I am a woman because I say so

Excellent post, Silver.

write as Lynda said, MTT = male to trans. I used to use female pronouns and "transwomen" out of courtesy. I thought for a long time that we all understood that MTTs are not really women but we were prepared to pretend they were to respect the difficulties they faced and to make some allowances to that pretence to alleviate those difficulties. Over the last few years, in the face of the relentless gaslighting of "transwomen are women, full stop", I decided I can no longer particpate in the pretence. A person born with a penis is not a woman, not a "transwoman" and not a "male to female", no matter what they have done (or not done) with their penis.

If we can get back to that basic fact, I'm happy to discuss how we, as a society, can help people suffering under the emergency situation of being gender non-confirming in a (still) deeply patriarchial society. If we can't get back to that basic point, I will continue to prioritise women and women's issues over men who can't cope with patriarchal gender norms.

Thanks Lynda, I heard about those cases. The change in crime and health data really concerns me.

When I started reading these trans threads a few months ago, I came from a typical left-wing liberal feminist point of viewpoint, believing that trans people should be able to live their lives, identify as they wished and people should respect their wishes in pronoun choices and so on. However, I was always a little concerned that unhelpful gender 'norms' were being perpetuated by men choosing to dress and present behaviours that they perceived as feminine.

After reading threads and finding out more elsewhere I have shifted my opinion considerably and now feel that women need to stand up and say 'enough is enough, your interpretation of what it is to be a woman is dangerous and unhelpful for women, gender is not something that exists beyond social construction or fashion'. We need to say again and again, 'go and change your own male sex's norms not the biological definition of women.

IMHO trans activists have done much to harm the very people who they are supposed to represent, if they have managed to turn my natural liberalism and live and let live views, so far away from their cause.

Grayson Perry was fab in that Guardian interview, I thought.

Flora Yes I saw that I think. Is that the one where she was pawing the UKIP type bloke sitting next to her every time she wanted to emphasise her impeccable lefty views? She was awful.

Write - male to Trans - ie transwoman (FTT = transman).

Silverbirch - it's already happening. This is Davina Ayres - convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. 'She' has gone to a man's prison which hasn't provoked a single squeak from all the people who were so outraged by the transwoman who headbutted a barman because she passes better.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35253974

At least that report says she's a transwoman. All the reports about Clare Derbyshire murdering her father neglected to mention the fact that she is actually a man. Unless you saw a photo, you wouldn't know

ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/A2F4/production/_88461714_88461712.jpg

These crimes are being recorded as committed by women.

Flora, what is MTT please?

He does in photos. Wait til they make live action photoshop a thing though!

Not that he passes that well ...

Lass Paris Lees was on Question Time a few months ago and was pathetic, wittering on about eyelashes as the like. I don't think they mentioned that he is MTT which made me fume that people would be watching thinking a woman was saying such things on QT.

Why can't men who want to wear make up, dresses, high heels or whatever just do that, as a man - that challenges gender stereotypes. And why is a child who wants to do similar branded trans, why can't we accept that a male child can play with a doll or a pink pony or have long hair in braids without having to be declared transgender

This

I wonder about the first time, in this 'brave new world' of the future, we experience the rape of a woman by another woman with a penis.

How will the victim be permitted to describe her assailant? How the police will be permitted to describe the perpetrator they are looking for? What will the pronouns used in court sound like; the prosecuting council asking 'and then she inserted her penis?' How will the crime statistics show the crime? Who will be expected to share a cell with this woman who is a rapist?

Definitions of words are important and need to reflect the world they describe.

Have written to Grazia to complain.

not sure if I would feel that way if the legal definition of man changed as well

At the moment, the change is completely asymmetrical. The Green Party for instance have re-defined women as non-males. Men remain - you've guessed it - men. So women are being erased and men are gaining ground by taking over the tiny space that women were able to call their own. What is truly depressing is that many younger feminists are cheering this on.

"most people do perceive an under-16 to be a child"

Yes, they are legally children - i.e. not capable of giving consent & should not be tried as an adult in a court of law. But we all know that they are not physically children.

It is an example, to show that legal considerations are not necessarily the same thing as what words actually mean in everyday use.

Cote, I think most people do perceive an under-16 to be a child.

I seem to recall a lot of talk about how important the precedent of law is when equal marriage went through. I totally agree. So I think if the legal definition of woman changes, that's problematic.

not sure if I would feel that way if the legal definition of man changed as well.

"Combative" because I disagreed? No need to be so delicate.

I don't think you have actually read my last post on definitions because your reply has no relevance to it. Or the previous ones on legal terms.

Dictionaries don't seek anything at all, let alone control people in some way.

If social evolution does take place one day and one meaning of the word becomes "a male who feels female", then no doubt dictionaries will reflect that evolution and list that as a secondary definition of the word.

We are not even there yet. There is no secondary trans-friendly definition in dictionaries, let alone a complete redefining of the word, including erasing the current definition.

Those who pretend that is the case are gaslighting and purposefully spreading disinformation.

I really enjoyed that Grayson Perry interview in the Guardian too. He specifically said that when he wears dresses and make up, its just him in a dress and he makes absolutely no claims about knowing what its like to be a woman. He's a man who sometimes wears outlandish dresses and make up. Makes perfect sense to me.

David Bowie had his head screwed on too. Anytime he got asked why he wore 'women's dresses', he would point out that its a man's dress. He was a man, wearing a dress, so therefore its a man's dress. Again, makes perfect sense.

'I'm a woman because I say so' - makes absolutely no sense at all. Offensive, narcissistic rubbish

And I'm saying it's still some people deciding exactly that.

"the meaning of the words man and woman has already started to change, these meanings are quite obviously contested now.... you also can't deny that it's not simply a case (any more) of a few people deciding to redefine them."

It is actually the case of (proportionally) a very small number of people deciding to define them and media following their lead for fear of being called bigots. Ask some man on the street and more likely than not he will have never even heard of any such debate. Even here on MN, there are a few people on every trans thread saying that this is the first time they are hearing of people claiming that womanhood is all about a feeling and has nothing to do with their genitals. Dictionaries have certainly not heard of any such redefinition, as you can't even find "feeling feminine" or "feeling normal when society treats you as female" as a secondary definition under "woman".

"The meaning has changed to the extent that the law looks as though it may well follow."

What someone is considered to be under law is not necessarily the same thing as what he actually is. Law defines under-16s as "children" although everyone knows that a fully grown young man who is a few months shy of his 16th birthday is not a child. Law also defines corporations as "artificial persons", but we are under no illusion that the definition of a person has changed to include companies.

These are terms that are only valid in a legal context. Laws don't change the meaning of words already used by a population.