Can TWAW be compared to being "colour blind"

Rat I understand your point. There can be, for example, a Muslim women's coffee morning. That is allowed. Kind of like how there used to be events and spaces for women.
In summary, all I'm saying is that simply thinking TWAW doesn't mean somebody think the two are exactly the same in every circumstance, and that there is no possible situation where they may need to be separated in a particular facility or for a particular service. TWAW doesn't mean you don't accept that.
No offence but it doesn't matter what you think. If the law is changed, or even if judges agree TWAW, it sets a legal precedent to be exploited by trans groups.
Even the law says TW are LEGALLY women
No it doesn't.

No, I think no-one's following me, doesn't matter. I can't even remember how we got here and I can't be arsed to go back and look.

In summary, all I'm saying is that simply thinking TWAW doesn't mean somebody think the two are exactly the same in every circumstance, and that there is no possible situation where they may need to be separated in a particular facility or for a particular service. TWAW doesn't mean you don't accept that.

Even the law says TW are LEGALLY women, but the law doesn't think their must be no exceptions either!

They know it not true. It's gaslighting.

Or (as someone else on MN described it) it's said with the knowing smirk of triumph seen on autogynephile's selfies - once seen, never forgotten.

"We've already decided that the definition of a woman has been changed. Didn't you know that? Wow, you women really are bimbos and need to catch up!"

"Be quiet, no debate. We've decided it. The ugly feminists at the back need to get over themselves and suck it up"

Surely men and women should be treated the same in all areas of life except those where differing needs arise on account of biological differences? Where biological differences are significant, it is biological differences that count - not gender.

Rat, I really don't understand your point. Women can have different beliefs and engage in different behaviours. It doesn't make them not female.

MISunderstanding!

I really think you're deliberately understanding me here. All I'm doing is laying down the legal position that already exists regarding the Equality Act.

I'm not say Muslim women are "other" to non-Muslim women in any way, shape or form. Just that groups of women can legally discriminate against other groups of women who differ from them in a certain protected characteristic. I.e. religion, race, gender reassignment etc.

The point being that even those of us who, for whatever reason, will say TWAW, that does not AT ALL mean services and facilities are not able to provide services for natal women ONLY. When that is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

I mean does anyone know what I'm repeatedly referring to here? The Equality Act exemptions? I just want to be quite sure before anyone does anything silly and goes off on one that I must be some sort of racist for saying the word "Muslim". Stranger things have happened round here...

Oh I see. Instead of saying that women from conservative cultures need privacy away from men, Rat says Muslim/Sikh/Jewish/Romany women have to segregate themselves do their religious stuff away from other women.

So thats a no from me. We don't need to separate all the women off into separate groups. Just one space for women is fine. Like we already have now.

Good grief.
TWAW is just simply a lie. No one would think that Muslim women are "a different type of woman" to non muslim women. They are women of a specific religion. Not a different type of woman. People simply don't repeat in mantra "black women are women black women are women" because there isn't any brainwashing needed to know that black women are women.

"Allowed" to do what?

Allowed as in there can be facilities and groups which are "allowed" (legally speaking - i.e. it's not illegal) to discriminate against people with a protected characteristic when it's a reasonable measure to take to achieve a legitimate purpose. Sorry, my wording may have been misleading.

I mean separate from anyone with they like, even if it is a protected characteristic covered in the Equality Act, so long as it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

I mean simply things like Muslim women are allowed to do things separately from non-Muslim women when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

"Allowed" to do what?

Such as what?

For example, have private social groups or members clubs.

RatRolyPoly do you mean separate to men?

I mean simply things like Muslim women are allowed to do things separately from non-Muslim women when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Such as what?

TWAW is more akin to religious belief in something provably wrong, such as transubstantiation. For some people, transubstantiation is a real actual thing that they believe really happens, for others, they maintain a social belief in it because it makes other people happy and for yet others it's a fiction, completely untrue and in some cases harmful.

I find it particularly interesting that transsexuals - post-operative, living-'as women', GRC'd, etc - don't appear to subscribe to this belief, either.
Do you think that is because they are living their lives as they want to and are less concerned with "gender" (as many posters here have never considered their own gender, and have posited questions on what "feeling like a woman really is" outside the generally accepted Shania Twain definition of men's shirts, short skirts, colour my hair, do what I dare )?
Or maybe because people tend to accept them more (in the spirit of fairness and live and let live)? (Not sure how true that is unless they pass well)
Or maybe, having put all that effort in, they finally see things from our perspective? Or is it just that they recognise they have a lot to lose if there is a backlash?
Genuine question, Twainisms excluded. Why are the supportive transsexuals supportive?

We've been segregated by class, by marital status, by race already, for centuries. I thought the whole idea of feminism was strength in numbers, and some solidarity on the basis of all being the same sex?

I think I was a bit confusing with that bit; I mean simply things like Muslim women are allowed to do things separately from non-Muslim women when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

In the same way women without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment can do the same when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. And of course women with that protected characteristic can do the same.

That's the only form of legal discrimination where protected characteristics are concerned.

But there are instances in law and in society where different types of women can be legally segregated

What, like black women, disabled women, Jewish women, dead women?

There is only one type of woman. There is only one thing that all those women have in common, and they do not have it in common with men. Transwomen are not a 'different type of woman', because transwomen are men.

So let me correct that statement for you:

But there are instances in law and in society where the two different types of human - females and males - can be legally segregated

People who say TWAW can be grouped into two groups: the well-meaning 'colourblind' woke types, and the aggressive, misogynistic TRAs. For the first group you might say TWAW is a meaning-well but ultimately unhelpful message to profess. For the second it is an announcement of their determination to erase womens' sex-based needs and rights, and, ultimately, women as a class.

TWAW is wrong. It is wrong in every way possible. It is both a mistake and a lie.

I find it particularly interesting that transsexuals - post-operative, living-'as women', GRC'd, etc - don't appear to subscribe to this belief, either.

But there are instances in law and in society where different types of women can be legally segregated
Forgive me, but that doesn't sound terribly positive.
We've been segregated by class, by marital status, by race already, for centuries. I thought the whole idea of feminism was strength in numbers, and some solidarity on the basis of all being the same sex?
On a practical level, any legal division within the category is subject to legal challenge. We've seen some big money thrown at the trans agenda and I have no reason to believe it would dry up if the GRA changes passed. Malicious litigation to tie up organisations that don't have the money to fight it already happens.

I agree OP

I agree OP, let’s face it, only men can become trans women, therefore their health needs are very different to women’s & it is rediculous to assume they can be called women.
I have sympathy that they do need a 3rd space, ie sending a trans woman to a male prison could put them in danger-but the current practice of putting trans women in women’s prisons will not last forever. (I hope)

GNCQ it's not that I think TW=W only sometimes, it's that for me (and please don't make me define it, I've done that before and it was a loooong thread!) "woman" has different meanings in different contexts. Like the word "adult". You can be a legal adult but socially you may still be seen as a child. Biologically speaking an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity, but demonstrably that isn't the same thing as an adult in the eyes of the law, OR in the eyes of society!

So for me, TWAW all the time, in a social and societal sense. But there are instances in law and in society where different types of women can be legally segregated, like in sports or potentially in rape refuges etc. That's when the biology thing comes in, and you say "yeah, people with this biology need to do things a bit differently from people with different biology". And I think that's absolutely right and valid.

Like I say, where I come to blows with people is over what those circumstances should be, what approaches should be taken to achieve it, and who should be in charge of making that decision.

Hope that makes sense.