Why is sex-based language important to support sex-based rights?

[Dragonasaurus]

I think it it necessary to defend sex-based language to describe and defend sex-based rights. An interesteing discussion had ensued on a now deleted thread. I hadn’t got to the later pages, so I’m guessing posts took an unpleasant turn. Nevertheless, I think the discussion is important enough to reconvene if we all pinky promise not to be mean

I think Helen Joyce, as always, explains it very clearly here: https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/joyce-activated-issue-3

Once you decide that you are willing to refer to a man as “woman”, “she” and “her” on demand, it becomes extremely difficult to explain why he shouldn’t be treated as a woman in every respect—permitted into women’s changing rooms, allowed to compete as a woman in sports and acknowledged as a lesbian if he is sexually attracted to women. You may have thought you were merely being courteous, but all of a sudden you find you’ve lost an argument you didn’t even know had started.

I think that Helen Joyce nailed it with that.

Because if you're using 'gender' language, then when you say 'woman' you mean 'a person of either sex' and when you say 'man' you mean 'a person of either sex', so it quickly becomes absolutely impossible to talk about one or the other if you want to differentiate by sex.

I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.

Thanks OP I was wondering where that thread had got to. I was going to post the following on it, but it is just as applicable here I think.

Extract from Reem Alsalem's report for a special session on Violence Against Women 59th Session of the Human Rights Council.

Erasure of sex specific language and categories
13. Recently, there has been a concerted international push to delink the definition of men and women from their biological sex, and erase the legal category of “women”. Such efforts have undermined the practical achievement of equality between men and women. Women are therefore being denied their rightful recognition as a distinct category in law and society. It is a form of “coercive inclusion” which relies on the expectation that women will be kind enough to sacrifice their own recognition and protection for the sake of others.
14. The suppression of women in language and law occurs in several forms: by replacing sex-specific language with neutral language; by reinterpreting sex-specific language to refer to gender identity rather than sex; and by referring to females in dehumanizing, biologically reductive terms such as “birthing persons” “menstruaters/bleeders” or “vagina havers” with “front holes”. Such a framing is accompanied by describing the distinction between male and female itself as “biological essentialism” and “an intrinsic expression of patriarchal structures”, rather than the material reality onto which oppressive gender norms and stereotypes are imposed.
15. In an effort to provide recognition for males who identify as women or girls, many states have denied females their own right to be recognized in law as a distinct, particularly vulnerable group in need of targeted protection as envisaged by international law, including lesbian and bisexual women. The pursuit of neutrality can often lead to a form of blindness to the distinct needs, rights, and vulnerabilities of particular groups. If the category of biological females is erased or fundamentally decoupled from sex-based oppression, that oppression becomes increasingly difficult to identify and, thus, to combat. In sum, we cannot protect what we do not define.

The last sentence provides the perfect summary.

I think Kellie J Keen was first with this. She was shocking everyone with her hard line on pronouns. Now the academics are agreeing with her .

Not that it matters who was 'first' (?) but when are you referring to?

As I posted on the other thread, there has been a trackable build up to where there are now so many of us who reject using female language in connection with male people.

I actually remember the shock waves of relief when we heard that voice drift across the pool, 'He's a man!'. There were events before that that had started people who had been accepting to the language demand to question them. But that was one of the memorable moments that probably marked the change coming.

Then, as I noted on the other thread, people really started to take notice when media and Scottish MPs and the FM kept using she and woman to refer to Bryson. And then quickly after, Miller'. The visual discordance also caused people to question it. Because seeing a penis outlined in pink leggings on a rapist that media and political leaders were referring to as 'she', was very contradictory.

Then came the derisory 'ultra' label. This really did cause feminists to start to think about their language usage.

I think what really also was an important event was the protests about Lin and Khelif. This broadened the discussion from being solely about people who were transgender, but to any male person who had declared that they were female. This really focused on why accurate and factual language was important. Again, the imagery in the media aggravated the disruption of perception between two male boxers punching women in the face being referred to as female and she/her being used.

But I think in the UK, by the time that Naomi Cunningham stripped away the emotional language being used to allow Upton to access female changing rooms, people were ready to step away from any previous inclination to use demanded language over using accurate terms to describe issues and situations. So many women, and men, reading or watching Upton's testimony found it reassuring that Naomi Cunningham could use such accurate language.

I don't believe that the general trend in the UK to now use accurate language will be reversed.

I don't believe that the general trend in the UK to now use accurate language will be reversed.

The interesting thing is, it's the TRAs who insist on and rely on 'gender identity' being separate from sex. Yet they conflate it all the time.

I'm completely happy to accept that gender identity is not one's sex. So when we talk about anything where sex does actually matter, we need to talk about sex.

Gender identity is, as the TRAs say, separate. If 'woman' has nothing to do with 'female' then no medical interventions are needed to be a woman (or man, or NB).

I agree that people are now more aware and will increasingly think of sex and GI as different things and hopefully be more accurate in their language.

I become very aware of how the use of female language was being used against women in listening to McKinnon / Ivy

HOW MCKINNON / IVY ARGUES USING PRONOUNS TO GET INCLUSION IN SPORT

THIS NEEDS A VPN SET TO THE USA TO SEE THE VIDEO

https://news.sky.com/story/trans-cyclist-rachel-mckinnon-defends-her-right-to-race-in-womens-competitions-11838131

Trans cyclist Rachel McKinnon defends her right to race in women's competitions

By Martha Kelner

Sunday 20 October 2019

Trans athlete McKinnon will race to defend her sprint title at the Masters track cycling championships in Manchester on Saturday.

And then

"All my medical records say female," she said. "My doctor treats me as a female person, my racing licence says female, but people who oppose my existence still want to think of me as male."

"There's a stereotype that men are always stronger than women, so people think there is an unfair advantage. By preventing trans women from competing or requiring them to take medication, you're denying their human rights."

Asked if she accepted it is possible that transgender women retained a physical advantage over cis female competitors (the term used to describe someone who identifies as the same gender they were assigned at birth), McKinnon replied: "Is it possible? Yes it is possible. But there are elite track cyclists who are bigger than me."

"There is a range of body sizes and strength, you can be successful with massively different body shapes. To take a British example, look at Victoria Pendleton, an Olympic champion with teeny tiny legs."

"In many Olympic disciplines the gap in performance is bigger between first and eighth in a single sex event than it is between the first man and the first woman."

and then

It is one of the most politically charged and sensitive issues around - but asked whether trans inclusion was more important than retaining a category for women in sport, McKinnon replied: "I think what your asking me is, 'Is it more important that trans people are included, than it is to retain fairness in sport?'

"My point is that trans inclusion is fairness, it is unfair to exclude trans women. This is much bigger than sport, it's a proxy for all of trans inclusion in society. Talk of bathrooms has switched into sport by people who don't care about sport."

In the video, McKinnon says "if you think that transwomen are men are men, then you think that there is an unfair advantage."

and my point about the pronouns comes from this quote:

at around 37 seconds into the video: "We care about sport, it is central to society. If you want to say, 'well, I believe you're a woman for all of society, except this massive central part that is sport, then, that is not fair. Fairness is the inclusion of transwomen."

In this video and article, McKinnon uses these arguments:
-Unfair to not think of us as female since people 'accept us as female elsewhere'.
-The 'I don't always win, therefore I don't have a competitive advantage fallacy'
-The 'Phelps Gambit' fallacy - range of body sizes, and shape etc
-Elite male's advantage should not be used for all levels to exclude male people
-Questions sex categorisation anyway
-The 'not many transwomen in the Olympics anyway' fallacy

I remember feeling a sudden sense of calm when I realised I could simply call men "men".

Earlier in my peaking journey I had engaged in all sorts of hand-wringing about when it might be polite to use preferred pronouns and if it helped the cause to seem conciliatory and whether I should just avoid pronouns or say they/them or whether there was a semantic difference between trans woman and transwoman etc etc.

An entire category of worries lifted immediately and I felt clarity had returned in my head. I almost don't even consider myself GC anymore. Post-GC or something. It simply doesn't take up any space in my head, same as moon landing deniers.

Why does Ivy think that being female or not has anything to do with being a woman?
They sound dangerously close to "woman: Adult Human Female"!

Once you see the argument that McKinnon used, you tend to find it repeated previous and of course, since.

This is the emotional reasoning that is used to convince policy makers to allow male people to access female single sex spaces.

I know that some posters think that it is logical for this group of male people to at least reference the fact they believe they are women in the label they use as in 'trans woman'. However, the use of 'woman' at all to describe that group of male people is deceptive cognitively because the word woman means something opposite but the women signals to the listener that this male is some kind of 'woman'. That is how communication works. The reader or listener's brain processes the word 'woman' and may filter out the 'trans' added to it if they don't quite know what that means. Rather than question, the brain will think 'it is a kind of woman'.

I think that having seen what has eventuated, even the use of the word 'transwoman' can be said to be harmful.

And that is before going into the change where there is a 'space' between the words. I am sure we have all heard the mantras that go along with that meaning that this group is just another type of woman, just like tall or short woman. It is just manipulative.

McKinnon / Ivy famously said something like 'I am a biological female. I am human and my ID says that I am female' (well, he also told women to die in grease fires too when they rejected his demand to be treated as being female).

It is yet another example of the manipulation of language. We saw Upton use the same argument. It is a deconstruction of language to force it to fit their demands.

I will look for that quote.

Here is a youtube version

Being able to call men who view themselves as trans, ‘men’ helps make it clear why I object to them being in spaces set aside for women

I do not object because they are trans, I object because they are men

I’m not saying transwomen must stay out, I’m saying men must stay out

preventing women from being able to say that was a very neat trick on the part of trans activists. It’s good that the spell is broken

I wonder about newspaper editors who insist on referring to these men as "she" and "her" in articles no matter what. Do they really believe it? Or are they gleefully writing phrases like "her penis" to discuss male sex criminals' anatomy knowing their readers will notice and object to the dissonance.

And he was a pants cyclist and now lives with his mum. Not saying karma is fab but…

"So the first is, the very language of "you were born and I’m not biological somehow. I don't think I’m a cyborg, so the idea you're not a biological woman. I am a woman, that's a fact. I am female. so all my identity records, my racing license, my medical records all say "female." and I’m pretty sure I’m made of biological stuff. So I’m a biological female as well."

(VPN needed.) But a transcript was kindly posted on a thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4580136-veronica-ivyrachel-mckinnon-on-daily-show-tonight?page=2

When you look at that from this distance, it's remarkable what absolute drivel it really is.

And it's a testament to how far we've come that anybody now reading that would think it was unhinged.

It's the arrogance, that gets me. McKinnon really did exemplify how much of a men's rights movement this is, and what sense of entitlement they have to not only ride rough shod over women everywhere, but to be so fucking smug while they're at it.

Like dur, of course we're going to take all your stuff and threaten you with death if you object.

I mean, he really was jumping the shark, in my opinion. But it's surprising how many people went along with it.

And yes, the misuse of language is the crucial element that made it all possible.

No debate.

It was so breathtaking wasn’t it?

finding suddenly that I was censored for saying things that were self explanatory evidently true (‘that’s a man’) shocked me rigid

the idea that the truth was unsayable because it was rude….mind blowing

still happening a bit obvs, witness the thread deletion this morning

Let's also remember that McKinnon was a lecturer at a uni. Professor of Philosophy at the College of Charleston

True. But he played chicken with his bosses and lost. They er…. Let him go.

Indeed they did Namelessnelly

McKinnon was a big deal for me. The sheer male arrogance...

Naomi Cunningham says a colleague jokes that her whole legal strategy is to say "look, he's got a willy", but sometimes you need to be that blunt.

It's something I can struggle with on the micro scale because I do have a few friends who are what you would call "old school" transsexuals (and who no longer have willies) and who I still think of as "she", but my sympathy for a handful of old friends is not a good basis for public policy.

If we are to defend women's single sex spaces and services, we have to hold the line on correctly sex based language. Because once you start accepting that certain men are a subset of women, then you've snookered yourself.

Were the Wims naughty again and do some truthing? I read some replies to the other thread early this morning but then had to go out. Came back to reply to Beach and it was deleted! Poof!

I may not have seen whatever was "not in the spirit" but my argument that words need to reflect reality is surely in the spirit of feminism: sex and gender discussions. Incorrectly sexing humans is not a neutral act and doing so negatively affects women. As posters repeatedly pointed out. With examples.

Although he cross dresses my uncle is still a man and although my brother claims he is a woman he is also a man. This is not evidence of hate towards either relative. Just fact.