We need to talk about what transgender means

But what do they have in common with the others?

They are male.

Because I think transexuals are getting thrown under the bus by the whole debate so yes, I think it would be helpful to have a proper distinction

Exactly this, we only have to see how transexual people have been sidelined from their own cause by loud individuals with bad intentions to see what will happen to women.
It helps them to blur and muddy meaningful language so that they can put themselves front and centre.
Transexual is now seen as an offensive term even when people who identify as transexual use it to decribe themselves.

And the fact that you think that 'treating them as women' is appropriate implies that you think that in some respects they actually are women

I think this is a huge illogical leap!

Why is it illogical? Why would you treat a man as a woman unless you thought they were in some way a woman? If you believe a man is a man, no matter what he is wearing or what name he calls himself etc, why would you treat him as a woman? And what do you mean by treating someone as a woman?

I've never read a trans story that made me feel like the individual actually identified as the opposite sex - for most it seems a case of not identifying as their own sex.

I get that, because I've always felt I don't identify with women. Doesn't make me a bloke though.

The problem with GRCs is their function is to enable people to be treated as the 'gender' they identify as.

What does being treated as a woman/female entail? I don't want to be treated according to my sex unless sex is a key factor. I want to be treated decently, as a human being, and I want this to be the case for all human beings. Where sex is relevant to a given context, sex - not identity- needs to be addressed

It's relevant if you're seeking to define "trans" on the basis of how much harm they might cause.

I don't see why women should get to define trans any more than trans people should get to define what a woman is TBH.

AMAB and AFAB are terms normally used in relation to people with DSDs. It's fairly offensive to use these terms to describe trans people who were not 'assigned' anything at birth, IMO.

Their sex was noted either at birth or before with prenatal testing.

the terms AMAB/ AFAB

Assigned male/female at birth. It's a reference to how sex is recorded on the birth certificate.

I have never felt threatened by the people in category 1

You do realise that many of these people start out as the husbands of trans widows? And as the perpetrators of a lot of the behaviour on the trans widows thread?

I guess it's easy to be OK with something if you've never experienced the damaging effects of it yourself?

Can someone please explain the terms AMAB/ AFAB etc?

The definition of transgender probably does need some discussion and clarification as it's become meaningless and damaging to some transexuals.

Having spent a lot of time debating these issues on Twitter, my thoughts on all these issues have crystallised in my mind as I now refuse to use any language other than that which is sex appropriate. The more I use clear language, the simpler it becomes to express the problems I see. And that applies to “trans” as much as it applies to “woman” or “male”.

Personally I find it helpful to revert to a point where trans stops being some wishy-washy inside-someone’s-head concept and returns to what it really is: a controversial treatment for gender dysphoria. So a trans person to me, is anyone who has undergone that specific treatment process in a meaningful way.

So in the same way I refer to anyone male as a man, a transitioner is a person who has undergone a medical process in an attempt to reduce dysphoria by treating the body so that it more closely resembles the opposite sex.

So for me that goes hand in hand with use of straightforward language. The whole purpose of the shifting language is to throw us off balance and I refuse to use it. I think perhaps we are in a difficult position as especially online, there have been huge attempts to change the meaning. But as others have implied, the huge majority of people still consider the definition I have given to be correct.

Part of the transactivism trick has been to change the meaning only in the places where power is flexed. Thus they push for laws using their new definition while the majority of the population believe something entirely different is happening.

Definitions matter in this debate, perhaps more than in any other that has gone before. So the more we speak plainly and point out the truth, the better.

And once we have clear definitions, perhaps then we can discuss again whether the groups involved need any special dispensations. But this time all affected parties should be involved in the debate. Transsexuality cannot be used again as a wedge for placing males in women’s spaces.

I think having a GRC rather than relying on self-ID is a big part of this - not so much because the certificate would need to be produced to use a bathroom (that would never happen) but because it recognises the conflict of interests

How does the existence of GRCs recognise the conflict of interests ? I don’t see a lot of government or other “ equalities “ “ spokespeople talking about any such conflicts ?

How do GRCs protect women and children ?

How does having a GRC

I'm not interested in the false beliefs of men, or how I distinguish between varieties of men with false beliefs. Even if those false beliefs pertain to my sex, what makes me (and they believe, them) female.

I agree with the above.

I'm sometimes shocked at how our notional past social politeness was abused to the point where we had GRA 2004 and the consequences that have flowed from that despite contemporary warnings that this would be the logical outcome.

I don't know how we get to a working compromise from here or if it's possible. And I'll never understand why all of this effort is being expended on reducing the rights of women rather than other solutions.

The definition of transgender probably does need some discussion and clarification as it's become meaningless and damaging to some transexuals.

But I'm not interested in being involved in that discussion as I am not transgender or directly involved in transgender groups myself, and have other more pressing interests. But I wish them well and think they need to sort it out.

I am however interested in protecting the definition of women in the law, protecting women's boundaries and rights and ensuring that men don't get to redefine or remove my rights. Because I am a women.

Where did I say that people can change sex?

You didn't say that exactly, but you did say this:

I have met some lovely people who are in category 1 and would actually have no problem in treating them as women in most (though not all) circumstances.

So you have said that you think that 'treating them as women' is appropriate for some men (although you haven't said what this actually entails). I assumed that you meant things like letting them into women's changing rooms, so I wondered at what stage of their transition you thought this was appropriate.

And the fact that you think that 'treating them as women' is appropriate implies that you think that in some respects they actually are women - hence my comment about them changing sex.

I made some assumptions about what you meant by 'treating them as women' - maybe you meant something else?

Most young women I talk to absolutely think that trans women should be treated as women

I work with young people, most of whom would happily say TWAW and should be treated as women. They would also say that single sex provision in hospitals, prisons, open plan changing areas etc are important. When you ask them if sexed bodies are important in these contexts they would say they are. If you asked them if senile people with penises and mental illness should be allowed in wards for people with vaginas and mental illnesses they say no.

Straight, clear talking is all that is needed to sort this nonsense out. The ramping up of efforts to obfuscate and to silence shows that this is recognised. The madness won't survive the next decade.

I hope we get to a place where gender non conformity is a non issue, as are same sex relationships and that people with dysphoria are helped to accept themselves as they are, with invasive treatment being used as as a very last resort

If we were discussing reincarnation:

I see little point in analysing which people are really incarnated, vs those who like the idea but don't fully believe it, vs those who have grandiose ideas about being the reincarnated spirit of Gandhi, vs those with nefarious agendas using the concept for gain.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as reincarnation, and it demeans me to pretend otherwise, or categorise and rank the strength of other people's false belief in it.

And, should a true believer falsely consider themselves related to me on account of them thinking themselves a reincarnation of my grandmother, I reserve the right to vehemently deny their offensive claim and draw a considerable boundary between them and me.

It's irrelevant. What men believe, or don't believe about themselves, and about how similar or different they think they are to me.
It's irrelevant how committed they are to their beliefs about them and me, and our purported similarities.
All that matters is that I retain my right to have my actual, physical, biological, reproductive sex recognised, and distinguished accurately from theirs. And that my right to preserve an unbreachable boundary between them and me is unquestioned.

I'm not interested in the false beliefs of men, or how I distinguish between varieties of men with false beliefs. Even if those false beliefs pertain to my sex, what makes me (and they believe, them) female.

I'm interested in preserving the recognition of my physical sex, and the rights pertaining to it.

Plenty of people who identify as transsexuals don't mind the transgender umbrella term, and those who feel that they have been thrown under the bus should thank other transsexuals and organisations like Press for Change and GIRES, not Stonewall or part-time crossdressers.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?pg=1&order=

I believe we should insist on the law being upheld rather than trying to overturn it (which does make us look like bigots!) or extend it to cover gender identity(which is a disaster for women).

How can you tell whether someone is 'really' transsexual (but has not had any medical treatment) or is just a cross dresser or fetishist? How do you know, when you see someone like that in a female changing room which category they are in? At what point do you think people actually change sex?

we have to have a clearer definition of what it actually means as it is not going to just disappear

I am happy for it to mean whatever people want it to mean. People can have, or not have a gender identity. What does is matter if it is simply about how they think of themselves or reconcile different parts of themselves.

I am interested in sex discrimination and having single sex spaces in some contexts and what matter here is sex, not gender identity. I am focusing my energies on this.