The statement, Transwomen are Women (TWAW), has become a cliché and a mantra, often bandied around by people who don’t seem to have given any real thought to what it actually means. So let’s deconstruct it, term by term “transwomen” as one word, “are”, and “women”. We should define what we mean by those terms.
ARE
Maybe strangely, I am going to start with “are”.
Does it mean “are”, in every possible respect? Socially, legally, biologically, on your passport? Some would argue that yes, in every way, transwomen “are” women.
If there can be shown to be just one instance in which transwomen are not women, the whole house of cards falls down. We would then have to draw a line or lines, somewhere. Where and in what circumstances are transwomen women, and where are they not? Is where we draw these lines different for different types of transwomen? Trans activists don’t want to have that debate. They know that if they do, they might be forced out of their simplistic absolutes and have to address nuance and difference. No simplistic ideology is capable of that.
Here’s one example…
In health services, men who identify as women have no need of cervical cancer screening.
They do not have a cervix.
Women who identify as men have no need of prostate cancer screening.
They do not have a prostate.
In fact, to do either would be a gross waste of limited NHS resources.
There are a number of other medical treatments and procedures (blood transfusions, some drugs for instance) which have different effects on men, and women, and many which have only ever been, or predominantly, tested on men, so we don’t know. See Caroline Criado Perez on this.
Even if we were to accept that transwomen are women in every other respect; for the protection of their own health, medical records still need to record biological sex, instead of or maybe as well as identified gender.
So, I think we must logically agree, that “are” means “are”, possibly in some circumstances, but certainly not in all circumstances. “Acceptance without exception” cannot hold. There are exceptions.
TRANSWOMEN
Next, “transwomen”. The trans bit of that word is interesting. Do we mean transgender, transsexual, transvestite? There may be many people who will accept that a man who has had surgery, hormone therapy, and has ‘lived as a woman’ for many years might, socially, be treated as a woman, referred to as her/she and not discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity. Fine, maybe, in some circumstances.
What about the vast majority of so called trans identified men who have not, and express no interest in any medical intervention, but nevertheless declare that they are women?
What about the “business leader” who some days presents to work as a woman in a dress, and some days as a man in a suit?
What about the man with a beard who wears some make up and ‘female attire’, is heterosexual, attracted to women and declares himself a woman, and a lesbian?
What does the word “Transwomen” mean?
It could mean, according to Stonewall, absolutely anyone who every now and then has a “womanly” thought. It could mean almost anything else and include anyone and everyone.
When drawing up laws and policies to help and protect trans people, we need to know what the word means. Currently we don’t.
The definition of “trans” is absolutely crucial. Ask people, in an opinion poll, if they think transsexuals should have some access to women’s spaces, and you might get a small majority in favour.
If you ask a more detailed question like “should a biological man with intact male genitalia who identifies as a woman, be allowed into a womens’ rape crisis centre”, the evidence from Ireland is that you will get an entirely different response. Very few of the general public are in favour of that. The definition of what we mean by transwomen affects how people react and see the issues. See the Staniland question.
WOMEN
Finally, the third word of the mantra, “women”, what does that mean?
Adult Human Females.
I have no long discussion to write on this.
Three words.
That is it.
Thanks Dave, very well put. I shall share
Have you read Kathleen Stock's Material Girls? Very good IMHO but I do like a bit of analytic philosophy that tries to systematically unpick the underlying concepts as you do here - and she does professionally! https://www.waterstones.com/book/material-girls/kathleen-stock/9780349726601