To think that society would not be immensely simpler were women denied the right to vote and own property

You and whoever produced this diagram has a lot of work to do understanding what being trans is.

Personally, I think there are behavioural differences between men and women that aren’t wholly socially determined. The main one is that, globally, men are on average much more violent than women. This doesn’t change, unfortunately, when they put on a frock and call themselves Lorelei. So yes, they may well believe they are expressing their inner gender fairy dust, but it doesn’t make them women for all purposes, as the Supreme Court wisely concluded.

The issue I have had with defining a woman as her biological sex is that indeed, we are so much more than our biology.

Again, a definition, or preliminary condition, does not limit. A Man City supporter is someone who supports a football club but is more than that. A tesco Clubcard holder is someone who has a Tesco Clubcard holder but is so much more than that. A dancer is someone who dances but is so much more than that. That's a GIVEN for any other word we define yet oddly when it comes to women people pretend that anyone is saying "female with no other qualities" isn't a single criterion but a full and comprehensive description of a person!

It's such a dishonest argument.

@StandFirm but also yes yes yes to "preliminary condition". I think of it as "necessary condition".

We can accept (the possibility) that some people feel a genuine disconnect with their body sex and some innate sense of identity without having to accept that this makes the people who experience this in any way interchangeable with people of the opposite physical sex.

The generist sleight of hand is not the (potential) existence of gender identity itself, but the ideological belief that it supercedes the observable fact of body sex to the degree that, for example, a woman should be happy getting naked with or being searched by an entirely bog standard physical male because his gender id is that of a woman, or that men who predate on women are reacting to their innder gender not their outer body, or the history of womanhood and the rights for which feminists fought weren't in reality anything to do with how society treated the female-bodied, but because those people were identifying as women.

I wold have no issue accepting, indeed I already do accept, the existence of a community of people who feel a disconnect with (what they believe) society allows for their body and who believe this is a feature of their inner gender rather than the simple rejection of sexist gender roles. If it stopped there that would be great, a positive thing. Where I draw the line is the ideology that claims this belief makes them somehow interchangeable with people of the opposite sex to the degree that protections, provisions and rights based on sex are not needed at all, or that people should not be allowed to speak about the experiences and consequence of sex as something different to gender identity.

The far right and trans ideology have a lot in common. They both believe that everyone has a gender identity and that it should ‘align’ with your sexed body. They just disagree with what should happen if they don’t ‘align’. Feminism is the idea that gender is pretty much entirely social conditioning (back to de Beauvoir and the making of women), that this is a bad restrictive thing that we should try to shake off.

This may be of service to you:

I wanted to jump in because I've been giving this a lot of thought. I think the notion of definition is tricky because within it is the idea of something fixed ('definitive') and comprehensive. A better concept could be 'preliminary condition', as in female biological sex is a preliminary condition to being a woman. I think it's important because I understand where @Tandora is coming from but have also read enough posts from GC feminists to see their point of view as well. The issue I have had with defining a woman as her biological sex is that indeed, we are so much more than our biology. Toxic ultra-right ideologues align word for word on the definition of woman as biological sex BUT for them that is all we are. A womb. A vessel to carry children and possibly a sex toy but that's it. Women for them are only relevant according to their biological function. That's the prism through which they see us and want to use to determine our fate in society. I know GC feminists (being feminists) don't believe that is all we are of course- but somehow the definition of woman as biological sex only has led to two apparently opposed world views joining on this issue.

Gender roles- sure, we should do away with any form of social determinism based on biology. Basically, down with clichés and stereotypes.

On transpeople- I do think that there is such a thing as sexual identity which is distinct and separate from gender norms and from biology. I knew that I was a girl growing up; my parents made sure that what it meant for me was not linked to any form of social restrictions. I realised what my sexual identity was early on and thankfully for me it aligned with how I perceived myself. It is distinct from the notion of social norms; for instance, I did not conform to gender stereotypes. Nevertheless, I knew I was a girl, that I presented as feminine and that I did not like what was expected of girls generally. So for me those are three different notions: biology, sexual identity, and social gender norms. I am not an expert on gender dysphoria but I assume that when 1 and 2 are misaligned, it is permanent and real. If all you see is 3 (socially imposed gender norms) and don't accept that there is such a thing as sexual identity (I don't mean sexual orientation, which is again its own thing), then it's easy to dismiss it as a harmful fantasy, which I think is too simplistic and can lead to denying the very existence of a whole community.

So @Tandora when you talk of bodies being female, do YOU mean something other than, as you put it, "being born with a vagina/ xx chromosomes etc " ?

If so, what?

What other account of female is there then? And for what purpose would your account exist?

My and others definition works around the principle that bodies are developed around the capability to be pregnant or to impregnate. Regardless if someone ever uses that capability or if it works. Because the way the body develops has significant consequences, not just societal. Did you know most medication is not tested on women and if it is, it is tested on menopausal women because female hormonal cycle means the results can vary and the pharamceutical companies don't like it. I want it to be mandatory to do research on 50-50 for example (and no, transwomen are not part of the group for women). That is fighting for women to be seen and heard.

But they will be female. That’s just a fact. My dog is male. He has a cock and balls. If I wanted him sterilised, he would need to be castrated. My cat is female. She’s been neutered otherwise she would have had many litters of kittens. I doubt either of them have much ‘sense of self’ but they are still male and female.

No, that's incorrect.
Biological essentialism is where you acknowledge that someone has a sex, then extrapolate from that assumptions about their personality, etc, as stated earlier in the thread:

Biological essentialsm: a belief system that suggests certain characteristics, behaviors, or abilities are inherently linked to one’s biology or genetics.

Me: One's biology has nothing to do with one's characteristics, behaviours or abilities.

That is not what "biological essentialism" means. But I'll put terminology aside and deal with your basic point.

There are observed physical facts that underly our concept of "sex", not the least of which being that it is an unmodifiable fact that one type of body gets pregnant and one type does not, and moving cultural classification around and even having no name for the difference at all will not change one iota which group an individual falls into.

However, as you say, how we think about those facts of "sex" and the significance and meaning we ascribe to them are socially constructed. We can observe or imagine societies that place less significance on sex, or draw lines on secondary characteristics in different ways, eg societies which subdivide males into Men and AnotherType of some sort. They don't turn male people into female in the biological sense but they do create different social meanings within that biological binary.

But all that notwithstanding, in this society we did construct the meaning of sex in this way, and that has material consequences for both sexes but for women, who bore the brunt of patriarchy and still live under its social structures and expectations, particularly.

So I reject utterly the idea that because the meaning and significance of sex is in part socially constructed, it is an irrelevance that can be ignored or undefined. It is as offsensive to me as a female person as it would be to tell someone with lived experience of racism that because race is culturally constructed their race is not relevant to their needs and experiences.

Women, in the original sex-based meaning, will continue to exist in a meaningful social and cultural sense for as long as they are identified as such in ways that have consequences.

And as long as that exists we have a moral right to say we are not the same as trans women, we are not two subsets of "women" with much in common and little to separate us, we are fully realised humans in our own right dealing with the consequences both nature and society have constructed around our bodies and we need our own name, our own spaces, our own political movement and our own voice to manage those consequences.

I get it. You think if society stops constructing meaning on sex differences wonen would be free of sexism. You think women only get treated badly because society keeps reinforcing that bodies matter. Hey, in the long term, and assuming appropriate mitigation of the asymmetric consequences reproduction, you are probably right. Women's spaces protect women in the short term but also maintain the idea of women's privacy as erotic and exciting for men. Catch 22.

But you remind me of the type of "progressive" who wants to free veiled women but is too scared of challenging men so brings in laws that veils can't be worn. He thinks he is freeing the women but all he is doing is controlling them a different way, forcing them to act out his idea of a better world from a place of vulnerability and expecting that somehow changes the behaviour of the people with the actual power. Why on earth would anyone think that would work?

Forcing women to pretend our body sex is not significant and has no consequences in a society where it clearly clearly does isn't Feminism, it's gaslighting and its just opening the door for men to further abuse, exploit and marginlise us.

We are saying that they will biologically be female, regardless of understanding or recognising.
Exaclty. And here is the biological essentialism. You are assuming your meaning, your account of “female”, and declaring it to be self evident. It isn’t.

For example, we assume that being born with a vagina/ xx chromosomes etc , will cause a person to know, understand, recognise “self” as female. For most people this is the case. For a minority of people this isn’t (ie trans people).

Ah, that's where the confusion has arisen. No, again, no-one is saying that is what 'being male' or 'being female' means.

We are saying that they will biologically be female, regardless of understanding or recognising. Their bodies. That is what is meant when I use the word 'sex', regardless of anyone's reactions, assumptions, beliefs around that sex. A person born with no concept of themselves or their bodies would still have a sexed body.

Again, I'm trying to get away from 'trans' people because you seem distracted by that. I'm talking about the sex everyone has.

(Trans people are, according to Stonewall, "people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth."
So to acknowledge that trans people exist, you need to acknowledge that you have a sex, and then believe that that sex 'is the same as' or 'sits comfortably with' various genders.)

So - back to your explanation. When we say that people have a body that is of one sex or the other, (and GC people say that that says nothing about them as a person) how does it logically follow that stereotypes are reinforced? What are the steps here?

Yes I’m not saying that bodies don’t exist- absolutely they do. And bodies are important. I’m saying that there is know way to observe, know, recognise bodies other than through a process of meaning making. We cannot assume a fixed account of how that meaning is made. For example, we assume that being born with a vagina/ xx chromosomes etc , will cause a person to know, understand, recognise “self” as female. For most people this is the case. For a minority of people this isn’t (ie trans people). Some trans people seek transition- not because they think having female body parts is what makes a person female, but because it can be profoundly painful, difficult and disorienting to live in a situation where their very selfhood is not understood and recognised. The paradox in which trans people live can be seen in anti-trans sentiment in which trans people are simultaneously accused of performing sex stereotypes if they try to “pass” and judged, ridiculed, subject to so much anger if they don’t try to “pass”. Eg people on mumsnet posting pictures of trans women with beards , penises etc

That’s not what biological essentialism mean though.

To deny that process, is to assume a fixed account of it .

I also don't understand this. Please could you clarify - practical examples would help.

I'm also slightly confused what you mean by 'sexist' @tandora if you don't believe there is such as thing as sex.

There is no way to know, recognise, observe sex other than through a process of meaning-making.

Can you describe this process in practical terms please? I don't understand.

I mean, that's the same for any other thing, abstract or material, on Earth - sleep, happiness, red, sand, belief, skin - so let's just say that's a given for everything. Once we have done that, for things that exist, we see it exists, would you agree?

Well, quite Potpouree. If it’s impossible to distinguish men from women by their biology or, indeed, any other attributes, how can anyone transition to become a woman? Or indeed know that they aren’t one to start with? I mean I assumed that because I have XX chromosomes, a vagina, vulva, ovaries, fallopian tubes and a womb, have gone through puberty, menstruated, become pregnant and given birth twice, and experienced menopause, I was pretty sure I was an adult human female- a woman. But maybe I was a man all along?

As above- because “sex” itself is a social construct- sex is the system of social and scientific knowledge that gives meaning to bodily differences. There is no way to know, recognise, observe sex other than through a process of meaning-making. To deny that process, is to assume a fixed account of it . This is biological essentialism.

All they do is wait for someone else to suggest definitions then say "No, it's more complicated than that".

And saying "it's neither body nor personality" that makes someone a woman or a man, but something that is literally indefinable.

Someone who truly thought that, would not accept that surgery or hormones had any affect on whether someone is a woman or a man. In fact, taking it to its logical conclusion, it would probably be sexist and/or transphobic for a transitioning person to seek to change anything about oneself other than this indefinable quality. Because belief that womanhood lies in the body is sexist.

Eh? How can you claim that rushing the law to protect women, homosexual people and women with trans identities as ‘transphobic’??

Is your definition of transphobia ‘anything that doesn’t fully satisfy every desire of ‘transwomen’’?

It's an interesting thesis: does the 'it's complicated' terminology and approach actually serve no other purpose than to try and cause complication and obfuscation?

And if so, how many people use it quite intentionally to a purposeful political agenda as White is doing, and how many simply use it to block out what they have not fully understood, do not know or understand the consequences of, and to avoid facing the uncomfortable conflicts and realities within it?