Jk Rowling and trans issues... talk to me!

I'm not saying the transwoman will hurt her, or poses a threat to her in any way.

This is it exactly, a man stating they are a woman, then using that statement to go into women's spaces is outrageous. It is harmful because it takes away women's and girl's rights to have spaces to get changed where only other women are.

The man doesn't have to actually do anything beyond go into that space.

As soon as a woman doesn't feel she can ask a man to leave a women's changing room he is doing harm. He's trampling over boundaries to please himself.

That he says he is a woman doesn't change this.

"Fact: Not all women have periods. Also a fact: Not all people with periods are women."

Fact: many menstruating women will now avoid buying your products, Tampax. Well done.

It loses clarity about it purpose with the phrase ‘people who bleed’ as everyone bleeds.

'Tripped over and cut your knee? Try Tampax!'. Have I understood them correctly?

And yet here is Tampax talking about people who bleed!!

twitter.com/tampax/status/1305952342504767491?s=21

So another brand who has resorted to ambiguous communication to avoid hurt feelings. It loses clarity about it purpose with the phrase ‘people who bleed’ as everyone bleeds. So does that mean alternative use for Tampax? Use Tampax instead of a bandaid?

Of course, it is continuing to dehumanize females by reducing them to biological processes. There are far better ways to be inclusive in language by using extra words such as women and transmen, This is exactly what Joanne Rowling tweeted about and months later, there are more and more women pushing back on these companies. Maybe some will get the idea.

I'd better go into more detail re my post above. I'm not saying the transwoman will hurt her, or poses a threat to her in any way. There are other women in the changing room, all very nice women who don't mind changing with a male body because they are kind. The transwoman is also perfectly kind. But she has a penis, and your daughter feels shy about taking off her clothes in front of her.
Would you tell her to do so anyway, so as to be kind?

But to get back to the OP:
When I look at my beautiful, tiny daughter I don’t worry about some trans person hurting her, I worry about the very likely situation when a man hurts her.

OP: Would you worry when your beautiful daughter turns thirteen, (and we have, in the intervening years, all been nice and allowed transwomen to share our toilets, our changing rooms and our showers so as not to hurt their feelings) and a transwoman who has not had any physical changes done to her at all, turns up in the swimming-pool communal changing room and changes with your daughter?
If your daughter felt uncomfortable at this, would you tell her not to worry, the transwoman is after all a woman, just like the other women in the changing room?

But there's no chance a man can become a woman, or vice-versa.

A better analogy is the flat-earth faith, because there is definite proof that the world is not flat. People who believe the earth is flat can be confronted with the evidence.
Or that the moon is a flat disc in the sky. There is scientific proof that it isn't.

malahaha and hbgkc that's because you can't prove a negative. If someone asserts something the onus is on them to prove it.
As testing says, because there is no proof one way or another re. religion it's based purely on faith. I don't see how that is different to trans ideology.

Am I allowed to say that it is impossible for a man to trans-form into a woman? (And vice-versa?) But that it is perfectly possible for a man to believe that it is possible? (And vice versa).

That person's beliefs are nothing to do with me. Their beliefs should not have the legal power to force me to use language that I do not wish to, specifically to describe reality in a way which I know to be false.

Exactly.

To address the original post- if women as a legal category is opt in self id by merely signing a piece of paper then all women’s right are entirely wiped out in one go.

If we can’t accurately define the demographic of women then we can’t assess how women vote and how are needs are not being represented by parliament. We can’t apply sex based rights protections to anything - we can’t prove sex pay gap or women being passed over for promotion because any company can claim the men id as women. We can’t measure how many women are raped, beaten, harassed and murdered by men anymore as women is now a group that includes men. So we can’t do anything to address male violence against women and girls as we can no longer measure and assess it, we can’t use accurate scientific language to describe our experience at the hands of men because doing so may be transphobic to the female penises raping us. Women can’t access safe spaces away from predatory men as those men can self id as women and take our spaces in shelters and dv services and everywhere else. If we can’t measure what a women is based on accurate biology there is no way to apply any legal rights protections specific to women and the oppression and violence we face each day from men. Making women an opt in category erases us by erasing all women’s rights protections.

Read the UN’s declaration on the rights of women. If women now includes any man who ticks a box on a form there is no way for women to access any of these women’s rights. This is by far the most dangerous threat posed to women, all women, everywhere, and always will be forever to come if self id becomes law.

You simply do not have the right to throw away your daughter and my daughters human rights. Jk is 100% spot on.

Yes, exactly @Malahaha.

"I assume others use 'trans' as a euphemism rather than literally. Or simply because telling the truth is enough to get you banned or censored."

...or because "people who identify as trans" is rather a mouthful - though we should probably make the effort, as otherwise we are relinquishing valuable semantic ground.

Am I allowed to say that it is impossible for a man to trans-form into a woman? (And vice-versa?) But that it is perfectly possible for a man to believe that it is possible? (And vice versa).

That person's beliefs are nothing to do with me. Their beliefs should not have the legal power to force me to use language that I do not wish to, specifically to describe reality in a way which I know to be false.

But there IS evidence that it is impossible to change sex, regardless of what a person believes.

That's why I think the analogy doesn't work.
Yes, a trans person might believe they are the opposite sex but there is ample proof that they're not.

Religious people accept that there is no proof for their faith.
Trans people don't.

I think the religious people are happy to accept they believe through faith and that there's no proof, otherwise faith wouldn't be needed.

We know there is no evidence for heaven or hell. Just like there is no evidence to support anyone's assertion that they are "actually"
the opposite sex to their physical sex.

Anyone who believes either of those propositions is doing so as a faith based position.

I don't think your analogy works, CaptainCorelli. You cannot state as FACT that heaven and hell do not exist. We don't know, and cannot prove that statement as true or false.

We can, though, state as fact that men are not women, no matter what they feel, or think, or what surgery they may have undergone (so I agree with your sentiment, just not your choice of analogy).

I have an evangelical Christian friend from school(I think he's supposed to be funding this...) who believes he is one of the very few who will spend eternity with God in heaven while us sinners will burn in hell.

Now, heaven and hell do not exist. My friend is a very devout Christian. He definitely exists. But he exists as someone who believes he will spend eternity with God in heaven, not as someone who actually will spend eternity with God in heaven. I appreciate this analogy won't necessarily work if you are religious.

Now, trans women exist. But they exist as men who identify as women. They do not exist as women.

Then they have no business being in women’s spaces. The GR Panel arbitrates after a medical diagnosis. A lot do make medical changes

Moonbasealpha, do you realise that that view - which I don’t think anyone here would disagree with - would get you ripped apart on Twitter? What Stonewall etc are campaigning for is for any man to be able to access any female space he chooses, regardless of how he presents or whether he’s made any changes to his body, simply because nobody should have the right to challenge his gender.

Everyone has explained it clearly above but...I know that people who believe in God exist. I respect the fact that they have this belief. That does not mean that I have to also believe it. By not believing I am not taking anything away from those that do, or denying in any way that they exist.

People who identify as trans exist.

So do people who identify as estate agents, as bald, as athletes, as left-handed, as having size eight feet (size ten in America, 40-41 in Europe, no idea about Asia), as liking dogs more than they like cats, as being able to climb a tree or Mount Everest, and as belonging to several zillion other sub-sets of the species "human".

I know nobody for whom one single part of their identification is deemed by them to be so important that if I fail to acknowledge it all the bloody time and in every way, they will regard my failure to do so as in some way meaning I believe they are not a human at all.

You'd need to be a bit weird to be so obsessive about one small part of what makes you human, I feel. And talking about the same thing all the time means a person surely has to identify as a bore, like the bloke in the pub who talks about nothing but having no freedom of speech any longer.

(In extreme cases there are people who identify as teapots, or Napoleon, or doctors when they have no medical qualifications, but let us leave them out of it. In any case I don't happen to know anyone who believes they are those. I expect that someone who believes they are a doctor though they are not qualified has other things they do at weekends: golf or reading or making net curtains or something. A teapot might have to spend their entire time sitting on a table somewhere, I don't know.)

Women exist as a distinct sex class. That sex class matters when it comes to social and legal issues that affect women.

If you accept men into the class of women you are saying women don't exist.
We see this time and time again when people who say they support trans rights can't give a meaningful definition of 'women'.
Don't push that back onto us. Its not us erasing a class of people.

That you'll accept them as people, but not as trans, as that doesn't exist going by your analogy?

I accept them as people. I accept they are trans
I do not accept that this makes them the opposite sex.

^That kind of thing is generally what people mean when they say 'you wish/think transpeople don't exist. Unless you say TWAW or TWAM this means you do not think they exist. They exist, just not as the opposite sex. IMO anyway.

Barracker hits the nail on the head, as usual.

Let's face it, people believe all sorts of shit about themselves. They believe they're beautiful when they're not. They believe God talks to them. They believe they're uniquely special and loveable.

The point is, these people exist, and their beliefs exist. It doesn't mean they're right. There are men who believe they are women born in a man's body. They certainly exist, but it doesn't mean they really are women born in a man's body. They're just men.

Of course people who identify as trans exist!

But underneath their sense of self is a male or female person. So while an individual may identify as something other than the sex they are, the reality (to me, anyway) is that they are still a human of the male or female sex. It is not possible to change your biological sex. It is not up to that individual to tell me how I perceive them.

So a transman is a transman as opposed to a female who is now male