But again, that’s not biology. Take a baby born with intersex genitals and raise them as a girl, and their being treated as a girl is not biology but society and culture. They’ll probably have a very similar perspective and set of experiences, by and large, to someone born biologically a girl and raised as a girl. It isn’t biology they have in common – it’s how they’re raised.
Trans women are women, but they’re not cis women (or trans men, for that matter). Their experiences will necessarily be different, especially as children and prior to transition. Trans men aren’t women, but they probably have very similar lived experience, at least until they transitioned, as cis women. Their experiences also shouldn’t be ignored. “Trans women are women” is not intended to say that there is no difference at all between trans women and cis women – it’s rather saying that trans women are asking to be treated as women, and our answer is “okay, we’ll do our best to treat trans women as women, since that’s just the decent thing to do”. Same goes for “trans men are men” – trans men are asking to be treated as men, and that’s just the decent thing to do, IMO. And that doesn’t mean, necessarily, treat them EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY SITUATION (i.e. athletics, shelters/safe spaces for cis women, etc.), but in 99% of daily life, there is no trade-off or threat to consider in treating them as they ask to be treated.
JKR doesn’t see trans men as biologically distinct from other adult human females and I agree with her. She subscribes to the belief that adult human females are women. Just because trans men don’t agree with her doesn’t make JKR wrong. Again, I will point you to Merriam Webster. Notice that woman = equals adult female person. There are no exemptions for females who have a “manly mental state” or strictly wear men’s clothing. It is gender ideology—not truth—that would make me and JKR consider trans men “erased” from the word woman, and we don’t subscribe to this belief.
I believe she is entitled to her opinion that some girls are transitioning for the wrong reasons. The nature of her work puts her in contact with children and young adults from around the world. Her social circle is likely massive. She pointed to what experts in the field are saying to give credence to her positions. Her observation is corroborated by what detransitioners say. She’s not a backward troglodyte on other social issues, so I have no reason to assume she fabricating lies for ideological purposes.
So yes, I find nothing wrong with any of these two points.
But they wouldn’t be raised like that if weren’t for them being marked as female from birth, due to biology. The intersex kid that is raised as female because their genitalia is ambiguous is still being treated a certain because of their biology. “Biology” as a variable is their commonality, even though there are some differences in the way that biology presents.
I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make. Can you clarify?
Very interesting discussion, really helps in clarifying a lot of the issues involved, particular with the experiences that are related. Thanks for that.
I’m too removed from most of the issuess to contribute much myself, but wanted to express my thanks to all posters.
My point is that we could take a baby boy and raise them as a girl, and they’d probably have lived experience as a girl. It’s not biology – it’s culture and society. Biology influences that decision made on the day of birth as to what they’re marked down on, and probably how they’re treated down the road, but it’s still culture and society, not biology, that determines that treatment. And this is a societal and cultural choice we make – to treat “girls” like this and “boys” like that.
That’s one of the very different opinions we have, then. Based on the trans men I’ve read and heard from, that kind of erasure is infuriating and highly offensive. And IMO, “contagion” is barely removed from “vermin” or “savages” – it directly implies that these people are dangerous and should be kept away from folks without this “contagion”.
This is where you’re losing me. As I’ve said before, there a huge difference between believing someone and treating someone as if you believe them. In my life, even if I might doubt the sincerity of someone that is trans, I don’t have a compelling enough interest to put aside good manners and challenge them.
This situation is not without other parallels. #BelieveWomen is a thing and it’s gone a long way towards getting justice for victims of sexual violence. Yet, Jacob Wohl’s rape accusation performance art stunts never gain any traction and are roundly called out by everyone except his fellow trolls.
Someone else upthread mentioned fatherhood as another example, which I thought was particularly apt. Because in normal conversation no one would ever challenge anyone’s claim to be father and parenthood is not always clear cut. But when a right-wing politician tried, for political purposes, to claim that a girlfriends son that had lived with him for a few years was his “son”, he was roundly called out.
And if you are a member of a woman’s support group and some trans guy tries to join…yes, you can call them out. Because I’ve been in support groups and there’s ALWAYS people that think another member Or class of members doesn’t belong there and doesn’t deserve membership. You go to AA and there’s someone there that never had a drinking problem but feels they have an addictive personality. You go to a support group for people that have lost a spouse and you’re 25, a lot of old people are going to tell you that you’re young and you’ll find someone new right away and you only knew your husband for three years before he died, so get out of here. You go to a rape survivor group and the woman that was beat up and raped in an alley by 5 men doesn’t believe that the date rape victim was really raped. If you go to a grief group and start crying about your beloved cat Fluffy, you’ll probably be roundly rejected. It’s the way of support groups.
I think you’re looking for a problem that doesn’t exist and I’m not sure why you’re so intent on finding one, And the “solutions“ to this imaginary problem tend to be cruel to the vast majority of transgender people that aren’t trolls.
In short
Most transgender people are sincere in their beliefs. Unless I have a close relationship to this person I have no reason to challenge this sincerity and if I think they are misguided, I can keep that opinion to myself. It’s basic manners, just like I don’t call out people on the sincerity of their marriage.
I think that people pretending to be transgender for some undefined personal benefit is rare. I see no problem with challenging such people in the event you manage to find one. But I think laws and policies that cause distress to transgender people enacted for the purpose of defusing imaginary trolls are misguided and wrong.
I don’t think people consciously believe that women lie about misogyny. It’s just that the examples that women give as evidence of misogyny aren’t usually a big deal to them. Or maybe they seem like self-imposed problems.
Like, one can argue that if Joanne Rowling had published under her actual name, then she would have still been a mega super star. No one forced her to defeminize her name. No one forced her to make her best known protagonist a boy rather than a girl. These were artistic choices that she deliberately made, so she shouldn’t be blaming the “patriarchy”.
But it is almost certain she wouldn’t have made it big if she hadn’t made those choices. I’m saying this because women have made more “pro-woman” choices and we don’t even know their names.
So women aren’t accused of lying, per se. We are accused of exaggerating or pointing the finger at the wrong party. When someone tells us that biology isn’t THAT important, they aren’t telling us that we are lying about our biological realities. They are telling us that we are making a big deal out of nothing…that if we tried hard enough, we could override these biological realities. When we talk about being condescended to and belittled and mocked, we are told that we need to look at how some other group responds and be more like them. Which, of course, ignores the differences between women and those other groups. The biological differences as well as the social differences.
Why would a man decide to be a woman, given the oppression that women face? Well, if you’re a 20-something or 30-something dude, it is unlikely you know how hard it is to be a woman. It is likely you only see the benefits of womanhood–which do exist. Like how women are allowed to cry. It is OK to admit to wanting to be cared for and protected when you are a woman. People hit on you and buy you drinks. They let you go first on the elevator and you get priority for life boats. Women are socially permitted to be vain and vapid. Women are granted more leeway with gender nonconformity, so perhaps if you are a male who wants the freedom to wear skirts on some days and jeans on another, the “woman” identity will seem attractive to you. As an oppressed group, belonging to “woman” gives you an interesting “beating the odds” story.
And if everyone in your social circle are trans allies and gender fluid/nonbinary, it won’t really seem to be a big deal to suddenly identify as another gender. You know you will have friends and associates who will guide you through the transitioning. Your parents might disapprove, but if you’re grown adult, big rubber deal. Yes, you might be fired. You might garner stares. But actual violence might seem unlikely to you, especially if you present ambiguously. Which is why I think male-presenting women may get some traction. If you can be a woman without looking like a woman, you can avoid all the troubles faced by women by still enjoy the subversive of calling yourself a woman.
I think this is a big driver for the backlash from the women people are calling TERFs. Old school feminists have spent a lot of time and energy on gaining a voice - and it is still weak and ignored. Granting everyone a voice is important (see intersectional feminism). Transwomen seem to have entered the conversation with the entitled dude attitude to their voice - which is great, we are all entitled to our voice, but when you are speaking, others can’t. And when you interrupt the conversation and expect me to shut up and listen…now we have a problem.
We take it into consideration when we evaluate people’s circumstances and what they’re asking for. We continue to fight for women’s rights in a deeply misogynistic society, and continue to fight for trans rights in a deeply transphobic society. Do you agree?
“Trans women are women” is not intended to say that there is no difference at all between trans women and cis women – it’s rather saying that trans women are asking to be treated as women, and our answer is “okay, we’ll do our best to treat trans women as women, since that’s just the decent thing to do”.
That’s how you interpret it, but I promise that is not how it being taken by everyone.
When a trans women is allowed to compete for opportunities set aside for females (like the kind of contracts @Dangerous mentioned) then we’re essentially saying these two populations are sufficiently alike that it doesn’t matter if either group gets the opportunity. When we race a 15 year old girl against a 15 year old trans girl, in a political sense we’re saying it doesn’t matter which wins or loses because they are both “the same”. But in truth, they aren’t the same. The girl is likely fighting against sexism and gender norms that stigmatize her for being an athletic tomboy and the trans girl has the benefit of male socialization which prizes athleticism. It’s actually a cruel joke to have them competing with one another.
Same goes for “trans men are men” – trans men are asking to be treated as men, and that’s just the decent thing to do, IMO. And that doesn’t mean, necessarily, treat them EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY SITUATION (i.e. athletics, shelters/safe spaces for cis women, etc.), but in 99% of daily life, there is no trade-off or threat to consider in treating them as they ask to be treated.
So why aren’t you joining me and others to condemn those who are insisting they be treated the same? I mean, this thread is rife with examples of trans women being treated like women to the detriment of women and girls, and yet you aren’t standing beside me saying this is craziness and must stop. If anything, you’re denying and downplaying it’s happening.
I mostly agree with this, with the caveat that lived experiences will still be different because of bodily differences. Female puberty is a different beast than male puberty. Having a body that periodically bleeds and cramps and hormonally cycles shapes you differently if your body doesn’t do these things. And having extra physical strength means you move through the world differently than not having that strength. These differences will exist even if everyone is programmed to treat men and women exactly the same way.
There’s really a double standard at play with Rowling’s defenders. Rowling insists that she should be allowed to disagree with “trans ideology” without being mocked and insulted. Fine, but if you’re going to insist on that standard, you need to extend it as well. The headline that used the phrase “people who menstruate” didn’t have anything to with access to women’s spaces, or representation in politics or media, or prison housing, or any of the red herrings that have been raised in this thread. What Rowlings was objecting to wasn’t the implementation of any particular trans-friendly policy, but to the public recognition of the existence of trans people at all.
I wonder who is in the position to call this out. Ciswomen can’t - they risk being called a TERF. It has to be other trans folk. And I’m not sure how many transwomen are going to notice it. In a space with a majority cis population, there often isn’t another transwoman TO notice, and even where there are other transwomen to notice, they’d have to overcome their own acculturation and then also their own investment in having that status. Its a lot to overcome. Transmen might be able to call it out better than anyone else, but they have to overcome their own acculturation and interests, plus are well aware of the male voice entering a woman’s conversation. God, that’s a complicated game of social expectations and various self interests.
Why “of course”? Personally, I’m just as much a “biologically female” woman as JK Rowling is. I have spent my whole life in the day-to-day reality of “experiencing sexism” just as JK Rowling has (and even for a few more years than she has, judging by our respective ages). I also have had to deal with concerns about sexist prejudice against female names impacting my chances of publication in my professional field (and unlike Rowling—and more power to her for her impressive achievements—I didn’t reap the advantages of immense wealth and renown starting in my mid-thirties to offset those handicaps).
So I have no idea what it’s like to be a phenomenally rich and famous woman, but I think my experience of struggling for professional achievement as an obscure impecunious woman in a world of traditionally sexist prejudices and expectations is probably just as valid and representative as Rowling’s is.
And I am perfectly fine with accepting the general principle that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. And I don’t think agree that principle implies that my “mental state is what causes [me] to be stigmatized and othered” as a woman.
Because I’m capable of accepting that general principle about how we define the social category “woman”, while also acknowledging that different types of women have different typical experiences and hardships. And I don’t demand that somebody should have to have had the same baseline set of experiences and hardships that I’ve had before being entitled to be socially categorized as a woman.
Meanwhile, I am getting pretty tired of self-described “gender critical” perspectives trying to explain what they “expect” women like me to think about transgender issues owing to our shared experience of sexist discrimination, while disregarding or devaluing what I actually DO think. I don’t claim to be able to speak for “women” as a group on this issue, and I’m not buying any such claims from the “gender critics” either. I don’t think my opinions are automatically any more valid as some kind of archetypal “woman’s viewpoint” than JK Rowling’s, and likewise I sure as hell don’t think that hers are automatically any more valid than mine.
She was objecting to the erasure of women in the service of gender ideology. It’s not the use of trans-inclusive language that is the problem. It’s calling women “menstruators” to appease the small fraction of the female population that identify as trans or NB.
“Women and other menstruators” would work just fine. But you hardly ever see this construct because trans women would then be reminded that aren’t real women. That’s what this whole mess is really about, if there was any doubt. It isn’t about trans men, but rather the trans women. Insistence that women stop referring to themselves as women (as opposed to “cis women”) when talking about female reproductive issues is largely coming from males.