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?

Yes. It is a dismissal.

And “Oh well, I can live with that” rather proves the point.

The issue is not whether you can live with dismissing women’s concerns.

Clearly you can.

The issue is whether women and girls should have to live with the consequences of that dismissal in toilets, changing rooms and other intimate spaces.

You have been asked about male violence, female privacy and consent. Your answer amounts to: “I’ve considered it, and I’m fine with women carrying the cost.”

That is not kindness. It is not compassion. It is not a serious argument.

It is male entitlement with softer branding.

@HazelLemur

But I still don't want to share a female only space with a bloke in a dress. Do you know that 99% of convicted rapists, murderers, sexual abusers and pedophiles are "people" with penises? They're also quantitavely far stronger than women. Almost any man can kill almost any woman with ease. Does that help you in some small way to understand why women are just a teeny bit nervous?

There’s a lot of “I think” in your posts. Have you done any reading in this area?

Transwomen are more likely to be incarcerated for sexual offences than other men. They are a greater danger to women and girls than other men.

It doesn't sound like you have. That is patently not the case.

As women have single sex spaces for their own safety and dignity - on what possible grounds would you allow one specific group of men to access them?

So, tell us again, what is this position that you suggest that is "rooted in kindness, compassion and compromise"?

Or are you yet another poster telling us that either third / fourth spaces when you consider accessible toilets too are the way to go. Or, that only mixed sex provisions will be acceptable?

It is also not just about physical risk to safety. There are many types of harms that female people need female single sex provisions to be safeguarded against:

Harms include:
-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces and vice versa.

They are all important.

Oh, it's ' patently not the case ' is it?

I told the OP they were being patronising. Now it seems it's your turn.

Don't presume to tell me what I have, and haven't thought about.

I tell you I HAVE considered it. I just disagree with you, is all. So do many other women. I'm not unique in having reached this conclusion.

I've done plenty of reading in this area, yes.

“I have considered it” is not an argument.

You are saying you have considered women’s need for single-sex spaces, considered male violence, considered female privacy and dignity, and still decided that some males should be admitted.

That is precisely the problem.

The question was simple: on what grounds do you allow this one category of men into spaces women have precisely to be away from men?

You have not answered it. You have only objected to being asked.

“I disagree” is not a safeguarding principle. “Many women agree with me” is not a boundary. And “don’t presume” does not explain why female consent should be overridden.

You may have considered it. Fine.

You considered it and chose male inclusion over female autonomy.

But if you have considered it, what is your justification for letting one group of men into women's spaces?

On what grounds?

Men have their own spaces.

Why argue for access for this group of men and not others?

Really? What's so 'great' about it?

The quote from one dictionary that seem to hope that because some people can't tell the difference between men and women the rest of us can't tell the difference between the Oxford English dictionary and the Cambridge dictionary?

The stuff about DSDs that we all know and understand but also know that DSDs are different to trans and that every one with a DSD is still either male or female and not some mythical extra sex?

Or perhaps it's the unevidenced lay-dee brain bollox you think is 'great' because if that were true the men who feel like women would be queuing round the block to get their 'see I think like a lay-dee' scan.

It's all the the same recycled guff we have see a thousand times before. It didn't magically make some men women the first time we saw it and now it's getting boring.

Wear what you want (within the bounds of decency and appropriateness) call yourself whatever you like (but don't police the language of others) but where things are split by sex stick to the things for the sex you are, not the one you want to be.

I think you are being patronising.
You are pretending to believe TWAW when you dont, and are taking it upon yourself to gatekeep aspects of womanhood from them as you see fit. You think this makes you kind and compromising, when in fact it makes you sound arrogant and disingenuous.

I've already said I'm not engaging on this. It was further up thread, you may not have seen it. That's fair enough.

The post is full of misinformation though hence it is unevidenced.

The snarky insults are because a man has come onto a feminist board to educate female people about why he should be treated as if he is female. If you cannot see the blatant misogyny in that behaviour, maybe you should ask questions about why .

Then stop making claims you won’t defend.

You’re arguing for male access to female spaces, then refusing to answer women’s objections.

That leaves your position as: some males should enter female spaces because you feel they should.

Why not though?

Why are you not prepared to justify your position?

Why should any of us take you seriously if you won't do that?

If you are arguing to take women's single sex provision away from then, why on earth do you think you should get to do that without even giving a rationale?

I mean, that's insane.

I'm not arrogant, or disingenuous. I'm just so, so tired of having this exact same debate and getting nowhere with it.

I told the OP that I thought they were patronising and confrontational. I stand by that.

But there's loads of patronising behaviour from the other side on this thread too. In particular a sense that I would come round to your point of view if I only thought about it / read the literature / considered women and girls more.

Well, I have thought about it. I have read the literature. I have considered women and girls. I am a woman. I'm 54. This is not my first rodeo, as they say.

I've just reached a different conclusion. And so have many, many other women. I'm not alone in this.

You can disagree with me all you like. I expect nothing different. But don't tell me that I haven't considered your argument properly, just because I don't agree with you all.

And now, I really am done with this. Hope you all have a good day.

What conclusion though? Have I missed your suggested solution?

Because it is also patronising to suggest that there is a solution based on kindness and compromise and not actually suggest a workable solution that actually does carefully consider the needs of female people.

I've just reached a different conclusion.

The conclusion being 'transwomen are women except when they aren't'

Genius. Really considered. Well done you.

“I'm just so, so tired of having this exact same debate and getting nowhere with it.”

Maybe you are getting nowhere with it because you declare there IS a solution but then fail to give one that considers female needs. Or fail
to give one at all and are simply telling women that there is a solution if they are just kind enough and compromise.

If that is all you have then I can understand why you don’t get anywhere with your contributions.

Principally because I believe the vast majority of transwomen just want to pee, wash their hands and leave.

Great. So why don't they just nip in and out of the men's toilet in a similar 'don't mind me I'm only peeing, washing my hands and leaving' fashion?

There's no evidence that the other men will do anything other than getting on with their own business. There's no evidence that transwomen are in any danger in the men's toilet.

I don't agree with the idea that they're all predatory.
I'm sure you're right about 'the vast majority of transwomen'. I don't agree with the idea that all transwomen are predatory either - though the predatory minority that even you can't vouch are a worry.
But that's not the point.

Whether transwomen are lovely, delightful, the life and soul of the party, just wanting to live their lives in peace, are violent, shy, misogynistic, charming, hate-fuelled, amiable, dangerous, - who cares?

They have no right to be in a space designated for biological women, full stop.

I've set out my thinking, and proposed solutions, on previous threads. Not just on mumsnet, but in many, various places online.

I've argued long and hard with trans people ( who also don't want to compromise ) as well as with TERFs. I've spent many, many hours talking this over with both sides, listening to opinions, reading the literature, thinking about my position, rethinking my position...

The debate never changes. It never evolves. It's just a shouting match from both sides. I am so so done with it.

Thanks. Your approval means the world to me.

Your solution involves taking women's single sex spaces away from them, without their consent.

Why do you think that's okay?

It's just a shouting match from both sides.
I think the decibel levels are definitely higher on one side - the trans side!
When you have facts and reality on your side, you don't need to shout.