One of the things I have gotten flack for is refusing to acknowledge trans identified males as women. My refusal to say that transwomen are the same as women, and my refusal to incorporate the term “cis” into my vocabulary, is somehow seen as equivalent to wishing violence upon all trans people. (Please note, I do not wish harm towards trans people, nor have I ever said or written that I do.)
Although I am not a biologist, I do feel confident in saying that I know what a woman is.
Women are adult human females, XX, large gamete producers. As such, our bodies and our physical and medical needs tend to differ from those of males (XY, or small gamete producers). One is not better or worse than the other, but we do have tangible differences that need to be accounted for in various contexts such as healthcare, prison, etc.
Although I am not a biologist, I do feel confident in saying that I know what a woman is.
Women are adult human females, XX, large gamete producers. As such, our bodies and our physical and medical needs tend to differ from those of males (XY, or small gamete producers). One is not better or worse than the other, but we do have tangible differences that need to be accounted for in various contexts such as healthcare, prison, etc.
In the heated world of DEI and the current climate of “inclusion above all else”, especially around matters of sex and gender, “exclusion” seems to have become a dirty word.
But it isn’t!!
In fact, I would argue exclusion is sometimes critical!
Take, for example, TPOMBA, the Toronto Parents of Multiple Births Association. When our twins were younger, we often went to TPOMBA meetings, where we could commiserate with other parents of multiples who were going through the same trials and tribulations of navigating twin (or triplet or HOM) breastfeeding, potty training, kindergarten separation, etc., etc. Did we also belong to other, “normal” parenting groups? Of course we did, but the twins club was an essential part of our parenting journey, and it excluded parents of only singletons.
But it isn’t!!
In fact, I would argue exclusion is sometimes critical!
Take, for example, TPOMBA, the Toronto Parents of Multiple Births Association. When our twins were younger, we often went to TPOMBA meetings, where we could commiserate with other parents of multiples who were going through the same trials and tribulations of navigating twin (or triplet or HOM) breastfeeding, potty training, kindergarten separation, etc., etc. Did we also belong to other, “normal” parenting groups? Of course we did, but the twins club was an essential part of our parenting journey, and it excluded parents of only singletons.
Another example of important and necessary exclusion can be found in the French language school system in Canada. In order to be considered for employment there, you must be francophone. If you are not, you are excluded from teaching in that jurisdiction. The reason for this is that the whole point of that school system is to preserve French language and culture. Hiring teachers who are not francophone, or who just speak a little French, would completely defeat the purpose.
A final example of “good” exclusion, again from within the education work, is the intentional exclusion of known pedophiles from the certified teaching and school support population. When you apply to work for a school board, whether as a classroom teacher, early childhood educator, or some other student and school support role, you have to have a criminal record check. (And in most jurisdictions across the country, this has to be updated annually.) And guess what? If you are a convicted child sex offender, you don’t get hired. YOU GET EXCLUDED!!!
Despite the efforts of some folks within the LGBTQ+ community to expand the umbrella to include softer language of “minor attracted persons” or MAPs, most people still agree that pedophiles should not be celebrated as a special identity, and have no problem excluding them from most workplaces, particularly those that focus on children.
Again, an example of when exclusion is good and necessary, and probably not super controversial in most circles.
Where exclusion seems to take a sharp left turn is when it comes to women.
Despite earning hard-won sex based rights over the past hundred years or so, it has suddenly become “controversial” to suggest that transwomen, i.e. trans-identifying men, ie biological, intact men who self identify as women and may or may not have taken some steps towards medicalizing said identity (such as having facial feminization surgery, or taking hormones, or some such action) do not belong in women’s prisons, on women’s sports teams or in women’s shelters.
Although we have documented evidence, for example, of women in sex-segregated prisons becoming impregnated by convicted male sex offenders to claim to be – and are therefore housed with – the female inmate population, to suggest that these trans-identifying men should not be there is apparently “transphobic”.
A final example of “good” exclusion, again from within the education work, is the intentional exclusion of known pedophiles from the certified teaching and school support population. When you apply to work for a school board, whether as a classroom teacher, early childhood educator, or some other student and school support role, you have to have a criminal record check. (And in most jurisdictions across the country, this has to be updated annually.) And guess what? If you are a convicted child sex offender, you don’t get hired. YOU GET EXCLUDED!!!
Despite the efforts of some folks within the LGBTQ+ community to expand the umbrella to include softer language of “minor attracted persons” or MAPs, most people still agree that pedophiles should not be celebrated as a special identity, and have no problem excluding them from most workplaces, particularly those that focus on children.
Again, an example of when exclusion is good and necessary, and probably not super controversial in most circles.
Where exclusion seems to take a sharp left turn is when it comes to women.
Despite earning hard-won sex based rights over the past hundred years or so, it has suddenly become “controversial” to suggest that transwomen, i.e. trans-identifying men, ie biological, intact men who self identify as women and may or may not have taken some steps towards medicalizing said identity (such as having facial feminization surgery, or taking hormones, or some such action) do not belong in women’s prisons, on women’s sports teams or in women’s shelters.
Although we have documented evidence, for example, of women in sex-segregated prisons becoming impregnated by convicted male sex offenders to claim to be – and are therefore housed with – the female inmate population, to suggest that these trans-identifying men should not be there is apparently “transphobic”.
From UK Daily Mail
In the inaugural issue of the lesbian magazine I recently published, a woman from the UK shared her experiences seeking sex-based support as a survivor of sexual abuse at the hands of men. The women’s sexual abuse survivor services was unable to guarantee her a female counsellor because “we don’t discriminate against transwomen”. Somehow when it comes to the importance of lived experience, apparently the lived experience of adult human females takes a back seat to the feelings of men in a dress.
And if you’re interested the problem of men in women’s sports, check out hecheated.org for some concrete stats and horror stories on that topic.
My own introduction to this phenomenon was when I was going through a particularly rough patch with my wife (then my girlfriend), and – mainly out of curiosity – went on a lesbian dating app, “just to see”. What I saw, shockingly, was an overwhelmingly male group of users, who identified as “lesbian”!
Confused and ignorant at the time, I naïvely reported these men to the app’s administrator, thinking that they had somehow inadvertently “slipped by” and infiltrated the dating site.
Silly, silly me.
I received rather a chastising message from the admin, explaining to me as though I were a hostile bigot, that “transwomen are women”, and that if they identify as lesbian, then of course we should welcome them with open arms. (Mouths?! Legs?!)
And if you’re interested the problem of men in women’s sports, check out hecheated.org for some concrete stats and horror stories on that topic.
My own introduction to this phenomenon was when I was going through a particularly rough patch with my wife (then my girlfriend), and – mainly out of curiosity – went on a lesbian dating app, “just to see”. What I saw, shockingly, was an overwhelmingly male group of users, who identified as “lesbian”!
Confused and ignorant at the time, I naïvely reported these men to the app’s administrator, thinking that they had somehow inadvertently “slipped by” and infiltrated the dating site.
Silly, silly me.
I received rather a chastising message from the admin, explaining to me as though I were a hostile bigot, that “transwomen are women”, and that if they identify as lesbian, then of course we should welcome them with open arms. (Mouths?! Legs?!)
Headline from NBC News in 2023
So, essentially, if I — as a lesbian — wanted to find a date on a lesbian dating app, I was expected to be open to these transbians and their offering of “girldick”.
Needless to say, I soon extricated myself from that platform, and since then have been sad to discover that there are, in fact, no woman-only spaces online where a lesbian (i.e. an adult human female attracted to other adult human females) can safely find a date.
Thank goodness my girlfriend and I made up, and she’s now my wife. But Yikes!
I am not, in theory, opposed to “intramural” queer spaces that include both men and women, straight, gay, bisexual, and trans or not. In practice, however, there are times when I appreciate a female-only space, just as – I assume – transwomen also would appreciate a trans-only space that allows them to share time with others who have similar lived experiences.
We have to get better at using our brains to think critically about when inclusion may not be necessary, important or even possible.
Needless to say, I soon extricated myself from that platform, and since then have been sad to discover that there are, in fact, no woman-only spaces online where a lesbian (i.e. an adult human female attracted to other adult human females) can safely find a date.
Thank goodness my girlfriend and I made up, and she’s now my wife. But Yikes!
I am not, in theory, opposed to “intramural” queer spaces that include both men and women, straight, gay, bisexual, and trans or not. In practice, however, there are times when I appreciate a female-only space, just as – I assume – transwomen also would appreciate a trans-only space that allows them to share time with others who have similar lived experiences.
We have to get better at using our brains to think critically about when inclusion may not be necessary, important or even possible.
Leaning towards inclusion in most arenas doesn’t mean that we can’t sometimes insist on exclusion when it’s reasonable and/or necessary to do. As a woman, and in particular a lesbian, I believe it is sometimes reasonable and necessary.
RSS Feed