A little piece of insight

[Tandora]

Into a topic so woefully misunderstood.

Well... just imagine if a group of people with male human attributes did not demand to use the same words that uniquely describe a group of people with female human attributes, there would be no linguistic disputes.

It is really quite extraordinary to see someone justify the use of female language for any male person who wishes to use it to describe themselves.

And all based on an 'understanding', a belief that has no basis in material reality, that the male person 'understands' themselves in a way that they perceive is 'female'. Isn't that the current thinking that we have been told by tandora, or have I missed a few threads? I mean, I believe it was admitted that there was no way that these male people actually experienced life interacting with it as a female person does, because that would be impossible. But it was all based on the 'understanding'.

But apparently, it is quite ok for those male people to create linguistic disputes, over words female people need to describe themselves and that society has already well established meanings for.

This is too general - the conversation can only be held at a much more nuanced level - which spaces? In what circumstances? How should we better organised sports to ensure fairness but also inclusion, etc.

All done and dusted in the UK now. Just tying up the loose ends with some crowdfunded court cases.

Dr. Upton’s comment was designed to deny his questioner access to the language necessary to discuss the difference between biological men and women.

it’s the smarty-pants equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting “la la la I can’t hear you”.

i don’t think he’s actually stupid enough to believe he’s a biological woman (unless the standard of medical degrees has dropped considerably since my day) but the fact that he chooses to advance the argument is the point: if he’s not prepared to acknowledge the differences in an adversarial tribunal (where one is obliged to discuss lots of things one might wish not to) then he is de facto saying those differences don’t exist.

I don’t know how much clearer that could be.

There is no dispute that trans women's bodies have biological differences to cis women's bodies.

Doctor Upton uses words that indicate very clearly he disputes that. Whatever is in his head, we are entitled to hear what comes out of his mouth.

The trans experience of a man who claims to be a woman is the experience of a man.

The reality of someone's experience does not create actual truth or reality, that is an objective thing that people who claim to be trans need to learn to accept.

@MyAmpleSheep I think that you are far too generous with your reasonableness.

@Tandora i have a mental illness caused by a man.

I can’t be in a space where there is a closed door and a man on the other side of that door.

Why do my needs have to come second to those of a man? Why does a man’s feeling trump mine?

Why is this even an argument when the law in the U.K. has been decided?

Finally, what toilet, sports teams, prisons, hospital wards etc do you think trans people should be placed on?

The misunderstanding is the purpose of the linguistic dishonesty and Newspeak. It's designed to erase the meaning of the words woman and female so you can no longer define or articulate women as a class that excludes all men including the ones who claim to be women.

It was the justification Upton used when he said he would attend a female patient who wanted a female doctor. Do you think that would be ok for him to do? If not, how can a female patient request a female doctor? What language must she use?

Sorry. Male, transgender, cisgender, woman, birthed, children. No idea what you mean by those words. They are all in 'linguistic dispute'.

When words no longer mean what the majority of the population using that language expect those words to mean, you end up with:

"As I said - this is a misunderstanding based on a linguistic dispute about the appropriate boundaries and application of the words "woman", "female" and "biological woman" etc. There is no dispute that trans women's bodies have biological differences to cis women's bodies."

Female people set boundaries around the words that they need, that have been established historically to describe them, and people will try to rationalise the attempt from male people who demand to use all the words that female people have used to describe themselves.

Based on what? Based on an 'understanding' of themselves that doesn't reflect material reality at all. Yet the female people use the language to describe their own material reality must just accept those male people's demands.

And on and on and on.

"There is no dispute that trans women's bodies have biological differences to cis women's bodies."

How about then, female people can have single sex provisions that fully exclude male people over about 8 years old. And we can keep our language to use to describe ourselves in law and in everyday life.

Glad we got there.

You are misunderstanding and projecting, because you can't see the other point of view..

The argument is not whether there are biological differences between trans women and cisgender women - of course there are biological differences. No one wants to deny anyone's ability to acknowledge and talk about these.

What people are arguing about is how we should talk about them, what words, what phrases should we use? How broad or precise or descriptive should we be in our use of language. Is "biological female" a precise or nebulous term?

To you the word "biological woman" means a woman who is biologically the same as you. But to a trans woman - this is exclusionary, as it fails to acknowledge the experience/ existence of trans women.

When Dr Upton says she is a "biological woman", she is not being dishonest or a "smarty-pants". She sincerely feels that this language appropriately describes her experience. To say that she is not a "biological woman" is to imply that her experience of who she is isn't real or natural or grounded in biology. And yet she knows that it is.

With Tandora empathy and compassion only flows one way.

In her world view, transwomen are actually parasitic, needing all the resources of society at large - but mostly women - to flow to them to alleviate their pain. Take take take.

In Tan's explanation, trans people are not members of society with a duty to everyone else, but the a special rarified group whose particular self-, misconception means everyone must warp reality and language to accommodate them.

Anyone denying this is cruel or stupid or unable to understand what it is to be trans because we aren't trans ourselves.

Of course Tan isn't trans either, but has apparently been touched by the angels and truly knows and understands and empathises.

All the distress of everyone else is irrelevant to Tan. Those abused an assaulted by Isla Bryson, Barbie Kardashian, Stephen White, Katie Dolowtowski; those bullied and pilloried and fired for not playing along with TWAW; survivors of male violence; religious women; women and girls just wanting privacy and dignity away from males... this is all so low down Tan's priorities in the face of trans.

It's offensive.

"When Dr Upton says she is a "biological woman", she is not being dishonest. She sincerely feels that this language appropriately describes her experience. To say that she is not a "biological woman" is to imply that her experience of who she is isn't real or natural or grounded in biology. And yet she knows that it is."

This is postmodern nonsense.
Society cannot and does not function like this.

The trans experience of a man who claims to be a woman is the experience of a man.

I think thiis is a very significant point. Only a man can be a “trans woman”. The experiences of being such a person are definitionally restricted to men.

Tandora is a woman (by her claim) and therefore is incapable of understanding what it is to be a “trans woman”. Her sympathy for and understanding of “trans women” is neither more nor less valid than anyone else’s here.

Yes, but trans experience is real in the same way my brother thinking that he's being surveilled by the government is real. It's real to him, but it's not real to me, and the kindest thing I can do is not affirm it.

Any space where a woman is vulnerable, so toilets, changing rooms, refuges, prisons, rape crisis services, etc. Lesbians should also be able to gather without male presence. Female sports should be for females only because there is always a male advantage. Other than that, I think you'll find most of us don't care. But instead of constantly asking us women how we might compromise, why don't you ask it of transwomen?

LOL, is all I can say to that claim. It doesn’t deserve anything else.

YY.

If the brain doesnt fit the body, why not fix the brain. Its a hard no from me

So tell us:

If a female patient requested care from a female doctor and Upton turned up...

1. Is she bigoted for refusing care from him? Don't give us the "any patient can refuse care for any reason" copout. I want to know, is it bigoted, transphobic or somehow morally dubious if she refused care from him because she correctly noted that he isn't female?

2. If not, then what language should she use to express her objection and what language should she use to communicate that she wants a female born doctor?

In your world things don’t mean what people commonly understand them to mean. We’ve already acknowledged that “biological woman” or “female” can mean a man to you, making nonsense of many of your posts which depend on the common understanding. How do I know what you mean by “birthing children”? It could be your crochet projects for all I know. It’s important that words are defined and commonly understood, no?

TRAs: Words are meaningless undefinable wobbly wobbly timey wimey anything at any time depending on whatever the speaker wants to convey. Sex, gender, genes, broccoli, helicopters... all nebulous dogwhistles. Indeed, everything is everything... multifaceted, intergenerational, international... limitless, formless ...

Also TRAs: I'm not male. I'm Righteous. I'm Kind. There is a Right Side of History and I'm on it.

And there've been a fair few transwomen who've pretended to be pregnant, most notably that horror who planned a fake stillbirth and got actual women who'd been through it banned from a support group!

I am a cisgender women who has birthed multiple children.

So who appointed you spokesperson for transwomen, then? And how can you be so sure that you understand what is not your lived experience?

(also, I don't believe you)

What people are arguing about is how we should talk about them, what words, what phrases should we use? How broad or precise or descriptive should we be in our use of language. Is "biological female" a precise or nebulous term

No, this is not fair or accurate.

TRA arguments seek to remove every available means of describing the differences between men and women. The phrase “biological women” only came into use because the regular word “women” had been removed and repurposed. Now there is an effort to repurpose “biological women” as evidenced by Dr. Upton.

This is the exact erasure of women as a sex category that stands at the base of the TRA edifice.

Perhaps Dr Upton should have been asked what language he would have preferred Naomi Cunningham to have used to refer to those differences. What do you think he would have said? I am confident that no form of language would be acceptable, because the use of any such language to do so would remind him of his male status.

Ah because it's much harder to "fix the brain". We simply don't know how to do it. The brain is of course part of the body, so it's a false distinction; it is widely considered to be the most complex part of the human body, and when we come to the relationship between the physical/ chemical process in the brain and cognition things become even more inscrutable within the framework of current scientific knowledge.