Are We Really 'Women' On The Inside?

[HazelLemur]

Dear friends,

As anyone paying attention to current trans affairs knows, the anti-trans brigade like to throw around what they think is the “killer question”.

"What is a woman, then?"

These people will often engage in triumphal sneering as they further insist "Your chromosomes are what you are; XX are women and XY are men. It's science, innit?"

And as a confident trans-woman I say to these people "Absolutely! What is a woman? Great question! Let's examine that".

To begin, let's consult three definitive sources:

First, the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language.
Then, modern genetics and neurophysiology.
And finally, up to date research on brain structure in cisgender and transgender women.

First, the dictionary.
For this, let's go with the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language:

Woman (noun)

1. an adult female human being
2. an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth

As we can see from #2, despite the recent social backlash and disproportionately loud screeching from certain murky corners of the internet, Western culture as a whole is moving toward accepting the validity of trans peoples' inner gender identity. No person with a working moral compass would consider this a bad thing.

Next, let’s summarize genetics and neurophysiology.

Modern society routinely treats all the following “XY” humans as WOMEN, however...
-You can be a woman because you have X & Y chromosomes but your body is insensitive to androgens and you have female anatomy & gender identity.
Ah, so much for the childishly simplistic “But women = XX and men = XY".
-You can be a woman with X & Y chromosomes but your Y is missing the SRY gene, so you have a female body and gender identity (yes, this is a real thing despite your denials).

People who have X & Y chromosomes, but their Y is missing the SRY gene, develop a female body.
Should we treat such people as men, in society, when they have the body of a woman, simply because simpletons insist that XY = Male?
Only an inveterate bigot with some weird religious and/or psychosexual axe to grind would say yes.

You can be a woman with XXY or XXXY chromosomes, giving you a male body but female brain/body map and gender identity.
-You can be a woman with XY chromosomes but a mutation called CBX2 that blocks the influence of the SRY gene.
-You can be a woman because you have 46,XY in some cells but 46,XX in other cells, or 47, XXY.

These are all valid, scientifically obervable genetic variations that highlight the "But XX = women and XY = men" mantra for the simplistic, unscientific nonsense that it is.

And lastly, there are studies of brain structure.
These show that in the section of the brain that determines one’s sense of gender identity.

The brains of transgender women are almost identical to those of cisgender women.
The brains of trans men also align more with cisgender men than they do with women.

And so, to summarize

Modern science, which is how rational people resolve differences of opinion.
It is not about referring to holy books, written in pre-scientific ages past.
It is not about regurgitating simplistic, binary statements that you learnt in the 4th grade.

This shows us that, genetically and biologically speaking, there are many types of women; including transgender women like me.

P.S. In this essay we have a summary of the cutting edge science which validates transgender womens' biologically determined, inner sense of gender identity.

As I’ve said, a rational society follows rational explanations, and doesn’t define its people via outdated religious or cultural ideas.
But beyond that, there is simply human courtesy and kindness.

It’s cruel, hateful and rude for the transphobic bigots to demand that people be forced to conform to their anti-scientific notions.

No one's life is affected negatively by honoring a transwoman as a woman, as the historical record of many trans accepting societies have shown.

Good people will see the very challenging dilemma that transwomen are in, and their natural empathy, coupled with scientific insight, will make them want to support their fellow human beings in being who they know they are.

And so, I ask all of you:

Should we as a society treat trans-women as the women their brain and neurobiology tells us they are? And, if not, why on earth wouldn’t we?

P.P.S. The image in this post is of women who have XY chromosomes, but an androgen insensitivity syndrome which causes their bodies to develop as female.
Would anyone in their right mind insist we treat them as males, simply because of their chromosomal makeup?
The bigots might, but you know you're better than that, right?

Of course I've considered the well-being of women and girls. Would have been a bit one-sided if I hadn't.

I think the risk is lower. Principally because I believe the vast majority of transwomen just want to pee, wash their hands and leave. I don't agree with the idea that they're all predatory.

You “think”? Actually there is no evidence of any danger for transwomen going into male bathrooms. On the contrary we have plenty of evidence for transwomen making the women and girls unsafe when they are allowed in female spaces.

why are you only considering the safety of transwomen here? Why does their safety matter more to you than women and girls?

So we're back to:

1. Transwomen offend at the same or greater rates than other men. You have just made women and girls' spaces more dangerous for women and girls.
2. Given the claim was practicality, how do you propose to ensure only transwomen (however you define that) use women and girls' spaces and not just any man who fancies it? You have just made women and girls' spaces more dangerous for women and girls.

The problem with this argument is that it treats female toilets as a risk-management service for males.

Women’s single-sex spaces do not exist because every male is predatory. They exist because women and girls are entitled to privacy, dignity and safety away from the male sex class.

A male person entering a female toilet already changes the space. Women do not have to wait until he behaves badly before their boundary has been crossed. The loss of privacy happens at entry.

“I just want to pee” may be true of many individuals, but single-sex rules cannot be based on unverifiable inner motives. They have to be based on observable sex, because that is the relevant risk category and the only workable boundary.

The issue is not “all transwomen are predators”. Nobody serious is claiming that. The issue is that males commit the overwhelming majority of sexual offences, and women and girls should not have to assess, in a locked or enclosed space, which males are safe and which are not.

Nor is it fair to make women carry the risk created by a male person’s discomfort in the male toilets. If a trans-identifying male is vulnerable in male spaces, the humane answer is a third, private, single-user option. It is not to remove female people’s single-sex provision.

This is especially important for girls, traumatised women, religious women, disabled women, elderly women, and any woman who simply does not want to share intimate facilities with males. Their boundaries are not bigotry.

So the question is not whether most trans-identifying males are harmless. The question is whether women and girls are allowed any spaces where male people are not present.

The answer should be yes.

How do you tell the transwoman "who just wants to pee" from the predatory man who just wants to assault a woman? And how to you keep the latter out of women's spaces when you are not allowed to question who is and who isn't a transwoman?

Or we can’t be arsed with yet another man trying to say he is a woman, honestly he really really is?

I'm not responding to these questions. I've done it before - in detail - and it never makes any difference.

If I thought this was a genuine discussion, then I'd engage. But it isn't, and never is.

I came onto this thread because I thought the OP was being confrontational and patronising. And I told them so.

I remain convinced that there is a way through this debate that is rooted in kindness, compassion and compromise. But only if people are interested in finding one.

I have to admit I’m unsure what characteristics having a ‘lady’ brain actually adds to anything. Do all women think and act in the same way because personally I’m not seeing it play out like that in real life? I thought there was lots of overlap between the sexed brains and differences had been over exaggerated.

This is a very neat way of avoiding the substance.

You made a claim about female spaces. Women challenged it. Now you are saying you will not answer because the discussion is not “genuine”.

But women’s boundaries do not stop mattering because you find the questions repetitive or uncomfortable.

You are arguing that male people should be allowed into spaces set aside for women and girls, then refusing to address the obvious consequences for female privacy, dignity, safety, trauma, religion and bodily autonomy.

That is not kindness. It is not compassion. It is not compromise.

A compromise is not where one group keeps its full claim and the other group is told to surrender its boundaries politely.

Women are not being unkind by saying no to males in female spaces. Girls are not being confrontational by wanting privacy from males in toilets and changing rooms. Traumatised women are not being patronising by objecting to male presence in intimate facilities.

The “way through” is obvious: keep genuinely single-sex spaces for women and girls, and provide proper single-user alternatives for anyone who cannot or will not use the facilities provided for their own sex.

That protects everyone’s dignity.

What does not protect everyone’s dignity is demanding access to female spaces, refusing to answer basic safeguarding questions, and then presenting female resistance as a failure of kindness.

What about the danger to women and girls from men? Have you considered that?

Have you read the Target study?

I have considered that, yes.

Biology undermines your opening waffle point.

You aren't a woman. Which parts of our sex based oppression that you want to opt into?

Allow me to simplify it for you OP. You are a man, have always been a man, will always be a man.

I am a bloke, I am also gender critical. I know that I cannot be a feminist, but I can support women who are fighting for girl's and women's rights.
Men cannot be women and women cannot be men, irrespective of how they identify. The vast majority of people in the World, are heterosexual, they are attracted to the opposite sex. The physical and hormonal makeup of men and women is very different, which then influences different behavioural patterns between men and women. Men are stronger, with higher levels of testosterone, which can make some men more aggressive and violent, women have minute levels of testosterone and tend to be more gentle and caring, which are ideal traits for mothers to have.
When I was six years old, at infant school, I was having regular nosebleeds. The male teachers seemed to get annoyed at me for some reason, but one of the female teachers was very kind and understanding. I remember one of the girls in my class, she had long red hair, she noticed me during one of these nosebleeds and brought a wet towel over and held it against my forehead to cool me down and stayed with me until the nosebleed had finished.
The differences between men and women are very obvious to the majority of people and to deny that fact is very futile.

“I have considered that, yes” is not an answer. It is a dismissal.

If you have considered male violence against women and girls, and still conclude that males should enter female intimate spaces, then you have decided female privacy and consent matter less.

Women cannot assess which males are safe by appearance, identity or assertion. That is exactly why single-sex spaces exist.

The compromise is simple: female spaces for females, male spaces for males, and single-user provision for anyone who needs it.

What is not a compromise is making women absorb male risk, then calling it kindness.

It seems a strange place to draw the line.

It’s easy, low effort, doesn’t involve being labelled a criminal or being raped, that’s why.

Telling you No, in no uncertain terms, is not an attack. You sought us out by posting here. We didn’t come looking for you.

But not delusional disorders.

Nobody thinks they're all predatory. Nobody thinks that all men are. Almost all men just want to.pee as well.

But we don't know which are the predators, which is the whole reason we keep males out.

You know as well as I do that violent predatory trans women exist. You know that they have raped women with their female penises.

How many is ok by you so you can feel good for supporting males in women's spaces?

Are your previous answers on Mumsnet? If so, I'll have a look (if not, could you direct me to where they are?) I sympathise with not wanting to repeat yourself but I'm genuinely curious as to how you square this.

"And lastly, there are studies of brain structure.
These show that in the section of the brain that determines one’s sense of gender identity.
The brains of transgender women are almost identical to those of cisgender women.
The brains of trans men also align more with cisgender men than they do with women"

@HazelLemur please source this claim.

You need to go back to your beloved Cambridge dictionary if you thank that's an attack....

" It is a dismissal. "

Is it really?

Oh well. I can live with that.

How is it kind and compassionate to tell a transwomen that you believe they are a woman, but that they don't belong in some women-only spaces? That seems particularly cruel.

(I appreciate you won't respond as your position makes zero sense, but thought I'd give it a go)

The issue is not just risk of direct physical harm though.

Also, this focus on 'predators' is actually also widely missing the point as to why female single sex provisions exist.

On that list of harms that potentially occur when male people access a female single sex provision, is any kind of abuse or even the fear that makes a female person self exclude knowing that a male person might be present in that provision.

One of those harms is any type of physical assault.

This is from the latest IOC policy.

Magnitude of Advantage: At the elite level, the magnitude of the Male performance advantage is different depending on the sport or event:

There is a 10-12 per cent Male performance advantage in most running and swimming events.

There is a 20+ per cent Male performance advantage in most throwing and jumping events.

The Male performance advantage can be greater than 100 per cent in events that involve explosive power, e.g. in collision, lifting and punching sports.

Here is the statement:

https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/international-olympic-committee-announces-new-policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-women-s-category-in-olympic-sport

here is the policy

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf

I can link you up to the reviews that the IOC drew on to make this statement. By the way, I can also link up the now many reviews for boys having greater power than girls from the age of 7 years old too.

It is not just sexual assault. It is also any violent act at all while they are in the female single sex space.

Of course, it is also not just violence, the risk of harm includes many other aspects too.