Trans advocates vs. Gender Critical Feminists

Gender Recognition Act (2004)--legal sex/gender change requires application to panel, evidence of gender dysphoria, 2 years of living as a woman (or man), medical records
Proposed reform--legal sex/gender change based on self-identification
2017-2018--consultation


KATHLEEN STOCK VS. 
LORNA FINLAYSON, KATHARINE JENKINS, ROSIE WORSDALE (FJW)

We will watch the first 4:30 minutes




Stock's argument

1. There are separate spaces (e.g. shelters, prisons) and resources (e.g. prizes, short lists) for women in order to protect biological females from males and overcome their disadvantages relative to males.
2. Transwomen* are biologically male.
3. Since they are biologically male, transwomen pose the same risks as cis males and have had the same advantages as cis males.
4. Because of the risks and advantages, allowing transwomen to access women’s spaces and resources would defeat the purpose of these spaces and resources.
5. With self-ID, there will be more biological males (both sincere transwomen and impostors) in women’s spaces. THEREFORE,
6. Self-ID should be rejected.

* She writes "transwomen" not "trans woman." Why do you think she does that?

FJW have objections to each premise.

1. Get into debate groups
2. Discuss the premise that corresponds to your group
3. What do FJW say about that premise?
4. Find a good passage to read, to back up your intepretation of FJW
5. Who is more convincing about that premise, FJW or Stock?

What do FJW say about each premise?

PREMISE 2--in some sense true 

p. 8

PREMISE 3--probably false

p. 9

PREMISE 4--false
Even if there were extra risks, that wouldn't defeat the purpose of these spaces.  The spaces are for women (see discussion of premise 1) and trans women would still be a subset of women.

p. 11

PREMISE 5--false
No evidence of impostors

PREMISE 1--false
The purpose of spaces is not to serve the needs of biological females but to serve the needs of all women

p. 11-12