To ask for someone to actually explain how trans women are women???

[Lilyyulelog]

I genuinely would love a satisfactory explanation, one which gets to the point. Since becoming aware of the 'trans debate' I've yet to see one that makes any sense at all.

Or is it just that whether or not they are isn't actually the real issue? But surely it is...

[doesthislookoddtoyou]

they aren't. hth

[ShotsFired]

The TWAW argument hinges on the fact that the individual "feels like a woman".

Unfortunately nobody has been able to articulate exactly what that means, in a way that includes both born women and trans women.

For born women, woman means:

• XX chromosomes
  
• female biological facts
  
• the lived experience of being a girl and then a woman in this society.
  
  It does not mean:
  
• Dress, look and other external factors, because they are just social constructs foisted on us and as you will be aware, we are not all identikit mannequins wearing the same uniform, and rejecting some or all of these social constructs does not ever stop us being women. Ergo, this factor cannot be what makes us categorically women.
  
  If you apply the above to trans women:
  
• chromosomes TW have XY chromosomes, not XX
  
• female biological facts TW have male biological facts
  
• the lived experience of being a girl and then a woman in this society. TW have the lived experience of being a boy and a man in society
  
  That then leave us with:
  
• Dress, look and other external factors - the social construct.
  
  But we have just logically eliminated a social construct as being something that makes a woman a woman. So TW are TW, not women. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
  
  But their chromosomes, biology and lived experience means they are a subset of the male sex, not the female one; and have no logical or actual claim to literal womanhood.
  
  Different but equal. There is no need to take away from women to gain parity as TW in their own right.

[ShotsFired]

@Lilyyulelog Or is it just that whether or not they are isn't actually the real issue? But surely it is...

And to respond on this point:

The problem is not with transsexuals who live, work and play in their social construct of woman. You and I have been aware of these people for years and have not felt in danger or at risk from people dealing with a very difficult mental illness.

The problem is a new breed of trans rights activists, who are essentially just men's rights activists who are looking to trample on women's rights and remove the female only spaces and opportunities in a land grab for their own benefit. They do not live, work and play as women, and they largely have no intention of ever transitioning to do so.

It is this particular group of men who are are the ones screaming for self id - these proposals would literally enshrine the right to state "I am a woman" with no changes to their life, bodies, looks, way of life, work or anything whatsoever, and they would be afforded entry, access and opportunities previously held for woman only.

In an even nastier twist of this, come the sexual predators who realise that this self id is a absolute free ride for them to get at their victims. No more need to spend years tediously wriggling their way into powerful or trusted positions . Just say the magic words and hey presto, instant, lawful access to rape centres, changing rooms, women-only places anywhere.

It's late for me, so I won't go into great detail here on the effects of all this on children (pushed into off-label medication that will permanently sterilise and disfigure their bodies/genitals); and lesbian and gay people (erased from being as they will be pushed into being "straight trans" instead); and the dangers to the gender dysphoric transsexual community (called "truscum" by the TRA lot). Not to mention all the other insidious side effects of this proposal.

[noeffingidea]

They're not, because it's impossible to change biological sex. People nowadays seem to have a hard time accepting that we are simply animals, mammals, and there is no 'confusion' or 'narrative' about being male or female. We just are one or the other.
Of course some people wish to live as the opposite sex and identify as such, so legally and socially they can be recognised as such, however that doesn't mean that they actually are.

[QueenArseClangers]

Everything that ShotsFired said.

[sixteenapples]

Everything that ShotsFired said - I second that. Very clear.

[littlemissrain]

I suppose the issue is that women have for years been making the point that there are no differences between the minds/brains of men and women, the only difference is biological. Any differences in the way men/women behave are socialised, not inherent.

But trans women argue that they have a female brain, and that biology doesn't matter.

I'm a live and let live type of person. If it makes someone truly happy to live as the opposite gender then I have absolutely no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is when trans women start trying to redefine feminism based on their conception that women have "female minds" and that Biology is irrelevant, and then start saying that women's reproductive issues like abortion shouldn't be discussed at the women's march, because it might exclude them.

If you want to be a women, great, I support you 100% in your right to live your life as you want, but you don't get to tell other women what they're allowed to talk about. How about supporting women in the struggles they face, even if that includes reproductive rights?

[NoqontroI]

They're not. They are subset of man. Happy to respect whatever names people wish to be addressed by but Transwomen aren't actually women.

[NoqontroI]

The problem is a new breed of trans rights activists, who are essentially just men's rights activists who are looking to trample on women's rights and remove the female only spaces and opportunities in a land grab for their own benefit. They do not live, work and play as women, and they largely have no intention of ever transitioning to do so.

Yep this. A million times over.

[FluffyPineapple]

Exactly what Shots said....But in reply to your question asking posters to explain how transwomen are women - You wont get an answer. Because they are not women.

[NowtSalamander]

Ask Jeremy Corbyn, he says he knows.

No one will really give you an answer. You’ll just be a bigot for asking the question.

[Bejazzled]

Just to add another voice, sorry I can't explain what you ask - because they aren't

[DeleteOrDecay]

Sure you can 'present' as what your idea of a woman is but no one, deep down really believes that you're a woman woman. The ones who shout 'transwomen are women' are deluding themselves and looking for validation from others (India Willoughby I'm looking at you).

TW can present how they want on the outside but their biology is an undeniable fact.

[ARealWoman]

YANBU.

You can ask the TRAs a million times on Twitter, but you’ll never get an answer. You can say, “if transwomen are women, how do you define woman?” and they will literally reply with “how do YOU define woman?” You can never, ever get a straight answer to the question.

[cista]

I predict that you'll get lots of response along the lines of: "you're all horrible transphobes. Google it. I will not debate with misogynists." And then you'll never see them again...

[MistressDeeCee]

Transwomen are a subset of men. That's it.

[CSIFemale]

@noeffingidea

You were so right with "People nowadays seem to have a hard time accepting that we are simply animals, mammals" and then you went off track a little.

As animals, we have certain innate traits and these are typically male and female. There are the numerous observed and proven physical differences; we have different skin, bones, muscles, organs, eyes, hair and brains. We have different amounts of different hormones. The brains fire differently and have different sized parts. All of this is down to biology.

However, the very suggestion that there can possibly be anything different mentally between men and women gets a certain type of woman quite het up. "that must be social conditioning. A construct of the patriarchy". That seems arrogant and forgetting the 'we're fucking animals' outlook.

It is not 200,000 years of social conditioning which means women are developed to nurture whilst men protect and hunt and build. It's evolution. We have different brains and they work differently. As this is where you're 'you-ness' / 'soul' / 'personality' / 'person' is, why shouldn't it be that a brain which would typically and usually be found in the opposite sex ie. the person is trans.

There's a reason boys and girls, men and women generally conform to stereotypes! Because the sexes tend to act and behave differently and that's because we are physically and mentally different. Assuming that we are equal in every way is arrogant and forgetting that we're fucking animals.

A trite example of women in STEM is still a good one. Fewer women in STEM even in very sexually-equal societies? The gender-deniers talk about hidden pressures, social constructs and whatever unprovable theories they can muster. Often they go completely silent. A very good theory for explaining this inequality is due to brain differences. Another fascinating difference is ASD - either a diagnosis split or a split in those with these disorders.

So, you can take the, to my mind, totally illogical and improbable standpoint that despite all the physical differences between the sexes, there are no mental differences, that any difference in behavior is because of society and that there is no such thing as a male or female personality or you think that with the massive list of provable differences, there are also likely differences in thinking and personalities and that you can be a woman in a man's body.

Defining 'woman' as having a vagina is simplistic and serves little purpose. The 'terf and proud' people (and I assume you're one OP or why bother with this thread) like to act as though men are a class and trans women are under cover agents / spies for the patriarchy in the big conspiracy to get our Top Shop changing rooms.

You're in the minority though. Most of us don't care. We don't fear men and screw up our faces at the 'erosion of womanhood' nonsense.


@littlemissrain - I thought that feminism was not a homogeneous blob with thought police and group think. Why can't they have a different definition of feminism to yours?

My definition of feminism is likely different to yours.

[ARealWoman]

What about matriarchal societies

[catfishsally]

trans women are not biologically women but if someone wants me to call them a woman bevause it will make them happier then i am okay with that.
no I wouldn't date a trans man but I would date a bisexual man either doesn't mean they are any less human

[CSIFemale]

@ARealWoman

Which one?

[GnotherGnu]

There have been dozens if not hundreds of threads dealing with this question. Do we really need yet another?

[nitescreamer]

A trite example of women in STEM is still a good one. Fewer women in STEM even in very sexually-equal societies? The gender-deniers talk about hidden pressures, social constructs and whatever unprovable theories they can muster. Often they go completely silent. A very good theory for explaining this inequality is due to brain differences.

I like that example. So any person who is working in STEM is really male brained, whether they are born male, transmale or a ciswoman who has yet to realise and transition. Logically therefore women only prizes would only be open to those three groups of people because someone identifying as a woman who was unfortunately born into the wrong body would not be working in STEM - because that's just for male brains just as dresses and stilettos are just for female brains.

I am guessing that as politics and business are really also areas for male brains, anyone with a female brain shouldn't really bother their pretty little heads with that either. I'm guessing that cismen and transmen wouldn't want to be on an all women short list either so that means just male brained ciswomen?

That should clear up a few arguments. Just got to decide now do I give up my occasional dress and baking or do I give up wearing trousers and my career. Couldn't really be a bit of both, that would be selfish. Fortunately I don't have stilettos and make up so that's an easy choice.

[nursy1]

I’m confused but fascinated.
I’ve always approached it like I wouldn’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable so it’s just good manners to be accepting of what some one wants to be. Clinically I’ve helped transgender people going either way so I’ve learned a little about the issues the6 face. The people I have come across are very much discriminated against so I think they naturally are on the side of feminist issues in my experience.
I have not come across trans rights activists personally although I can see in the debate open8ng up in the wider world that this may be having an influence. Is it a case of just a very few people shouting loudly, the media reporting so their viewpoint feels disproportionate?

[CSIFemale]

@nitescreamer

You asked a couple of questions but mostly just patronised and insinuated.

I believe in mosaic brain theories and general trends. "Male brained" was your term and no, STEM workers are not trans people who haven't realised. More likely to demonstrate some male traits. Mt description would be much more tempered; 'more likely to demonstrate male traits' is more my opinion.

This is not about looking at one woman and one man and being able to tell the two apart but looking at massive numbers, as you probably understand.

"I am guessing that as politics and business are really also areas for male brains"

Well, isn't one of the suspected reasons for the gender pay gap because women don't or can't negotiate. Women out earn men (especially in graduate jobs) for a good few years at the start of their careers and the payscale is more structured but when roles become more disparate and it takes a bit of confidence and blowing ones own trumpet they fall behind. If that's what it takes to be sucessful in politics and business then maybe you're correct.

However, despite apparently being the woman-hating party, the Tories make women into excellent Prime Ministers. Admittedly, Labour did wheel out a moron who set back women in politics a good few years!

As women do better at uni and then in jobs (until child-bearing age), their female traits certainly stand them in good stead. Why wouldn't they? People like you (ironically) don't want to believe in female traits and see them as worse. I have no problem in believing in innate gender differences (as a trend in statistically large numbers) but do not assume that female traits are worse or less desirable.

I think women tend to be able to read nuanced emotions and demonstrate empathy better, for example. When DH1 passed away I was glad that the person in charge of palliative care was a woman. She was very empathetic, clearly knew her stuff but was able to think about the bigger picture. The surgeon who led the team was a man with very typical male traits. Less talkative. Quite black and white. Could talk about stats and probabilities and chances and was excellent at his job too.


"Just got to decide now do I give up my occasional dress and baking or do I give up wearing trousers and my career. Couldn't really be a bit of both, that would be selfish."

I think you mean you need to decide between a career or parenthood? Right?

If so, it's women who, in my experience, are most judgmental about being a career-woman and mother or a SAHM. Not being able to have everything isn't because you're a woman. Stop the self-pity. It's because you're a human and despite what some think, you need to find a balance that suits you. I did. I had an 18 month maternity with DC1. My career suffered as it should. I took much less time off with DC2 and swapped with DH. His career suffered.