Ethics, Maxims, and Activists.

Hello!

Today's foray into philosophical thought continues with a few meandering musings on ethics, maxims, otherwise known as motivations, and activists. In this specific case activists in the field of gender diversity, but broadly speaking any area of activist work, be it animal rights, nuclear disarmament, even philosophy, or whatever you might envisage.

Recently there was a case over in a US college where the graduation ceremony came under scrutiny for reasons of Gender Identity. In essence it boiled down to a long standing tradition of girls wearing gold gowns and boys wearing green gowns. This as you might imagine can be somewhat problematic to those who transition, be it from one side of the gender conversation to the other, or somewhere in the middle, whether between the two or neither of each.

So. The school principle asked the student body what it's member's wanted, and it appears that the feedback received was for trans people to wear the colour they identified with. Simples.

But wait a minute, theres only two choices, so what of those who are partially or wholly in the category of both or neither?

So the school now has a choice of routes it might take, given the wishes of the student body, that all gender identities be recognised.

• Introduce a few new colour options for those who associate outside a "two party system" 
• Decree everyone wear the same colour, regardless of gender be it cis, trans,binary or otherwise. 

Here's where it gets a little unclear dependent on ones viewpoint. What is the ethical option for the school here? Do as the student body asks, or make everyone the same by way of elimination of the colour difference that brought up the question in the first place? It could be argued that the first solution addresses and solves the problem, where as on the other hand the second, dependent on its method of application could do so, from some perspectives, or is it merely removing the problem while presenting no actual solution to the issue of recognition? Furthermore, gender identity is for some a private matter, as such is it ethical to broadcast this diversity?

Thus we arrive at the questions of perspective, motive, and choice.

Choice first. If the students choose to wear a robe that celebrates their diversity in a public way then that is their choice and thus carries no ethical implication in so far as  privacy concerns. If they wish to do so but are denied that choice that would be ethically questionable at best or discriminatory at worst.

Perspective. Some of the student body might be ok with the one colour solution or a two colour solution, since it fits their requirements. But hold on, if it unethically disadvantages the choice of other groups then that too would also surely be morally questionable? Indeed it's the whole premise on which this argument of representation is based.

Motive. "Why" is either option chosen? Was it to celebrate diversity, promote inclusion, or simply remove an administration headache that the school didn't really want to deal with? Who's wishes are to be taken into consideration here? Are all views given parity or are some of the stakeholders in this question of representation accorded greater value? If accord must be reached can it be done so as to cause the minimum disruption to the minimum number of people, yet still be ethically sound?

let's look at each scenario and see who the winners and losers are:

The one colour solution, 

First of all the problem is which colour? If one choses the historically male associated green colour then its arguable those who don't identify in that way are unethically disadvantaged even discriminated against. Similarly so if one chooses the historically female associated colour. Those who identify out side the binary are adversely affected in both scenarios. A problem with this approach is therefore that it could be said to erase the gender representation of for all, and removes choice. Perhaps then one introduces an entirely new none gender associated colour scheme? Ok, that works better, but still doesn't allow choice or representation, although it admittedly removes the historical gendered connotations thus the potential for individuals to experience dysphoric complications arising from a one colour solution could be lessened as a result. 

The two colour solution

This "could" work by virtue of allowing students to wear the robe they most closely identified with, but clearly doesn't deal in any way with the group of individuals who are both, neither or fluid. Thus again denying them choice, representation and of course leaving open the question of discrimination. 

The multi colour solution.

This presents an option for male, female and NB identifying people, perhaps with variations on the NB that reflect where people might see themselves to be on the oft quoted gender continuum. It allows choice for all, and crucially deny's none of the groups representation. Each group can celebrate it's individuality without adversely impacting on another group, thus the need for compromise is lessened. The down side of this solution may be that it's the most complicated and costly to implement and requires the highest level of engagement with the school authorities. 

So what did the school authorities actually do? 

They imposed a single colour solution whereby all students are to wear the colour that was previously associated with male identifying students. 

Consider the words "imposed" and "solution"

The result, perhaps unsuprisingly, was that the student body was unhappy, since most of the students including cis, trans and NB ones did not want this course of action. Imposition of an unwanted  solution on an unwilling student body unsurprisingly caused dissent. This was then directed at the trans and NB people, since they were seen as the drivers for the need to change anything in the first place.

Was this a "solution" in the true sense, or did it just paper over the issue so the school authorities could ignore it and move on claiming to be diversity inclusive? 

It's at this point "motive" once more rears its head. 

The 18th century philosopher Emmanuel Kant described the intent behind any action as a "Maxim" "A thought" if you will, that is the reasoning behind any action. So for example the "good samaritan' might have been acting on either of the maxims "help thy neighbour" or "help thy neighbour and you shall be rewarded" Two very different things in terms the ethical nature of the action brought about by the maxim, even though the action itself might be near identical in each case.

So what was the "maxim" in the case of the school authority? 

"Celebrate gender diversity, promoting freedom of gender expression regardless of gender identity" 

This seems doubtful as it would logically lead one to choose a three or more colour system, or the one colour system that is unrelated to the gendered colour markers of history, although as  previously stated that second option deny's choice thus is poorer fit to this mxim

How about:

"Act in the best interests of the students, to minimise sources of discrimination based on gender diversity"

Nope. Since that is arguable on the basis of the chosen system being an imposed and unwanted one that it discriminates against a huge number of students, specifically non male identifying, be they cis or trans alike, NB or otherwise.

Having given this some thought the only maxim I can come up with that adequately covers the imposition of an unwanted male associated single colour scheme is this:

"Make them all wear the same colour, and make it green since the school colour is green"

or the longer version...

"Make them all wear the same colour, so we appear inclusive and gender conforming, Make the colour Green since the schools colours are green, and the problem will go away. If anyone complains then we can shift the blame onto the transgender student body" 

As one can see, either version of this maxim is ethically questionable, since it puts school and public perception above student welfare and true parity of gender diversity. Although the flawed (IMO) "solution" that this maxim gives rise to could actually be argued to benefit a small number of students, namely Male leaning NB, and/or Cis male, it still disadvantages everyone outside that demographic. Also, it's the imposition on an unwilling student body that is the crux here as I said  before. were it not imposed, but requested by the students, then arguably things could be viewed differently, although still not without flaws. But I'll come back to this point. 

So where do the activists come into this? 

This whole (it has to be said relatively minor) issue of clothing raised a discussion amongst the trans community in my local area. Myself and few others discussed the ethical issues surrounding the schools actions. However some in the community viewed the schools single colour policy as a positive. These people were predominantly, though not exclusively those that identified in the NB area of the gender spectrum and in some cases actually worked within gender diversity teaching provision. 

It became apparent when I attempted to put forward the argument I've just explained in this article that it really wasn't up for debate in the minds of some of these individuals. To the point where I myself was accused outright of being something of a transphobic individual with internalised issues. 

Understandably as you might imagine, I had few "issues" with this, and it put me in mind of yet  another quote from a favourite thinker of mine 

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” 

When Socrates said those words he was referring to the basic human trait of slinging insults when the other party has presented an insurmountable argument. I have written about the dangers inherent in taking too stringent a no platforming standpoint, and in accusing me of biased thinking and poor judgment this was a case in point. It was simply an attempt to shut the discussion down, perhaps one might suggest due to perceived seniority of social position and knowledge base, but that's conjecture. 

As you might imagine. It didn't work. Such tactics  rarely do. As ever I asked myself "Why?" "Why is it the case that others wish to shut down the argument?" 

After some reflection, the answer seemed quite obvious, so much so i at first discounted it. The small number of individuals that the ethically questionable actions of the school does "appear" to benefit is indeed the NB identifying students. So one could, as these people did, view this is as "good" outcome. 

There are models of ethics that subscribe to "good" and "bad" regardless of consequences. Specifically religious type models. Other more commonly understood models of ethics are motive based, as in Kant's view which I outline above or consequential, best known as utilitarian arguments. (Bentham and Mill being two proponents). In this case the actions of the school authorise fail both a Motive based approach as demonstrated, and also I'd argue consequential one, be it positive or negative. Thus in essence the only remaining justification for taking a position of describing the outcome as a good action is "because I believe it to be so"  

But I'd suggest this is false/flawed logic. For without fully examining the intent behind the schools actions, - those  "maxims" upon which they were working - acceptance of a perceived benefit is a fools bargain, for it is transient and without real substance. Additionally, since the other members of the student body are wholly disadvantaged in terms of their choice and representation within this scenario, then those who see this as a "good" outcome are championing the very thing that they would actually decry were the situation reversed and NB/other people excluded. Why did they attempt to shut me down? In my own humble opinion, it was so that they didn't have to contend with the ethical holes in their own argument, and ironically, deal with their own internal bias.

So, that set me thinking. (again? yeah things do that) 

Surely one of the central tenants of being an activist and agent of discourse, change, bi partisan progress and societal evolution is to be open mined and to dispationately critically evaluate what is put before you? To look beyond the obvious? 

The requirement to do so and be practiced at it is the reason why student philosophers/lawyers and those who engage in professional discourse often indulge in framing arguments for positions with which they actually disagree. 

One could reasonably say that any given activist has an end goal in mind, thus they are inherently predisposed to perceive actions that move towards and align with that goal as positive. If we accept this premise, then any activist, in any field, must have an agenda, and therefore cannot be deemed impartial. 

This is not a problem as long as they remain aware of this trait & actively compensate for it. After all we all fight for what we believe in. 

BUT. 

It would be nice to think that we humans could all do this activist stuff ethically, logically and insightfully without resorting to knee-jerk reactions, criticisms of opposing viewpoints and down right unjustifiable insults. Particularly when that criticism is based on well founded argument, from inside our own diverse membership.. It is this "knee jerk stuff" that tears the trans movement, be it binary NB gender queer or whatever, apart from the inside. It invites the question: 

How effectively can we discuss issues with our real detractors? 

We do not exist in a vacuum, particularly in America, where this decision was likely taken by a white, cis gender guy, who may or may not have had sympathetic views on "gender transition". Believing that our own "informed" view is the underpinning motivation of every seemingly good outcome is a grave grave error, as is uncritical acceptance of the false progress born of indifference to our diversity. As a result every "success", no matter how well intentioned or hard fought, born from that error will surely end in failure, for any change will be short lived, easily reversed and superficial. 

NB as an identity grouping is the most marginalised of our trans trait human characteristics it deserves to be championed. However that does not confer on those who champion it's rights the legitimacy to do so at the expense of other trans trait identities, binary or otherwise and, as in this case, certain members of the cis gender student body. Indeed the mistake is to believe that Trans/Cis, Binary and NB are mutually exclusive at all.  For even a robe has a middle and two ends, regardless of its length or colour.

Until next time, keep talking, and whatever you do, remember:

"Many of the truths we cling to depends greatly on our point of view"

Ben Kenobi, 

So change it regularly, lest you believe your view is the only one possible, or worthwhile

tata,

Sarah.

Edit, Since writing this  there were further  outcomes. You can read the Epilogue to this wee story Here

The lived experience?

Hello online world!

How are you all? life going well? Yes? Great! No? Keep looking for the lessons! Either ways I invite
you to pull up a seat and chew the fat for a few moments with yours truly, blogger, thinker, tinkerer
and doer of lives wonderful collection of "stuff"

We started today's musings over a cuppa in bed whilst reading through that stream of consciousness that is Facebook. In so doing I came across this.....

A link to a pink news article featuring dame Jenni Murray

It was linked via a friends profile who is (like me) trans and thus predictably might take issue with the view that trans women aren't "real women". (For those that don't know, Dame Jenni is the presenter of woman's hour on radio 4)

Ok, thinks I, heres an interesting read and seemingly omnipresent question.  So I read the article and it seems theres an intriguing thread here. Dame Jenni comes from the same era of the feminist movement that is arguably represented most strongly in the public consciousness by Professor Greer. I'm going to pull a few extracts from her original article below, simply because its worthy to note that Pink news is not known for its objectivity in reporting what could be construed as challenging viewpoints.

The original Sunday Times article on which the pink news piece was based can be seen here

Pink news extracts

Head line: BBC woman’s Hour host Dame Jenni Murray says trans women aren’t ‘real women

Sunday Times headline

Jenni Murray: Be trans, be proud — but don’t call yourself a “real woman”

Dame Jenni ask's:

"Can someone who has lived as a man, with all the privilege that entails, really lay claim to womanhood? It takes more than a sex change and make-up"

This - is in my view - a wholly justified question. Trans people often start their journey towards
transition with exactly this burning in their heads. It is a question born of the reality that people often
live in the gender assigned at birth, whichever of the usual two options that might be, before taking any actions to alter societies perception of their gender.  

In years to come - and indeed currently - we are seeing a trend towards transition of individuals in their early to late teens. This means that by the age of forty or thereabouts the person has lived roughly 2/3rds of their life in the gender they identify with. As the time living in - and being perceived by others - as the "orginal" gender diminishes, so too does the argument that Dame Jenni alludes to for having developed societal wide opinions based on that gender. 

Caveat: However this theory does predispose that whilst living in the gender which they identify with, they pass as that gender. Since the lived experience of a non passing trans woman is perhaps very different from a passing trans man, when both are compared to their cis gender counterparts, intersectionality of discrimination does come into play a little here. (ergo discrimination based on being seen as trans or false or gay etc muddies the waters somewhat of that lived experience being applicable/transferable to cis gender counterparts experiencing sexism) 

So back to younger transtitionees, it's a simple and fair generalisation to say that most teenagers, by virtue of their being teenagers are not all that fussed about political stuff or "boring" things outside their own peer group. (for the sake of simplicity I'm not addressing pre school transition of children at this point, since that is something of an emotive issue, but none the less the long term societal effects are broadly similar) In this regards trans teens may be slightly more aware of the world around them on a personal level but not all that different from the cis counterparts as they grow up. 

Dame Jenni:

I firmly believe that transsexuals, transvestites, gays, lesbians and those of us who hold to the sex and sexual preference assumed at birth should be treated with respect and protected from the bullying and violence so many of us have suffered

Admirable sentiment, but this is an erroneous lead in, since it references both sex and sexual preference you are assumed at birth. I'm sure the first thing anyone assumes on the brith of their child is that they will be heterosexual? Or then again maybe not. Maybe they dont even give it a thought, and just want to focus on now. After all the age of consent and the "birds and the bees" talk is at least 16yrs (??) from this point. So why bring it up? It plays to the LGBT tag. Sure LGB is a thing, but trans is a different thing. Trans is not and never has been a preference, so this simply muddies the waters once more regards nature/nurture and the biology verses choice arguments. It present the reader with an unconscious conflagration that trans is an orientation, which it isn't.  Oh and anatomical "sex" isn't gender...that old trope, inferring science again but we shall revisit that in shortly...

Dame Jenni goes on to say...

I can’t agree with Julie Burchill or Germaine Greer, whose language in their expression of revulsion at the trans woman (a man who becomes a woman) claiming to be a real woman has been unacceptably crude. Why demean yourself and the feminist politics to which you’ve devoted your life by saying, cruelly and distastefully, “Just because you lop off your penis … it doesn’t make you a woman,” (Greer) or referring to transgender females as “screaming mimis” and “bed wetters in bad wigs” (Burchill)?

Equally, I’m appalled at the repulsive misogyny evident in the response of trans activists who have accused Nimko Ali, a Somali and a courageous campaigner against female genital mutilation, of “practising white feminism” or who have demanded the “no platforming” (banning from speaking in public) of women, such as the lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, who have questioned the claims of trans women to be real women.

But my concern, which I know is shared by numerous women who are now to be known as “cis” (short for “cisgender” — natural-born women, in the language that’s more familiar to most of us), is for the impact this question of what constitutes “a real woman” will have on sexual politics. And for who has the right to be included in gatherings or organisations that are defined as single sex.

I wholeheartedly applaud Dame Jenni for her comment in regards to the language used by Professor Greer, and agree that on the opposite side of the issue many are guilty of wilful failure to engage in debate, preferring mudslinging and personal attacks. The issues at hand are far too important to the  wider human race to be trivialised by tit for tat bickering. Her final point, one of the implication for  "sexual politics" as she puts it is again a valid one. 

Indeed the question of inclusion is at the heart of the entire issue, but viewed from Dame Jenni's perspective is only a half story, since she only deals with trans women. (pretty obviously because she is approaching this from a feminist POV and as a woman of course.) Let us not forget the trans man in this argument. Broadly speaking, trans men do have one massive "advantage" over trans women. On average, with their clothes on, it is harder to differentiate the trans man from the cis man, than it is trans woman from cis. Late transitioning trans women "stand out" in society and thus fall victim to misogyny, homophobia (based on the idea they are gay men), mental health stigma, the list is endless. Trans men, whilst getting much the same I am sure, are less visible, thus less discussed. Trans is an issue that needs to focus on the whole picture, not just the feminist perspective. That trans men are  often "invisible" is evident in the bathroom bill arguments raging in America, but thats another story for another time. 

Dame Jenni references a vicar who transitioned in the 1970's and a recent transitonee, India Willoughby, News reader and presenter. 

Both are held up as examples of "unknowing" Trans woman, who have limited to no knowledge of  women's specific political issues at the time of their interview by Dame Jenni. There are two faults with this argument. Firstly, in 1970, the over all perception of "A woman" in society was very different to todays version. Arguably Professor Greer and her contemporaries have had a considerable hand in changing those attitudes, for which they are to be rightly commended. Second, not all "Cis gender" women are clued up on these defining issues of woman hood as Dame Jenni puts it, nor care much about them either, thus knowing/unknowing is not a universal argument. 

For a link to my "cis/trans explanations see here)

Sure both Carol and India didn't know all that much, and whether they perhaps "should" have known more in their positions is open to debate, but had they done so would that then make them qualify as real women? Or by extension can a cis women who is uniformed be deemed to be not a real woman? So much of what Dame Jenni levels at Carol and India is irrelevant unless one assumes they didn't know because they lived as men pre transition. This is huge leap and quite an assumption. So, one has to ask, what is that assumption based on? 

Dame Jenni goes on to say that India in particular is quite "stereotypical" in her attire choices, and preferences, thus pandering to the societal idea of a man's opinion of what a woman should look like. Recent court cases where employers have attempted to implement dress codes obligating women to wear heels at work or as is the case in the article Dame Jenni references, "always wear make-up, have a manicure and wear stockings over shaved legs" have highlighted the issue of appearance politics as it is applied to women in the professional work spaces. 

The issue here, that Dame Jenni seemingly misses, is "choice". A woman may choose to wear heels to work. A woman may choose to wear make up, or shave her legs. When that choice is removed and appearance is directed by coercion then there is a problem. Concomitantly if a woman chooses to wear such items because she like them, and this is in agreement with a policy that other women disagree with, that must also be a valid option, since to deny her the choice to do so is to denigrate the other argument. Men and women have through the ages changed their looks, attire etc for reasons of practicality, preference, attraction of companions, uniformity, etc etc. But yet again this does not imbue any legitimacy of  "real" woman hood or otherwise, so is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, unless one assumes the decisions India makes are due to her former perceptions whilst in a societal male role. Again quite the assumption. So again, what is it based on? 

Dame Jenni goes on to reference Dr Zucker, the by now infamous researcher who is a somewhat controversial figure having allegedly (dependent on who you believe) practiced reversion therapy on trans youth, something that is now a universally discredited way of thinking for the medical profession. She also references a person who transitioned male to female and then back again , 

"Others, like Charles Kane, have found life as a woman intolerable. He began life as a man, became Samantha in 1997, and then, in 2004, had the surgery reversed. He believes he saw himself as an unusually sensitive man, but feels that he had surgery too soon. He said recently: “The worst part about being a woman is being treated as a sex object. So much depends on your appearance at the expense of everything else. Even though I was a woman physically, I felt I still had a male brain, but when I tried to talk to men about blokey things they didn’t take me seriously.”

This speaks to someone (Charles in this case) who perhaps hadn't fully appreciated the nuances of social transition, and erroneously thought life would be the same either way. We now know very different, hence the consideration of social elements in transition alongside the medical. The person in question had 6 yrs living in society as a woman. Were they dealing with misogyny? Or was it  discrimination due to transphobia and homophobia? (intersectionality again) Who knows, but either way they reverted back the societal perceptions of man. I feel for them, however 6yrs is not a  representative sample, and neither are the singular experiences on one person a great evidence base, so why bring it up? 

Dame Jenni continues:

"Ah yes, the male brain. How often do we hear about the male or female brain and the oft-repeated mantra, applied to males and females alike, “I was born into the wrong body”. Research carried out by the distinguished scientists Cordelia Fine and Lise Eliot can find no evidence for such claims. They hold to the fact that all children are born with the potential to develop their own unique characteristics of behaviour, talent and personality, regardless of biological sex. They say that the idea that the brain and the body are split, meaning it is possible to have the brain of one sex and the body of the opposite, is very recent and is not supported by credible scientific evidence."

This latter sentence is the point at which Dame Jenni begins to lose something within context of the  article. The statement "not supported by credible evidence" is simply not true... There has been work done in 2011 and published later on that suggests a differential in brain anatomical structure that can reliably sex a brain. This work shows parity with those of a transgender nature. (i've written on the subject quite extensively via the links Dr Sapolsky's lectors on human behavioural biology)

See here.. Scientific American

This work in no way indicates a level of potential on the individual, merely a structure anatomical difference that is reliably consistent with the persons "internal" gender - or gender identity if you will -  be that cis or trans in nature.

So why would Dame Jenni include an inaccurate statement in her report?

She then goes on to quote a Miranda Yardley, giving no qualification as to her knowledge base other than she is a transgender woman... (presumably assuming the reader knows who she is - she is a trans blogger btw, I looked it up)

"Miranda Yardley,.... is a male-to-female transsexual. She explains that some boys who are gay want to adopt the female gender because they’re considered effeminate and bullied for it. Others may simply refuse to become the kind of men they know, or want to emulate the mothers they love. Others, generally those who come to transition later in life, having lived as heterosexual men, are sexually aroused by the idea of becoming a woman or say they simply feel more comfortable living life as a woman."

So, two points here. First to be considered a "real woman" as per Dame Jenni's own criterion, one must be informed about women political struggles. Second, in order for it to be assumed that one knows everything about transgender theory and history, one must simply be trans gender. "Miranda" is assumed to know what she is talking about by virtue of her trans status alone, yet the theories she espouses are as old (and flawed) as Dr Zucker's and the gay conversion therapy ideology that was dropped circa 1950's. The notion that heterosexual men transition because they become aroused by the idea of becomeng a woman is based in the principle of Autogynephillia, which was a theory developed by Ray Blanchard in the 80's and 90's 

Theres not much on it that qualifies as unbiased, but you can read the wiki here

Crucially the theory has many many critics as it lays it's overriding premise in sexual attraction which as we now know is entirely separate from gender.

Wiki extract ...

Criticism of the research and theory has come from Charles Allen Moser, Julia Serano, Jaimie Veale, Larry Nuttbrock, John Bancroft, and others who say that the theory is poorly representative of trans women, and reduces gender identity to a matter of attraction.^{[citation needed]}

The theory has been the subject of protests in the transgender community, which peaked with the publication of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003. Following the publication of Bailey's book, Blanchard distinguished between the value of the theory as a behavioral description, versus as an explanation of transsexualism and that only further scientific research could resolve the latter question.^[1] The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) does not support the theory, citing a need for further research.^[6] WPATH also criticize the theory as being stigmatizing due to focusing on behavior instead of distress.^[7]

So Miranda seem a little out of date yet s  held up asa basal of trans knowledge. Why?

So to sum up then, what Dame Jenni appears to be doing is suggesting that in order to be considered a real women one must be informed on gender politics, and hold feminist aligned views. Additionally if a trans woman is not so informed or holds differing views these are obviously due to her being being trans..i'e formerly societally male, not just uninformed.

She furthermore erroneously quotes the scientific research on the issue and to add insult to injury equates the comments of one trans woman, of un explained prominence or knowledge as indicative  of the wider issue and current knowledge base, in direct contravention of her own ruleset regarding the requirement she herself made of trans women Carol and India, in order for them to be considered "real women".

So I asked myself what is this article based on? 

Sadly, I have come to this conclusion

It is based on the assumption that trans women are men, were men and will always act as men. 

It attempts to blur realms of scientific research with use of old outdated and debunked theories, and it includes unqualified opinions of unspecified members of the trans community who may or may not know the nuances of the issue, simply because those opinions agree with the predispositions of the author. It is neither an informed, nor open minded article in its second half content. The first half content establishes the author as a reasonable human being and thus predisposes the reader to seek accord with the more extreme and outdated ideas in the seconds half via the belief that a BBC presenter can't possibly be out of date. Quite simply its a poor attempt at exclusionary rhetoric dressed up as concerned opinion piece.

Why do I say this? Because I'm disappointed. Pink news did an appalling job of dissecting this article, going for headline buzz over content. I so wanted to believe this might be a sign of genuine meaning fully discourse, and a search for truth on the issue. But no. The central question needs to be debated, discussed and defined. It need's to be addressed. But it needs to be addressed unambiguously, transparently, via informed current and relevant debate that does not reduce trans women to mere clothes horses and assume that all their belief systems stem from the inherent maleness of their societal experiences. In short from an unbiased and objective and truthful viewpoint.

What it ultimately proves, if anything is that Trans women are not Cis women. Well no shit Sherlock. We coulda told you that. The issue is that you Dame Jenni, define real women on your own terms. Terms which don't actually apply to all Cis women, and then fail to apply these same requirement to Trans women's legitimacy as you see fit.

You make broad brush assumptions out of nowhere and as I asked a few times in the above text:

"What these assumption are based on?" 

Belief. 

They are based on a predisposed and seemingly ingrained belief that Trans women can never be as legitimate Cis women, and as such their voices have no place in as you put it  "single sex" spaces. 

That Dame Jenni, is the very definition of trans exclusionary feminism.

I Applaud you for your efforts in being non confrontational.....

Shame on you for your dishonesty.