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.

Which word means both cunty women and transmen?

Women. Girls.

Their sex is female. Non binary and trans men in many countries will have no way of coming out. Many won't even know it exists as a concept.

They will be subject to the same oppressions etc as all the other women and girls around them.

They will be aborted before birth (presumably before they have any concept of self at all but their sex is known), banished to menstrual huts, blamed if they are raped, made to cover up, denied an education etc etc etc same as all the other women and girls.

To filter them out- how? You need to ask to know someone's identity. And they need to know what you mean!

The whole vagina owners/ menstruators stuff is so demeaning and reduces us to our parts.

Vagina owners in X country face imprisonment for rape?

Menstruators in y county are denied an education?

It's awful. Which is why nobody does it.

Similarly. Eg. A group of girls, non binary people with vaginas and trans men were kidnapped from a school in z country. But girls includes trans boys so. A group of vagina owners were kidnapped? I mean how do you say it? And doesn't it distract from the message?

Trans people have words and descriptions and stats. When it comes to the census or being victims of crime, rightly they want to understand the proportions. In those cases trans men /trans women are used. They are clear. Those stats are important.

So are the stats about female people globally. Women and girls.

Most people are deeply uncomfortable when pressed as to whether they see TW as women.

That's because they don't really believe it. But imagine what happens when you show that,

[quote JoodyBlue]@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.[/quote]
Yes, however if decisions about significant legal changes are made now, they may be less favourable than they would be two years from now.

I don't really understand this idea that because people don't feel like waiting, waiting or not won't affect the outcome.

There is a certain amount of weighing up probabilities, and immediate advantages and disadvantages of waiting, but not wanting to wait doesn't alter the probabilities in your favour.

Sorry not caught up. Which legislation are you referring to smokedduck?

@NiceGerbil

Sorry not caught up. Which legislation are you referring to smokedduck?

Any.

My comment was, a bit of an aside actually, but it followed on something I said with regards to how compromise or identifying areas of agreement can work in policy development when there is significant lack of agreement.

But in terms of gender ideology and the various surrounding controversies, I think that there is a lot of research coming down the tube, and also I would add in the near future more will be known about results of child transitions and such, and public awareness is increasing.

So as far as public policy on trans issues, I strongly suspect that a year or so from now women are likely to be in a much stronger position to make their case around many of the relevant questions with safe spaces, protections under the law, and medical issues.

So from a strategic POV I think there could be significant dividends from putting off. Of course people don't want to wait and there might be disadvantages. But it's worth considering that ever bit of new evidence seems to strengthen women's position on this.

Women shouldn't need research to prove what everyone knows.

Putting males into female stuff will be detrimental to females. It's a no brainer.

The trans side should be waiting for evidence to back up their case before all women's rights are torn up. (Although most are already gone in the eyes of our government etc).

If we say yeah ok let's open up the prisons, go with self ID, etc etc. Then rolling it back will be loads harder.

And what evidence will it be? More women attacked in prison. Women's toilets all relabelled for anyone. Women's sports screwed.

And more time to get laws in to stop us talking about it all.

I can't see how that's beneficial at all.

I agree with NiceGerbil that we can’t put this off. We’re being told with sports that this has ‘been in place for years and not caused any problems’

Being too polite/nice/scared/confused/unaware/unaffected isn’t the same as no problems

Sorry @SmokedDuck but that interested me!

But in terms of gender ideology and the various surrounding controversies, I think that there is a lot of research coming down the tube, and also I would add in the near future more will be known about results of child transitions and such, and public awareness is increasing. Research that has been for some part unecessary as the end results were always known - cross hormone therapy is not safe. And many children have been sacrificed on the alter of "acceptance without question".

So as far as public policy on trans issues, I strongly suspect that a year or so from now women are likely to be in a much stronger position to make their case around many of the relevant questions with safe spaces, protections under the law, and medical issues. And that's the bit that REALLY HURTS. Women have to wait for common sense to reasseert itself. In the meantime, sod it, it doesn't really matter how many are physically hurt, denied safe spaces etc. We just have to play nice, be patient and wait for the patriarchy to play its benevolent card!

So from a strategic POV I think there could be significant dividends from putting off. Of course people don't want to wait and there might be disadvantages. But it's worth considering that ever bit of new evidence seems to strengthen women's position on this Again, that is infuriating. Nothing has changed. Women are still women. The ideology behind all of this is utterly insane, has no internal logic whatsoever. Yet here we are, women as collateral damage whilst some loud and angry men decide to play silly buggers with logic!

Women have been nice, waited, watched in disbelief as the core of their reality has been bastardised. And yet it is the common cry of trans activists that it is they who are being erased, their identity made invalid. And the world turns on... nothing to see here.

NOW is the time to make most noise. We have a a slow rumble starting, HoL and the MoJ case cannot be left as oases of common sense in law!

Interesting thread, and I know you’ve been around for donkeys years, quentin, so I think people were a wee bit quick to assume nefarious intent from you. It has been a bit fraught here this week, though.

I think where this approach fails for me, as well as all the reasons highlighted above is that it presupposes that everyone who says “TWAW!” actually means it and truly believes it, and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case at all.

The point for some isn’t to embed the idea that there is a social category of women which born males can enter with an identity pass. It’s to destabilise the idea of there being fixed categories at all. Identities become like masks to be adopted and dropped at will, depending on the leverage required. It’s at the heart of critical theory- the point is the deconstruction and the liberation, but you can only deconstruct things that have been constructed in the first place. So innate, fixed characteristics are out. It’s why you see the silliness of “sex is a social construct”.

It’s why people can with a straight face tell you the word “woman” includes women and transwomen in one breath, because we’re exactly the same, and then in the next breath tell you about how transwomen are more vulnerable, more put upon, have more needs and require to be treated separately from women to address these needs. We’re all girls together, until we’re not. It’s a room of requirement - it conjures whatever you need it to at the time.

We’re not talking about the same things, we’re not looking to achieve the same ends, so much as I would want to find a centre ground, it won’t happen. I do agree that it’s pointless to get into the weeds over the definition of woman, other than basically stating your position.

I think where this approach fails for me, as well as all the reasons highlighted above is that it presupposes that everyone who says “TWAW!” actually means it and truly believes it, and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case at all.

This, as I also said upthread. To me the more extremist male trans activists are trying to claim the word "woman" for themselves and push women into a third category. The well-meaning of their allies (and they aren't all well-meaning, by any means) enable it because they will go along with whatever they say, and trans people are more oppressed and women will just learn to deal with it and suck it up as they do everything else, often like their own mum did.

Very few of these people actually truly believe that TWAW in the same way that female people are, but they don't think that's the point. They want to deconstruct the category of "woman" for various reasons, as you say. The category of "man" though, is more or less left alone.

I think where this approach fails for me, as well as all the reasons highlighted above is that it presupposes that everyone who says “TWAW!” actually means it and truly believes it, and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case at all. Yes! That's what I have been trying to say!

Nobody really believes it and using it to make women a new category of woman has inherent dangers, as much discussed. It cannot be the compromise for all sorts of reasons, starting but not ending with making an instant mockery of many laws! We're seeing enough of that without a legal change!

And yes... what about the equally social construct of man?!?!

Yep, that the category of man is left alone proves that they don’t really mean it or believe it. Feminism nailed this decades ago- man as default, women as “other”, to be defined.

I think that This shifting and blurring of boundaries is also something that appeals particularly to those with a weak, shifting or developing sense of self. Our Twitter loving guest this week was a prime example of that, if you checked the blog as we were encouraged to do. And it’s why middle aged women, firmly rooted in ourselves, with stable, well articulated senses of self are the prime opponents. And it’s why the ire is directed here.

I find all of this fascinating.

I think that This shifting and blurring of boundaries is also something that appeals particularly to those with a weak, shifting or developing sense of self. Our Twitter loving guest this week was a prime example of that, if you checked the blog as we were encouraged to do. And it’s why middle aged women, firmly rooted in ourselves, with stable, well articulated senses of self are the prime opponents. And it’s why the ire is directed here.

Yes, I agree. I won't name other activists, but I could.

it conjures whatever you need it to at the time.

So true. ‘Trans’ is both “people who cross the conventional boundaries of gender,” and not transsexuals which is a dated term, but also for scientific research purposes a very specific group of people who seem to be transsexuals.

Lack of gender denotes trans status, but only if you agree that everyone else has a gender. Suggestion that gender is simply a social construct implies identification with a gender assigned at birth.

There is no way to discuss prisons, sport, data collection etc without pointing out the flawed premise of the arguments made by Stonewall et al.

And this shifting definition means you can never ever pin it down to who is actually being talked about, and people will just fall back on the mantra.

@QuentinWinters

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

Sorry to go back a couple of pages. I think, op that I can see what you're saying now but still disagree over this approach.

Most people I know who have beliefs recognise the difference between faith and fact. They understand the fact based viewpoint and they acknowledge that their faith isn't entirely grounded in science and rationality - indeed they tell me I would have to take a leap of faith in order to accept it.

With the sex and gender debate, I think faith and fact have become intertwined. Faith has become fact and facts have become opinions. I don't see how productive engagement can be possible until they are separated and acknowledged (at the very least by our legislators) as two very different issues. That won't happen without an almighty struggle but - much as like a pragmatic approach - I don't think we can avoid it.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

And this shifting definition means you can never ever pin it down to who is actually being talked about, and people will just fall back on the mantra.

Yes! I've said a couple of times that whenever you try and construct a meaningful sentence understanding both social and biological meanings of 'woman' you end up with gobbledygook. And that,as we have seen too often, brings it own dangers.

@merrymouse

it conjures whatever you need it to at the time.

So true. ‘Trans’ is both “people who cross the conventional boundaries of gender,” and not transsexuals which is a dated term, but also for scientific research purposes a very specific group of people who seem to be transsexuals.

Lack of gender denotes trans status, but only if you agree that everyone else has a gender. Suggestion that gender is simply a social construct implies identification with a gender assigned at birth.

There is no way to discuss prisons, sport, data collection etc without pointing out the flawed premise of the arguments made by Stonewall et al.

Exactly. So you tell the story of someone with dysphoria, which most people will be moved by- most humans are compassionate and are distressed by other people’s suffering. Then you’re told what you can do to help alleviate this, and for many people, that will be something they’ll willingly do.

But then, in the application, it doesn’t just apply to people with dysphoria, the sleight of hand happens, and the application is based on identity. So accommodations for transsexuals have to be applied to part time cross dressers. The category has served its function and should be discarded.

Now, if someone asserts that TWAW or a biological male tells me they are a woman, I shall respond along the lines of

"I recognise your belief but do not share it. I will respect it to the extent that you respect my belief that TWATW which is different from me in that IAAW."

@QuentinWinters

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

Maybe your friends are particularly unusual but is more likely that you are not asking revealing questions. I'm sure you would be horrified if the were among the sadistic 3% on the AIBU thread and would trade them in immediately.

Real world examples and clear language are important. Don't ask them if would sometimes consider TW as women when woman is considered as a social identity. No one knows what that means even after 8 pages of discussion and clarification.

Ask them whether women should be forced to go to court to be protected from being imprisoned with intact rapists. If they say yes then you urgently need new acquaintances. If they are shilly shallying about the answer, tell them 97% say no. When there is less peer pressure and safety in numbers hopefully they can get over their cognitive dissonance and agree the emperor is naked.

wanderin why do you think I get called a transphobe? I do discuss it but most people don't want to because they get stressed out by the cognitive dissonance, in my experience.
I work in the public sector as do a lot of my acquaintances and we get so much education about the importance of inclusion that people find it very hard and scary to question

With the sex and gender debate, I think faith and fact have become intertwined. Faith has become fact and facts have become opinions. I don't see how productive engagement can be possible until they are separated and acknowledged (at the very least by our legislators) as two very different issues
Yes! That's what I've been trying to say. Society need to go through a process where the two definitions are explicitly recognised, then we can move to discussing one as a faith based position and one as a fact based position, then we can legislate and make policy accordingly.
At the moment its all muddled and people are talking at cross purposes. Although I do agree with sophocles that this is to some extent deliberate - been a bit naive there

If people won't accept that their beliefs are faith based, not fact based - where to go from there?

I hope the law will soon step in to declare gender ideology a religious belief rather than material reality so that believers are protected it insofar as the law protects believers in transubstantiation of bread and water to body and blood of Christ.

Believe what you like. The law will not allow others to discriminate against you for believing it but the law will also never force other people to follow the teachings of your creed.