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

So on the outside you either have a vulva or a penis. Then inside, someone with a vulva probably has a uterus, and someone with a penis probably has a prostate? Is that what you mean?

The only people for whom this wouldn't be true are some of those with DSDs. So are they the only people who are not 'cis' according to this categorisation? So nothing to do with 'not trans' at all, since most 'transmen' have female organs (external and internal) and most 'transwomen' have male organs (external and internal).

Dunno about you, but a lot of my reproductive system is inside my body. All my other organs, my bones and indeed every single cell of my body is female too, which is relevant in many contexts. My sex is much more than just my vulva.

I was about to say something similar SaucyHorse - my whole physical self is female. And I'm an adult, therefore woman. Not "cis" anything.

Why is it so hideous to accept transmen as transmen and transwomen as transwomen?

Actual transphobia.

How is it transphobia to accept trans people as trans?

I agree, it’s transphobic not to accept trans people as trans.

I was answering the question, actual transphobia makes it hideous to accept transmen as transmen and transwomen as transwomen?

No, I fully accept that trans women are biologically male, and trans men are biologically female, as you can't literally change the sex you were born.
It doesn't mean I can't accept trans men as men though and trans women as women.

So what is your definition of 'man' and 'woman' then? Clearly you don't think it has anything to do with biology so what is it then?

As I said, threads like this are often quite useful.

bunters (OP) wrote - "The women gang raped to death (can you even imagine the horror) in India weren’t attacked by men in dresses. I’m despairing of the fact that attention has been diverted from these horrors in such an extreme way... what tangible thing are you doing to help women, besides moaning on mumsnet and signing petitions?"

If transgender ideology did not promote the removal of women's rights then gender-critical feminists would not have to divert time and effort away from other feminist issues.

For example, transgenderism ideology has created the idea of the cotton ceiling (a concept which is based on transgenderism ideology's homophobic belief that homosexuality is same-gender-identity-attraction not same-sex-attraction and that lesbians should be socially ostracised or even criminally prosecuted for not accepting sex with "lady-penis"). If gender-critical feminists did not support lesbians in their struggle against the lesbophobia that transgenderism ideology has created, they would have more time and energy to address e.g. the Indian rape crisis or the UK rape crisis.

Women and girls across the world need sex based rights not gender-identity based rights. Transgenderism ideology blocks the ability of feminists to oppose the oppression of female people. Transgenderism ideology opposes the idea that feminism is the liberation of female people from patriarchy, and replaces it with the idea that feminism should be the centering of transgender people who feel feminine, which is then used to support the idea that the oppression of women occurs because women don't feel masculine enough (i.e. because the victim has a feminine gender identity). It is useless to tell a raped woman in Dehli or Darlington that she was raped because she identifies with feminine stereotypes, which is what transgenderism ideology demands. No, she deserves to be told the truth - she was raped because of her biology and the oppression she has suffered, since birth, based on her sexed body. Transgenderism ideology and its "feeling feminine" nonsense directly obstructs feminists in our efforts to obtain more rights for female people. Transgenderism ideology also negatively interferes with the feminist fight to just keep the sex based rights, which women thought we had already obtained. All of this is why transgenderism ideology should have no place in feminism. Feminism should not centre transgender people who feel feminine. Feminism should centre criticism of the way that transgenderism ideology is the most effective harmer of women's rights since women were given the vote.

Are you going to share a report of your recent discussions with the Indian government summarising your plan for how they should solve the Indian rape crisis and how they have responded so far to your ideas

... or are you just going to respond by (a) not replying or (b) "moaning on mumsnet" (which is what you accuse gender-critical people of doing) by continuing to minimise the harm that transgenderism ideology does to women and girls?

How is me accepting trans women meaning that I'm suddenly a subset of woman?

What do you mean by 'accepting trans women'? What are you 'accepting'?

This is an example of what happens when you want to change language to serve an ideology, but then can't use the exact same language to talk about reality.

It's the lack of logic, and deployment of smoke and mirrors that comments like this demonstrate.

Dunno about you, but a lot of my reproductive system is inside my body. All my other organs, my bones and indeed every single cell of my body is female too, which is relevant in many contexts. My sex is much more than just my vulva.

If you've met trans people, you know they pose zero risk to anyone else.

What is a 'trans person' for the purposes of this sentence? At what point does a person become 'trans' and therefore pose 'zero risk'. We know men as a class are high risk, so at what point does a male who 'identifies as a woman' come out of that high risk class of male? Is it just on their say so? Sounds watertight....

Also, by your logic, we needn't bother with DBS checks either, because some people slip through the net anyway and we should always believe people are who they say they are, so we don't need to do background checks?

How is me accepting trans women meaning that I'm suddenly a subset of woman?

We are now discussing the use of cis. We are not discussing acceptance of transwomen, I think that you know that most of the posters on this thread accept transwomen exist. If you don't understand the logic of how forcing a prefix before a term used to define women moves the term down a language hierarchy, that is your issue to resolve.

birth sex aligns with your insides? - what exactly are you trying to say here?

what is aligning with what and how do you know if someone is aligning or not?

Showing up the targeting, is just as useful. Someone reading about why threads are deleted is very effective.
Whenever someone disagrees, or has a different opinion, why do you always revert to "targeting"?
Maybe, just maybe, not everyone agrees with you?
It doesn't always mean "we're being targeted" and yes, it's not rocket science that if a post is a personal attack, troll hunting, or transphobic, they'll get deleted as they break talk guidelines.
If they didn't, they'd stay. Not everything reported gets deleted.

Women as a class. You know that really, surely?

Cis is nonsense.

I'm not 'on the same side' as woman, I AM a woman. Not a subset of the category - we are the damn category.

How easy you dismiss making women a subset of their own group

How is me accepting trans women meaning that I'm suddenly a subset of woman?
I'm still just as much a woman as ever.

Linguistic, anti scientific nonsense.

So, just a woman, then, if you're born female. Or a man if male. As you were. No need for any prefix if we're right where we started. We all go on calling ourselves what we always did.

Anyone who feels they don't match and wants to change appearances is doing the moving and can have the prefix. We don't all need one.

@findyourbacon

I know a lot of people have said not to engage, but I have found this thread really useful. I have been here since the whole JKR 'thing' earlier this year, and I have learnt so much already - but I find it hard to articulate some of the reasoning a lot of the time. So, thank you to the people who have taken the time to explain things in such a rational and persuasive way - especially in the face of accusations of trans hysteria and transphobia.

Showing up the targeting, is just as useful. Someone reading about why threads are deleted is very effective.

Anyone can google Karen White. And it becomes patently obvious why a picture of karen white needs to be taken down.

The additional, and just as important, issue that it shows is the censorship.

Lots of people don't get what's going on, but their ears certainly prick up when they realise that info being deliberately withheld from them.

It's on a par with what happened when transgender trend published their schools guide. There were people claiming that it must not be read! It must be shredded immediately! Don't even look at it! Avert your gaze!

So of course everyone wanted to read it.

Far more people read it than would have done otherwise.

It never ceases to amaze me how counter-productive censorship is.

On the same side - so your birth sex aligning with you inside then - hence, not trans. On the same side.

And still missing the point that it forces a gender identity onto others so that someone else can define themselves. And define themselves using terms that they have appropriated for their own use without consideration for those people who were already using it.

How easy you dismiss making women a subset of their own group. Which other groups of people would you also like to make a subset of their own group?

Is birth sex on the outside then?