Talk

Advanced search

Rebecca Reilly Cooper suggests: We accept trans women are women.

(480 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Fri 16-Mar-18 08:33:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SwearyG Fri 16-Mar-18 08:38:20

But it just opens the ridiculous people who have had hysterectomies aren’t part of your gang nonsense.

And whatever we call ourselves other than women will be what they then identify into.

I think we have to fight to keep woman as adult human female. And not debate it, when they state their “fact”that transwomen are women we just rebut it with women are adult human females which is something transwomen can never be.

They can’t have our language.

Triliteration Fri 16-Mar-18 08:40:37

I don’t see why we can’t argue on both fronts. It may well be that political parties and institutions have believed the hype, but the general public don’t.

And the absolute outrage that some TRAs use when faced with the truth is a great demonstration of how dangerous they are. Every time “Transwomen are not women” receives three hundred “Die cisterf scum” it shows what we face every time we try to raise the topic.

UpstartCrow Fri 16-Mar-18 08:42:19

Why are the terms male and female appropriate for every other species of mammal, bird and reptile, but not women?

No, this is about male rights activists putting women in their place.

doctorcuntybollocks Fri 16-Mar-18 08:44:27

If we 'accept' that transwomen are women then we've lost the argument and we've also lost our minds.

I've had a hysterectomy: I'm no longer a person with a uterus. Where do I fit into the proposed new taxonomy?

Truscum Fri 16-Mar-18 08:46:33

No. You can’t let ‘them’ dictate reality.

There is a word that describes the condition where people don’t understand at all what is real and what is not. Insanity.

And once this is belief is accepted or conceded to there won’t be any stopping it. It will be taught in schools, become official in policies (I mean, it already is, but it will be so much worse)

Would you want your children being taught anything else that is insane? The sky is purple and glittery actually. No that’s not a duck, it’s a tiger now. The world is totally flat.

How far will it go? Will my go be scared to bring up any male health concerns with me, because it’s been so drummed into everyone that I’m definitely 100% a woman now, no question? What if he suspects a cancer that is common to men, will he feel confident enough to bring it up? Or will he treat me ‘as a woman’.

It’s ridiculous.

TERFragetteCity Fri 16-Mar-18 08:49:51

Holes or poles?

Nah fuck that. We have a word and the word is woman. Adult human female. Everyone knows what one is, we all came out of one. A 3 year old knows the difference. Dogs know the difference. We need to be very clear for trans people's own medical safety, let alone any other reason.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Fri 16-Mar-18 08:51:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

nauticant Fri 16-Mar-18 08:52:16

It's a plausible approach but it's a bad idea. Once you start referring to people having defined bits of biology, it opens the door wide for the "but not all cis-women have that bit of biology" argument. It becomes death by a thousand cuts where ultimately the definition will be "a thing which we define, you pseudo women type people don't have a say".

Also, once you're agreeing with something that you profoundly disagree with because it's contrary to reality, then you've lost at a fundamental level. It would mean lying to ourselves and forcing ourselves knowingly to accept it. That is very unhealthy.

swivelchair Fri 16-Mar-18 08:54:06

But, we are still left with the fundemental issue of what we then call that group of 'people with uteruses/Female biology' in public life and law.

This is my issue with it. We've got a whole set of laws set up, using the word 'woman' and assuming that that means 'adult, human, female'

If we change the definition of the word woman, then by the back door, we change all of those laws, so they will likely no longer work as intended.

The small number of transwomen who'd gone through the process to get a GRA were not a problem in this respect, but if it becomes self-id, then that's a floodgate of people saying they're women, for hugely varying reasons (or saying they're men, and that brings its own issues too), and that then is a problem.

IndominusRex Fri 16-Mar-18 08:56:29

I think Ps and Vs is a sensible categorisation and one that will make politicians and the public aware of the horrors of self ID (seeing as most of them think that all TW have had the op)

Minerva1234 Fri 16-Mar-18 08:57:54

Just thinking out loud...

I was pondering this yesterday. It occurred to me that there are two different categories of people that are currently defined by the word 'woman'.

One, the biological category: people with XX chromosomes and female reproductive systems - aka female. Two, people who present themselves in a 'feminine' way.

Clearly there is some overlap between these categories. You can be biologically female, and feminine. But there are also differences: you can be biologically female, but not feminine. You can be feminine, but not biologically female.

Putting aside the ownership of the word woman, for a moment, I think it is clear that two different words are needed to define these two similar but different groups of people.

Whether we like it or not, femininity has become an 'identity' to a large group of people. Some female people are happy to accept people in this group who are not female. Some are not.

Transwomen resent being excluded from this group because they do not think biological women should have ownership of femininity. I think this is something we can all agree on: femininity should be an option to anyone who wants it (and should not be imposed on anyone who doesn't).

But there is still a need for biological women to be defined as a class for specific purposes. As many have argued on these threads, these centre around the biological differences between male and female: reproduction, patterns of violence, physical strength. These differences are the reason why we need sex segregation in sports, prisons, refuges, open plan changing rooms.

The irony is that both sides of this agree: femininity is not owned by females. This is massive common ground.

Much as I have a sense of ownership over the word 'woman', a lifelong interest in linguistics has taught me that the meaning of words can and does change over time. If enough people use the word 'woman' to describe people who are feminine, that becomes an accepted meaning of that word.

What's really key is accepting there is a difference between 'feminine' and 'female' people, however that is described. And that female people have specific challenges and needs as a result of their biological sex.

IndominusRex Fri 16-Mar-18 08:59:25

Also, many women don't have a uterus. No woman has a penis.

Ineedacupofteadesperately Fri 16-Mar-18 08:59:34

Well if you're going to go down that road (which I don't agree is a good thing) then the only possible place you can end up is XX human and XY human (because of the aforementioned whataboutery - what about women who've had hysterectomies etc). XX provides the template for and in normal circumstances will give rise to development of uterus, ovaries etc but the genetic makeup is the fundamental thing.

With DD2 I had chromosomal testing and I knew she was XX very early on. So there was no assigned about it, just hard, scientific fact. Of course, a foetus that is XX could have some kind of developmental anomaly that ends up with no uterus / ovaries (in theory) but they're still XX.

Amortentia Fri 16-Mar-18 08:59:39

I don’t think we’ve lost just yet. Yes, most political parties have swallowed this and some of the media. But, when this really is out there I don’t think the masses will tolerate this, it’s too irrational.

Plus, I just can’t pretend, no matter what that you can change sex or understand a sex if you’ve been socialised as another. If many of these tranacttivist had shown much concern for women’s issues and that they were listening to women’s concerns I might think differently. But they don’t, and many are too bloody aggressive in their attitude to anyone who asks questions.

greenmagpie Fri 16-Mar-18 09:00:53

@derxa 's mp used the term 'body men' iirc (can't find the post but the term struck me as I've never heard it before)

IndominusRex Fri 16-Mar-18 09:01:29

And I think we can win the argument by saying 'people with penises'.

IndominusRex Fri 16-Mar-18 09:04:12

I.e. 'People with penises don't need gynaecological care. People with penises shouldn't be imprisoned with vulnerable people with vaginas' etc.

ChristianPOV Fri 16-Mar-18 09:04:22

I don't believe it, in my eyes saying it is a lie to myself and others. I have more respect for myself and others than to lie.

I don't want any harm to come to anyone, so would avoid pronouns or discussion in person with someone who struggles with their identity. Away from someone struggling with their identity I will use sex based pronouns because they are not present when I speak about them.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Fri 16-Mar-18 09:04:22

This is what actually got me into this issue in the first place. If words no longer have a reliable, agreed meaning, how can we discuss anything? I want public policy and laws to be based on cast iron evidence as far as possible, not unverifiable feelings in the head.

I know the meaning of words can and does change over time, but no matter what the trans lobby says, I have seen no evidence of any shattering new scientific discovery that puts it beyond doubt that man and woman don't mean what we've always thought they mean. Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species just like all the other mammals. Biology matters. I will never accept that someone who is biologically male is actually a woman because of the way he dresses, or vice versa.

IndominusRex Fri 16-Mar-18 09:05:09

'Under uk law rape can only be committed by people with penises'

LangCleg Fri 16-Mar-18 09:05:59

Well, I'm keeping the word woman and I intend to be asserting that very loudly by means of always referring to women and TIMs or trans people and never transwomen with or without the space.

But I also won't be getting bogged down in the pointless trans merry-go-round of transwomenarewomen #nodebate whataboutblackwomen whataboutinfertilewomen whataboutclownfish sexisasocialconstruction rubbish. I'll just be saying take your religious dogma elsewhere to that.

And I will also be loudly asserting the need for single sex services and spaces.

Which, I think, is what Rebecca meant?

Igneococcus Fri 16-Mar-18 09:06:06

I can't pretend to believe transwomen are women, I just can't, in the very same way I can't pretend to believe that there is a god (even if the latter might make my mum happy). Other people might believe that and they are entitled to their belief but I don't believe it and I won't lie about it.

Vango Fri 16-Mar-18 09:06:54

A transwoman is a GNC man. A transman is a GNC woman. Depending on what I’m wearing/how my hair is cut etc, sometimes I’m a GNC woman. But I’m still a woman because I’m an adult human female.

This has been going round in my head since I read the twitter feed on Wednesday night. I’m not calling anyone ‘trans’ anything any more. LM, PL, IW et al are GNC men. Again it comes back to ‘widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a man’. Using the word ‘transwoman’ is what’s causing all the confusion.

Lovesagin Fri 16-Mar-18 09:07:57

People with uteruses?

So, the class of people belonging to the group of humans who have the ability to reproduce?

So women then?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: