Question Time right now!

[Seeingadistance]

Prof Robert Winston has just stated very clearly that it is not possible to change sex.

In relation to freedom of speech and Kathleen Stock.

@Runningupthecurtains
"I'm not sure it matters. Women's rights are being eroded, female prisoners are being thrown under a bus, women's sport is becoming a travesty, female followers of several religions are being pushed further to the margins of society"

I think it matters if you want to persuade people and I think you'll have to persuade people if rights are under as much threat as you say.

I wasn't aware of transgender marginalising women in religions. I agree with the other problems, but think the impact is likely very small. I would certainly welcome evidence that I was wrong though.

"A pregnant 19 year old European woman in 1571 and a 93 year old Mexican women in 2020 will have some commonality of experience but arguably have more in common with a similar age contemporary of the opposite gender than each other. So apart from biology what makes them women? What essence is there and how could a man feel it?"

Maybe it should be "feel I should be woman" instead of "feel I am a woman."

@suggestionsplease1

Accepted , but that is why transwomen and trans men have been given rights .

But there is no excuse for the way the professor has been treated either , or others.

It works both ways .

@ShrillSiren

Why would you say that the only options are to change yourself or kill yourself if you don't like who you are? Would you say that to a disabled person who can't change who they are?

How about coming to terms with things that you can't change, through therapy or otherwise?

I'm not saying those are there only options!

Obviously coming to terms with a current situation is always an option. Why do you think they aren't prepared to do this? Do you think trans people are uniquely entitled?

[quote Georgist]@Runningupthecurtains
"I'm not sure it matters. Women's rights are being eroded, female prisoners are being thrown under a bus, women's sport is becoming a travesty, female followers of several religions are being pushed further to the margins of society"

I think it matters if you want to persuade people and I think you'll have to persuade people if rights are under as much threat as you say.

I wasn't aware of transgender marginalising women in religions. I agree with the other problems, but think the impact is likely very small. I would certainly welcome evidence that I was wrong though.

"A pregnant 19 year old European woman in 1571 and a 93 year old Mexican women in 2020 will have some commonality of experience but arguably have more in common with a similar age contemporary of the opposite gender than each other. So apart from biology what makes them women? What essence is there and how could a man feel it?"

Maybe it should be "feel I should be woman" instead of "feel I am a woman."[/quote]
Of course women from religions that forbid women from certain interactions with men are suffering. For example of they used to go to women only swimming sessions because they can't wear swimwear in front of men, now they can't guarantee that there won't be men in women only sessions so they stop swimming or going for intimate medical care because if they ask for a female they are labelled a bigot.
My point about the numbers is it doesn't matter how many trans women there are if it is 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 it impacts millions of women to same amount. Any definition of woman that includes some men is open to abuse by any man. Any definition of woman that includes some men excludes some women. So the numbers don't matter because the impact is the same.

Just been out having a nice time in the pub and 3 pints good. Caught up on thread.

Sick and tired of this constant MN situation on MN feminism boards and elsewhere. Where some post such utter ignorant shite and women sit there responding with courteous thoughtful arguments.

The expectation that women read this. Snide, arrogant, dismissive stuff. And essentially be well hmm no I don't think so because X.

It's disrespectful, it handwaves away.

Thousands of years at least. Of essentially total extreme oppression. Globally. And that is still a massive issue. An appalling issue. On a massive scale globally.

@EsmaCannonball

I remember listening to a news report on the high suicide rate among farmers with a doctor who got really annoyed at the conclusions drawn and who thought them irresponsible. She said that, like doctors and pharmacists, farmers had access to the means for effective suicide (guns, chemicals, strong animal medications), they lived in places with outbuildings and spaces where they were unlikely to be interrupted or rescued, and the location of farms meant that medical help would be a long time coming. It wasn't necessarily the case that farmers were more despairing than anybody else. So many different factors come into play with suicide statistics, even when those statistics are reliable, that they are not necessarily a meaningful way of assessing who is more depressed and who is more vulnerable.

Indeed. Men are something like four times more likely to commit suicide than women. Does that mean that men are more suicidal? Not necessarily there are other factors at play such as men tend to use methods with a greater chance of success than women (hanging vs overdose for example).

'"A pregnant 19 year old European woman in 1571 and a 93 year old Mexican women in 2020 will have some commonality of experience but arguably have more in common with a similar age contemporary of the opposite gender than each other. So apart from biology what makes them women? What essence is there and how could a man feel it?"

Maybe it should be "feel I should be woman" instead of "feel I am a woman."'

How dare you. How DARE you.

you have though so let's hear it.

I'm all ears.

Tell me what live was like for an average 19yo European woman in 1571...
Where???? Europe is big. The borders have changed. Different religions cultures wealth. Everything. So WHERE? Specifically in 1571.

Demonstrate that you have a deep understanding of how things were in 1571 in different areas of this past of the world. I'm interested. Let's hear it.

And then how it is for women of 93 in Mexico in 2020. An average woman. What is average? For women in Mexico aged 93? Across regions etc. I mean. That's very vague.

You STATE that these women have less in common than men the same age at that year and location.

So come on.

You are STATING that they have less in common than they would with male peers.

That is a BIG statement.

In essence you are saying that the fact that WOMEN AND GIRLS all over the world for at least thousands of years. Because we are FEMALE.

Is something you feel you have the RIGHT to dismiss.

So come on then.

Let's hear your analysis. Your knowledge. Your historical and cultural expertise.

To PROVE your point.

Let's hear it.

Oops.

'In essence you are saying that the fact that WOMEN AND GIRLS all over the world for at least thousands of years HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO EXTREME OPPRESSION. Because we are FEMALE.

I'm sure plenty got the gist.

Over to you Georgist.

Georgist, I wasn't saying that transwomen should be excluded from female spaces simply on the basis of safeguarding.

Its because transwomen are men. Women are entitled to spaces away from men. Single sex spaces.

@NiceGerbil

'"A pregnant 19 year old European woman in 1571 and a 93 year old Mexican women in 2020 will have some commonality of experience but arguably have more in common with a similar age contemporary of the opposite gender than each other. So apart from biology what makes them women? What essence is there and how could a man feel it?"

Maybe it should be "feel I should be woman" instead of "feel I am a woman."'

How dare you. How DARE you.

you have though so let's hear it.

I'm all ears.

Tell me what live was like for an average 19yo European woman in 1571...
Where???? Europe is big. The borders have changed. Different religions cultures wealth. Everything. So WHERE? Specifically in 1571.

Demonstrate that you have a deep understanding of how things were in 1571 in different areas of this past of the world. I'm interested. Let's hear it.

And then how it is for women of 93 in Mexico in 2020. An average woman. What is average? For women in Mexico aged 93? Across regions etc. I mean. That's very vague.

You STATE that these women have less in common than men the same age at that year and location.

So come on.

You are STATING that they have less in common than they would with male peers.

That is a BIG statement.

In essence you are saying that the fact that WOMEN AND GIRLS all over the world for at least thousands of years. Because we are FEMALE.

Is something you feel you have the RIGHT to dismiss.

So come on then.

Let's hear your analysis. Your knowledge. Your historical and cultural expertise.

To PROVE your point.

Let's hear it.

Nice try but I didn't state I said "arguably". Let put our 19 year old in Germany so she doesn't speak the same language as our Mexican, she doesn't share a religion because she is a Protestant and the Mexican is Catholic, she hasn't voted or own property or worn make up or stocking or jeans or watched Game of Thrones or used a smart phone or been to the cinema like our Mexican so what commonality do they share? They share being female and no male has ever shared that with them so how can a man know how it feels to be female when time and location and individual experience is so varied over time and location?

@Runningupthecurtains
"Of course women from religions that forbid women from certain interactions with men are suffering."

Don't you think forbidding women to interact with men is misogynistic? Shouldn't that be tackled as well (probably first)?

"or going for intimate medical care because if they ask for a female they are labelled a bigot."
You are free to request a female doctor in the UK. You don't have a right not to be a called a bigot, even if that term isn't justified.

"My point about the numbers is it doesn't matter how many trans women there are if it is 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 it impacts millions of women to same amount. Any definition of woman that includes some men is open to abuse by any man."

As I said, it matters because you have to persuade people if you want to change things. You may have to persuade people to change some of their political priorities.

"Any definition of woman that includes some men excludes some women. So the numbers don't matter because the impact is the same."

What I mean by impact is the actual harm. So for example, I think there was one transgender Olympian (weightlifter Lauren Hubbard) in Tokyo. I agree that is probably one too many. But it suggests to me it is a very minor issue. Is it possible that the benefit transgender people derive from this exceeds the harm to women?

What the young European woman and the old Mexican woman had in common is that they both have been second best all their lives and had experience of men who would use and abuse them because women are weaker. Women throughout time have more in common with each other than with men of their own times so I disagree with you. I have travelled throughout my life to many different countries. I almost automatically bond with the women because we have so much shared experience. With the men I was always very wary.

@Pinkfairylights

Georgist, I wasn't saying that transwomen should be excluded from female spaces simply on the basis of safeguarding.

Its because transwomen are men. Women are entitled to spaces away from men. Single sex spaces.

That sounds reasonable and it may be for the best.

But I expect that leaves a lot of trans people who are comfortable in neither space. That may be the best (utilitarian) rule. Certainly it is if the harm is equal to the women excluded or the transwomen excluded.

@NiceGerbil

Oops.

'In essence you are saying that the fact that WOMEN AND GIRLS all over the world for at least thousands of years HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO EXTREME OPPRESSION. Because we are FEMALE.

I'm sure plenty got the gist.

Over to you Georgist.

I realise I also made a typo!

I meant to write: "Maybe it should be "feel I should be A woman" instead of "feel I am a woman."

I don't understand your response. People are questioning what it means for some people to say they were born in the wrong body and I replied.

As I said, it matters because you have to persuade people if you want to change things. You may have to persuade people to change some of their political priorities.
What I mean by impact is the actual harm. So for example, I think there was one transgender Olympian (weightlifter Lauren Hubbard) in Tokyo. I agree that is probably one too many. But it suggests to me it is a very minor issue. Is it possible that the benefit transgender people derive from this exceeds the harm to women?

Why do women have to persuade anyone as they do not want to change anything? Transwomen want to access areas which are forbidden to people of their sex, so it is up to them to persuade people. As for the sport issue, why should women accept any harm? The female category is there for people born female and if someone of the opposite sex wants access, it is up to them to prove that their inclusion is of no detriment to the people's whose category this is.

What I mean by impact is the actual harm. So for example, I think there was one transgender Olympian (weightlifter Lauren Hubbard) in Tokyo. I agree that is probably one too many. But it suggests to me it is a very minor issue. Is it possible that the benefit transgender people derive from this exceeds the harm to women?

Well, one piece of harm is that, whilst Hubbard got to go to the Olympics, a woman did not. Hubbard's gain is precisely balanced by another woman's loss.

A second is that Hubbard won a 'sportswoman of the year' award. That meant that a woman did not.

I guess you could argue that the wider transgender community benefits from her participating. But the wider community of female athletes loses. Both because why bother, if our competition slots and titles are going to be taken by people with an unfair genetic advantage. And also because shared changing rooms, showers, and so on mean that some women and girls simply can't participate at all.

I'm an amateur female athlete. It's not a 'very minor issue' to me.

Apologies running. Hadn't caught up on thread. Tonight feeling VERY pissed off about this constant insistence.. not just on this thread but in general....

That women and girls globally and through history. Female people. Have NOTHING to bind them. Just so arrogant, insulting. Outrageous.

Anyone who does this stuff. And here? On one corner of the internet. A chat board with mainly women. On one board. Called feminism. On one thread. I mean a handful of women talking out of all the internet and all the world. That constantly have posters who see the content in such a way that they MUST comment.

Most noticeable in threads which are anything to do with MVAWG or about the whole situation with our words etc being... Redefined.

It's so... FFS. Even in this tiny corner we aren't 'allowed' to talk about a certain group of issues without being... Interrupted. Diverted. Expected to 'debate' the very fundamentals.

The dynamic is... Reflects real life.

Women talking to women about women's stuff.

Conversation joined by someone who feels, usually. Irate at women talking with women about whatever. Posts nonsense. And then (including me) we all engage with this drivel.

@334bu

*As I said, it matters because you have to persuade people if you want to change things. You may have to persuade people to change some of their political priorities.* *What I mean by impact is the actual harm. So for example, I think there was one transgender Olympian (weightlifter Lauren Hubbard) in Tokyo. I agree that is probably one too many. But it suggests to me it is a very minor issue. Is it possible that the benefit transgender people derive from this exceeds the harm to women?*

Why do women have to persuade anyone as they do not want to change anything? Transwomen want to access areas which are forbidden to people of their sex, so it is up to them to persuade people. As for the sport issue, why should women accept any harm? The female category is there for people born female and if someone of the opposite sex wants access, it is up to them to prove that their inclusion is of no detriment to the people's whose category this is.

I was replied to this claim: "Women's rights are being eroded, female prisoners are being thrown under a bus, women's sport is becoming a travesty"

I interpreted this as "it's a lost cause" and my reply is you can turn the tide, but you have to make a persuasive case.

If you think things are currently OK and the transwomen are unlikely to get their way, then no action is necessary.

I didn't mean to imply the burden of proof was on women to show they were harmed. I was simply saying you have to persuade people to achieve the change you want in a democracy.

"As for the sport issue, why should women accept any harm?"
Almost any harm can be prevented if sufficiently extreme measures are taken. We could eliminate all violent crimes by men if all men were locked up. Would you advocate that? Or do you accept the downsides would outweigh the upside?

On the question of sport, do you think there is any harm to preventing trans participation? Consider someone who comes out as trans and can't use changing rooms, and can't compete, with either sex. I think the question is how many people are harmed and how much. I don't think the conclusion is obvious.

@Georgist why can't someone who is trans compete with their biological sex?

Georgist, it's not up to women to make everyone in the world feel comfortable. We have needs and rights of our own and are not support humans for men.

No men in women's spaces no matter how they identify. Because they're men.

My apologies for misreading your post.

However,

On the question of sport, do you think there is any harm to preventing trans participation? Consider someone who comes out as trans and can't use changing rooms, and can't compete, with either sex. I think the question is how many people are harmed and how much. I don't think the conclusion is obvious.

I most certainly do think this will harm women. The female category is set up to allow female athletes to have meaningful competition, so to include even one male participant, totally skews this. Including even only one male participant excludes one female athlete and this could only be justified if you accept that women athletes are not as important as a male athletes.

'Georgist

@Runningupthecurtains
"Of course women from religions that forbid women from certain interactions with men are suffering."

Don't you think forbidding women to interact with men is misogynistic? Shouldn't that be tackled as well (probably first)?'

Oh good plan! Gosh. I don't think women/ feminists have thought of that! Ever!!!

First you say? Hmmm.

Ok can you help?

The things off the top of my head. And this is no way even near a definitive list...

Taliban impact on the freedom (understatement) of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Also in Afghanistan, Taliban v Isis. Isis even worse. Women and girls bought and sold. For sex. Sure you know. Horrific.

Saudi. Imprisonment of women who joined in protest driving a car. Feminists in general. Due procedure around court etc nah.

Countries where the laws around intercourse are. Bad for gay men etc. For women? If raped other than by spouse. Penalised for adultery. Beating, prison. Think stoning / other methods of execution still in law? Can check if you want.

And well. Even the things I know would take a long time and I only know little bits.

Sort that FIRST. You say.

How would you start?

As I said, it matters because you have to persuade people if you want to change things. You may have to persuade people to change some of their political priorities.

I didn't mean to imply the burden of proof was on women to show they were harmed. I was simply saying you have to persuade people to achieve the change you want in a democracy.

Well, the success of pro-self-ID campaigners proves you wrong. They didn't persuade people in a manner befitting a democratic state (i.e. by seeking public debate, law reform or employing democratic means like referenda or consulting customers before removing facilities they relied on). They did it by stealth, outright lies and manipulation. By guilt-tripping and indoctrination. They are still doing it now.

And we are not seeking change. We are pointing out that the law has been misrepresented and asking for it to be upheld and to preserve the provisions we have for women and girls in our society.

@Motorina

What I mean by impact is the actual harm. So for example, I think there was one transgender Olympian (weightlifter Lauren Hubbard) in Tokyo. I agree that is probably one too many. But it suggests to me it is a very minor issue. Is it possible that the benefit transgender people derive from this exceeds the harm to women?

Well, one piece of harm is that, whilst Hubbard got to go to the Olympics, a woman did not. Hubbard's gain is precisely balanced by another woman's loss.

A second is that Hubbard won a 'sportswoman of the year' award. That meant that a woman did not.

I guess you could argue that the wider transgender community benefits from her participating. But the wider community of female athletes loses. Both because why bother, if our competition slots and titles are going to be taken by people with an unfair genetic advantage. And also because shared changing rooms, showers, and so on mean that some women and girls simply can't participate at all.

I'm an amateur female athlete. It's not a 'very minor issue' to me.

I agree with your points. As I said, I don't think Hubbard should have competed. But I do question the scale of the problem. I was responding to the claim the women's sports were being overrun.

Have you encountered many transwomen in your competitions?

Robert is an absolute hero. Alison what's her name is a dim as fuck. The Economist lady and Penny gave excellent statements. And the lady in the audience with the fringe was also a hero. The two students were complete drips who really shouldn't be going to university. You don't go to uni if you're not prepared to be challenged and exposed to other ideas.