"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 2

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

The last thread ended with Tandora attempting to sidestep the question about what she would say if her daughter had been raped by a trans woman in a female only space and no longer believed that trans women should be in female only spaces as a consequence.

Her last reply was along the lines of, "The same thing I would say if she had been bullied by a green person at school and said she no longer wanted to go to school with green people."

@Tandora can we have a serious answer?

Its not about accepting that trans people exist in society, clearly that is a done deal.

Its about not allowing them to illegally use female only spaces where women have the reasonable right to expect privacy away from men - trans identifying men or non trans-identifying men.

How many of that 30% of people currently in jail for sex offences who are black are women?

How many of that 0.4% of people currently in jail for sex offences who are trans are biologically female?

I hope you see where I'm going with this because it has everything to do with why we need single sex spaces

The idea that women commit sex offences as much as men do but we just don't prosecute them is so batshit I don't even know where to begin.

No no this doesn't work at all.

To be trans is to live other than your sex assignment at birth - this is what it is to be trans. You absolutely cannot say that you support the acceptance and inclusion of trans people, while banning them from using basic public services in accordance with their lived sex.

It would be like saying - we accept gay people in society, but gay partnership is entirely banned.

Their lived sex is the same as their birth sex.

Trans women have zero frame of reference for what it is like to be female.

Their lived sex is the same as their birth sex

No it isn't. This is a complete denial/ refutation of trans experience. It's the very opposite of acceptance and inclusion.

Living as a male person who has gender dysphoria or AGP is not the same as living as a female person who does not have gender dysphoria or AGP.

Being male and having gender dysphoria or AGP is a uniquely male experience which only male people have.

They have nothing in common with female people who are actually living as females.

Living as a person who has gender dysphoria is not the same as living as a female person who does not have gender dysphoria or AGP.

Correct.

Being male and having gender dysphoria is a uniquely male experience which only male people have.

Meaningless ideological statement. Also false.

They have nothing in common with female people who are actually living as females

Entirely irrelevant how much they do or don't have in common with you.

If they don't have anything in common with women then what is the logic for them being in women's spaces?

To be trans is to have an experience of sex other than the sex you were assigned at birth.

To treat a trans woman as if they are a man is to cause acute distress, pain, disorientation to that person.

Living as a male who presents as a woman will always be different from women's experience because those men went through a male puberty, due to being male from the moment of conception. They therefore have male bodies, male hormones and male sexual urges that women dont have. Therefore their experience is inherently different. They learn how to present as what they think being a woman is after the fact (and often get it hilariously wrong, focusing on silly stereotypes around clothes and hair).

The only way to perhaps counter this was of course to try and prevent male puberty, as the difference between prepubescent male and female children is less different (as any parent of boys and girls pre and post puberty will tell you). But that led to producing stunted adults with intellectual impairment, inferility and destroyed sexual function - because it turns out puberty is actually very important in producing functional adults and maturing brain function, and so has rightly been banned as unethical and impossible to get informed consent for.

So we're back to trans identifying males existing and having the same human rights as everyone else, but not the right to illegally enforce themselves in women's legally protected space. Because they are NOT the same as women (in fact they usually present much more like gay men, unsurprisingly perhaps)

So transmen only in men's prisons? Transmen who box only allowed to box against 'other men'? No transmen able to access health provision where, like some clinics at my local hospital, they are female-only spaces? Transmen only allowed in male-only spaces where spaces have been separated by sex?

Where do non-binary people figure in this? How should they be treated?

To treat a woman as if a trans identifying man is the same as them is to cause acute distress, pain, disorientation to that person.

So we're back to trans identifying males existing and having the same human rights as everyone else

That's like criminalising gay sex and then saying a gay person has the same 'rights' to be heterosexual as anyone else.

To be trans is to have an experience of sex other than the sex you were assigned at birth. A failure to accept, understand and include a trans person on that basis, is to deny them some of the most important rights a person has - including basic dignity of the person.

But a man is not a woman so he cannot have the experience of the female sex unless you redefine what sex actually means and the ruling in the SC has stopped that.

Ah so they are different from women? And so should be treated differently? Perhaps you should ask the TIM you know how they feel about third spaces and trans category sports?

No I'm not in any way for blanket enforcement of things - nor is it what the law is intended to do either. That is completely draconian and a massive overstep of the state.

Saying that we must accept and include trans people is not to say that we can never exclude trans people from women's services (this is what the SC clarified) .
In the same way that we can have a service for disabled women, for black women, for lesbian women, we can have a service for birth women where necessary and proportionate - e.g. particular health services for women, particular rape crisis support.
But this is a world away from saying that trans woman can never be allowed in women's spaces or to use basic facilities (like toilets) in accordance with their lived sex - that latter position is completely incompatible with a society that recognises, accepts and includes trans people.

incoherent and nothing to do with the SC judgement.

So the only logic for them being in women's spaces is "because they want to be", and how women feel about them being there is an irrelevance to you?

No @Tandora . This is your misreading of the situation.

We simply want legal and social recognition that boring old physical body sex of the type recognised at birth in almost everyone including almost all trans people has a significant impact on the risks, challenges and opportunities one faces in life, particularly if one is a woman (in the boring old female body sense) because of how much of our social structures and norms have been influenced by Patriarchy.

And we want that recognition to be connected to the social, cultural and global existence and history of boring old female because that is part of understanding why what happens to us happens to us and how we can move society to a place that is better for us.

And since our laws and our history and our cultural presence are all written under the word Woman, we need that name to continue to mean what it always has, us, the boring old recognised at birth female half of the species, female for better or worse, from the day we are born to the day we die, AFAB NBs, trans men, transmasc demibois and all of us turning up female to every day of our lives.

Accepting and respecting trans people can be done alongside that, by the simple understanding that since whatever they experience is not tied to the boring everyday recognised at birth sex of their body, it does not, indeed should not, need to have the same name as the boring everyday recognised at birth sex of the body.

Respect that, and there is no reason whatsoever to not create new social concepts around these new and subtle emerging ideas of gender that can exist and flourish and are respected alongside the ones that recognise the sex of the body.

The only reason there is an issue at all it that trans people want to take something that has meaning and importance and utility to others for practical reasons that are nothing whatsoever to do with gender as trans people experience, and turn it into something that is meaningful to trans people but no longer meets those practical needs that are due to body sex.

Find new words and you turn this nasty and divisive, less then zreo game colonisation into something additive and enriching to everyone.

Why would you not want that, for trans people, and for all of us?

Tandora, this has been explained to you many times.

The Supreme Court confirmed that sex means biological sex.

This means that as far as the Equality Act is concerned, women are female and trans women are male.

This means that a space with both women and trans women in it is a mixed sex space which men must also be entitled to use.

This means that a space with both women and trans women in it is a mixed sex space which men must also be entitled to use

I disagree as I have explained to you at length.

It's nothing like criminalising gay sex, because sex is a private act which only concerns the people having it.

Trans identifying males are welcome to wear whatever they like and sit around contemplating their gender identities anywhere they like except in spaces which are reserved for members of the opposite sex. They are not supposed to be included in these spaces. On the contrary; these spaces were created expressly to exclude them along with all other members of their sex.

This "incoherent" thing of yours is pointless and just shows how weak your points are.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree or not, in the same way that it wouldn't matter if you disagreed that the earth is spherical.