'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!

None of that matters because they don’t see women as people, not people like them.

My view (and I'm speaking as a non-expert because I have realised that I don't actually have a deep interest in feminist theory.... sorry, everyone 😬) is that most men don't really give it much thought. Women's boundaries are irrelevant. I used to think they were irrelevant too when it comes to understanding gender identity stuff (because equality was "sorted", so "what does it matter?" etc), so I'm not too cross when I come across it from (some) men. I've said on previous threads that it took me months to understand why JKR was talking about the erasure of the word "woman", despite me being incredibly concerned (and already learning lots) about autistic children who were identifying out of their own sex. I only bothered taking the time to understand about it because I slowly realised that it was all inter-connected and because I had a motive to improve my understanding (supporting my daughter). People's own motivation to understand gender identity belief makes a huge difference in the journey that they go on and how they interpret what they hear. I can't remember who said it above (sorry!) but I agree that it's telling that he even knows the term "bioesssentialism": he's obviously been influenced by some gender identity theory from somewhere that takes an affirmation approach.

If I wanted to engage more in the conversation with him, I'd either focus on impact (and agree to set aside difference in beliefs, as per my previous comment) or I'd ask him about whether he would be interested in dating a woman with a penis. I fully agree with PPs above who say that making it about sexual attraction is the only thing that will resonate with some men. Obviously NAMALT.

Obviously if your own motivation is from a feminist theory position, OP, my belief suggestion isn't going to be much use to you, as it circumvents all of that. But to echo above comments, it doesn't sound like he'd be interested in a feminist theory approach and you'd be wasting your time.

Ask him to explain what he means.

Is it wrong to provide gyne care to females ? Abortion rights? Cervical smears? Trans men are females.

Does he want trans men to automatically go to male prisons?

All sport should be mixed sex?

He's using a trope that is a straw man. He's misrepresenting your arguments.

Your point is that females are biologically different and as such need some specific things ensconced in law linked to this. How they feel in terms of personality, dress, career etc is a free choice.

His arguments harm trans men.

Make up is expensive but it's a choice!

Agreed.

It's the grown-up version of Rachel Rooney's book, "My Body is Me!".

It's the simplicity and irrefutability of this logic that causes so much anger as a response from genderists. Rather than accept that they hold a belief (that is predictated on those cultural roles and stereotypes) they shut down the conversation with insults.

Agree with this.

It's not about trans people for me it's about biological men and I won't say Transwomen. Instead I say biological men however they present or identify. Also, inform him that biological men already have access to healthcare specific to their bodies and biology.

Good on you for speaking up I know how difficult it is.

He can't think of a good argument for it so he's resorted to name calling to shut you down. Arsehole.

Good on you for speaking up I know how difficult it is.

Hear, hear. I was so scared when I first started IRL conversations.

IME it's also a very liberating threshold to have crossed, as it gets a tiny bit easier each time.

I managed to have an unexpected conversation the other day with a neighbour after a small indication that there was an "in". I tested the water with the subject of women's sports and we took it from there.

I'm also selective. I don't tell trans(-identified) people that I know IRL that I don't believe in gender identity. I just choose not to use any pronouns when referencing them. I'm not going to change their belief and they aren't going to influence me to believe in it, so I'm not going to invite conflict for the sake of it. However, I have been able to openly share my concern about the conflation of gender identity and autism without getting my head bitten off! The discussions I've had with them have been really helpful to gain an understanding from their perspective. Admittedly I've had to bite my tongue on a few occasions but there are many occasions in life where this is a sensible choice to make. I fully expect to say the "wrong" thing to the wrong person at some point but that's a risk I've accepted. I just mitigate it the best I can. It's not going to stop me from raising awareness of the harms associated with gender identity belief.

To my understanding bio-essentialists belive that sex and gender are tied together. Sex = gender.

It sounds like he believes that if you have a certain gender it, in effect, makes you that sex - which makes him the bio-essentialist and is just as much nonsense as looking at it from the direction of 'if you are a certain sex you must adhere to the gender norms of that sex'.

Personally think the issue, when it comes down to it, for many of those who deride 'biological essentialism' is that they seek to eliminate, deny or suppress anything which is 'essentially' female - and that comes down to pregnancy, childbirth and childcare. In denying female biology and all that stems from it - they see liberation. They even want to deny that males are stronger, faster and more muscular ( generally), hence the reason we have sexed categories in sport.

See the glee with which Miriam Cates losing her seat has brought for some. That she is a Christian who values the traditional family and the role of mothers and motherhood is a reminder of all that they are seeking to escape. Women's essential biological reality is viewed with disdain and denial, as a source only of suffering and oppression.

This is one of the results of 'equality' feminism in which women seek to assimilate into the male mainstream.

OP well done for carrying on the good fight, and holding up the gender critical team. I really do admire you for having the energy.

I tried this with people who have swallowed the TWAW hook line and sinker. I'm pretty good at arguing, but I realised that its like a cult and there is no reasoning with them. They will argue black is white and it won't matter what you say. They will even deny your own lived experience as a woman. They don't care about facts, women's safety, homophobia or child safeguarding. The holy grail of trans rights trumps everyone and everything else.

I've distanced myself from them, I just cannot be arsed to engage with them any more. I know this is wrong, and I should carry on, and I really do admire those of you that are still shouting into the void of stupidity.

I've distanced myself from them, I just cannot be arsed to engage with them any more. I know this is wrong, and I should carry on, and I really do admire those of you that are still shouting into the void of stupidity.

This is very much my approach, just from a different angle. The only word I would substitute is stupidity for belief.
Believing in gender identity is as illogical to me as believing in god. And I'm not going to waste my energy arguing about who's right or wrong when it comes to "facts". My interest is in highlighting and fighting against the harms that result from the belief being enforced as a truth. I feel the same about religion when it impacts others too, but thankfully there are established ways of dealing with radicalism for religion (and most people recognise what radicalism looks like in that context).

Although I should add that this is the position I have arrived at. Prior to that, I engaged in as many conversations as I could, from all different viewpoints, so that I could get my head around it all. There is plenty of evidence of me getting lost and confused on MN!

OP, one other suggestion if you do still want to engage on this:

If your friend is concerned about trans(-identified) people having fairness and equality, this essay may be of interest to him:

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/321-the-transgender-rights-issue

It sets out a clear difference between the right to hold a belief that someone has a "gender identity" that "aligns" with the opposite sex and where the lines of discrimination really are.

It doesn't cover the important subject of autogynophilia but, given where he is on this topic, that's probably a subject for another day!

Or: Woman-know your place? Is he going to challenge his thinking or is this just a one-way street?

A sad story, but a true one.

Biological essentialist argument: men are masculine and women are feminine by nature and this determines their social roles in life.

Feminist rejection of biological essentialism: men and women have different bodies, but can fulfill any social role they like. Sex based stereotypes (gender) are socially constructed and should not be used to constrain people within neat masculine/feminine boxes.

His argument: men who aren't masculine must be women.

Thank you for the link to that article, I've only read the first part and I already love the 'John the Catholic' and 'Jane the Transwoman' comparison, to illustrate the difference between an 'equality claim' and a 'belief claim'

I maintain that we can better understand the controversy if we distinguish between two sorts of claims: (1) equality claims, or claims to be free from discrimination, based on one’s transgender status, concerning the distribution of basic goods such as employment, education, and housing; and (2) belief claims, or claims that we are discriminating against those who identify as transgender to the extent that we do not accept certain beliefs promoted by trans activists as literally true, or, at the very least, that we do not act as if we accept those claims as literally true and support changes in social institutions and practices so that they accord with those claims.

That's only the 2nd paragraph, and I'm already jealous of the clarity of thought and structured expression!

Going back to read the rest of it now...

I think this is called having an adult conversation.😀

We used to say there were 2 topics you should avoid in polite company if you wanted it to stay polite - religion and politics.

I have this t-shirt

and have had many compliments and smiles from other women.

In Wimbledon season it would not be unreasonable to wear the purple & green of the club ...

@BonfireLady I've quickly scanned this article and it looks really interesting. I'll need to read in full when I've got time to digest it properly. Thanks.

Yes, it's also me feeling nervous about stepping into this space in real life and having the confidence to challenge and fully articulate the complexity and nuance of the issues.

I know what you mean, I now want to subscribe to the magazine, @BonfireLady they owe you commission 😁.

Ha! I have posted that article so many times on X. I think it's such a great articulation. If the Labour government are serious about "ending the culture war", IMO the most logical way to do so is to look at it this way.
Public awareness of autogynophilia will take time, but in the meantime a sensible approach would be to prevent a belief that not everyone holds having influence as "fact" in laws, education and healthcare.

You could come back with:

You clearly don't understand the purpose of feminism or women's rights.

Feminism is about making sure the needs of females are appropriately met in law and medicine.

This is essential but not essentialism.

To argue it's all based on how women look (ie men can look like women) is sexist and regressive.

.

There is an ideological battle of beliefs going on.

If you understand that gender identity is akin to a religious belief then it makes sense it comes into conflict with Christianity and Islam and Judism.

Equally 'educate yourself' then becomes evangelism. None believers are 'bigots' as they are blasphemous. No debate, is about not questioning the faith and being loyal adherents.

The idea that you can rationalise with disciples of faith is also impossible. Their mind is closed to other possibilities.

Quite!

Ideological authoritarianism and rigid dogma/articles of ideological faith are going to be the dominant themes going forward; and I suspect violence in defense of them too.

There will be inevitable conflicts and clashes within dogmas too - as unlikley pairings and coalitions are formed.

See the way SNP Katie Forbes was treated purely for being a Christian, whilst Humza Yousef is photographed at prayer with his male relatives, in Bute House, as if it some kind of wonderful moment.