'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!

So he’s just a wanker repeating word salad.

Biological essentialist? What does he actually think that means? What thought process demonstrates “biological essentialism” (bad) and what shows good thinking.

I would try to find the point at which your thinking diverges from his I.e. find the common ground?
Is he saying that mammals can change sex?
Is he saying- he recognizes it isn’t possible but this shouldn’t be mentioned.
Who does he think is responsible for validating transwomen’s demands - only women. Or cis-men too by dating them.

Really try to pin down his actual thoughts without judgement so that he has to write down the ludicrous notions, and you don’t have to straw man his arguments.

Feeling childish, but just say "Your penis is a spectrum" and leave it at that.

😂though as per usual we have to be careful he's the kind of man who won't react badly to being laughed at...

Is there any other kind?

It really does ultimately come down to belief.
OP, it sounds like he's citing words that come from the "bible" of gender identity belief, in a similar way that a Christian/Muslim etc might do if someone directly challenges tenets of their belief. Religions are completely illogical when challenged with science but they provide an explanation for the unexplainable, and therefore a sense of grounding, to those that believe in them.

Obviously your friend may not take kindly to his "faith" (in gender identity) being questioned but if he is serious about exploring it with you, maybe something like this would be of help?

Some people will dismiss it out of hand as "transphobic". Personally, if I was adamant that I was right about the idea that everyone has a gender identity, I would watch something that challenged this. I like reading and listening to things that challenge my own thinking, to help mitigate bias where I can. But obviously that's not everyone's cup of tea. I'll accept that my religious atheism is a bias in itself, but it was the above video that finally slotted everything in to place for me when I was getting my head around gender identity stuff. From there, I could build my learning further and understand why some people would feign a belief in it.

"'transwomen's material oppression overlaps with ciswomen'."

I think it does. Men who don't perform masculinity suffer under patriarchy precisely because they are seen as embodying the lesser valued traits patriarchy relegates to women. At the conscious, public level they are lesser valued men, while at the subconscious, private level they are threatening to men's patriarchal self-image by showing the masculinity of patriarchy is not an innate characteristic of men.

But the key word here is "overlaps". Patriarchy creates commonality between trans women and women (arguably, patriarchy creates trans women full stop). It does not follow that trans women therefore are women, not that our needs are perfectly aligned to the degree women do not need their own language, rights and voice that is separate from trans women. Trans women may suffer challenges from patriarchy but they also gain from it in ways that are closed to women, and often at the expense of women.

As an analogy, a blind person and a wheelchair user may have overlapping experiences of bring disabled in an ablist society and may well benefit from sharing their perspectives and joining together to increase their political clout, but they are still distinct groups with different challenges and needs.

I mourn an alternative reality where feminists and genderists could explore the impact of gender constructions together, a possibility we lost when genderists went all in for the supremacy of gender over sex and the appropriation of sex based experiences language and rights into gender, taking from feminists the literal ability to speak of our own reality in a language the genderists will accept.

I mourn an alternative reality where feminists and genderists could explore the impact of gender constructions together, a possibility we lost when genderists went all in for the supremacy of gender over sex

Oh yes. This could have been very, very different, had the men involved not had to storm in behaving like sexist men without an ounce of generosity or reciprocity. It could have quite possibly worked very well. It's blown beyond recovery now.

There is little point in shouting 'but we're oppressed too like you' when you are yourself by far the worst and most immediate oppressor.

For one if GC is a "biological essentialist" view, then gender ideology is an "identity essentialist" view. But more importantly, defining something/someone in a certain way does in no way reduce them to that definition. A distinction all these people purposefully ignore. And I would rather someone be defined by object facts (sex) as opposed to nebulous, subjective feelings.

Well said.

a blind person and a wheelchair user may have overlapping experiences of bring disabled in an ablist society and may well benefit from sharing their perspectives and joining together to increase their political clout, but they are still distinct groups with different challenges and needs.

If he struggles with this, ask him if adding braille signage to all public staircases helps wheelchair users.

It's fairly biologically essentialist to think that all women should budge up for transwomen. That position means that a very small number of transwomen's needs are superior to 51% of the population's needs.

If you actually think women have worth, there would be third spaces.

The very idea that all the women who can't share mixed sex spaces; Muslim women, Jewish women, women traumatised by VAWG, disabled women, women with heavy periods etc should bog off and not have access to public spaces so a few men with inner lady feelings can use those spaces is the most sexist thing in the world.

Sorry but your friend is a misogynist.