If 'Woman' is redefined to mean 'feminine' or 'a feeling' what should we do?

Well according to their logic unless we have been tested how would we know we are xx

Surely our new name needs to be the XXers. Can the argue with that?

Just had to re-sign up for this thread. Been lurking in the meantime.

The thing that immediately crossed my mind was the idea that bad laws should be pushed to their limits. ManFriday have demonstrated perfectly how to do this.

I’m imagining a massive raft of GC women self-declaring themselves male and entering men’s spaces in an organised fashion.

I know I sound like a tinfoil hat wearing lady for stating these thoughts, but when I see some of the men who say they feel they are women, in their over pornographisized get up, and the way they interact with women, it is all about domination, control, parading their sexual paraphilia at women, knowing they can do whatever they want under the trans label .... I wouldby be surprised if they go for lowering the age of consent next

I think this subject needs to be popping up on day time telly, prime time viewing, that kind of mass spread of information about what it is to be gender critical and what is actually going on would be a real watershed moment. I don’t think for one minute that most of the general public would go along with self id if they KNEW the detail. That is what we need now.

I'll chain myself to some railings long before that happens.

I'm prepard for this period of madness to peak and pass, for and colluders to come to their senses, hoping we cn all learn something but no way will I allow the full dystopia without being part of some civil unrest!

It seems that as soon as one door for systematic abuse is closed, they are trying to prise open another.

iamawoman This is what really gets to me. At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat lady, I believe there are people with power who will try to push this type of agendas again and again and again. (A bit like trade agreements. First we fought MAI, then TTIP, now TiSA is secretly in the works. Like a zombie that just won't die).

Regarding GG: someone posted they dismantle safeguarding, want to enroll vulnerable kids and want to get the military involved: I already joked that this will be the Presidio military base - General D'Aquino scandal all over again. (Some say it was false allarm in the end, but I am not so sure. After all, someone got convicted). It is very hard to believe that nothing is ever learned from this crap that has apparently gone on forever and is 'surprisingly' discovered anew each f*ing decade (and across the globe).

As I read I'm finding myself thinking - nope, 'female' won't work, there's already a whole lot of twisting and appropriating of that one.... people with vaginas won't work, they'll insist it's an 'outward' vagina the same way they're insisting that a clitoris is a small penis ffs.... if biological women declared they were beeps, there would immediately be a whole lot of pseudo science and bullshit and prostituting of semantics to explain why people with penises are beeps too and there's nothing you can do about it !

And there you have it. It's the gleeful, nope, we can take that from you too manner that tells anyone with a brain precisely what it is. This is not about equality or inclusion, it's not about 'kindness' or 'live and let live', this is about dominating and controlling women.

The answer is not to engage with it, it's not to validate it by arguing with it, it's not to try and reason - you cannot reason with batshit, there are over a decade of threads and threads about the pointlessness of trying to be reasonable with cluster B personalities all over MN.

The word is No. As in a MN complete sentence. No.

But tbh, if this does manage to get into statute, it's only a matter of time before individual women and children are harmed, and once that happens the men in their lives will not then stand around wondering if they're being 'kind' enough, or if there are third ways to try and please everybody. Or whether the TW about to follow their mother/daughter/ partner into a changing room is genuine or a not yet arrested Karen White. The fact we'll all be able to say 'we repeatedly told you this would happen' won't help anybody.

Agree with bd67th on the govt not so subtle attacks on women

They want us scared, compliant, no voice, skint.

Then they can push us into or out of the work force as required (and has happened so many times in history). When we are needed to work we must work, when there aare less jobs / money floating around back to the home we go as male employment must always be protected.

We are also expected to take on the majority of care duties without pay or complaint, with help around this being stripped back continuously.

I can focus on traditional feminist issues as well as the additional threat from gender ideology, that's no trouble at all.

Deepwater solo - yes PoMo, its a certain type of person that seems to have an affinity with that word salad philosophy....you would hope common sense and biological science would prevail as well as lessons learnt from safeguarding errors ie rotherham, jimmy saville, childrens homes, catholic church . It seems that as soon as one door
for systematic abuse is closed, they are trying to prise open another. Girl guides and nspcc really need to hope that they are not mistaken in their beliefs that this is just about protection and the rights of a small minority of transsexuals

bd67th, I don’t think the government has any agenda of trying to drive women back into the home to help the unemployment figures!

I think bd67th has a point, here. They want to roll back social programs aiming for some Dickensian 'ideal'. And they must know that this will hit more vulnerable groups, including women, first and hardest.
I just don't think it will stop there or that women will be the only targets. They are just among the first targets. Nothing personal, so to speak...

I agree that we can't assume that things will go the right way (look where that attitude got David Cameron with Brexit...)

I think it's worth not overstating things, even if in jest. So no, there won't be "gender crimes" instead of "sex crimes", because rape is a crime involving sexual activity, hence the shorthand. Though the phrase "gender based violence" seems to be creeping into common parlance, and that can fuck off.

I think it more likely that we will end up with things going so badly (Karen White won't be an outlying, unusual case) that there will be a sharp, corrective swing back to how things were but perhaps with stricter rules. So actual toilet laws, not the custom and practice that we have right now. How many women and girls end up as collateral damage before there is significant social and political pressure for change, I don't know (and I find it scary that the current number of victims is clearly not enough )

Are we now going to have babies out of our fucking feelings, rather than our vaginas.

If you put it like that, I'm all for it.

bd67th, I don’t think the government has any agenda of trying to drive women back into the home to help the unemployment figures!

Maybe not, maybe it's a concerted effort to drive down women's wages by stopping us from complaining, with the effect of making it impossible to afford to be a single mum. But the effect is one of removing female liberty and de facto rights, and there's too much of it happening recently for me to consider it to be coincidence.

correction: I frankly do not believe that the dismanteling of the term 'woman' to mean nothing but a feeling will be sustainable.

iamawoman multitasking, I see.

No worries, I was tongue in cheek. I frankly do not believe that the dismanteling of the term 'woman' to mean nothing but a feeling will not be sustainable.

But, if it should succeed and the crazy brigade should win that (which I personally consider impossible), we'd have to beat them at their own game, and that would be, to define an oppressed subsection. Which would be very easy to do, because the data and analyses are obviously there, courtesy pre-queer-feminism. By their own logic, they must not coopt and appropriate the subset of PoV, or, say ACoV (Adults born as Children of Vagina).

To be clear, this is stuff for a Monty Python flick, imo. But if their postmodernist (PoMo) logic ever prevailed, this would be the logical next step for us. In PoMo world.

Are we now going to have babies out of our fucking feelings, rather than our vaginas.

Deepwater solo, sorry I was being silly with my throwaway comment, I think the point I was badly trying to make, whilst breastfeeding poorly baby, is that whatever we rename ourselves as a group, they will still try to infiltrate, usurp, accuse us of transphobia. Let's not diminish ourselves to our genitals. We are women, we are female, and we will not allow them to take that from us. They may not feel they identify as men but they are still non-women

bd67th, I don’t think the government has any agenda of trying to drive women back into the home to help the unemployment figures!
Britain currently has the lowest unemployment figures for decades, and is facing a labour shortage as Brexit bites. The government actually needs a lot more women into the workforce, especially to replace the EU care workers, hospital staff and fruit pickers.
I think we need to focus on lobbying against self ID, and we need to be vocal in defending women’s rights to safety, privacy and dignity in refuges, prisons, changing rooms and toilets. It’s no good being submissive, kind and “ inclusive” of trans if that means being “ exclusive” of women.
Let the TRA’s fight their own battles. Their rights do NOT override ours.
They should be offered a third space and allowed to live their lives in peace, but not to abuse us.

And the way they take away these rights de facto instead of de jure is by making them impossible to enforce if you have even an average income, let alone if you are poor.

(I hate this phone.)

If the Govt did this openly by removing divorce rights (oh wait, they plan to remove the automatic anullment of marriages if a non-transitioning spouse doesn't want to stay married, so they already are attacking the right to quickly end a marriage under one circumstance), removing legal right of access to household income, and removing the right to challenge a discriminatory employer, there would be public outcry. So they do it subtly, by taking those rights away from the poor and the trans widows first.

iamawoman, I am sorry to inform you, that it is, sadly, not inclusive of them, because much of the damage to PoVs happens in childhood via socialization, and can, therefore, by definition not include people who did not have vaginas or vagina-analogues at such a young age.

Especially since the rules around paying for tribunals were changed

There's a lot of funding changes that really hurt women: legal aid for divorce cases was pulled, hurting women more than men; tribunal legal aid was pulled, hurting women more than men; joint claims Universal Credit being paid to whichever partner puts their name down (in an abusive relationship, the perp, who is usually the man) instead of being split automatically.

I think that what's happening is that women are being subtly forced back into the home and into dependency on husbands, and that this is deliberate Government policy to make unemployment rates look better. If the Govt did this openly by removing divorce rights (oh wait, they plan to remove the automatic anullment of marriages if a non-transitioning spouse doesn't want to stay married, so they already are attacking the right to end a marriage) and

Deepwater solo - is that inclusive of artificial vaginas / inverted penises