Please help me with text to DIL

I only fucked off because I had other stuff to do and can only post in between.

I didnt come on this post to offend or start an argument. I have seen many other threads on this topic and see how those who disagree get treated so I have chosen not to engage. I just wished to voice my opinion on how to deal with emotive topics in families.
On that note I stated my job only to highlight an emotive topic in mine not to show any specialist knowledge on transgender identity.
Regarding the question what is my biomedical description of a "woman"?
The terms men and women dont tend to be used in scientific literature. The terms male and female are used to denote the sex of subjects and yes these terms refer to the sex organs.
Gender is a far more complex topic and has more to do with brain structure then the presence of certain sex organs. Once again this is simply my opinion.

Just leave, wouldn't be engaging. You seem to be making trouble for yourself.

Also I think the fact that Harriet has fucked off the thread kind sort of proves the point.

Damn, if only there was a word to describe the class of humans who have XY chromosomes, penises, and have always managed to figure out who are the members of the other class of humans, who have XX chromosomes when knowing who to oppress?

Well, actually the collective word for those oppressed would be females as girls are just as oppressed as women. Which Harriet hasn't denied and I certainly would never. But I'm sure this is helpful.

Harriet is not describing gender as a social construct. Harriet is describing a gender identity.

Also referring to a particular gender identity called 'woman'.

Damn, if only there was a word to describe the class of humans who have XY chromosomes, penises, and have always managed to figure out who are the members of the other class of humans, who have XX chromosomes, when knowing who to oppress?

Imagine if we had words to describe these two groups, wouldn't that be mind-blowing?!!!

Actually she hasn't said one was innate or not. Some TRAs admit it isn't innate. So, I couldn't say what she is describing other than that she knows that there is such a class of people as females. I'd be prepared to be money that if she is a scientist she knows it very well.

But again,. my point is whatever opinion she has she is allowed to have it.

If this was a thread debating transgenderism and not a "oh shit how do I handle a fucking awkward text I just sent my dil" thread I'd agree that would be the time to pull her up on it.

To me, she could have easily have said "I like Bob Bobson even though he's an athiest and I believe in god"

only to have someone say "prove there's a god" it misses the point entirely because one. you can't prove a belief and 2 it wasn't the point.

They both sound like a couple of oddballs. Just leave them to their unscientific weirdness and stick to talking about the weather in their company from now on. Don't waste your energy. People who say they think TWAW generally have an agenda that prompts the lie. Addressing the lie won't change the agenda behind it.

Harriet wrote: I think that the sex you are born does not define your gender and so yes a woman can be born with a penis.

Harriet is not describing gender as a social construct. Harriet is describing a gender identity. Surely you can see the difference?

No one is saying that you must have a gender. Even TRAs believe in agender or non-gender. If you're a feminist you are aware of gender as a term for all the trappings of society on sex.

fish I can't see anyone arguing with Harriet- a question was asked, that's it.

She said the sex you are born with doesn't define your gender. Do any of you disagree with that?

Of course I disagree with that! I don't have a gender identity!

If you were going to argue with her a better point to make would be that many TRAs consider that to be a transphobic point of view in itself.

Can I point out that Harriet didn't deny biological sex. She said the sex you are born with doesn't define your gender. Do any of you disagree with that?

She hasn't denied physical sex or that there is a class of people who are female.

@strangetimes so is your son going to endure some air-punching when you next see them both?

People on the GC side tend to try and argue semantics with people who believe TWAW. It's not useful or helpful.

It isnt a semantic argument to recognise the importance of recognising the need for a word to describe the class of human beings who are female.

Fish I reserve the right to question any person here who asserts that men are women. If they feel so offended by my question that they choose not to avail themselves of the wisdom and experience of the brilliant women here, that is not my responsibility.

I have been challenged here by better minds than mine. I have engaged and learned, not flounced because I felt "unwelcome."

Making women feel unwelcome in a section that is for them is counterproductive. If Harriet is going to change her mind it will be because she read some of the brilliant posts explaining why they don't support the mantra that TWAW not because people asked her to define women.

Many people new to the discussion have found this thread useful:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

And while I'm on my soap box most women on FWR asked 10 years ago would have also said TWAW. Maybe they thought that the penis should eventually be removed but they were happy with the idea that a woman could initially be born with a penis and then as a transsexual would modify their body to then be a woman (whatever that means). They may have even at the time called themselves feminists. My views have been altered on sex work and porn have been changed over the years by feminism but allowing me to have changing opinions is partly because of that.

Making women feel unwelcome in a section that is for them is counterproductive. If Harriet is going to change her mind it will be because she read some of the brilliant posts explaining why they don't support the mantra that TWAW not because people asked her to define women.

fish why is the question a 'gotcha'?

Because Harriet already answered that question in different words. She basically said a woman is anyone who identifies as such. People on the GC side tend to try and argue semantics with people who believe TWAW. It's not useful or helpful. You define a woman as a person with vagina, vulva and XX chromosomes. She defines it differently. She will not change her mind because you're trying to get her to define woman in a non-circular way or however people tend to do it. It just doesn't work. Feminism could be solved with crosswords if that were the case. Number 7 across: Define Woman

Fish if you care to answer, what is feminism?

Feminism is the movement for improving women's lot in life. If a woman has a problem with her employer and is being discriminated because she is pregnant, you and I both see that as a natural result of male supremacy against female people. Now if that particular poster chooses to not enter FWR to ask for help because they were not respected after politely stating that they disagreed with something but would not try and change your mind. I'd say feminism has failed on this occasion. The OP wanted to know how to handle an awkward text/ dil situation which Harriet answered.

Fish if you care to answer, what is feminism?

fish why is the question a 'gotcha'?

I'm a bio-medical scientist and a woman can be born with a penis.. ok what's your biomedical description of a 'woman'?

Harriett has pointed out that she isn't trying to change anyone's opinion on this thread. Do you think she's allowed to have an opinion without endless debate? I'm assuming she's read the same literature as you and come to her own conclusions. ok what's your biomedical description of a 'woman'? isn't some clever gotcha that will make her change her whole way of thinking.

I disagree with her entirely but as long as she isn't shouting Die Terf Witch she can crack on with it. The FWR section is about feminism not just trans issues, is it fair to put posters off of engaging entirely with the section because they disagree with you on a view she wasn't even trying to impose?

Anyone can identify as a "biomedical scientist". Words are meaningless and fluid