Decent follow up questions to 'do you believe a transwoman is a woman'

I think getting people to define what "what is a man?" , as I read on another thread, is actually the way to go.

Because if someone is a man, they cannot also be a woman. And I can't think of any definition of a man that doesn't include a penis, testicles, deep voice, XY chromosomes, belonging to the class which produces sperm etc etc and, if you belong to the class of man, you cannot also belong to the class of women.

I want to know what makes them not a man without any reference to being a woman because they say so.

A transwoman is a transwoman. A woman is a woman. Males cannot become females. A man can chop off whatever bits he wants, buy a zillion skirts and call himself whatever he likes but he can never ever be female. That's about all I have to say really.

Admitedly this would be about animals, but I would love to ask if they would milk a bull?

ask why they are specifically excluded in the GRA from inheriting titles and property in the aristocracy.

If they say that's to stop people transitioning for the money, then they're stuffed. They've just admitted people might transition for reasons other than being their "genuine true self".

If they accept people can transition for personal gain, then how about mediocre male sportsmen becoming "women" and winning prizes and fame?

What about male sex offenders who fancy a trip to the women's prison?

What about people who just transition because they know they'll be better accepted as trans rather than an effeminate man or a butch women?

Or how about a male teenager with no real political or life experience but who like getting a lot of attention and use a women's officer post to achieve it?

Upstart nailed it there. There's only way to fight the misogyny at play and that's to turn it on its head.

Woman has been many things over the years according to men. Animals that man plants his seed in to grow a mini man. Soulless sub human created to serve man. People, but hyper emotional not suitable for full citizenship. Almost people for a while there, and now a costume that some men choose to wear.
Two steps forward and three steps back so far in my lifetime.

I wouldn't actually ask but I think

"When you say TW are women, as a het male do you consider them and their lady penis women for relationship purposes"

Surely it would just be better if there were more societal accepted ways of "being a man"

Yes, very good point. But then, maybe there's no tribe there, no cause, no sympathy. Maybe 'trans' gets all of these?

Following on from BarrackerBarmer's point: if the difference between the sexes is NOT biology, then what is the need to "identify" as a woman at all? If it makes no difference that you have a penis, where is the "trans"? Surely what you're saying in that case is "I'm a penis owning person who likes to behave in a certain way/wear certain clothes or whatever". So really, just being a man who doesn't conform to gender, ie, made up, stereotypes. Surely it would just be better if there were more societal accepted ways of "being a man".

I think most people don't know that a majority of transwomen retain a penis

I don't see the need to complicate things.
My only question is "What do you have between your legs?"

"What's wrong with widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a man, rather than trying to appropriate what it is to be a woman?"

"Do some cultures practice FGM on the basis of self-ID or biological reality?"

"Are the females aborted before birth in overwhelmingly larger numbers than males killed for their biology or not?"

Here's a much briefer version:

If the difference between the sexes is NOT biology, what IS the difference between the sexes?

or

How are men and women different, if not biology?

Why do you think men and women have such different life outcomes? If biology isn't the main factor, what is?

Mine is 'talk me through the process of transition. One day they wake up and decide to not be a man any more. What happens next? At what point is the transition successful, bearing in mind that just saying words is not a transition'

Ah. Yes. The transubstantiation. No actual material change but an act of God took place and mystically the internal property has now become something else entirely. And it's heresy to deny it.

It's all a bit Tudor King with Syphilis.

Mine is 'how can you identify as a woman without a set group already providing a material reality of what 'woman' is? ie biological women'.

If woman is nothing more than a feeling in someone's head then the word is reduced to an empty shell, it means nothing. unless you acknowledge that the undercurrent of your meaning is 'someone can to name themselves as one of those biological women'. Which acknowledges a) you fully understand that biological women are a separate, specific and objectively provable thing by biological sex and b) the person 'identifying' is not one of that classification.

It's an emotional choice, not a fact. Everyone knows this. It's a polite and expected social lie, a belief no one believes.

Shall we ignore biology or procreation?

That ends this nonsense talk of what about defining what a woman is

I think I'm going to start turning the statement "trans women are women" round and asking for a definition of a trans woman instead. I can't think of a definition that doesn't include the fact that they are not actually women

So maybe that should've been the next question.

Mumsnetters are the most intelligent women in the UK today.

I love this thread and think the answers so far are excellent. I look forward to those to come!

My favourite so far (because I value brevity) is

"How can a man, belonging to the sex that produces sperm, also belong to the sex who produces eggs?"

Stealing and tweeting that.

Mine is 'talk me through the process of transition. One day they wake up and decide to not be a man any more. What happens next? At what point is the transition successful, bearing in mind that just saying words is not a transition'

I never get an answer.

I agree with Upstart!

Ask any man 'would you have sex with a man if he said he is a woman'.

If the answer is no, ask 'then why does a woman have to accept a smear test from him, or share a psychiatric ward with him'?

Not really a question but, I think the consequences of self-Id with no exemptions needs to be made clear. I.e. that ANYONE can say they are a woman and they must be legally considered such in ALL circumstances. My guess is that most of the population would not support that.

Is Marie Dean a woman? Is it heresy to say that Marie Dean is not a woman?

Is it taboo or forbidden now for female people to be recognised as a specific biological class, regardless of identities or belief systems?

Are we in a position where we are now saying to women, you can't talk about anything relating to your biology or that which acknowledges you as a common group - if it excludes biological males?

Sorting people into categories based on their internal belief rather than on physical reality seems like a recipe for disaster. How will you prevent systematic inequality if you only recognise what people believe to be true, rather than what we can see and measure?

What happens if women insist upon identifying as a different category of person to transwomen? If transwomen can identify themselves away from men, can women equally identify away from transwomen?

What do you say to women who insist you acknowledge their biology rather than compelling them to pretend that it is some invisible belief that makes them a woman?

Do you accept that sexism still happens? When an employer rejects one sex of potential employees because it's the the sex that can get pregnant, do you think it's ethically acceptable to deny that sex the right to be recognised as a biological group who needs to fight for equal rights?

Are you a man Jeremy? How do you know?