to think no one can define living as a woman

Oh come on! Everyone knows "living as a woman" means taking selfies in the Ladies lavs, wearing a plastic miniskirt that lets the, ahem, 'bulge' shine through, fishnets, stilettos, a nylon wig, big plastic breasts, fake fingernails and a shed load of ott facepaint.

The only way I can describe living as a woman is because I deal with both the ramifications of having a female body and the ramifications of living in a world with a sexist attitude towards people with female reproductive potential.

I think this is a useful video in that Amy highlights several important things.

One is the nature of the boundary violations of male people, that even a boundary violation by deception is a significant issue.

But she also highlights the tactics and emotional manipulation that underlie the rhetoric people use to demand that male people are treated as if they are female people.

Remembering of course, that this can only ever be premised from a philosophical position. Because there is no material way for male person to change sex and someone’s feelings of gender dysphoria does not mean that they are materially the sex they want to believe they are.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2006188958586380420?s=46

Once you can strip away the emotionally manipulative language and behaviour, there is no logic or science that supports the demand that male people should be treated as if they are female.

Gosh, it’s almost as if it’s a kink for a lot of them…..

This does make me very sad for the dysmorphic men who have surgery to try to reconcile their issues, I know some and they are not actually AGPs, and I wish they would speak out and acknowledge that a startling percentage of TiMs are AGPs. But instead any hint of asking for clarity or suggestions of third spaces results in immediate screams of ‘TERF’

Jesus fucking Christ. Just when you think you've heard it all. I don't have kids but I cannot imagine not feeding a baby girl until she was satiated. Fucking hell.

This is one of the things that ‘peaked’ me. I’ve yet to hear a clear definition of what it means to ‘live as a woman’

A hungry boy baby is also regarded as a positive (He's going to grow up to be a big strong man) and how much he feeds is a badge of honour. People are less keen on the idea of an oversized 'greedy' baby girl.

A crying baby boy is percieved as crying because he needs something. A crying baby girl is more likely to be judged as 'attention seeking' (which of course she is - that's what crying is for, in babies of both sexes).

Don't you just feed the baby until it turns its head away, signalling it doesn't want any more, regardless of gender??

Sorry, I know that this is SO not the point on this thread, but I'm floored.

This is brilliant and interesting on so many levels, and - I know this isn't the point of the discussion - but baby girls are left to cry longer and are fed for shorter times than boy babies??? WTAF?????

I came across this again tonight and thought it was apt to post here

https://x.com/womenreadwomen/status/1633399532544495617?s=46

"Female is real, and it's sex, and femininity is unreal, and it's gender.

For that to become the given identity of women is a profoundly disabling notion."

— Germaine Greer

Ah but you're forgetting about the benefits to male women. And we all know that their the most important and vulnerable type of women so everything must be arranged for their benefit even when it harms the old fashioned type of women ie the female ones

Apparently.

I was disappointed to not have clarified what supposedly was hypothetical and not factual though.

I did wonder if the poster would come back and say that there was no evidence that single sex provisions benefitted some female rape and abuse survivors. And I wondered just how that would be studied with robust methodology.

I mean, there could be surveys. But who the fuck is going to demand a traumatised woman fill in such a survey to measure whether female people respond better to single sex provisions or not?

And we have enough self published anecdotal evidence from female people to prove that it benefits some female people, and maybe enough female people to make generalisations because I have not come across much anecdotal evidence that women have benefitted more with male inclusion.

But if it doesn't affect men its not real and doesn't matter according to certain posters

I know you mean that the list in its entirety is only what female people may experience. However, I think some posters took issue because they separated out the events, such as rape and sexual assault which, of course, male people can experience, and used that deconstruction to dismiss the point being made.

I must admit, OP, that I find it disconcerting to read posts by people who claim to have worked in women’s or children’s support services that seem to have little knowledge of the principles of safeguarding female people or children. It is sadly not a rare occurrence on MN. There are people posting who claim to be in positions of safeguarding that still don’t understand the principles. They follow policies without any question at times when they should be raising red flags about the policies their employer has developed.

What tends to show their lack of understanding is comments such as ‘you cannot exclude all the population of a group because of the actions of a few’. Well, yes. You can when it is justified. The issue is not recognising the legitimate justification.

Don’t let’s forget the CEO of ERCC, who was employed as a male person in a position that used a declared exception under the EA in the advertised position stating only ‘female’ people apply telling women who didn’t believe that male people were female people that they, abused and healing women and girl’s were to ‘reframe their trauma’ to overcome their bigotry.

https://forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/

Anyone who doesn’t know that then happened at ERCC regarding Wadhwa’s employment can just search mumsnet for ERCC threads. There are plenty. You will even find women who wrote posts on MN stating clearly that Wahwa caused them to self-exclude because there was no female single sex provisions provided.

Here is Women’s Aid too

womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-single-sex-services-statement/#:~:text=We%20know%20from%20our%20members,reduces%20their%20distress%20and%20trauma.

“We know from our members that many women and children who have been subject to male violence and abuse need access to support and accommodation which is provided in single sex spaces as this reduces their distress and trauma”

and

”Some members conclude that it is not appropriate to include trans women (including those with a Gender Recognition Certificate) in women-only shared spaces. We support their right to make this assessment, as long as they do so lawfully.”

”We will continue to support trans women to approach Women’s Aid for help directly. When they do, we will support where we can as ever, and signpost to specialist services that best respond to their specific needs and circumstances as appropriate.”

So… not a hypothesis. But hey, female people’s voices are sometimes overwhelmed by male people’s voices so those female people get dismissed.

The above has been hidden because I posted a link to the crowdfunder for Sarah Summers. This was not to gain donations but to provide background. I recommend that posters who are seeking evidence that some female people want female single sex provisions for rape and abuse recovery read it - search google terms “Sarah summers Brighton rape crisis centre or Brighton survivors network”

In that post was also a statement by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre from a professional review.

Charity boss apologises to rape survivors over crisis centre failings

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj310jvzpd8o

”Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) came under fire when a review found it had failed to provide women-only spaces for 16 months”

Plus I had posted a paragraph from Beira’s place - opened in response to women and girl’s publicly stating that they self-excluded from ERCC because there was not female only single sex provisions there.

https://beirasplace.org.uk/about/

”Beira’s Place has been set up in response to evidence that many female survivors prefer a women-only service to safely address and recover from their trauma”.

This was posted in response to proudcat declaring their own expertise. My point was that perhaps Proudcat’s knowledge of the sector is out of date.

There is NO REQUIREMENT TO LIVE AS A WOMAN TO MEDICALLY TRANSITION