Please can someone who thinks that TWAW..

Ultimately not one single one of us knows the sex of the people we call man or woman with any certainty. The gender binary and secondary sex characteristics contribute to our assertion, but we could never know if everyone we've ever taken to be a woman has been female. Or that anyone we've ever taken to be a man hasn't been

That is patently not true.

Molo

In my analogy the beans are human beings (human beans). Tomatoes are dogs

Rat people are using the biological definition of the word most of the time. When they say

• women’s changing rooms they mean biological women
• women’s health they mean biological women
• women’s awards they mean biological women, not people who think they are women.

I can’t think of a time when I say women and don’t mean biological woman, at heart.

Sometimes sorting is difficult but that doesn’t mean the definition is wrong.

If you had some beans of differing sizes, shapes and colours, you could sort them by size, shape or colour. Rat's sorting uses one criteria, Bert's another.

You could, and they would still be beans and not tomatoes.

I think I might be non binary. I don't define myself by gender stereotypes. Never used that term though because I don't need to draw attention to myself

I know a lot of trans people in RL (masculine, feminine and non-binary) and have always been shocked by the struggles they’ve dealt with

I have to ask, because I don't know any non-binary identified people - what struggles do non-binary people deal with as a result of their non-binary status? I am genuinely curious.

And sorry, to answer you - most trans people have lived their lives peacefully and unharassed by women. Transexual people are not the ones pushing for self ID.

Can you please define abuse? BrownPaper

I do understand your concerns about this, BTW.

Not that they should be able to wear what they want, call themselves what they want and lead their lives peacefully, unharassed and protected by the laws that protect us all. Everyone-or everyone worth engaging with- thinks that.

My biggest issue is that I agree with the above statement.

I don't agree with self ID and the fact that it gives everyone access to any and all single sex areas and all of the potential dangers that may bring.

But I can't see how the first statement can happen without some sort of inclusion of trans people into single sex spaces.

Eg in everyday life what facilities (toilets, changing rooms etc) would a trans man or woman use?

Without some form of inclusion they clearly won't be able to dress as they want or live their lives peacefully and unharrassed.

This is where the arguments in my head go round and around in circles.

I feel excluded, as a woman, from any discussion on here about my thoughts or fears on this subject because of the abuse that occurs and so my thoughts on this subject never develop.

If self ID does not go ahead how do you envisage trans people living their lives peacefully and unharrassed as you agree they should be able to?

Argh, late, sorry Bert I'll have to come back to you

They probably are chicken, but not on account of having checked. Ultimately not one single one of us knows the sex of the people we call man or woman with any certainty. The gender binary and secondary sex characteristics contribute to our assertion, but we could never know if everyone we've ever taken to be a woman has been female. Or that anyone we've ever taken to be a man hasn't been.

I can’t help feeling that the TRAs have rather shot themselves in the foot with this TWAW nonsense.
If they had simply gone with the truth - that they’re men who are deeply unhappy with the male gender stereotype forced on them by our patriarchial society, and who wish to present as a female gender stereotype instead, they could have quite happily gone around in their dresses and heels, been accepted as effeminate men, used male facilities etc. No problem.
But to try and insist that they’re actually, biological women, in the face of all the factual evidence to the contrary, to try and force their way into women’s private spaces, to compromise women’s safety and dignity, to hold the door open for a raft of rapists, voyeurs and paedophiles to follow them in - that is bound to cause anger and refusal from any sane woman.

And, don't forget there are many conditions and diseases that have to be treated differently for men and women.

If TWAW, how would one expect them to be treated? Using the process for men? Or women?

If TWAW, would one expect them to get cervical cancer? PCOS? Uterine fibroids? Bartholins cysts?

If TWAW, would you expect them to potentially harbour the HPV virus in their cervix? Or penis?

If TWAW would they require the pill to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?

you have to acknowledge that "woman" in everyday life is not used to describe those with the confirmed characteristic of being of the female sex. It just isn't.

I’m also confused about this bit. How do we know this for sure? Isn’t it possible that the vast majority of people might be using the biological definition of woman every time they use the word?

If you had some beans of differing sizes, shapes and colours, you could sort them by size, shape or colour. Rat's sorting uses one criteria, Bert's another.

The thing about sex is that it is not a feeling or an identity, it is an objective fact. It doesn't matter if you can tell someone's sex by looking at them or not, their sex remains constant. It always will.

It is very difficult to debate this because people stick tend not to engage with sex as a category. Any remotely coherent argument about TWAW only holds together if sex and gender are conflated or sex ignored. Nobody can argue coherently about people changing sex, there being a third sex, sex being fluid etc. Cognitive dissonance is kept at bay by focusing on the affective or the visible not biological facts.

An honest answer, going back to the bean analogy, would be, I refuse to sort the beans by colour, I only sort them by size and shape. I think size if ultimately more important and using colour is hurtful/excluding

Golden

Yes. That is indeed interesting. And women are steadily coming to the conclusion that the stated aim to be seen as women is to piss all over women. It's just misogyny

What an interesting thread. I’d be interested to know why the fight for twaw is being framed as against some feminists by tra because I would expect predominantly the people giving tw an actual hard time in real life have never had a feminist thought in their lives.

Also I can see how in 2018 grc enables someone to have official external validation of their identity and that would help someone with how they feel about themselves. I don’t see how it protects from harm though as again, the people who go round life physically and verbally abusing people or ignoring employment rights etc aren’t going to give a shit about a piece of paper.

Peaked tbf I've heard it raised a lot on here on other threads but the point tends to get lost because, shock, its never answered

Because it can't be answered without admitting what we all know, they aren't women.

"Everyone knows what a woman is, we all came out of one."

Both: Haven't thought beyond themselves. Haven't thought about women. Women really insulted by that, because on the whole, women are socialised to care as much about others, of not more, than themselves. And here it is; being exploited

ADastardlyThing excellent point and one I've not heard before that if they ARE a woman then why do they needs to trans. Not sure that can ever be answered really except in some non-sensical way along the lines of they need to look more feminine in order to pass the test of what society deems is feminine which is just feeding into the gender stereotypes. It just further highlights that it's all bollocks.

chicken

Yes. And I believe that's what we are dealing with

IW: Mistaken about self. Really upset when she butts against people who disagree with IW

PB: Lies about self. Really upset when he butts against people who try and stop him

Surely the problem with the ‘asking a roomful of people’ example is that it doesn’t allow for the fact that (a) people can be mistaken about themselves and (b) people can lie about themselves.

I'm not saying facts don't exist right, I'm saying that quite obviously they aren't the definitive thing on which we ascribe the word "woman".