Goldsmiths University Diversity officer facing sack

[Sea Star]

Not really. They aren't stopping trans women from using their own definition of womanhood, or from identifying themselves as women, but are simply saying that they don't identify trans women as women. From which it follows that trans women won't be allowed to enter spaces in which the 'gatekeepers' conception of womanhood is a precondition.

I suppose it boils down to whether cis women have the right to define their own gender for the purposes of their own groups, and whether that should be trumped by trans women's right to insist that others identify them as they identify themselves, and to insist on entry to women only places on that basis, despite the negative consequences of that for some cis women.

They lobby to have trans women excluded from women's spaces, and to have pro trans support and legislation removed. They are actively harming us. So no - you're wrong! They are imposing their model of womanhood on all of us.

After my name was mentioned in the New Statesman earlier this year in the context of rape culture I was subject to a campaign of abuse from people, men and women, who hated trans women.

 

[Sea Star]

No. And I'm not seeking to, am I?

don't know - you seem to be trying to change my view point on this

 

[Athos]

How does me asserting my womanhood interfere with their self identification as women in any way at all? Why should I be excluded by a minority of women who have a theoretical basis for womanhood that is unsupported by evidence and in conflict with all the evidence?

Some cis women feel that you asserting your womanhood by entering women only spaces interferes with their right to the security of women only spaces, as they conceive them.

As for the second part, I'm not saying you should (or shouldn't) be excluded. As I've already said, it's not up to me - I'm a man.

 

[Sea Star]

Some cis women feel that you asserting your womanhood by entering women only spaces interferes with their right to the security of women only spaces, as they conceive them.

So they need to prove that this is the case. the onus is on them! Given that there is no evidence that backs them up they embark on campaigns of intimidation and abuse instead.

 

[Dowie]

Yes, but, for the purposes of 'women only spaces' some cis women do not consider trans women to be women; they consider them to be men. So the issue of women's oppression by men remains central.

Not really - for example someone can consider homosexuality not to exist/to be a lifestyle choice, it doesn't make it so. Fact is there have been genetic traits* and certain brain structures** linked to transsexualism - it isn't just someone choosing to be a different gender to the body they were born in... not to mention people who are born with both sexual organs or with some level of ambiguity or with issues with chromosomes...

And the issue of women's oppression by men really shouldn't come into it - if you can show that there is an issue of oppression of cis women by trans women then maybe there is something to consider - however unless that is the case then this is just a dubious assumption that because men oppress then trans women are somehow more likely to too. That really doesn't appear to be the case - there isn't much to suggest that someone who genuinely believes they are female, that all their life they've considered themselves to be in the wrong body... is going to share a bunch of traits with cis men. It just seems like a lazy argument - but they were born as men and might have been raised as men ergo the because men oppress women then.... OK if that is the case where is the evidence of trans women oppressing cis women?


*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034 "A significant association was identified between transsexualism and the AR allele, with transsexuals having longer AR repeat lengths than non-transsexual male control subjects"
**http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html "Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones5,6."

 

[Athos]

don't know - you seem to be trying to change my view point on this

No. But I think it's a fascinating issue, that is worthy of discussing.

 

[Sea Star]

No. But I think it's a fascinating issue, that is worthy of discussing.

You don't think I might be sick of discussing this by now?

 

[Athos]

So they need to prove that this is the case. the onus is on them! Given that there is no evidence that backs them up they embark on campaigns of intimidation and abuse instead.

The issue issue isn't whether trans women oppress cis women. If we accept that men oppress women (which I think we all can), the issue becomes whether or not trans women are women or men. Trans sceptic/phobic people use one basis for defining womanhood; pro trans people use another. The difficulty is when those two viewpoints cannot be reconciled - who's view should prevail, then?

 

[Dowie]

the one with the evidence to back it up

 

[Athos]

You don't think I might be sick of discussing this by now?

Fair enough. I think I'll avoid getting too embroiled, too. Not least of all because I find it hard to reconcile my own feelings on this. And because it's not my place to say, anyway!

 

[Sea Star]

The issue issue isn't whether trans women oppress cis women. If we accept that men oppress women (which I think we all can), the issue becomes whether or not trans women are women or men. Trans sceptic/phobic people use one basis for defining womanhood; pro trans people use another. The difficulty is when those two viewpoints cannot be reconciled - who's view should prevail, then?

Looks like majority view is prevailing - which is also the evidenced view. I've been to women only meetings and been welcomed with open arms. The transphobes are gradually being consigned to history. In the meantime a few powerful transphobes are using their influence to do as much harm to us as possible.

 

[Sea Star]

Fair enough. I think I'll avoid getting too embroiled, too. Not least of all because I find it hard to reconcile my own feelings on this. And because it's not my place to say, anyway!

you could step up as a trans ally - if sitting on the fence eventually becomes too uncomfortable for you

 

[Sea Star]

The issue issue isn't whether trans women oppress cis women. If we accept that men oppress women (which I think we all can), the issue becomes whether or not trans women are women or men.

Respect my self identity - don't debate it!

 

[Pickman's model]

you could step up as a trans ally - if sitting on the fence eventually becomes too uncomfortable for you

he could be a trans ally instead of becoming an aunt sally

 

[killer b]

I'm not sure if your cause is aided by men telling women how womenhood should be defined, tbf.

 

[Athos]

the one with the evidence to back it up

I don't buy the idea that there is biological evidence that proves gender, given it's a multifaceted (and socially constructed) thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not sure if your cause is aided by men telling women how womenhood should be defined, tbf.

my cause?

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't buy the idea that there is biological evidence that proves gender, given it's a multifaceted (and socially constructed) thing.

but i would hope you agree evidence from biology, not to mention anatomy, can certainly be in many cases suggestive.

 

[Dowie]

I don't buy the idea that there is biological evidence that proves gender, given it's a multifaceted (and socially constructed) thing.

well there is growing evidence whether you like it or not - examples posted in my previous post... genes, brain structures... frankly there is likely to be more found as research into this area progresses - that isn't to say that it isn't multifaceted but there do seem to be some biological traits at least related to or commonly found in transsexualism, ergo the trans skeptic position is a bit dubious

 

[phildwyer]

but i would hope you agree evidence from biology, not to mention anatomy, can certainly be in many cases suggestive.

Not in the case of gender, which is not a matter of biology. Haven't you read Butler ffs?

 

[Athos]

well there is growing evidence whether you like it or not - examples posted in my previous post... genes, brain structures... frankly there is likely to be more found as research into this area progresses - that isn't to say that it isn't multifaceted but there do seem to be some biological traits behind transsexualism, ergo the trans skeptic position is a bit dubious

That's only evidence if you accept that gender is defined on the basis of biology. Many don't.

 

[cesare]

Not in the case of gender, which is not a matter of biology. Haven't you read Butler ffs?

Despite what any of us may feel about socially constructed roles, the gender that most of us are assigned from birth derives from medics declaring a baby to be girl or boy at birth based on a swift visual look at the baby's genitals.

 

[phildwyer]

Despite what any of us may feel about socially constructed roles, the gender that most of us are assigned from birth derives from medics declaring a baby to be girl or boy at birth based on a swift visual look at the baby's genitals.

That's sex, not gender.

 

[Idris2002]

That's sex, not gender.

No, it's a gender assignation based on assumptions about sex.

 

[Dowie]

That's only evidence if you accept that gender is defined on the basis of biology. Many don't.

not solely, but the point was that it throws the trans skeptic position into doubt

 

[Athos]

Respect my self identity - don't debate it!

I respect your freedom to identify yourself how ever you want.

I have more of an issue where the expression of that identity clashes with some other women's rights to associate with whomever they choose, based on their own conception of identity.

There's a tension there. But not one that it's my place to resolve.

 

[cesare]

That's sex, not gender.

The sex that the medics identify at birth mostly assigns the gender that the baby's subsequent life is constructed around.

 

[phildwyer]

No, it's a gender assignation based on assumptions about sex.

No it isn't. Sex is biological; gender is cultural. The doctor is only concerned with the former.

 

[phildwyer]

The sex that the medics identify at birth mostly assigns the gender that the baby's subsequent life is constructed around.

Until about 1970, sure. Not so much these days. Less still in the immediate future. Not at all in the foreseeable future.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No it isn't. Sex is biological; gender is cultural. The doctor is only concerned with the former.

You have missed the point cesare and idris are making entirely.