Why is the definition of a woman so confusing these days?

I don't think "what it means" - and that being universal - really matters as much as one might think

God, are we post-language now?

Even the post-modernists assumed some sort of communicable meaning, surely?

Maryz I do understand the potential for problems, I just think (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) that the potential problem isn't hugely likely. Have you ever met people who perhaps don't see the big deal here? It isn't because we aren't bright enough to follow the logic, we just don't think the worst case scenarios are likely. I don't think you're going to get hoardes of predatory men saying anything they need to say to get into the ladies' loos, and that no-one will have the ounce of intelligence required to find a legal way to stop them if they do.

DH's hair is longer sometimes, and not to show off or anything but he has quite nice legs (and is vain enough to know that). Must tell him that he's a woman!

I've asked loads of time, in order to try to clarify this:

Does anyone have a definition of "woman" that includes women and transwomen, but excludes men (and transmen) and that doesn't include the word woman

No-one has such a definition.

sorry trans boys and men that should say

Also "cis" is an identity so would mean buying into it all

And also lots of trans boys / women who don't go through much in the way of hormones etc or indeed agender and so on, still experience discrimination and bodily functions that affect their lives, so we couldn't have laws for "cis women" as it would exclude them and they need to be able to access recourse around sex discrimination - pregnancy / bf and anything else like that.

The words female / women / girl used to just mean "cunty person" and that was OK.

Cis woman does not mean "cunty person" it means "cunty person who internally identifies as woman / girl" which would exclude very large numbers of cunty people.

So, as I said, active on multiple threads.

If you'd like to be specific, I am currently active on one thread. But hey ho.

I'm not trying to convince you Pencils.

"So what would spaces be segregated by, then? Whether or not people wear makeup? Hair length? "

Well yes so I'd be in the gents and they would be really unhappy with me wandering in while they're dick in hand at the urinal.

Men don't like women coming in the gents any more than the other way around.

KennDodd - I've wondered that too (the cis-woman bit), but then all laws/names for groups/ sport etc would have to be rewritten using cis-woman instead of woman, and by then the TRAs would probably claim to be cis anyway

[sigh]

If I said that, to me, identifying as a woman means having long hair and liking the look of my legs in dresses, and you said it was knowing you have two x chromosomes, it doesn't mean either of us isn't a woman. So I don't think "what it means" - and that being universal - really matters as much as one might think

It is illegal to intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat. Bats should be treated with a light coat of raw linseed oil before use. It is important that we create new suitable habitats and manage and enhance existing habitats to help bats recover and survive. A bat's lifespan can be extended by careful 'knocking-in' with an old leather cricket ball.

You have won me over Rat, I can see no problem at all with the word 'woman' having two completely different meanings and then treating them as if they are the same.

RatRolyPoly, please, please (if you are genuine) go back and read your last reply to me.

1. "No, because is easily established simply by asking someone isn't it?" - that is the entire point. Ask someone, they say they are a woman, just accept it means ANY man can AT ANY TIME claim to be a woman and no-one can question it; leading to

1. "I imagine people will primarily ask the question." - it's now transphobic to ask the question, so men in women's spaces can no longer be challenged (See TopShop Travis). Legal self-id concretes that in law; leading on to

1. "sex" segregation would become a misnomer? - what do you suggest instead? How to have a space where women can go but men can't? What to use instead of sex segregation for sport/prison etc, having admited that ANY man can say AT ANY TIME he is woman, and we have to accept his say-so?

If you don't understand this is a problem, then there is no point in discussion really.

So, as I said, active on multiple threads.

The women whose rights you're arguing should be compromised are not required to be "helpful", though some of them (kinder than I) seem to be willing to maintain that tone anyway.

I don't think it should be done away with. Except perhaps "sex" segregation would become a misnomer?

So what would spaces be segregated by, then? Whether or not people wear makeup? Hair length? The genitals that we're not supposed to ask about and that the words woman and man would give us no information about any more?

would feel safer to have things like toilets completely mixed than have them men's and women's and anyone who wants can come into the women's. That feels like asking for trouble.

YY, I agree.

"Oh I'm sure there will be enough checks and balances". Except there aren't. And people are pushing hard for none.

I suspect that if cis was completely adopted transwomen would come after that word as well.

I'd put money on it.

I don't know of all that many segregated spaces (proportionally) that currently have "gatekeepers" (e.g. public toilets) so I imagine spaces such as those would continue to be self-policed just as they are now. Ones where segregation is necessarily policed, again, I imagine people will primarily ask the question

What question? What question would be asked for entry to a womans refuge, for example? Are you a woman would be the sensible one, but you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to saying yes to that, and presumably gaining access?
What about women's prisons? What question do we ask there?

Where is that written Rat? Where is the legislation? Or is this something that you and your friends are campaigning for?

Have you really thought this through? You are determined to stand by that definition?

No, it's not legislation, and I'm not campaigning for anything. Neither are any friends I have, as we don't really talk about much beyond sport and/or wine, except after copious amounts of the latter. It's not a definition I'm determined to "stand by", I'm just suggesting that it might work and inviting comment as to why it wouldn't.

I sometimes think that biological women should just adopt the word 'cis women' and let transwomen have the term 'woman'. At least that then allows there to be a distinguisher (is that a word ) between us. I suspect that if cis was completely adopted transwomen would come after that word as well.

Aargh it did it again! I'll see if I can find a YouTube video.

So you will segregate based on everyone going where they feel at the time.

So there really isn't any point in segregation whatsoever.

I would feel safer to have things like toilets completely mixed than have them men's and women's and anyone who wants can come into the women's. That feels like asking for trouble.

With all due respect, this is obviously not true, or you wouldn't be active in multiple threads arguing the issue.

What do you mean Angry? I got a bit narked by a similar thread on Saturday morning so posted for the first time on the subject. One Monday, following my brooding on it all weekend, I posted on two threads - one of them being this one - to explore what I'd been thinking about. I haven't had time to return to the other one because it filled up with posts so fast, whereas this one had a more manageable number of replies and a more helpful tone from posters.

This is easily verifiable.

Hate the way MN inserts random letters into links sometimes!

https://www.ted.com/talks/paulajohnsonnhisanddhers_healthcare/up-next

ILoveDolly

https://www.ted.com/talks/paulajohnsonnhisanddhers_healthcare/up-next

This is a great TED talk on the subject of the medical differences between men and women.