What is a woman?

Thank you, Baggs, that’s excellent. James Kirkup has been a shining light in this debate.

Thanks for posting this interesting article Baggs

This by James Kirkup is a good article on the subject:

Sir Keir Starmer doesn’t want to talk about penises. He’s going to have to do it anyway, and he’s not going to be alone. The Labour leader was interviewed by LBC’s Nick Ferrari on Monday, becoming the latest journalist to test Starmer on questions of sex and gender. Ferrari asked, can a woman have a penis?

Starmer’s verbatim response, offered with a pained expression and sorrowful intonation:

“Nick, I’m not… I don’t think we can conduct this debate with… you know… I just... I don’t think, erm, discussing this issue in this issue helps anyone in the long run. What I want to see is a reform of the law as it is, but I am also an advocate of safe spaces for women. I want to have a discussion that is… Anyone who genuinely wants to find a way through this, I want to discuss that with. I do find that too many people in my view retreat or hold a position that is intolerant of others. I don’t like intolerance, I like open discussion.
Me too. Which is why I think Starmer, like other politicians, has to talk about penises.

Before I explain why, I should say I understand Starmer’s reticence. Not many people relish a public debate about genitals. In the last few years, I’ve written lots of articles that contain the word ‘penis’ and rarely felt comfortable about it. But it’s necessary, because in the end, much of the current public debate about sex, gender, law and policy comes down to penises.

Here are some facts to start us off. A person with a penis is different to a person without a penis. A person with a penis can do things that a person without a penis cannot. A person with a penis can do things to other people that a person without a penis cannot. That last fact is set out in English law

This is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, c42, part 1:

Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

In other words, a person with a penis can commit rape. A person without a penis cannot.

From that flows one of the organising principles of most human societies: people with penises are different to people without, in part because they pose a potential threat to those people without penises. Hence the existence of spaces where people lacking penises can spend time without the presence of people with penises.

Until fairly recently in Britain and other western societies, the existence of those spaces was largely unquestioned and undiscussed. We collectively took it as a given that we would provide such spaces, because that important difference between people with penises and people without meant such spaces were axiomatically necessary.

In turn, it was unquestioned that a person without a penis was entitled to spaces where they could be confident that they would not encounter people with penises. This brings us to the first reason Keir Starmer – along with other politicians – has to talk about penises eventually. Some women are concerned that changes in law and policy are making it harder for them to have those penis-free spaces. Some women are concerned that their right to have those spaces is being questioned. Here, I should note that a lot of nonsense is thrown up in response to such concerns:

Nonsense 1: This is transphobic because it suggests that transwomen who have penises are sexual predators who want access to female-only spaces to attack women. This (deliberately) misses the point, which is that this isn’t about anyone’s gender identity. It’s about penises. The women who say they want penis-free spaces don’t much care about the expressed gender of people with penises. They just want to have places where there are no people who have penises.

Here’s a quote that captures this point vividly well, from a survivor of sexual assault:

“My attacker’s genitals and my sexual parts were involved in a bodily attack. He didn’t care about my identity and at that point I didn’t care about his.

Nonsense 2: Single-sex spaces don’t really matter, because people with bad intent can still enter them – ‘women-only signs’ don’t stop criminals. This also misses some points. First, none of the advocates of single-sex spaces are claiming that their mere existence is a silver bullet against sexual crime. But the existence of those spaces doesn’t hurt.

And most important of all, the practical value of those spaces is secondary to the fundamental issue here, which is consent. If some people who don’t have penises want spaces that exclude people who have penises, they should be able to have those spaces. End of story. Because any other outcome is a situation where some people who don’t have penises want to be able to keep people with penises out of their spaces but are not able or permitted to do so. And there are words for a situation where a person without a penis is not allowed to exclude a person with a penis.

That’s the first reason politicians need to talk about penises: some women have concerns that relate to penises, and those concerns should be heard and taken seriously. The second, related reason is possibly even more uncomfortable and goes to the very heart of so much recent debate about sex and gender. Here is a statement of legal fact: some women have penises.

This has been the case since (at least) 2004 and the passage of the Gender Recognition Act. That law allows a person who meets certain criteria to change their legal gender and be treated, to all intents and purposes, as being of the opposite sex. So a person who was born male and is later issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate is legally female.

Crucially, the qualifying criteria do not include ‘sex reassignment surgery’ to the genitals. It is legally possible in the UK for a person with a penis to be recognised as female. When the GRA was passed, parliament implicitly assumed that it was legislating for a small number (perhaps hundreds) of people who were then largely known as transsexuals.

Some people now consider that term offensive or at least outdated, because they regard gender identity (which has little or no basis in anatomy) to supersede physical sex. Hence the widespread linguistic shift from ‘transsexual’ to ‘transgender’.

That shift is seismically important, and its importance is ultimately about penises. It means that people with penises can identify themselves as women, and thus obtain the rights and status society grants women – including access to those single-sex spaces that were hitherto penis-free.

And when Starmer talks about reform of the law, he’s talking about the legal recognition offered to people with penises who identify themselves as women. Some such people are currently recognised as women in law and practice. Any politician who wants to change law and policy will have to say whether their changes would make it easier for more people with penises to be recognised as female, and whether that recognition should also offer access to female-only spaces.

Such politicians should also say whether they think people without penises have the right to spaces from which people with penises are excluded. They should also say whether the word ‘woman’ in its normal, everyday sense should be redefined to include people with penises, since that is what the current law at least partially does.

The mismatch between legal reality and public perception helps explain why this issue remains live and heated: politicians collectively created a situation where some women do indeed have penises, but very few of those politicians are prepared to explain this fact to the public. (An honourable exception here is Liz Truss, who didn’t skip a beat when Ferrari tested her on this last year, replying memorably: ‘Women do have vaginas, Nick.’)

But this criticism applies to Conservatives as well as Labour, incidentally: any Tory who thinks this is a useful culture war attack on Starmer should think twice. Unless you’re prepared to turn the clock back and repeal the Gender Recognition Act, your position is also that some women have penises (Broadcasters that enjoy ambushing Labour people with gotcha questions should take note that they can fairly deploy the same approach to Conservatives too. ‘Minister, isn’t it a simple statement of legal fact that some women have penises?’)

My guess is that until we have politicians who are prepared to put aside their squeamishness about genitalia and instead have an open, factual conversation with the public about law and policy, the sex-gender issue will remain a minefield for them.

And in the absence of that grown-up conversation, women, trans people and the wider public will all be left out and down. Which is why I hope that Sir Keir Starmer – and the rest of his colleagues in parliament – can get over themselves and start talking about penises.

Spectator

GagaJo
I don't see it that way Mollygo. I appreciate you do, but to my mind, women are in 99.99% more danger from regular cis men.
Really? Then why don’t you want women to have safe places from men (or TW who present as men?)

As a reasonable AHF, I can’t sit here and say that women should have to put up with harm from TW because there’s only a small number who would harm them.
If you, or your daughter, or your mother, or sister or neighbour, or a friend or a colleague were hurt by the actions of a TW, would you really say to yourself, or to them,

”You were just unlucky that you met up with one of the one % of TW who would do that sort of thing and there’s such a small number of harmful TW it wasn’t worth putting safety measures into place.”

Or even ”Lucky you weren’t harmed by an ordinary man. There’s a lot more of them who are dangerous., but we can’t allow women to have safety measures because it might upset the trans community”

I think too many people care about sports for something not to be done. I don't think I know anyone who isn't a bit concerned there.

Women's refuges are protected but if we can find a way to prevent men mascerading as trans or fetishising women then maybe we can get to a stage where no woman has to be afraid of trans women.

There are so many issues in society (forgive me but I didn't bring it up) like women like my mother getting away with harming their children because of the idealogy that mothers all love their children...

So I get the dangers of being idealogical but I also think that good standards and morals accross society are something to work towards and its difficult for me to agree we should discriminate in the meantime until we have those standards.

So safeguarding has to be inplimented here and everything that can be done must be done.

I agree. What they seem to be suggesting is that women just shut up and put up, isn't it? It's none of our business that we have no same-sex spaces, no all-female sports, no words to describe adult human females. They want in, so we move over.

Don't we get a chance to say no?

I don't see it that way Mollygo. I appreciate you do, but to my mind, women are in 99.99% more danger from regular cis men.

Doodledog

GagaJo
Doodledog
GagaJo
When I suggested that, many years ago, when I first started exploring transgender (as it used to be called), I was told that as a cis woman, I didn't understand how unsuccessful that was, and that it was insulting for me (as a cis woman) to suggest that.

So I haven't. I've listened to what the trans people I know want. Their bodies. Their lives.
Are you talking about removing strict gender norms?

If so - why was it considered insulting?
I think it was that as a non trans person, it wasn't my place to consider alternatives.

Those choices and decisions are for trans people to make. Not an 'easier fix' that suits those of us it doesn't really affect.
Up to a point I get that, but it does affect us, as per all the arguments on these threads.

It does affect us all, and it affects us more seriously every time a male person is allowed to wrongly take something from a female, or cause harm to a female by claiming to be a female, which he can’t actually be!
That in turn impinges on the safety of transgender people because the truthful, but negative publicity means all anyone hears about is the downside of transgender people.
If people, transgender and non trans, were seen to work together to condemn the actions of the few wrong acting trans, the same way as people condemn the actions Peter Sutcliffe or Jimmy Savile,
instead of condoning the cheating and the harm by those few trans, either by excusing them or staying silent.
If they were working to start or retain those precautions that lessen the opportunity for harm to females by those wrong minded trans, what a benefit that would be to females and trans alike.

Well, I think it interests us. I don't think it has any impact on our daily lives. Even when I supported trans people as part of my voluntary work, or with trans students, it was just work. Other than concern for them, my personal life wasn't impacted.

GagaJo

Doodledog

GagaJo

When I suggested that, many years ago, when I first started exploring transgender (as it used to be called), I was told that as a cis woman, I didn't understand how unsuccessful that was, and that it was insulting for me (as a cis woman) to suggest that.

So I haven't. I've listened to what the trans people I know want. Their bodies. Their lives.

Are you talking about removing strict gender norms?

If so - why was it considered insulting?

I think it was that as a non trans person, it wasn't my place to consider alternatives.

Those choices and decisions are for trans people to make. Not an 'easier fix' that suits those of us it doesn't really affect.

Up to a point I get that, but it does affect us, as per all the arguments on these threads.

Germanshepherdsmum

*VS*, please explain to me why, as I assume someone who was born a woman as you have five children, you are so utterly obsessed with trans women. I really don’t understand this apparent obsession. I haven’t noticed you posting on other issues other than to talk about your experience of childhood abuse or your narcissistic mother. Forgive me if you have posted on other matters but what I overwhelmingly see is your concentration on these particular matters. What is driving this?

This also applies to some individuals on the other side of the topic.

The debate about which, is at the moment, remaining a lot more civil and polite than usual. Long may it continue!

Doodledog

GagaJo

When I suggested that, many years ago, when I first started exploring transgender (as it used to be called), I was told that as a cis woman, I didn't understand how unsuccessful that was, and that it was insulting for me (as a cis woman) to suggest that.

So I haven't. I've listened to what the trans people I know want. Their bodies. Their lives.

Are you talking about removing strict gender norms?

If so - why was it considered insulting?

I think it was that as a non trans person, it wasn't my place to consider alternatives.

Those choices and decisions are for trans people to make. Not an 'easier fix' that suits those of us it doesn't really affect.

GSM, how long have you got?

Tbh (factoring covid in) I don't think I'm the person to ask anyway... I'm probably top 5 for comments on trans issues but not top 3

Oh please don't ask GSH

Germanshepherdsmum

*VS*, please explain to me why, as I assume someone who was born a woman as you have five children, you are so utterly obsessed with trans women. I really don’t understand this apparent obsession. I haven’t noticed you posting on other issues other than to talk about your experience of childhood abuse or your narcissistic mother. Forgive me if you have posted on other matters but what I overwhelmingly see is your concentration on these particular matters. What is driving this?

Erm, I comment on lots of things and when it comes to trans threads well, I wouldn't say I comment the most..

Wouldn't you need to also be present to notice?

Unless you count when I had covid recently as I was stuck in bed as I actually wasn't too well and I really didn't want my autistic daughter to catch it again.

Other than that I work Monday to Friday.

What is driving this?

Well, I do like a good discussion. Is that OK?

I haven't really talked mentioned my mother for a while, not really given her much thought really. Not sure I comment most on that forum either

GagaJo

When I suggested that, many years ago, when I first started exploring transgender (as it used to be called), I was told that as a cis woman, I didn't understand how unsuccessful that was, and that it was insulting for me (as a cis woman) to suggest that.

So I haven't. I've listened to what the trans people I know want. Their bodies. Their lives.

Are you talking about removing strict gender norms?

If so - why was it considered insulting?

VS, please explain to me why, as I assume someone who was born a woman as you have five children, you are so utterly obsessed with trans women. I really don’t understand this apparent obsession. I haven’t noticed you posting on other issues other than to talk about your experience of childhood abuse or your narcissistic mother. Forgive me if you have posted on other matters but what I overwhelmingly see is your concentration on these particular matters. What is driving this?

A trans inclusive post was needed even if some deemed it not allowable

It's my first thread on the topic

It's an answer to a question that was being asked over and over and over

It's my honest answer

People are free to reply or not, I haven't complained

My point is this. Everything comes round to trans by whatever means. The original post what is a woman, turn out to be yet another way to bang on about Trans. I am fed up with it, you have your views others have theirs, it’s like death by a thousand cuts, however much I’m told I have to think one way I will still make up my own mind. I’m not bothered in the least, let people be, it’s not a crusade in my eyes. But I do wish everything wasn’t railroaded to the same subject Trans, it’s boring, I made a mistake if responding to the op. Over and out.

People don't give anyone a bad name except themselves.

It's literally discrimination to say that

It's like calling the police on a black person in your neighbourhood because of a preconceived idea and why movements like BLM exist

And ignored what the women I know want. which is trans to get on with their lives uninterrupted, as many of them do, and women to have protection from harmful trans who give transgender a bad name.
I don’t know any trans who endorse trans violence against women or TW cheating in female sport or deny women their rights. When I point out that that endorsement is coming from some misogynistic females, sadly, they are not surprised.

And if we successfully do away with gender norms and people still want to change their bodies and hormones to look and sound more like the other sex...

Can we accept trans people then?

When I suggested that, many years ago, when I first started exploring transgender (as it used to be called), I was told that as a cis woman, I didn't understand how unsuccessful that was, and that it was insulting for me (as a cis woman) to suggest that.

So I haven't. I've listened to what the trans people I know want. Their bodies. Their lives.

It’s not outrage and uproar, simply condemnation of the stupidity of those who think they know better than science.
It’s entrenched you say.
You want the lie that males can become females to be entrenched because you think your lie is more deserving of entrenchment than the truth.
Oh dear.