For those who believe we need to differentiate by gender identity rather than sex, why?

[Blibbyblobby]

As a feminist my default reaction is to be sceptical whenever society determines it's necessary to treat men and women differently because it is so often based on sexist beliefs.

But I also recognise there are valid reasons for separation in some cases:

Firstly, where our bodies differ in such ways that we can't have equal provision without separate provision - sports, medicine, differences in physical tool design and safety equipment. These will never go away.

Secondly, where the intersection of our reproductive roles and the structure of our society put women at a disadvantage economically - maternity leave and employment rights, support for breastfeeding activities, legal obligation of males to finance the children they father regardless of the relationship with the mother. These will never go away as long as our society is structured around private incomes.

Thirdly, where the history of sexism in society has produced systemic structural disadvantages, internalised sexism and unconscious bias against women that has no root cause in a physical (sex) difference but nevertheless causes significant disadvantage, limitation or danger to women because of their sex. In this case we have agreed laws and other pro-women initiatives to counteract the reproduction of historic oppression. This I deeply hope will go away in future, but since these laws and protections can only be dismantled when the need for them has disappeared, here and now they are necessary. I personally include single sex toilets, accommodation, prisons and so on in this group because I believe that the male expectation of female care and time, male on female violence, male on female sexual violence and male fetishisation of female privacy is socially constructed not innate to male biology, but I accept I may be crediting them with too much here. Either way, as long as the danger is real, the protections are needed.

So all the reasons I can see where we justifiably separate men and women are either based in the actual physical differences, or inequalities that exist today because of past injustices based on those physical differences.

I also understand that under trans ideology, this view is hopelessly, irredeemably transphobic. To accept TWAW and TMAM one has to accept that there are no meaningful material differences between male and female bodied people that justify separation by sex rather than gender.

I don't believe that, but for the sake of argument let's say that is true.

I understand that while these sex-based separations may be wrong, since for historic reasons they currently exist, trans people want to be accepted on the Woman or Man side that aligns to their gender identity. However that's entirely a reaction and a reproduction of the pre-existing historic division rather than any practical difference between Man-the-gender and Woman-the-gender that produces an ongoing need for separate provision.

So while I know that feelings are not always logical, logically, TRAs should be fighting to dismantle these historic divisions that were based on sex, not keep them exactly as is but stick "for sex, replace with gender" on top.

And yet, they are not. So in fighting for TW in women's sports, women's toilets and women's prisons, there is an implicit statement in trans ideology that even without sex differences there is sometimes a need to separate men and women.

So what are these gender differences between men and women that mean we need women's prisons, sports, toilets, accommodation, STEM initiatives, political roles and so on?

Why under trans ideology do we still need to separate men and women in all the same practical ways that we were separating by sex, just now by gender and not sex?

Can we get back to the OPs question? I think it's a really interesting one, I can't think of any reason at all for single 'gender' services etc.

The question I'm interested in is what are the intrinsic differences between men and women by gender that justify single gender services, rights and provisions in principle - that means no split by passing or not passing, just a clear and undeniable gender-based difference that justifies destroying all the reasons I listed above for sex-single sex provision to replace them with exactly the same structures split by gender instead.

Someone upthread mentioned a choir - I'd guess that the actual splits for adults are typically 'choirs with parts for tenors and basses', 'choirs with parts for sopranos and altos' and 4-part choirs. I knew a male soprano, it was nothing to do with his sex or gender, just a quirk of his vocal chords I suppose.

Bugger.... "the set of TW who pass for the time and level of contact of a visit to the loo is going to be larger than the set of TW that will be read as natal females by women they are living in close quarters every day with for months or years." So what might work for toilets can't be a general principle.

If we assume that society needs more than a “this is what is best for me” basis to its laws, I would dearly love to see someone offer an answer to the op’s question, particularly the fact that
”in fighting for TW in women's sports, women's toilets and women's prisons, there is an implicit statement in trans ideology that even without sex differences there is sometimes a need to separate men and women.”

Safety first. Fuck everything else, you do what you need to do

The honesty and clarity is very refreshing, and it confirms three things to me that I've thought for a while.

Yes, we're talking about a group that may vary from wholly 'passing' to a completely non transitioned male person with a fully male appearance and there's no way to differentiate and gate keep.

The 'good chap' principle is all very nice, but the quote above, and those from regular TW MNetters, confirm: there is a very strong feeling of trans people must do what they want and feel and need, and fuck the impact on others. There will be no more will to care about or respect impact of personal actions than there would be for people to not speed or not park where they want. Hence laws and boundaries are needed that enforce what is needed as a society regardless of personal choice.

And this is why there needs to be: Third spaces/gender neutral options provided everywhere, so that no trans person or anyone else who feels unsafe in the sex based provision is left without a safe alternative

Strong legal boundaries that single sex spaces are not resources available to be appropriated by the opposite sex regardless of circumstance. Because whatever beliefs around gender, sex is immutable, women have sex based needs, and some women cannot access provisions without access to sex based, protected spaces. Equality matters for everyone. The clue is in the word.

There is no other fair, reasonable, just way. Yes, it is not going to be welcomed by some that there exists a space for female people that cannot be identified into and is seen of a rejection/invalidation of chosen identity. Unfortunately that's the line where tolerance has to happen. It cannot always be all and solely about the needs of a trans person on the grounds that they matter more than other people do, and if there is no willingness to voluntarily respect others and their needs, there's no other option but clear, legal boundaries.

I’m with ErrolTheDragon the questions put in the OP are so important, let’s not get derailed onto individuals, toilets etc.

I think that in the instance of choirs, if a group with a similar interest want to sing together they who is to say they shouldn’t doesn’t matter if they are all gay, vegan, Christian, bikers, Nurses, Tories etc

The same goes for an hobby or shared interest groups.

It is when it comes to public services, employment, law, education, politics and other areas where we currently aim to make sure everyone has equal access regardless of sex and of course the other 8 characteristics.

If we drop sex and pregnancy and maternity from the list as gender ideologues seek to do and change gender reassignment for gender identity how will that improve on the current situation. What will be improved and for who and how is it possible that women won’t lose out?

if there is no willingness to voluntarily respect others and their needs, there's no other option but clear, legal boundaries.

Which is, incidentally, the reason that single sex spaces were created in the first place, and why the campaigns exist for single sex spaces and provisions in the third world.

I agree with everything in MichelleofzeResistance’s post 09:26

Exactly, protect sex and single sex spaces, have 3rd spaces for trans and non binary.

College friends Rebecca, Nanda, Patrick, Salman, River and Tex are all keen football players, and play regularly in their organisations' leagues. Rebecca plays on her synagogue’s team, Nanda on her temple’s team, Patrick on his church’s team, Salman on his mosque’s team and River on his Wiccan community’s team. Tex plays on the local sports centre’s team.

Their college decided to set up male and female football teams to play against other colleges. The friends are delighted. They all try out and are all accepted.

Then they have a dilemma: which team should they join? Should Rebecca, Patrick and Salman - the monotheists - join one team, with Nanda and River - the polytheists - joining the other team? Where would that leave Tex, the atheist?

Or should Rebecca, River and Tex - who don’t believe in an afterlife - play together on one team, while Nanda, Patrick and Salman - who do believe that something happens to your soul after death - play together on the other team?

Such a difficult decision! If only there was some clear and rational way of choosing which team they should play for.

@StealthPolarBear

What I am struggling with is that there aren't two genders, there are many, hundreds in fact. So why is gender segregation based on two genders, the two that reflect what we used to call sex? How on earth is that inclusive to someone who identifies as neither a man or a woman but one of the other 998 genders? Which option do they pick?

It's completely illogical. I came across a sentence in a very interesting piece on women and Alzheimer's in a thread just started which maybe sheds light ... the daft idea of splitting by 'gender' may peter out as more 'nonbinary' youngsters emerge. (And maybe mature to the logical conclusion of being 'gender critical'.

While gender identity exists along a spectrum, for this article, I will be treating it as a binary, because for the life course of many older adults, this was the only socially accepted option.

the twaw loves holding up the Hunter Schafer (puberty blockers, then straight onto csh so never having had an influx of male sex hormones. Which, for full disclosure, is the camp my dd sits in), the anti trans movement holds up the Jessica Yaniv (middle age transition, possibly has a wife and child. Has no interest in hormones or medical transition). The reality is that the vast majority of transwomen sit in the Blaire White, Nikki Tutorials, Nikita Dragon, Laverne Coxs territory (those who didn't have blockers, but transitioned in their late teens/early 20's, are on hormones and have fully socially transitioned, possibly medically transitioned.

I don't know many of these people but I don't accept the styling of anti-trans rather than pro-women and the retention of women's rights on the basis of their sex class.

Don't know HS; JY has had no family/children etc. and comparatively recently had some over-shared medical interventions (and changed names with it) with some speculation as to whether this represents another stage in JY's attempts to sue everyone who doesn't wish to offer intimate or gender-affirming services to JY.

wrt Blaire White, Nikki Tutorials, Nikita Dragon, Laverne Cox - do I gather they're all relatively young and have had extensive feminisation surgery? Certainly not akin to the better-known transitioned (for any definition of that) in the UK who are mostly middle-aged and have previously had families etc.? So, I'd be surprised if they were the majority in the UK at present albeit younger people might increase in numbers over the next 20-30 years and reduce the age-skew.

influx of middle aged men coming out as trans is symptomatic of a larger societal problem…I don't think that should reflect on actual dysphoric trans people who are just out there trying to live their lives.

Looking at the number of legal cases and other cause célèbre I should think that everyone of those men would claim dysphoria. The Trans Widows threads here are enlightening.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3898348-Trans-Widows-Escape-Committee-4-A-New-Hope

www.transwidowsvoices.org/

The C of E are running a consultation at the moment in my diocese. Luckily there was space for me to put 'I have no gender Identity, but I am a woman. If that helps' when I was asked what my gender identity was.
Of course I'll be written off as a nutter, but it made me feel good.

What a helpful discussion. I can think of nothing other than validation and a feeling of belonging. And that is an indictment on our society and cultures how hard it is for people to feel they belong, as they are, with their own wishes and preferences. And I agree with gnocchi to the extent that safety has to trump comfort and belonging, but I think that due to the numbers involved and the evidence of level of risk, women’s safety has to be prioritised in law, with other solutions for trans people who pass or not.

I keep dropping in to see if there's been any explanation yet. But pro gender people don't seem to be engaging with this thread, so I have to assume there isn't a good reason, its just a choice.

I think that due to the numbers involved and the evidence of level of risk, women’s safety has to be prioritised in law, with other solutions for trans people who pass or not.

I personally (and I know not all GC people would say the same) would also be 100% ok with single-sex provision that also include trans people who meet certain criteria such that it's pragmatic to treat them as if they were their acquired sex, because within that is still the overriding principle and understanding is that the need, purpose and intention of the provision is sex-based and not gender-based. But the criteria by which a trans person is allowed into opposite sex provision cannot be self-identity. It must be defined by the law and/or society's conventions and it must be subject to gatekeeping, because if a gate is not kept it is no gate at all. We must have the right to say "no".

I disagree, the criteria for single sex spaces can only be sex; otherwise we have this constant pushing of boundaries that we see on this board every single day.
Its not healthy for women to be forced to live in a state of siege.

I think that MidsomerMurmurs has raised the issue that traditionally in the UK we have had more of an idea of being a community, a society and to a certain extent it hasn’t been a social norm to put the needs of the the individual ahead of the needs of the majority. We have aimed at a balance so that most people get most of what they need most of the time and individual or minorities with needs or wants haven’t been able to trump the majority.

So maybe some Muslims would like wearing hijab to be required by all women who work in the public sector, or just all women out in public, the majority disagree and so we can choose to wear hijab or not.

Maybe some vegans would like all public services to serve only vegan food and for eating meat in public to be a hate crime but again the majority wouldn’t be served well by that change so we go on free to make our own dietary choices and vegans have to sort themselves out with a packed lunch in many schools and other public services.

Maybe we ought require that all public sector employees have at least GCSE level British Sign Language, has this ever been proposed? BSL could be taught in all state schools as a compulsory subject. If it were proposed I am sure that the costs and benefits would be properly assessed prior to implementation, plus an impact assessment.

Maybe we should make stairs and steps illegal in public places, and require every space on public transport to be wheelchair accessible and all public conveniences to be accessible as well. Once again a proposal of this nature would likely be subject to scrutiny, costs, benefits, impact assessment and so on.

I still find it inexplicable that believers in gender identity ideology are able to have their requirements so prioritised to the point that the whole of society is expected to change its structures from being based on the different sex based needs of men and women to being based on an ill defined and ever changing personal self-concept of any given individual.

Structures are already being changed in favour of gender identity rather than sex despite that fact that there has been no impact assessment and no government department nor the sports organisations promoting it can tell us why the changes are necessary, proportionate, and beneficial, or at least benign, for the majority rather than benefiting a minority to the detriment of the majority.

But it's all self identity, Blibbyblobby, given that one can't change sex.

Interesting that Hunter Schafer is held up as the example by those advocating TWAW. Why not Jazz Jennings who has a reality tv show?

Could it be because after being celebrated early in life (on the Barbara Walters Show) going on puberty blockers, cross sex hormones then surgery - several surgeries to correct problems - being candid about ongoing mental health issues, and having a mother who talks openly at lunch with her friends with tv cameras rolling about how she has to actively manage Jazz’s....surgical complications, Jazz isn't seen as the golden child anymore?

The fact that Hunter Schafer is held up as the “ideal” as opposed to the realities of what Jazz has been through and is still going through is very telling to me.

I don't know many of these people but I don't accept the styling of anti-trans rather than pro-women and the retention of women's rights on the basis of their sex class.

I don't accept this either. I find it extremely sad and really rather hostile towards women, this insistence that caring for and speaking about the needs of rights for women is framed by some in itself as an act of hostility. As if 'pro trans' must be necessity demand that you be 'anti women'.

Rather an extremist and unhelpful framing, that shows the need for clear and objective legal protection of women as a sex class continues to be required.

Daisies excellent post. I very much agree.

Oh that was my first ever deletion and I have no idea why

@NotBadConsidering

Interesting that Hunter Schafer is held up as the example by those advocating TWAW. Why not Jazz Jennings who has a reality tv show?

Could it be because after being celebrated early in life (on the Barbara Walters Show) going on puberty blockers, cross sex hormones then surgery - several surgeries to correct problems - being candid about ongoing mental health issues, and having a mother who talks openly at lunch with her friends with tv cameras rolling about how she has to actively manage Jazz’s....surgical complications, Jazz isn't seen as the golden child anymore?

The fact that Hunter Schafer is held up as the “ideal” as opposed to the realities of what Jazz has been through and is still going through is very telling to me.

Probably because Hunter (along with Anya Taylor-joy. Can't say society doesn't have a type) is the mainstream 'it' girl of the moment and Jazz isn't.

Though, Hunter went through a lot of similarities with Jazz, to the point I do wounder if she wasn't a little bit railroaded into completing her transition. I recall an interview a few months before being cast in Euphoria where she was saying she was going to need to come off blockers soon, but wasn't sure whether she wanted to go on hormones or revert back to living as a boy. Added to the fact she has stated multiple times that she wishes she could present more masculine (and often is dressed quite masculine in pap shots). Not to mention, has just cut off a good chunk of her hair...

So no, I personally don't think Hunter is a great example either. I think she's a prime example of why we shouldn't be using such young trans people as 'icons', and I won't be at all suprised if she detransitions after Euphoria ends.

Brilliant post @DaisiesandButtercups. Yes, where is the impact assessment of a change from sex to gender as a categorisation for the entire population? Where the cost benefit analysis? What happened to duty of care?