Are feminists getting played?

Maniak, do you really not get that if a woman is sacked because she is pregnant and tries to claim sex discrimination, if males are included in the group 'women', and women are in the group 'men' and we are in law just a mass of humanity only distinguished by who likes pink and who likes blue, she could be told she has no case because men can be pregnant too, and many of the 'women' aren't of the large gamete producing class?

People who are pregnant seems simply accurate

While missing the single thing that all those people have in common

Why have those particular people been chosen to have their bodies exploited? Gosh, it’s really impossible to say

Well, I suppose I value my own knowledge and the knowledge of women around me. And I value it more than whatever language policy is produced by some organization somewhere

Well, it's not about you or us is it?

It is about the girls who trained for years just to get kicked down the league table because a male entered the race.

It's about less money to deal with violence against women and girls, because men do it, and they are included in the statistics of females.

It's about women and children being locked up in prisons with men who are in prison for rape.

It's about women who are on shortlists because as a class, women get less chances; only to be kicked out in favour of a man.

How utterly self absorbed to think it is about you?

We know what a woman is though. You know, and I know, and everyone knows. So if we wanted to have a conversation about women, we could easily. Sure, in some contexts we might be forced to say "cis women" or "biological women" or whatever the language of the day is. Yes, how annoying, but discussion is still possible.

Can we write laws on that basis? And will those laws stand or will they be deemed discriminatory? From what I gather shelters for "biological women" get defunded now for their discriminatory mission.

You’re showing remarkably poor comprehension Maniak . You appear to be arguing against points that no one has made

Well, I suppose I value my own knowledge and the knowledge of women around me. And I value it more than whatever language policy is produced by some organization somewhere.

'Some organisation somewhere' produces the legislation that enables access to contraception, maternity pay, the Equalities Act, the census, prison and hospital policy, council and government spending, education policy etc. etc. etc.

What are the women around you going to do - have a whip round if you get sacked for being pregnant?

When surrogacy happens to 'people' we loose the analysis of exploitation based on sex. It gets removed from a global framework. Then the individualism comes in to undermine criticism.

Policy makers, legislators etc must use precise language. It matters a great deal and as we live under laws and systems we need to care.

The hyperindividualised notion of 'well I know and so do my mates' is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't matter in the face of trying to change systematic oppression. You know surrogacy - the economic coercion and farming of women and trafficking of children - is wrong, so what. That has no impact unless you can persuade those writing laws and policies. To do that you have to get public opinion. The 'I know and so do my friends' is the first baby step.

I was responding to the idea that we can't discuss women's issues because of trans. And it shocks me (it always does) how easily women hand away power. We're talking about our OWN conversations and our OWN knowledge. It's not so weak.

Where'd you get that idea from Maniak

Sure. But we know. People here are talking as if that knowledge is stripped from us and that discussion of women's issues becomes impossible. I'm just saying that's not true. Of course not.

Where'd you get that from? No one's said that. People here obviously know the difference between women and male bodied people who like to be identified as women (jeez it's tiring having to do that) and obviously will continue to discuss women issues with that knowledge.

What we're saying over and over and over again is that the people in power, politicians, police, service providers etc are behaving like they don't know the difference and making the word 'woman' meaningless.

We see this as pretty much the most important threat to women so far and understandably it takes up a lot of our attention.

It is about achieving power and control over our own female lives without any reference to men.

I don't think it's possible for women to live without reference to men or vice versa. We are too interconnected, both as classes and as individuals. Not just men and women but all people. Thinking about it in those terms, IMO, is likely to lead to frustration.

And we have crimes which are reacorded by the gender the person prefers.

So crime statistics become senseless

Oh for crying out loud. Yes, everyone knows what a woman is. What a woman is does not change even if our language is stolen.

But we are not living in a neutral situation wherein those of the class which produce the large gamete are able to access all the rights and protections they require to live in equity and freedom

If we were in a reality where women were not at a disadvantage in the way our societies are set up, you might have a reasonable argument about shrugging your shoulders and letting the language slide.

But we are not living in a fair and equitable reality

We are living in a reality where women face male domination and violence, where our very biology is used against us. If we do not hold fast to every tool we have to stand against this, we will never be liberated.

Sorry to bold, it looks like shouting, but I think there is some colossal point-missing on this thread.

Why are they lesser men, not allowed the name, because they choose fabrics cut in a certain pattern?

How are they women, why do men get to name our reality and have the power of naming?

Words are incredibly important. For example, look how murder including a brutal rape has been recategorised as a sex game gone wrong. Or how when we say women have agency we deny that they were victims of abuse - it shifts the blame. If words were not important then men wouldn't be trying to control them.

Sure. But we know. People here are talking as if that knowledge is stripped from us and that discussion of women's issues becomes impossible.

Unless the word 'woman' can be defined legally you might as well be defending the rights of pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Cis woman or biological woman isn't defined in law tho. So it's useless.

Woman is. And now legally includes men with a GRC.

It's not about chatting over the dinner table. It's about laws defining women, actually defining them, as men. Self ID means anyone can do it. Legally.

People here are talking as if that knowledge is stripped from us and that discussion of women's issues becomes impossible.

What the women here are saying is that if the word 'woman' does not retain its meaning in UK law as 'a female of any age' that will be the point at which discussion of women's issues becomes impossible because the sex class of female [woman] will cease to exist.

I'm just saying that's not true. Of course not

So what? If policy is being made as if nobody understands what ‘woman’ means, then who cares if you DO know? What difference does it make?

I think the impact of gender recognition policies adopted by most of the main political parties extends way beyond women's rights.

It's a paradigm shift in the way the law regards everyone's rights and the way it deals with issues like prejudice, accessibility and equality.

Right wing Tories are usually seen as the main threat to human rights legislation, but I think the current threat comes from Labour and the Lib Dems. As I said before and will continue to say over and over again, the law can't protect people it can't define.

And yet, sensibly, UK law does know:

man = a male of any age

woman = a female of any age

Section 212, Equality Act 2010:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212