I Am TREATED As A Female, Therefore, I AM A Female

One of my New Year’s resolutions is to be more active on Twitter. I understand that this might seem insane (and that it probably is insane), but I have my reasons. One of which is that I want to spend more time talking to people I disagree with.

Writing articles is great and all, but given that they’re usually shared with my followers first, there’s always the risk of an echo chamber forming. And though having productive conversations on Twitter can be difficult, the following proves that with a little skill (another reason behind my self-imposed tweeting), it’s not impossible.

Niki responded to a tweet about Isla Bryson, a double rapist who spontaneously decided during his trial that he’s been a woman all along. While discussing the case, Niki lamented the difficulty of “reasoned debate” on this issue.

Sadly, the desire for reasoned debate didn't stop her from misrepresenting what I’d said in a different tweet.

[Our conversation has been lightly edited because it turns out that transcribing Twitter conversations is a nightmare. Nothing of substance was removed.]

---

Niki:

People really be in my twitter replies trying to tell me that all trans women should be decided if they're trans on a case by case basis. News flash; we already are and the #GenderRecognitionReformBill to was meant to avoid some of that pain.

One is case by case because they're criminals. The other shouldn't be. The fact that people don't see this difference is both disgusting and bad faith. I'm not a criminal, so why does anyone have the right to tell me how I should live my life if I'm not hurting anyone? 😒

---

Steve QJ:

This is the why "reasoned debate" is so difficult. So many of the trans women I come across on Twitter lie as reflexively as breathing. And then you accuse others of arguing in bad faith?!

This "I'm not a criminal" line is exactly the same "logic" gun rights activists use. The reason people have the right to tell you how to live your life is that some of your choices impact other people. I'm not allowed in women's spaces. No matter how much I might want to be (I don't want to be because I have no problem accepting people's boundaries).

I don't protest at being "told how to live my life," I simply recognise that many women would be uncomfortable with my presence. Same for all men. Yes, it's different for trans women. I understand that. But the refusal to look beyond your desires is insane.

---

Niki:

The reason your argument is bad faith is because you’re conflating you desire to be in women’s spaces with mine. It’s not a sexual thing for me. I’ve never gone to the female bathrooms and gone “phwoar great to be here I’m going to get off on this!” because that would be weird.

It isn’t about desire. It isn’t about a need to be next to other women while I urinate or something weird. It’s about acceptance. I’ve never hurt and will never hurt anyone by being in a female bathroom. Yes there are some that would abuse that, but they would abuse it anyway.

---

Steve QJ:

It's about your *desire* for acceptance. I didn't say anything about sex.

Here we bump into that uncomfortable truth again. You're a male. In the same way that I'm a male. Which is why, generally speaking, you're not allowed in female spaces. I think provisions should be made for trans women. I don't support a blanket ban of trans women in female spaces because I think gender dysphoria is obviously real.

But the reason the people who want a blanket ban are gaining support is that it's so hard to get trans women to have an honest conversation without misrepresenting what the real issues are.

---

---

Niki:

I’m a male? Okay. I might not be “biological” but try asking my vagina if I’m a male. Or my hormone balance. Or my breasts. Try asking my demeanour, the way I talk, the way I get treated in society and in the street. I am TREATED as a female, therefore, I AM a female.

---

Steve QJ:

I'm sorry, truly. No part of me wants to labour this point, but that's not how it works. I could ask your prostate if you're male. Or your chromosomes. Or your skeletal structure. They'll all give the same answer. You don't become something because some people mistake you for it.

You say it's clear-cut when we're dealing with criminals. Well, what about criminals who haven't been caught? Or rapists who have served their time in prison? Should they be allowed in female spaces? What about "trans women" who have no intention of transitioning in any way? Are they women? There is nothing hateful about these questions. They're just difficult. And from what I've seen, trans women refuse to engage with them in good faith. Preferring instead to send Rowling rape and death threats.

---

Niki:

They are difficult. I’m not a transmedicalist all the way, but I don’t disagree with some of what you’re saying. That’s where the issue gets difficult. That’s where we need to have the real discussions, but people are too busy putting everyone under the same blanket banner.

If you have no intention of changing your genitalia, then there should be a gender neutral bathroom option available to you as you made that choice and should live with that choice. If you’re working towards the operation (funds/time/waiting lists etc), then you should be permitted to use the bathroom of your choice, including the women’s. Unless you expect every single trans person to undergo a thorough background check to ensure that they’re not a danger to women? At which point, you’re again treating them like criminals and making it sexual.

For me it was never about sex. It was always about gender. They are two different things in my mind, but you CAN change your sex. It’s not as immutable as people like to believe. But a lot of the conversations aren’t about this matter. It’s surface level bullshit instead.

---

Steve QJ:

Yeah, the problem here is that I truly have no idea what you're talking about when you say gender. Unless you mean the performance of gendered stereotypes. Which has never been what defines whether you're male or female. Sex cannot be changed. This is another piece of reality denial that will turn smart, reasonable people away from your cause. You can't make support conditional on a willingness to lie. Or rather you can, but it's a terrible idea.

---

Niki:

Changing the goalposts.

---

Steve QJ:

No, this was just an aside really as you mention sex vs gender. I'm happy not to have that discussion. I've tried enough times to know it goes nowhere. Though I think more trans people should think about the fact that a lot of the rhetoric around gender is completely incoherent.

---

Niki:

I’d be happy to discuss it with you some time. It needs discussing. A lot of these problems need dealing with properly. But as soon as a TRA/trans person discusses something and it doesn’t agree with the overall agenda, they get shunned and called hateful.

And the GC [editor’s note: GC stands for gender critical, aka, people who think biological sex is more meaningful than gender stereotypes] side use them as some sort of argument winner, and happily throw them under the bus to make their argument look stronger, even if it isn’t. “Look, this ONE trans person agreed with this ONE specific point!”. It’s quite sinister on both sides.

---

Steve QJ:

Yeah, I've definitely seen both sides of this. Rhetoric from TRAs and GCs is getting increasingly cruel.

The gender conversation is tricky because it's basically a matter of belief. Most trans people believe there's a thing called "gender" that's disinct from sex. I call it a personality. Perhaps a personality as viewed through certain stereotypes.

Earlier you referenced your demeanour and the way you talk. I'm sure there are many females with a different demeanour or way of talking. It doesn't make them any less women as far as I can see.

---

Niki:

Yes but why am I not a woman then? I tick almost every box that makes me a woman. If being able to reporudce as a woman is the failure of being a woman... Well I can't reproduce as a man either. So that would be an issue in both sides.

---

Steve QJ:

Because my definition of the word woman (and, to be fair, the definition of almost the entire world) has nothing to do with behaviour or stereotypes. It's not a box ticking exercise any more than being black or human is.

You're a trans woman. I honestly don't understand why that's an issue. Trans women are trans women. What is wrong with this? Every gender diverse culture throughout history has been able to respect gender diverse people without losing track of what a woman is.

---

Niki:

Because trans women aren't being treated as a woman should be. A trans woman is indeed a trans woman. But in that is the word woman. Not that word man (smenatics notwithstanding). So we are closer aligned to women than we are men. Which means we should be treated more as women.

---

Steve QJ:

The word “woman” is there out of respect for the way you want to be seen by society. But there are occasions where that desire to show respect has to cede to reality and the comfort and safety of women. The refusal to acknowledge this is why some women have started referring to trans women as TiMs [editor’s note: this stands for trans-identified males].

The more the TRAs demand to be validated above all else, the more people will withdraw the respect completely. I think this is a bad thing. It's genuinely sad to see the cruelty ramping up. But I'm not surprised. Hardly any trans women spoke up against the excesses of trans extremism. That eroded an enormous amount of goodwill.

---

Niki:

It's not really extremism. It's just people wanting to feel like human beings. When it was "the gays" they got treated like second class citizens. The same for "the blacks". This would have been no different. "The trans" etc etc. History is just repeating with another minority.

---

Steve QJ:

No. It's absolutely nothing like black people or gay people. Trans women are requesting access to the spaces of another vulnerable group. A group, in fact, who are potentially vulnerable to trans women. Not because they don't have spaces already, but because they want to be the *only* class of people who get to decide which single-sex spaces they use, regardless of their biology.

Again, I'm not absolutist about this. But the idea that this should be granted free of constraints or you're "not treating trans people like human beings" is ridiculous.

---

Niki:

Women are a vulnerable group? 🤔

I get what you’re saying. But there is no framework for "when you can" and that's the bit missing. A framework woukd be a good way of doing it.

---

Steve QJ:

Yes, women (or let's say females) are vulnerable to male violence. Males commit around 99% of sexual assault and females are the victims around 92% of the time. And as people like Isla Bryson demonstrate, that risk isn't removed by a change of pronouns.

And yes, exactly. A good framework is vital. And it can't exist while TRAs do everything in their power to demonise any framework other than, "any man who says he's a woman is one." Reasoned debate requires good-faith and honesty. That's sorely lacking on the TRA side.

---

Niki:

Yes but GCs will also demonise it. A lot in your conversation you blame TRAs for a large majority of the problems caused but it's caused by both sides being at each other's throats. Not a single group. The GCs were the catalyst for this becoming such a big issue anyway.

---

Steve QJ:

I place more responsibility on TRAs for two reasons.

First, because they're the ones asking for something. If you want women to accept changes to rights that they fought hard for and that keep them safe, you probably shouldn't send them rape threats or appropriate their identity. I've lost count of the number of women I've heard from who used to be fully on board with supporting trans women until they saw how much bile and misogyny lurks in the rhetoric.

And second, because TRAs are the ones demanding that we deny obvious realities. As I said, the fact that biological reality is framed as "transmedicalism," the fact they we're even *discussing* whether male rapists should be housed in female prisons, all of this comes from TRAs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything this insane coming from GCs.

---

I’m not sure if it’ll last, but there’s been a noticeable shift in the attitudes of trans people I talk to online lately. They’re more reasonable, less dogmatic, more willing to acknowledge facts and the need for compromise.

I’m genuinely delighted to see this. Because the lie that anybody who pushes back on any aspect of gender ideology is evil and transphobic has been nothing short of disastrous for perceptions of trans people.

I still regularly speak to trans people who are sealed so tightly in their echo chambers that they don’t know minors are being given double mastectomies, or that rapists are being sent to female prisons, or that gay and lesbian people are being told to get back in the closet instead of talking about their same-sex attraction.

Trans activism is hurting trans people most of all. So I desperately hope this trend towards reasoned debate continues.