'Biological essentialism'?

[BenjiCat]

I'll start with thanking wise Mumsnet contributors. I've learnt so much about women's rights, single sex spaces and transgenderism by lurking in the background of these boards.

I've (unwittingly) gotten into the 'debate' with a friend and looking for your support. He shared a news article about single sex spaces and this being an 'attack on trans' and the argument that 'men already exist in women's spaces' and it's not a problem.

I felt I couldn't hold my tongue and challenged this. I said single sex spaces (e.g. rape crisis, healthcare, intimate care, prisons) are incredibly important for women due to trauma, safeguarding etc. and that 98% of sexual crimes are committed by men. I also pointed to recent issues. For example, the communal mixed sex toilets in schools and reports of sexual assaults on girls. Also the 26 nurses taking the NHS to court for being forced to share changing rooms.

He didn't address my specific points above other than to say 'of course there should be women's spaces, but transwoman need healthcare and support too'. I also felt like he was simply trying to 'gotcha' me by saying 'you think transwoman are pretending to be woman'. It basically resulted in me being labelled a 'biological essentialist' 😔

I don't have enough knowledge of feminism history to challenge this point about 'biological essentialism' - but it doesn't sit right with me being labelled as this. I'm not saying people are destined to certain characteristics and traits, but being female is innate and our needs should be considered.

I'm seeing him soon and I know it will come back up in conversation. Wise Mumsnetters help me challenge this!

Well your friend has shown himself to be a male supremacist so perhaps he should challenge his thinking - particularly his belief that members of the reproductive sex class to which he belongs are entitled to dictate whether members of the opposite sex have a right to privacy and dignity when in a state of undress.

No surprise that he’s big on societal structures being broken down. I bet he pontificates about cultural sensitivity to countries with a lower age of consent and about the agency of women caught up in the commercial sexual exploitation of women trade, and considers those views part of his “progressive” credentials.

It's the same meme tier shit as "you're just reducing women to their genitals" that these clowns like to repeat ad nauseum.

That they're reducing women down to male gaze fantasies instead never seems to occur to them. Sitting there calling themselves progressive while polishing these misogynistic turds of an opinion.

Now that is some shit right there.
A trans person, not being raised female, has no fucking idea what that's like.
They aren't being hated (by those who do hate them) for the sex they were born as, but because they refuse to conform to gender stereotypes. We're hated just because we are women, which is something we have no choice about. It's nothing to do with how we behave. They hate us no matter what we do.

That they're reducing women down to male gaze fantasies instead never seems to occur to them.

they are just appearing to ignore this, because it is the actual purpose.

Material oppression? Does he think the reproductive exploitation of women industry in poorer countries is seeking out transwomen to exploit them for their reproductive labour?

Sounds like your friend has heard a bunch of phrases which he thinks will make him appear clever and impressive but which he doesn’t understand and doesn’t have the critical thinking skills to unpick what they mean.

It basically resulted in me being labelled a 'biological essentialist'

If he said this is good faith, and is not just saying phrases he's heard and think sound impressive, he means that you are gatekeeping 'woman' to females only.

He thinks that female and woman are linked for the majority of people, but thats just coincidentally. Woman to him is an identity that is just as valid for a male person to be.

I dont think its based on stereotypes- lots of men who these people believe are women don't look and behave like a stereotype women. And thats what gets them into the position of supporting men with gender who have committed rape to go into womens prisons. They are women therefore they use womens facilities, even though they have committed a male crimes.

That obviously is where the ideology fails. Women and 'men with gender' aren't a group with anything in common or with the same needs.

I can think of multiple examples of grouping females with and without gender together to provide services, but what do women have in common with 'men with gender' that they dont have with any other man. What services and spaces would be needed?

The problem with men like him is they don't understand women's boundaries and in particular why it's inherently a problem when males wilfully ignore the boundaries of female-only single-sex spaces and just force their way in anyway, whether it's physically, virtually, legislatively, conceptually.

"Men already exist in women's spaces" just shows he thinks of women's and girls' boundaries as something to be challenged and overcome. It's disgusting.

Your 'friend' is the one who is the 'biological essentialist.'

He knows that there are two classes of Homo sapiens individuals. There is the class that are fully human, have a full range of emotions and thoughts, and are of prime importance. Then there is the class that are partially-sentient support bipeds who exist to service the first class; they are allowed partial sentience so that they can be scolded, berated and shamed if they fail to properly carry out their service role.

I have zero doubt that your 'friend' can effortlessly identify which class is which.

If TW didn't exist, and it was only the recent phenomenon of teen girls identifying as male, would anyone justify it by talking of their lack of material oppression?

This is the correct interpretation of what is meant by the term biological determinism.

It's the belief that an individual's biology determines their role in society, for example because women have babies their place is in the home.

It's often used to left wing people to try to characterise sex realists / gender criticals as right wing. It just shows they don't understand what being gender critical actually means or that they value men's wants over women's needs.

Can you ask what he thinks a ‘woman’ is? I know people say it’s a dog whistle, but that’s generally because they can’t answer it. I think getting your friend to really think about the definitions he is using when he speaks about these things might help. And yes, as pp says, if he’s straight would he sleep with a transwoman, if he’s gay…..

Do you mean - would anyone argue that “teen girls share the same lack of material oppression as teen boys, therefore teen girls who say they are teen boys are teen boys”?

If so, good point, I can’t imagine anyone making that argument.

Just say that women need women only spaces and you don't know what biological essentialism means. There’s no point being dragged into a philosophical debate for stating the obvious.

Buy him a copy of Helen Joyce's book. It's excellent.

This is correct. Years ago when the feminists of the second wave used the term "biological essentialism" or "biological determinism" they were talking about the kind of people who insisted that because women could bear babies, therefore their role in life was to be mothers. In other words, biology determined your role in life. Feminists, on the other hand, believe the opposite - that biology does not determine your role in life. If you're female, you can do anything - become a lawyer or a rugby player or a plumber. Whatever you want.

Trans activists, either because they are liars or just very very stupid, now pretend that "biological essentialism" means that by saying men can't be women, you are reducing women to their biology. As if the very act of defining something is reducing it - which of course it isn't. In order to define a thing, you have to put a clear boundary between what it is and what it isn't, otherwise anything could be a woman: a cat, a table, a tree.

He's talking bollocks (pun intended)

It’s usually used by people who think the word woman is a judgement rather than a description

This is an excellent and succinct definition, you've written what I was about to post.

Genderists believe Man and Woman are labels for different personalities/mentalities/bundles of social preferences. So when you say " female people are women, male people are men" what they hear is "all female people have this personality/mentality/bundle of social preferences and all male people have this personality/mentality/bundle of social preferences" which to them sounds terribly sexist (because it is) hence them accusing you of biological determinism ie that you are restricting what personality/mentality/bundle of social preferences can belong in what body.

The irony being of course that you don't consider "man" and "woman" to be a personality/mentality/bundle of social preferences in the first place. The sexism they perceive is coming from their own prejudices about men and women.

They have twisted "A woman can be anyone she wants to be" into "anyone who wants to be can be a woman" and believe they are being progressive 🙄

You said what I was trying to say so much better!

Tell him that you've given it some serious thought and, on reflection, you stand with Loretta. That it is indeed unfair that anyone should be limited by biology 😁

@BenjiCat

Once upon a time, humans developed language for the purposes of communication. There were many different languages, and each language had a name for each animal and separate names for males and females of each animal, including humans themselves. In English, male humans (the ones with the penises) were called men and female humans (the ones who bore children) were called women. The meanings of these words remained pretty much static for thousands of years even as language evolved.

In pretty much all cultures, at all times in human history, men oppressed women, denied them equal rights, exploited them for their reproductive labour and committed acts of violence against them. This continued for thousands of years and continues to this day.

Relatively recently, women in most western societies gained a whole host of rights designed to make them men's equals. Space was also made for women in society, including public toilets and changing rooms for women, as well as their own sporting categories.

Very recently, some men decided that they wanted these things for themselves. Because it was no longer the done thing to say women shouldn't be allowed to have their own things, these men came up with the frankly GENIUS idea of changing the definition of the word "woman" so that it could include them. Obviously this meant stripping the word of any meaning relating to biological sex and giving it a new meaning instead. The new meaning was based on stereotypes, because once you strip the word "woman" of any meaning relating to sex, stereotypes are all that is left. So these men wore dresses and makeup and said that they are women because of how they feel inside. They started using women's spaces instead of men's.

Some other men, who like to think of themselves as progressive but are deep down far more conservative than they care to admit, did not feel comfortable with effeminate or cross dressing men in men's spaces, and were very glad that these men had decided to call themselves women and use women's spaces instead.

But some women were not happy about this and protested against biological males identifying as women and accessing women's spaces, as well as being redefined as a stereotype. They maintained that a woman is an adult human of the female biological sex.

The sexist men did not have a good answer to this and certainly didn't like the implication that they were upholding deeply sexist stereotypes and performing traditional misogyny by prioritising male women over female women, because they identified as progressive. So they accused the female women of "biological essentialism" in the hope that their little female brains would be confused by long words and they would stop talking.

But they didn't.

The end.

Or the short version:

We need words for biological sex in humans. This is important in many aspects of life including healthcare, sport, pay gap data and crime statistics.

The word for female humans should not be redefined to include male humans because if it is it no longer means anything useful.

We don't know what trans women are identifying with but it has nothing to do with female humans and so they need to come up with a different word for whatever it is, and campaign for their own spaces if they feel they need them.

😂They were way ahead of their time weren't they?

chef’s kiss

(can’t find the emoji sorry).