Are we going to have to start using people with vaginas

I would never use that term. Nothing wrong with the word woman, as in adult human female. Anything else is giving in to the madness.

What it does perhaps tell you is that trans people are more likely to perceive themselves as being victims of crime.

I have seen this in effect on other social media platforms. It is like people wheel out the 'hate crime' stats without realising it may be one person misgendering someone on twitter, or it might be someone being harassed walking down the street for a week. There is no visibility.

And if misogyny was allowed, then there would be such a huge rise in hate crime against women that I think people would be very very hesitant to keep using those hate crime stats.

But yes, that article was not even talking about recorded crime. I am not sure why it was posted.

@sweetaffaj I was interested in your claim that transwomen "are more likely to face a bunch of violence in various forms" and the Guardian article you linked to as evidence of this www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/trans-people-twice-as-likely-to-be-victims-of-in-england-and-wales

Few points that jumped out at me when I looked at the data:

1. the data is about 'trans people' not trans women and it isn't broken down any further so we don't know how many of these crimes are against trans men or non binary people who are included in this category
2. It doesn't tell you what type of crimes they were so you cannot conclude anything about violence. It includes for example crimes like like 'bicycle theft'
3. Notes on the data state the gender identity figures were for just 6 months of data based on a small base size of 63 and are therefore subject to 'lower reliability'. No figures on gender identity seem to have been included in the latest release (Oct 2020)

1. Most importantly, these are not police recorded crimes - they are self reported figures provided by people interviewed by a telephone survey.

So this doesn't tell you anything about violence towards trans women.

What it does perhaps tell you is that trans people are more likely to perceive themselves as being victims of crime. Interesting.

In answer to the OP - no, we stick with women. As soon as we give in on that there will be something else.

The war on women we refer to is the result of the coming together of various movements - some organised, some not - and developments - some intended, some not - that a whole range of different people are involved in - some intentionally and some not.

One of these groupings is an extreme fringe of trans rights activists, many of whom are not, in fact, identifying as trans at all. Of course, there are some people who do identify as trans who actively engage in campaigns designed to undermine and eventually abolish women's sex-based rights. But we cannot claim that all males who identify as trans have this goal, because this simply isn't true.

It's a small number of people who actively fight against women's sex-based rights, but there are always many more people who, when fighting for the rights of one group, are indifferent to the knowledge that their actions may or do result in harm to another group. They prioritise the needs of the group they consider to be more in want of rights and don't waste any energy on worrying about groups they think are already well protected.

Add to that the large number of men who continue to deny that women and girls are disadvantaged, discriminated against or oppressed anywhere on this planet, and all those who think women's rights have swung too far already, and who will use any and all means to roll back these gone-too-far women's rights and the result is what we are witnessing now. What we call a war on women. Not merely on our rights, but on who we are as a group - the sex class capable of bearing young, with all that entails in our world.

And in answer to the OP, no, women and girls is enough. Anything else concedes ground. If I have to use something different for clarity, I use female people or female plus the noun that relates to what is being discussed. So on sport, I would say female athletes.

If you observe this process, also called female erasure, for long enough, you will notice that every time ground is ceded, a new battlefield is created. Sometimes this plays out in public in a way that demonstrates this beautifully, as with companies selling menstrual products. One was attacked on social media for talking about women and girls, scolded for not being inclusive, most of the activists suggesting they could always use female if they needed to and another set of activists then attacked the use of female when referring to female biology.

I've seen companies who have abandoned the use of women and girls altogether apologise for using the words "female reproductive system" and promising to find a more inclusive term.

You will have to fight to defend your words anyway, whatever they are, as long as they seek to differentiate between the sexes. So stand your ground here, on women and girls. These are our words and our lives, so draw that line in the sand here.

This conversation reminds me slightly of those threads in chat and AIBU that goes along the lines of "My MiL has burned down the house, eaten the children and driven off in my car with my last bottle of gin. AIBU to be pissed off about this?"

And some bright spark, within minutes, will say accusingly, "You don't like her!"

Well no. When an individual or group insist on doing things that are hurtful and harmful to you, are thoroughly unpleasant and uncaring to you when you try to explain your side of things and that mutual respect and co operation is needed, (you know, the death threats, barbed wire wrapped baseball bats, go out and f*k up a t**, every day poured out all over Twitter), make it very clear your issues are of no interest and you must shut up, suffer and be excluded because they say so....? And that it's fine to treat you in ways you never descend to treating them, and they would never tolerate from you?

You start to feel a bit disliked, yes. Because unless you're a raging masochist, who would be having fun at this point, or wanting to continue in what is an unequal and abusive relationship with absolutely nothing in it for one side?

And yes, when there are no voices from that whole community saying "this is wrong, this is not speaking for us, I don't agree this is acceptable or that women's issues with this should just be trampled into submission and women excluded who can't?" You do start to wonder if there really are any.

Trans women are not waging a war on women.

There's a possibility this is true. It's MRAs who are waging a war on women - and it's a war that irrefutably exists - under the banner of TRAs. And it's often as detrimental to the interests of trans people - the ones who live quietly and don't attempt to stampede over the rights and wellbeing of others - as it is to women.

Two things do seem to be the case. Trans people/activists are not actively standing up and saying 'enough, you don't speak for me' (the same sort of way as DSD people ask for their condition not to be used to further someone else's largely irrelevant politics). And trans MEN are not waging a war on women as a rule.

Both things say much. Not least, each problematises the idea that every reasoned objection and discussion of these issues can be dismissed as simplistic 'transphobia'.

Have you seen the job Joe Biden has to do to try and bring the country together? If he starts to employ a totally woke agenda, he is going to find the split even greater. I wonder about his cabinet too, it strikes me as fairly conservative. I think you may find he would prefer to bring the fight to his own party rather than take it to the American voters.

No. Although the numbers are very small, there is a condition where you can be a woman and be born without one. The activists will jump on you with a GOTCHA! if you do that. I think the furthest I would stretch is ''biological woman' but I do think we should stick to 'women' and carry on using it in the way it's always been used.

Just imagine what the prevalence of women being ‘victims’ if a) misogyny was a hate crime and b) those trans activists posting violence against women could be prosecuted as their actions being hate crimes?

Yeah... truly not convinced by your article or your theory that feminists ‘need’ to include males at all either . You have it back the front. Transmen, yes!!

Not makes. Ever. I think maybe you are thinking we are egalitarian in that regard.

And if this is not the general attitude towards women, although I doubt it is myself, may I ask where are the prominent transwomen (who are not considered GC outsiders by the community) decrying this violence being expressed against women??

No.

@Sappho if you're around, I remember you've mentioned some interesting observations of how this has worked in practice in lesbian groups in your experience.

Do we actually need places to start saying these spaces are only for people with vaginas? As surely this can't be argued against

What makes you think this will be allowed?

It appears that the activists' goal is to require all institutions to let transwomen into anywhere and everywhere that women meet, ideally excluding transmen too.

Therefore they will attack any attempt to control membership of women's groups such that transwomen are excluded and transmen are included.

@sweetaffaj

Feminism that centres men? That'll be a no.

Biology matters and all of my solidarity lies with other members of my sex. No time for men who think they're hard done by and I won't apologise for it.

No followed by not a chance is my response to that.

When I come across some who changes the definition of woman/women to include men I say that's their personal definition and not one I recognise or agree with.

That's the polite version anyway.

No. Concede no ground! It’ll never be enough and they’ll just start making shit up to appropriate whatever term you use.

Gender is bullshit. Saying adult males are women IS the 21century patriarchy.

I support women and girls. That’s feminism. Clue’s in the word... not difficult to understand.

This.

and it's up to feminists to support them.

Not sure that's ever been a core goal of feminism? Or that I signed up for that job. How absent-minded of me if I did, I'll put my keys in the fridge next if I'm not careful.

sweetaffaj

@KinkyFink They are women. Feminists support women by opposing the patriarchy. You can not want to support them but if you meaningfully oppose gender, the patriarchy and capitalism then you support them

Capitalism - what - the pharmaceutical companies / medics in the US getting rich on performing double mastectomies on 13 year old girls and needlessly medicalising them for life, or all the Stonewall champions going arse over tit with their Trans woke points don’t count?.

Gender is bullshit. Saying adult males are women IS the 21century patriarchy.

I support women and girls. That’s feminism. Clue’s in the word... not difficult to understand.

I'll put aside the word 'c**' since I don't want to break guidelines and many women find it an offensive word they don't agree to name themselves by.

Do you think TW are actually showing compassion, listening and understanding to the women pointing out the sex based issues and needs they have?

Do you think trans women are actually filled with active hate for cis women?

This is slightly dependant on your definition of who exactly you mean by TW (the umbrella is large and the bar for entry practically non existent ) but yes I do think a fairly significant proportion actively hate women.

I've reached this conclusion by listening to their words and observing their actions over many years.

Immediate, pressing issues for women (and by this I mean adult human females):

Loss of single sex spaces, with significant impact on many women leaving them without facilities or services - the pool thread illustrates one today, where are those women now excluded from all 36 pools in the area so male people can have access to every single one going to go?

Loss of language in law, loss of ability to define themselves, their bodies, being reduced to dehumanising terms like 'uterus haver' and having these labels forced upon them that they have not chosen, do not agree with and do not relate to.

Loss of safety, privacy and dignity for women prisoners and women in hospital wards due to the prioritising of male choice above theirs

There's a lot of immediate, serious issues here. I think you're quite right that patriarchy is at the root of this, although I think we'll disagree on how.

But how do you advocate standing up to patriarchy to overcome these immediate, serious issues for women who identify and perceive people on the basis of their sex, and have sex based needs that are not going away? If you believe in patriarchy then you understand the concept of sex based oppression, and it's definitely female people on the losing end here, not being listened to, having their concerns handwaved away, not allowed to have identity or lived experience or even basic safety given equal concern to those born male.

War is being waged against trans women by a white supremacist patriarchy and it's up to feminists to support them

No it's not. And no it's not up to feminists to support them.

Do you think trans women are actually filled with active hate for cis women? They are more likely to face a bunch of violence in various forms but they're waging 'war' on us?

The link you posted to back this up says trans people. You said trans women. You know transmen exist too, right? But the way they're always completely ignored, it's almost as if...

(And do forgive me, but I'm a bit sceptical when seeing stickers expressing love for an author, using the wrong pronoun, saying women have a cervix or a billboard with the dictionary definition of the word woman are considered 'crimes'.)