and girls become men and women at different ages.

That does not mean the words are woolly and have no value.

While reading though it suddenly occurred to me who WOULD be likely to see woman as a social role. And that is men (namalt obv). all the men in the world who see women and girls as not full people, just 2D 'types'. Sexy schoolgirl. Aggressive feminist. Sex kitten. MILF. Cock tease. Etc etc.

And also who uses 'woman' as a social role in many circs. Usually derogatory. And linked to homophobia as well. Girly throw. Crying like a girl. Gossiping like old women. That shirt's a bit feminine. Camp even, is linked to both homophobia and misogyny. All the stuff about sex. Being penetrated = being weak. So many jokes and swear words associated with that.

So who sees 'woman, girl' as no more than a set of stereotypes, a role, nothing more.

Men, that's who.

That's been an enlightening realisation for me.

Women and girls don't see ourselves that way. Of course we don't. We know we're people. We know we're whole people with personalities, wants, dreams, frustrations and difficulties. Any many of us all over the world see the social role ascribed to us. In fact it's explicit through history, around the world and in religions. The role of women is not a secret. It varies around the place of course but it's always there. Same as the role of men.

Of course men are seen as whole people generally. Unless they are in a minority group and then they too can become 2D stereotypes in the eyes of the majority males (and often the majority females as well). Racism, homophobia, antisemitism etc.

So yes. Woman/ girl is nothing more than a social role to a lot of MEN.

Unfortunately women aren't quite ready to cede that. To really become cookie cutter opt in nothings.

And I'll say again that woman, man, boy, girl. There have been words for these things everywhere forever. There's no question on that surely.

It's not about defining this that. These words existed before dictionaries etc were even an idea.

The idea that we need no words for the cunty half of the human race is preposterous.

And yet here we are.

they recognise TW and females are distinct but also think its fair to treat them equally in social situations

I dont know what that means. Surely is fair that we treat everyone equally in social situations, male and female young and old, all ethnicities and physical abilities.

Do you think people ever treat TW and women the same as if there is absolutely no difference, is that what you meant by equally? Are you talking about saying "she" when see someone that is male but we guess from their clothing that they would prefer "she" or even may kick off if we don't say "she"? What kind of social situations? Parties and friendship groups or society generally?

I'm struggling here. Maybe am just being stupid. I think I need some real world examples as how this theory works in practice. The only times I can think of when should be treated the same is when we are treating all humans the same. Can't think of any specific time to treat the same when the word Woman would be relevant.

When and where is it ever fair , practical or legitimate to use "woman=social construct" ?
Unless you mean pronouns I'm drawing a total blank.

The idea that we need no words for the cunty half of the human race is preposterous.
We definitely need words for the cunty half! The problem is we have lost "women" in the eyes of many.

gerbil That's a brilliant post

Similarly if I ask most people of my acquaintance if trans women should be treated the same as women they agree and think I'm transphobic for thinking differently.

So your friends are in the 3% that think rapists should be placed in women's prisons if claim to have a woman-identity? If you look at the AIBU thread that is the view of a tiny minority. Perhaps that is a question you could ask them, not a vague thing about social identity. That's why I prefer straight talking, real world examples in plain English using definitions we all understand.

PS "woman" for identity and "female" for biology is not acceptable to those you imagine can find a middle ground with. Lots of very well known characters including cyclists and politicians say they are both biologically and legally female because of hormone treatment and GRCs.

The problem is we have lost "women" in the eyes of many.

Not in the eyes of the majority. It's important to remember that.

So your friends are in the 3% that think rapists should be placed in women's prisons if claim to have a woman-identity?
No. I think most people get major cognitive dissonance and go #bekind, what harm does it do to use pronouns and names. Most people are deeply uncomfortable when pressed as to whether they see TW as women.
But yes I guess maybe my social group and work group are unusual

'We definitely need words for the cunty half! The problem is we have lost "women" in the eyes of many.'

This is not true. Even the BBC, guardian etc use women and girls to mean sex through most of their stories. They only go with menstruators etc when it's things to do with women's rights or trans issues, which most people don't read.

The large charities that use the new language in some situations still use women, girls etc meaning sex when raising money for initiatives overseas.

There seems to be this weird double speak where sometimes women means identity and sometimes it means sex. And they expect people to know from the context which it is.

And on the whole the activities leave it alone. You don't get complaints about using girls/ women on the BBC or in the guardian when it's about some girls being kidnapped from a school or similar.

So in a way it's only certain times, topics, situations where it means gender and some where it means sex and the trans activists seem ok with that which is interesting.

Plus of course 99.99 % of the world use man woman etc to mean what they always meant.

So no it's not lost at all.