Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[ponderingturtle]

The first paragraph of Allison Bailey's defence against the complaint pretty much sums up my exact position on this issue (key phrases are highlighted)

Gender Critical Feminism is a well established and recognised strand of feminism. It holds that sex is an observable reality. A person's sex is defined by whether, if their body is functioning as it should, their organs produce sperm or eggs. There is no historical example of any human whose body produced both. As a result of this, gender is not a replacement or alternative to sex, but is merely an identity concept. A person may feel that that they identify to a particular gender, but a person's gender cannot supplant their sex. As a result of this, a person who has the gender identity of a trans woman (a person born as a male, but who identifies as a woman) is not a woman. The same is true of a trans man. If they choose to so identify, then that is to be respected, and for example if they have chosen and adopted pronouns these can be used. But in any scenario in which that chosen gender identity conflicts with the rights of women, then the rights of women should prevail. A person cannot change sex and rights, freedoms and provisions that are reserved to women are reserved to women on the basis of their sex, not their gender.

Setting aside any adverse medical condition suffered by an individual, my criteria for whether an individual is a man or a woman (for the purposes of participation in sports and entry into sex-based safe spaces) is as follows...

1. A person who is biologically capable of conceiving and bearing a child, and not capable of fathering a child is female, and therefore a woman. Such a person can never be a man/male.

2. A person who is biologically capable of fathering a child, and not capable of conceiving or bearing a child is male, and therefore a man. Such a person can never be a woman/female.

This is immutable AFAIC. A man is perfectly within his rights to feel like he is a woman, to wear make-up and women's clothes, to change his name to a woman's name, to undergo medical therapies and/or surgery to change their appearance, and to insist on being referred to as she/her. However, none of that magically makes him a woman, and nor should it permit him to participate in women's sports, or allow him right of entry into sex-based safe spaces.

Nice to see the classifying of all non fertile people as neither male nor female. Usually when I suggest that I get a lot of "no one actually believes that". So after menopause they are no longer women as they are not female any longer and thus lose out in conflicts with real women over rights.

 

[Elaedith]

You do realise that what "Gender Critical Feminism" is apart from it being a genuinely held belief really had nothing to do with why she won the part she did?

From the summary statement: The tribunal held that her gender critical belief that Stonewall wanted to replace sex with gender identity, that the absolutist tone of its advocacy of gender self identity made them complicit in threats against women, and that it eroded women’s rights and lesbian same-sex orientation, was a belief protected under the Equality Act. The tribunal did not have to decide whether that belief was correct. (If you want more details see 54 in the judgement.)

I don't see what that has to do with the post you are responding to. The post is just expressing agreement with gender critical beliefs as summarised in Bailey's response.

She won - like the vegan case a few years back - because it was considered that her beliefs fell under the protected "beliefs/philosophy" section of the act. It's part of our human rights as set out in article 9 of the ECHR. i.e. a right to expression of our beliefs, our thoughts and so on and not be discriminated against for holding those views.

Article 9 of the human rights act sets out the characteristics that a belief must have to be protected, but does not in itself protect against actions by private as opposed to public bodies.

It is because the Equality Act 2010 states that philosophical belief is a protected characteristic, that it it is illegal for private employers and service providers to discriminate against somebody for holding and expressing their protected belief.

'Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.'

A belief being protected also protects those who do not hold the belief. Therefore gender critical belief being protected also protects those who do not hold it - i.e. you cannot legally be fired just for expressing the philosophical view that trans women are women if this belief is not relevant to your job. Of course, those that jump on the bandwagon of expressing whatever beliefs are currently popular and demanding that those who disagree suffer punitive consequences, rarely stop to consider what would happen in the tide turned (of course many of them would simply change their beliefs in this event).

 

[smartcooky]

You do realise that what "Gender Critical Feminism" is apart from it being a genuinely held belief really had nothing to do with why she won the part she did?
From the summary statement: The tribunal held that her gender critical belief that Stonewall wanted to replace sex with gender identity, that the absolutist tone of its advocacy of gender self identity made them complicit in threats against women, and that it eroded women’s rights and lesbian same-sex orientation, was a belief protected under the Equality Act. The tribunal did not have to decide whether that belief was correct. (If you want more details see 54 in the judgement.)

She won - like the vegan case a few years back - because it was considered that her beliefs fell under the protected "beliefs/philosophy" section of the act. It's part of our human rights as set out in article 9 of the ECHR. i.e. a right to expression of our beliefs, our thoughts and so on and not be discriminated against for holding those views.

The initial decision on that part was so obviously wrong.

She made that argument and she won. The two may not be related, but regardless, it was part of her argument.

However, you entirely missed the fact that I was not even making that argument in the first place! I was in fact, making the argument made by Gender Critical Feminism that, AFAIC, it is the only scientifically reasonable criteria that should be used to determine whether transwomen or transmen are women or men for the purposes of participation in sports and entry into sex-based safe spaces (I stated this exact condition in the post you quoted - but you chose to ignore it).

I was making the argument that women and men must be defined by their biological functionality, not by some airy-fairy new-age idea about what they "feel". A man can father a child, a woman cannot - a woman can conceive and bear a child, a man cannot. These are immutable, observable, biological facts.

 

[smartcooky]

Nice to see the classifying of all non fertile people as neither male nor female. Usually when I suggest that I get a lot of "no one actually believes that". So after menopause they are no longer women as they are not female any longer and thus lose out in conflicts with real women over rights.

If that is all you gleaned from my post, then you have mightily missed the point by a huge margin! I mean, if you are unable to understand that people are not somehow excluded from this criteria simply because I failed to tediously define every possible contingency, then you are truly beyond any reasonable help I can give you, ... but I won't let that stop me from trying.

NOTE: The text highlighted in red is that which I have added in order to satisfy the pedants

Conditions: Setting aside any adverse medical condition suffered by an individual, whether it be natural such as a birth defect or, or artificial such as being the result of treatment, my criteria for whether an individual is a man or a woman (for the purposes of participation in sports and entry into sex-based safe spaces) is as follows...

1. A person who is, or will be, or ever has been, or but for anything mentioned in the conditions above, would be biologically capable of conceiving and bearing a child, and not capable of fathering a child is female, and therefore a woman. Such a person can never be a man/male.

2. A person who is, or will be, or ever has been, or but for anything mentioned in the conditions above, would be biologically capable of fathering a child, and not capable of conceiving or bearing a child is male, and therefore a man. Such a person can never be a woman/female.

3. In the highly unlikely event that there is some extremely low percentage of people who do not fall into one of the conditions highlighted above, that person's status should be decided (if necessary) on a case by case basis ​

Happy now?

 

[Darat]

I don't see what that has to do with the post you are responding to. The post is just expressing agreement with gender critical beliefs as summarised in Bailey's response.


Article 9 of the human rights act sets out the characteristics that a belief must have to be protected, but does not in itself protect against actions by private as opposed to public bodies.

It is because the Equality Act 2010 states that philosophical belief is a protected characteristic, that it it is illegal for private employers and service providers to discriminate against somebody for holding and expressing their protected belief.

'Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.'

A belief being protected also protects those who do not hold the belief. Therefore gender critical belief being protected also protects those who do not hold it - i.e. you cannot legally be fired just for expressing the philosophical view that trans women are women if this belief is not relevant to your job. Of course, those that jump on the bandwagon of expressing whatever beliefs are currently popular and demanding that those who disagree suffer punitive consequences, rarely stop to consider what would happen in the tide turned (of course many of them would simply change their beliefs in this event).

Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is transmen being men and transwomen being women the kind of thing that one can have an expert opinion on? It's not like "essence of man" has been discovered à la Barbarella.

Yes. Yes it is. That's precisely how and why the relevant expert scientific/medical bodies have formulated and expressed their opinion on it.

But if you want to consider that the groups of the World's leading psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and physicians are not only wrong to issue an expert opinion on this matter, but are also ignorant of the fact (in your opinion) that they are actually unqualified to (and functionally unable to) issue such an opinion in the first place.....

....well that's perhaps a separate debate. Personally, I have qualified trust in those communities: I don't take their views as inviolable or sacrosanct, but I certainly trust that a) they don't lightly take important positions such as this one, b) their views are wholly representative of the most current science, and c) the most current science/medicine (at any point in time, not just today) is almost always the best thing we've got and should be the default position - and should inform public policy & prevailing position of all public/private authorities - until/unless better science comes along and supersedes it.

I'm guessing you feel very differently about this.

 

[LondonJohn]

Imagine if they followed this route for a suspected new type of doping.

I've got news for you: they do indeed follow this route.

They need to be able to gather sufficient empirical data that this suspected new type of doping does indeed confer performance benefits. Often (usually, even) this is a very swift process - since "new" types of doping are often simply variations on already-banned pharmaceuticals or methods.

On top of that, there's also the question of (potential) culpability on the part of the athlete(s) concerned: it's a given - and it's now accepted by relevant jurisdictions up to CAS - that once the authorities become aware of any new potential doping (either through substances/methods detected during current testing, or via whistleblowers, or via the work of bodies such as WADA in trying to get out in front of the problem by figuring out patterns of evolution..... any athletes who are found to have ingested one of those substances or employed one of these methods are de jure considered to have had malign intent - in spite of the level of actual/perceived advantage (and even if in fact the substance/method ultimately proves to have conferred no advantage). So that, coupled with the authorities' research showing that the substance/method does empirically improve performance, automatically implies guilt on the part of the athlete (unless the athlete can satisfy the authorities that they never intentionally used that substance/method).

The situation with transwomen in women's sport is hugely more complicated, and without the black-and-white aspects of doping. We must also bear in mind that transwomen competing at elite level (and sub-elite level) is an extremely new matter - especially when compared with doping in sport. One could certainly argue that the major sports administration bodies might have started their investigations earlier by investigating advantages gained by transwomen in lower-level sport, but I suspect that the pandemic might have played a part in that.

 

[LondonJohn]

No. You're wrong.

What you outline basically makes female sports divisions illegal. Unless, of course, they are formed under the basis of the evidence that males have a competitive advantage over females.

So, if female leagues are legal, they are legal on the basis of evidence. The same evidence applies to trans-women as they were born male.

In other words, the evidence you refer to already exists and forms the basis for having a female league in the first place.

The reason that some leagues have been slow to come to firmly defined rules is not because of a lack of evidence. It's because they depend on public support and are afraid of a backlash, which could come from either direction. They are thrust into a politically divisive issue and know they will get burned no matter what stance they take. It's a no win situation for them. So they try to do little or nothing until they are forced to make a choice.

No, I don't agree with your position at all.

For one thing, all the main sports administration bodies will have been well aware for several years now that prevailing public opinion was/is against the idea of transwomen competing in elite- or subelite-level sport. So that wouldn't/shouldn't have been a factor when it came to excluding transwomen.

And for another, the reason why they have had to/are having to conduct an evidence-based exercise is so that they have a sufficiently robust justification in (sports) law for banning transwomen in the higher levels of sport. I suppose a useful side-effect is that it also helps to sell their policy to the wider public.

Maybe an examination of what the IAAF and IOC did in the case of Caster Semanya would be instructive, by the way.

 

[LondonJohn]

You do realise that what "Gender Critical Feminism" is apart from it being a genuinely held belief really had nothing to do with why she won the part she did?

From the summary statement: The tribunal held that her gender critical belief that Stonewall wanted to replace sex with gender identity, that the absolutist tone of its advocacy of gender self identity made them complicit in threats against women, and that it eroded women’s rights and lesbian same-sex orientation, was a belief protected under the Equality Act. The tribunal did not have to decide whether that belief was correct. (If you want more details see 54 in the judgement.)

She won - like the vegan case a few years back - because it was considered that her beliefs fell under the protected "beliefs/philosophy" section of the act. It's part of our human rights as set out in article 9 of the ECHR. i.e. a right to expression of our beliefs, our thoughts and so on and not be discriminated against for holding those views.

The initial decision on that part was so obviously wrong.

Indeed. And there have been similar judgements (based on protected beliefs) against, for example, people who have publicly expressed an opinion that homosexuality is a moral deviancy and against God's will....

 

[LondonJohn]

She made that argument and she won. The two may not be related, but regardless, it was part of her argument.

However, you entirely missed the fact that I was not even making that argument in the first place! I was in fact, making the argument made by Gender Critical Feminism that, AFAIC, it is the only scientifically reasonable criteria that should be used to determine whether transwomen or transmen are women or men for the purposes of participation in sports and entry into sex-based safe spaces (I stated this exact condition in the post you quoted - but you chose to ignore it).

I was making the argument that women and men must be defined by their biological functionality, not by some airy-fairy new-age idea about what they "feel". A man can father a child, a woman cannot - a woman can conceive and bear a child, a man cannot. These are immutable, observable, biological facts.

So as Darat said: if one applies this rule on a case-by-case basis (as one should in this instance), one must conclude that a person born with XX chromosome with ostensibly female genitals, but who is unable to conceive/bear children.... is neither man nor woman. As would also apply to a woman who has gone through menopause.

 

[d4m10n]

Is transmen being men and transwomen being women the kind of thing that one can have an expert opinion on? It's not like "essence of man" has been discovered à la Barbarella.

Yes. Yes it is. That's precisely how and why the relevant expert scientific/medical bodies have formulated and expressed their opinion on it.

Links or it didn't happen.

Show us exactly where the relevant experts weighed in on the meaning of womanhood.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. Yes it is. That's precisely how and why the relevant expert scientific/medical bodies have formulated and expressed their opinion on it.

But if you want to consider that the groups of the World's leading psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and physicians are not only wrong to issue an expert opinion on this matter, but are also ignorant of the fact (in your opinion) that they are actually unqualified to (and functionally unable to) issue such an opinion in the first place.....

Again, I will ask...

WHICH relevant expert scientific/medical bodies? HOW do you determine which are relevant? WHAT specific areas of science and/or medicine are you considering?

WHICH "world leading" psychiatrist, psychologists, sociologist and physicians? WHAT criteria qualifies them as world leading? WHY have you excluded fields such as biology where the nature of sex is defined?

WHAT expert opinions have been issued? TO WHOM were those opinions issued? WHAT did those opinion say, exactly?

Please support your assertions with some kind of evidence. Please stop engaging in the fallacy of sophisticated theology.

 

[smartcooky]

So as Darat said: if one applies this rule on a case-by-case basis (as one should in this instance), one must conclude that a person born with XX chromosome with ostensibly female genitals, but who is unable to conceive/bear children.... is neither man nor woman. As would also apply to a woman who has gone through menopause.

No. This misrepresents what I posted.

Check post #1644, particularly the conditions and item 3

 

[Steersman]

Links or it didn't happen.

Show us exactly where the relevant experts weighed in on the meaning of womanhood.

Standard definition for woman is "adult human female", arguably a "natural kind" of some import and relevance:


And the standard definition - ditto - for female - of all sexually reproducing species - is "produces ova":

By which transwomen are most certainly not women. Q.E.D. HTH ;-)

 

[Emily's Cat]

The FDA has started adding warnings to puberty blockers. BEcause, it turns out, they are NOT "safe and reversible"

FDA Slaps Warning on Puberty Blockers

Puberty blockers earned a warning label from the Food and Drug Administration earlier this month after six minors (ages 5-12) experienced severe symptoms. The puberty blockers in question are known scientifically as “gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) substances.”

The minors, who were all biologically female, suffered from symptoms of “pseudotumor cerebri” (tumor-like masses in the brain), including visual disturbances (seeing bright lights that aren’t there), headache or vomiting, papilledema (swelling of the optic nerve), increased blood pressure, and abducens neuropathy (eye paralysis).

 

[Myriad]

So as Darat said: if one applies this rule on a case-by-case basis (as one should in this instance), one must conclude that a person born with XX chromosome with ostensibly female genitals, but who is unable to conceive/bear children.... is neither man nor woman. As would also apply to a woman who has gone through menopause.

"Because infertility and menopause exist, male and female cannot possibly be defined based on physical characteristics, therefore they're only social constructs, therefore anyone who professes to identify as a woman should be able to win women's achievement awards."

This particular fallacy was discussed in another recent thread and termed "Loki's Wager," was it not?

 

[LondonJohn]

Links or it didn't happen.

Show us exactly where the relevant experts weighed in on the meaning of womanhood.

Try this, for example (and, incidentally, it's fairly easy to find this stuff online if one is so inclined....):

https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/faq/how-does-science-explain-transgenderism/

A sample sentence from that piece:

"They are, however, nearly unanimous in their opinion that transgenderism is not a manifestation of mental illness."


And one that you really ought to be well aware of already:

https://time.com/5596845/world-health-organization-transgender-identity/

(Even with a firewall in place on time.com, the headline alone will suffice.


I mean, there are many, many more information sources available which point to the same conclusions among experts (i.e. people who know a huge amount more about this subject than either me or you).


(And just as a footnote: my claim was/is that it's both possible and valid for experts to form a view on transgender identity. Which they are constantly doing, on the back of research and analysis. And by stating their view - that transgender identity is valid (i.e. that it's not a mental disorder or the product of one), they absolutely are stating that transmen are men (and vice versa).)

 

[Aber]

They need to be able to gather sufficient empirical data that this suspected new type of doping does indeed confer performance benefits. Often (usually, even) this is a very swift process - since "new" types of doping are often simply variations on already-banned pharmaceuticals or methods.

Testosterone has been banned from the Olympics since 1976.

 

[Aber]

So as Darat said: if one applies this rule on a case-by-case basis (as one should in this instance), one must conclude that a person born with XX chromosome with ostensibly female genitals, but who is unable to conceive/bear children.... is neither man nor woman. As would also apply to a woman who has gone through menopause.

This is not how biologists define sex.

Shortcut definitions used in other fields may have gaps/exceptions; exploiting these gaps/exceptions is not an honest argument.

 

[lionking]

Yes. Yes it is. That's precisely how and why the relevant expert scientific/medical bodies have formulated and expressed their opinion on it.

But if you want to consider that the groups of the World's leading psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and physicians are not only wrong to issue an expert opinion on this matter, but are also ignorant of the fact (in your opinion) that they are actually unqualified to (and functionally unable to) issue such an opinion in the first place.....

....well that's perhaps a separate debate. Personally, I have qualified trust in those communities: I don't take their views as inviolable or sacrosanct, but I certainly trust that a) they don't lightly take important positions such as this one, b) their views are wholly representative of the most current science, and c) the most current science/medicine (at any point in time, not just today) is almost always the best thing we've got and should be the default position - and should inform public policy & prevailing position of all public/private authorities - until/unless better science comes along and supersedes it.

I'm guessing you feel very differently about this.

Is Tavistock a reputable medical body? It was certainly treated as one and listened to. Until it’s gender clinic was closed down due to its abuse of children:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62335665

Is Sweden, which has changed position on carte blanc trans rights, an enlightened and progressive government?

Could it just be that some countries, medical professionals, sporting bodies and even, perhaps yourself, made an early call on trans rights (which can and sometimes do reduce women’s rights) in an attempt to be kind and inclusive?

We are seeing sporting bodies, medical regulators and governments rethinking and changing their earlier decisions. Isn’t your “experts agree with me, so I’m right” argument stale and becoming staler by the day?

Now, Tavistock?