Review "Six Conversations we're Scared to have"

[Igneococcus]

I hope this sharetoken works, my laptop has died a lonely death while I was away and I'm doing this from the phone.
Sarah Ditum review if Guilty Feminist book:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/325fffb2-2c93-4dc8-908f-8b9bf22f331a?shareToken

Trans women are not “fake” women. They are people asking to be considered as women under an entirely social category of women.

Should there be a “social category” of child so that adults can identify into children’s sports and nurseries? A social category of “disabled” so that able-bodied people can “ask to be considered disabled” and be in the paralympics (and win) because otherwise they’d be sad) and claim PIP because it makes them feel validated? A social category of black? If you can see that these are massively offensive, appropriating and in some cases outright dangerous then try to get your head around how it feels to be a woman and be told your biological reality is someone else’s ‘social category”. TW have their own biology, it is male and their behaviour statistically is no better than males in general, in fact it’s worse.

The fact that you cannot even contemplate or care that TW are appropriating someone else’s reality and lived experience in the most blatantly disrespectful way possible shows simply that you are a massive sexist who thinks women don’t matter.

And I didn’t use the word fake, out of politeness, but if you really claim “TW are not fake women” then can you explain how not? There is no social category “woman” except in the sexist imaginings of males and genderists. Really feeling like you are a woman is not a reason because men cannot know what it feels like.

Trans women are not “fake” women.

Indeed. They are men.

The idea of a social category with looser terms of membership isn't entirely stupid, but it doesn't work in this case.

There are some organisations based on a protected characteristic with an "allies" category of membership. For instance, I could join the Jewish Labour Movement as an ally. But in that case I would understand that I wasn't part of the core group, I was there to support my Jewish friends, and I wouldn't use my "allies" membership to claim a Jewish identity that I don't possess.

Woman, being a biological category, isn't something that a committee can determine categories of membership for. But even if it were, transactivism isn't saying that TW are adjacent to the core category or want to be allies to the core category. It asserts that they actually are the core category.

There are some transwomen who say "I know I'm biologically male, but I feel very uncomfortable with my male body and prefer to present in a female persona", and who genuinely try to be allies to women while acknowledging that they're not literally the thing they would like to be. But those transwomen don't seem to be very common, or very popular in their community.

So in this case I feel comfortable saying that the appeal to a "social category" of woman is pure Humptydumptyism.

Words can have more than one meaning, but we don't group those words together just because they sound the same.

I dont agree with it, but if 'woman' did mean AHF or 'gender identity of feminine' there are still no reasons to make laws and have groups of women that include both definitons at the same time. It can only be one or the other. Anywhere were sex is important, gender identity is irrelevant. And
vice versa.

If TRA never used the words man and woman to describe themselves, but other words, people like DFW wouldn't be so confused.

If TRA know, acknowledged and understand why sex is relevant, why did they use the same words? And why are they demanding that groups exist include 'sex and gender identity' and want to remove groups that are only 'sex' and exclude gender identity?

Using parenting as an analogy is telling because parenting, mother and father are established roles. Its what you do or act that makes someone a mother - a woman has to give birth or parent a child. They aren't mothers because they are born that way.

Women are women because they are born female, they dont have to act a certain way or do certain things to become women. No one earns their woman status by acting sufficiently womanly, or doing womanhood.

Anywhere were sex is important, gender identity is irrelevant.

Precisely the point made by the Supreme Court.

The category would be 'incoherent', in their words.

Please don’t call me sexist. I am a feminist in my 40s who been doing equality activism since I was a teenager.

I understand the concern about protecting women’s rights and spaces. But I also believe in standing with all marginalised people, including trans women, who face high levels of discrimination and violence.

Biological difference has long been used to justify the oppression of women—to confine us, exclude us, and deny us autonomy. But just as we’ve resisted the idea that having a uterus should define a woman’s value or destiny, we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society—not solely defined by biology.

Trans inclusion is solidarity. Yes, there are times when single sex spaces are appropriate, but many people would exclude them from all women’s spaces based on prejudice alone.

Oh, okay. Thats a bit more nuanced. So women are allowed single sex services sometimes. Thanks.

Which spaces do you allow as single sex? Are you going for a very precise list of instances where men can be women?

Also, what evidence are you basing the idea that transwomen face high levels of violence on, please? Thanks.

we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society—not solely defined by biology.

Womens rights which were hard fought for are based on our biological sex. Women face disadvantage because: we are smaller and weaker and at greater risk from male violence. We are at greater risk of rape and sexual assault. We carry the reproductive burden. The majority of women become mothers and this of course has an enorous impact on our lives, health, career, etc. We menstruate, and go through the menopause.

Women's rights were based on an attempt at gaining equity due to us facing extra difficulties in society because of our sex.

What parts of women's oppression are not based on our biological sex?

In which areas are women at a disadvantage because of a "political identity'? Can you explain what a 'political identity' means pls? Thanks.

Trans inclusion is solidarity

Solidarity. Solidarity for or with what? Why does everyone need to stand together and what are people standing together for when it comes to allowing men into women’s spaces?

Can you explain this statement?

'So yes, the analogy holds: it shows we’re already capable of separating biology from identity without confusion or conflict — when we want to.'

No, it really doesn't hold. And choosing a label that has been used traditionally for a range of different female roles in society to destabilise the meaning of the word 'woman' doesn't work.

As others have point out, the word mother is a role in society as well as a statement of material reality. Just because that word, which has been used even in religious orders to denote 'carer of a group', has different meanings, doesn't mean that the word 'woman' did or has. It was always a very weak argument, I am always surprised to see it used.

A male person declaring they are 'a woman' based on their evaluation of what they perceive as a woman being, is only ever based on that male person's personally constructed definition of the word 'woman'. They have no material frame of reference at all so this is logically flawed from the start. They are describing feeling like their own unique version of 'man' than any type of 'woman'.

So, no. Trying to use the word mother as analogous to women lacks coherency on several points.

I think it's a Havel's greengrocer type of statement. It is the kind of statement that demonstrates compliance with the omnicause and being on TRSOH. The words don't need to make sense.

If a sexist is someone who acts in ways that negatively impact female people's needs, then I think someone who is trying to convince others that they should accept male people as 'women' based on that male person's belief can rightly be termed sexist. You might not like the term, but that is the outcome of what you are here on this thread supporting - the redefinition of the language that female people need for their progress against a millennia or more of negative sexist discrimination.

Perhaps it is the focus on 'equality activism' that is the issue. Female people require equitable solutions to achieve equality in opportunity when compared to male people. Part of that requires society to understand that female people still face negative sexist discrimination for being female from birth. That is something that no male person has ever experienced.

There is no equity for female people when male people are included in their group.

What other protected characteristic groups have been told that they need to allow the oppressor class access to their provisions? What other groups are you, an equality activist, directing who should and shouldn't be included in their characteristic?

'Biological difference has long been used to justify the oppression of women—to confine us, exclude us, and deny us autonomy. But just as we’ve resisted the idea that having a uterus should define a woman’s value or destiny, we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society—not solely defined by biology'.

Do you honestly think that feminists were working all those decades to erase the biological differences between the sexes? No. They weren't. When they said to society that female people should have 'equal rights', even then the feminists understand very well that this was 'equal opportunity'. Because female people cannot achieve parity being treated as if we are just like male people. But that is the outcome of what you are arguing for above.

To achieve equal opportunity, female people needed equitable solutions that were based on our biological differences. That is how it was done. Those uteruses should not shape a girl or woman's career choices, or their choices in things they pursue out of interest But they do shape the needs of that girl or woman. And acknowledging that is not reductive or biologically essentialism or whatever it is getting labelled as by people who demand that some male people be treated as if they were female based on nothing but that male person's belief about themselves.

Womanhood is partly a political identity, sure. But it is one that will always be based on the sex based struggles within a sexist society. And not one of those male people you are telling women to include in their group have the life experience that should include them in the group.

So, I ask again and I hope that you might answer: What other protected characteristic groups have been told that they need to allow the oppressor class access to their provisions? What other groups are you, an equality activist, directing who should and shouldn't be included in their characteristic?

@Onetimeonlyftw

So your position is that sex is at least sometimes relevant. Therefore, you must accept that we should be able to talk about when sex is relevant and have words to explain that. Which means an acknowledgment that trans women are not entirely the same as women. It’s not very far, then, to say that trans women deserve protection as trans women, with some considerations that may be similar to those of women and some that may be different. Which is totally on all fours with the SC court decision and aligns with what most of us think here.

The adoption argument does not work - adoption is fully embraced by adoptive parents as a process that does not negate in any way the biological realities (which are highlighted relevant to attachment issues and trauma and therefore may inform how they are parented in the future) - it’s not a denial of the past or how the past affects the future. Parenting is a verb and a concept - the guy who won season 2 of gladiators considered his grandma his parent, because she did all the things a parent would have done for him at a young age. What is womaning, except for a set of social stereotypes that hold women back?

Biology is womanhood. It has been weaponised against women by men who want to force social stereotypes and rules on them. But the biology is a fact - it’s a constant. It’s the social stereotypes and misapprehensions the are the issue. Biology did not prevent women running by marathons, men’s understanding of female biology and prejudice against women did, but it’s not possible for women to identify out of the fact that being on their period means it is more likely that they will pick up a running injury and that women athletes will need coaching that understands the way in which their cycle might affect them. It’s impossible to fight stereotypes and address disadvantage or scientific misapprehension alongside a group of people that claim these rules and stereotypes are what makes up female identity (because they don’t have the biology) and that biology is not relevant.

But just as we’ve resisted the idea that having a uterus should define a woman’s value or destiny, we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society—not solely defined by biology.

If TW and TM can opt in and out of a gendered society, how powerful is that society? If its a choice for trans people, isn't it a choice for everyone?

It is the very nature of the fluidity of a person declaring they have a transgender identity that makes it a meaningless concept for protecting specific groups of people. That is the logic that people who make the declarations that women and girls should be including those male people who believe they are, cannot see.

The Eddie Izzard and Philip Bunce examples obliterate any argument about including these male people to be protected under the sex based protections. They both claim to be 'woman'. Yet they also live part of their life as 'men'. They change when it suits them to.

Why the fuck are we being told that they are women and that they experience life as women?

The Izzard types pose a problem because the fluidity contradicts the "born this way" assertions about pink brains in blue bodies or whatever it is. Eddie Izzard, though he may not know this, is acting out the Judith Butler idea that sex/gender is all just a performance.

But in some ways, though I've known plenty of trans people, I'm less interested in what they claim about themselves than how convinced TRAs think. I know plenty of highly educated TRAs who are very capable of critical thinking in other areas, but when it comes to trans they go completely into magical thinking. At least if you assume they believe what they say.

They think that, not only can a man become a woman, but it's something like a nonbeliever becoming a Muslim - if you say it and believe it, it's true. Not only that, but it's always been true - James who became Jane at age 50 was always really Jane.

They think that a biologically male person who asserts a female identity takes on all the attributes of femaleness. That he has a female, not male, likelihood of criminal offending. That he has no male advantage in female sports.

I'm convinced that their outbursts of irrational anger when contradicted are because they know what they're saying isn't true. But the things they're saying that aren't true are very important to their image as good people.

James who became Jane at 50 is a source of cognitive dissonance. You know Jane doesn't remotely pass as female, but because you're a nice person and a good friend you have to keep telling him how feminine he is. You certainly don't want to speculate about whether he's an AGP fetishist.

I think, for a lot of people, this is the meaning of "trans inclusion is solidarity". So much of this is about lying - to yourself and the world - to maintain your self-image as a good person. And those of us who won't lie, by definition, aren't kind.

I think lots of people convince themselves that trans is the next civil rights movement and want to be in the photos when its retold.

I think for a lot of my contemporaries, they weren't around for the 1960s, they weren't around for second wave feminism, they don't remember mass industrial action, they sort of remember gay rights but by the time we reached adulthood Stonewall was already well on the way to making it safe and corporate...

Yes, they want their 1968 moment.

we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society—not solely defined by biology.

You can affirm all you like - you're still wrong.

If womanhood is not solely defined by biology, it has no meaning, and that’s why we have the self-ID predator’s paradise that feminists have had to fight against.

if you can just decide you’re woman when you’re male, based on something other than biology, then that is by definition sexist because you’re saying there’s something that makes a person a woman that isn’t biological, but cultural or personality-based or behaviour-based etc. it’s only possible to think that if you’re a sexist who doesn’t get that apart from our biological experiences and the ways they limit us (both males and females are limited in what they can do by biology, but overall females are more disadvantaged), there isn’t anything that all women have in common. Clothes, hair, make-up, social roles, social attitudes, sexual orientation, career, and on and on none of these make you a woman, only biology does. There is no other way it makes any sense.

if we say that as a male you can announce you’re a woman and have access to women’s spaces and categories, then any male can have that. Because the only evidence is that the person says so, and it can’t be proved and even questioning it became verboten because trans people ‘are who they say they are”/“a ceptance without exception”. It’s also transphobic to expect a male iding as a woman to have surgery, look like a woman, etc. That means, pre-ruling, any man can just say I’m a woman and that is literally all he has to do to get access to vulnerable women, steal sports medals and prizes, have his fetish indulged or just intimidate women for fun.

if you can’t see that this approach is a massive green flag to predatory dangerous men, and that the same situation doesn’t happen the other way around (because biological differences are real) then you must have lost all logical reasoning ability.

And even if a male genuinely thinks he’s a woman and means no harm, it still isn’t fair on women anyway. They still lose out on their sports, safety, dignity and privacy because a male is there.

I’m sorry for anyone who is unhappy about their sex and feels like they “should be” or “are” the opposite sex, but the fact is they are not.

"all marginalised people, including trans women, who face high levels of discrimination and violence"

You might want to go and look for the numbers. I suspect you'll be very surprised.

" we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society"

The struggles you face are because you were born a woman. The struggles trans women face are because they are men wishing to present as women. Which struggles do you share with them, exactly?

You clearly want to do what's right. But you can't do that if you allow myths and fuzzy arguments to affect your thinking.

What I don't get is, why do we need to include "transwomen" within the category of women, rather than acknowledging they are gender non-conforming/feminine males? The category of 'man' can very easily accommodate men who present themselves in stereotypically feminine ways. It seems incredibly regressive to say that just because a man is insufficiently masculine then he must be a woman.

Nobody is saying that about “insufficiently masculine men” - in fact, you just said it and then said it’s regressive. Perfect example of a straw man argument.

Do you consider Margaret Atwood to be sexist then?