The cognitive dissonance from 'TWAW' women

think when there is a pattern of criminality that is virtually exclusive to one sex, and occurs as part of a sex-based dynamic manifesting itself physically against the opposite sex in a systematic pattern

This is the key here. It is the raison d'être of feminism. The systemic oppression of females.

Also, given that we know a great deal of rapes and assaults happen in people's own houses by someone they know, that isn't solving the problem.

It's just assuming that those rapists who pull women off the street will say ah the government says I'm not allowed out after 6 now.

All its actually doing is penalising decent men.

But it's the same as some of the other arguments.

By deciding that men can't leave the house after 6, or have to completely change their behaviour, you are not only being sexist but just replacing one problem with another.

And it's all very well to say well we don't care because we only care about women, but back to my point about the majority of people and the way they think, most people see both sides.

But the one thing I thought I knew about feminism was that it said women's minds, hearts, behaviour and achievements should not be constrained, or made subject to assumptions, due to their sex. I think that's a really basic principle that most women can understand and aspire to. I'm not saying that's all there is to it and it's as simple as that, but I'm just amazed at the topsy-turvy logic masquerading as feminism that basically says the complete opposite.

I know, how is a belief system based on sexist stereotypes supposed to be progressive. I find it boggling.

I think when there is a pattern of criminality that is virtually exclusive to one sex, and occurs as part of a sex-based dynamic manifesting itself physically against the opposite sex in a systematic pattern, addressing that problem is quite different to saying "women can be doctors and wear trousers if they want", which is the sort of thing I was talking about.

But this campaign which is now wanting to give men curfews and change their behaviour is.......all of what you said, just for males.

And that's OK?

You know, I'm far from being a great expert on feminism, or someone who can demonstrate an impressive life-long commitment to the cause. But the one thing I thought I knew about feminism was that it said women's minds, hearts, behaviour and achievements should not be constrained, or made subject to assumptions, due to their sex. I think that's a really basic principle that most women can understand and aspire to. I'm not saying that's all there is to it and it's as simple as that, but I'm just amazed at the topsy-turvy logic masquerading as feminism that basically says the complete opposite. I think it really must be the brain short-circuiting itself with a big shock of "BE KIND!".

Your belief that the us or them aggression has done any good whatsoever is interesting.

I don't have to nail my colours to any mast. That's my right.

There’s also the “not my Nigella” crowd who are steadfastly basing all their knowledge and experience and requirements around the one person that they know and like. The cognitive dissonance gets short circuited by the needs of close friend.

THAT! That is what made it hard for me initially.

Then I had a chat with My Nigellas, both male and female, and realised they had the same fear as I did, couldn't raise the topic, discuss it candidly. We disagree on some points but all agree that biology is!

Yes this is the danger. We're passed trying to protect the word "woman" as many transwomen and TRAs have already moved on to claim the word "female" to. Just look at what's happening with the census.

No. I have said repeatedly I am fine with a third space. Which is great, seeing as TRAs are not. You are so transphobic!

All I have done is raised some of the issues this would cause and considered the feelings of transwomen and transmen. All you have really done is repeated "But what about the men?" and told women they must expand their bandwidth or stay nasty!

Because it's possible to do both, despite how these threads go. MMmm! Despite how these threads go... on to evidence the harm that acquiescing has done, in law, in real life.

You don't stop to wonder why? Never to answer a question simply. You just bat those away, ignore them, or answer with some sort of glib phrase.

Go on, nail your colours to the mast... look back at the questions you have been asked and answer them wholly and honestly!

There’s also the “not my Nigella” crowd who are steadfastly basing all their knowledge and experience and requirements around the one person that they know and like. The cognitive dissonance gets short circuited by the needs of close friend.

There are so many examples of this! Including Nigella herself I think.

You've got it the wrong way round - ask them "why is it necessary to never have a word to exclusively denote 'human females'"? And "why is it necessary to never have anything specifically for females without including any male who wants in?"

Yes, this. Why exactly do we need to detach "woman" from female just because some males think in stereotypes? Some of them already think they can appropriate "female" too.

Wonder if you can guess who those 2 groups are? No, no peeking!

There’s also the “not my Nigella” crowd who are steadfastly basing all their knowledge and experience and requirements around the one person that they know and like. The cognitive dissonance gets short circuited by the needs of close friend.

All I have done is raised some of the issues this would cause and considered the feelings of transwomen and transmen.

Because it's possible to do both, despite how these threads go.

Why is it necessary to always and exclusively define the word 'woman' based on sex?

It isn't. Words can and do have multiple meanings, some more literal than others.

But it is necessary for people of the female sex to have a word which can be used to exclusively specify them for when they want to talk about themselves.

Or even just being able to state definitions would suffice - "for the purpose of this book/bill/survey, we use 'woman' to mean human female of any age".

The objection is not so much to other people using woman for whatever purpose they want - it's to people stopping women from using the word (or any word) to mean "adult human female". It's not the word they're objecting to, it's the definition, regardless of word.

If we invented a new word ("womyn", "superwoman", whatever) for "adult human female", they'd be just as upset.

You've got it the wrong way round - ask them "why is it necessary to never have a word to exclusively denote 'human females'"? And "why is it necessary to never have anything specifically for females without including any male who wants in?"

@Bearlet in a nutshell, for me, it's because defining woman as anything other than a biological sex class opens the door to a whole world of "fluffy pink lady brain Vs tough blue manly brain". A fast and slippery slope to old-fashioned sexism. I also think it's a breeding ground for dysphoria and confusion in the young - "are you a proper boy, or are you actually a bit of a girl?" (and vice versa).

The problem with making any of that legal is the unintended consequences.

We're already seeing the unintended consequences, as recorded in Hansard in 2003/2004, that were handwaved away because the GRA was only supposed to apply to a few thousand people.

plus there are still so many people saying "but of course no one thinks TW should be in women's prisons or refuges or play sport against women or take up spaces up on groups discussing the menopause, no one thinks that, no one is doing that.........and then when they find out they are, its either "wait what????" or "but but but its so few beeeekiiiind".

What I'm unsure about is this: Why is it necessary to always and exclusively define the word 'woman' based on sex? '

Because essentially, that is what "woman" means. I don't see any benefit for women and girls to have it defined in terms of sex role stereotypes. Can I ask why you do?

Yes, that!

Almost every woman here who has trans friends, family members or colleagues will probably call them by their preferred pronouns, that's polite at an individual level, no problem. We all know that the transwomen are men who choose to present themselves in some manner of femininity and the tarnsmen are women who choose to present themselvs in some manner of masculinity, and, theones I know at least, have varying levels of bodily transformations, medications from zero to all that is currently legal and possible to have.

On a social, interpersonal level that is fine, it is the status quo that existed for decades, based on individual choices and tacit agreements.

The problem with making any of that legal is the unintended consequences. As a linguist it is possible, surely, to see the difference between the natural evolauton of a word and the enforced mangling of one? Unintended consequences including women now saying no to the transwomen they would have tacitly accepted in female spaces, beginnng to refuse those personal pronouns all the way to the incarceration of fully intact males in the female estate!

That's why so many now refuse to be nice and givethat inch, because TRAs have already stolen a mile or three. As can be seen by the recent HoL debate, the MoJ court case, Harry the Owl and other court cases.

Ooh that's a great meme Necessary!

Basically, I don't know if arguing about the definition of the word 'woman' is all that constructive. In the circumstances where you need to limit its meaning to biology, surely you need to specify that anyway, given the scope for confusion and equivocation if you don't? Why can't we say that TWAW, in a certain sense of the word?

There was a good thread on this the other day:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4182813-Trans-women-are-are-not-women-is-a-pointless-place-to-start-a-debate