For the Attention of Posters in the "bloody terf" thread

"If squares are rectangles then rectangles aren't rectangles

But squares are rectangles. They have four sides that meet at right angles.

A shape that is to rectangle as trans woman is to woman, would be a shape that does not have four right angled corners, but everyone is pretending it’s a rectangle for some reason.

Can I try this with Ministry of Defence airbases?

Try it with Fort Knox.

Spare me your dishonest, facetious nonsense.

Spare us yours.

Well, squares are special rectangles but triangles are not, and never will be, no matter the relative length of their sides, rectangles of any sort, so long as no two internal angles add up to 180 degrees.

So when Genderists define woman as just a label, what is it about that label that somehow leads to the same Woman-only rights, protections and opportunities? How is it that everyone who uses that label but need have nothing else in common, still have a common need for these exact same provisions?

Good point!

[quote SpookySeason77]@Blibbybobby
"If I accept the genderist redefinition of woman I must also accept that I am not one."
How so?

No one is saying you have to identify with anything except the word itself. For as long as you consider that word to describe you, you are a woman.

No "stereotypes" required.[/quote]
I explained that is my earlier post. Briefly, I use the word Woman only because it is (or at least was) the word for people with a body like mine. It’s not the word itself that’s important, it’s the reality it describes.

But when Genderists redefine the word woman as something other than female-bodied then suddenly I am not one, although nothing about me has actually changed. Do you see? It’s not a choice I got to make, it’s something imposed upon me. Surely that is not ok?

And harking back to another post, Genderists seem to think the word itself is all that matters, but surely word is only meaningful and useful because of the reality it labels. A word with nothing under it means nothing.

When I define woman as female I can draw a very clear causal line between the realities and challenges of female life and the various Woman-only rights, protections and opportunities that have been set up over time to support us.

So when Genderists define woman as just a label, what is it about that label that somehow leads to the same Woman-only rights, protections and opportunities? How is it that everyone who uses that label but need have nothing else in common, still have a common need for these exact same provisions?

My problem is that I do not identify with a definition of woman that includes male bodies.

Me neither. It's not the general definition, although many people do seem to have the old fashioned idea that if you have had your penis inverted and been castrated you have changed your sex to woman, because what male would want to do that otherwise. A for effort.

@MrsMadderRose
"Gay people and straight people describe material reality."
How so? Sexual attraction no more "material" than gender identity. There's no "straight" and "gay" physical components in our bodies, they are both a matter of one's feelings about oneself and about others.

Have they called out the homophobia of describing straight males as lesbians yet?

[quote SpookySeason77]@Gncq
"Can you please stop comparing the gay rights cause with (trans rights)"
No.

You continue to use recycled homophobic rhetoric, so I will continue to point it out.

Deal with it.[/quote]
Oh, you are spiky and absolutely not winning me over with your teenage foot stamping.

[quote SpookySeason77]@Blibbybobby
"If I accept the genderist redefinition of woman I must also accept that I am not one."
How so?

No one is saying you have to identify with anything except the word itself. For as long as you consider that word to describe you, you are a woman.

No "stereotypes" required.[/quote]
My problem is that I do not identify with a definition of woman that includes male bodies. My only identity is my female sexed body, previously that would be classed as woman but it isn't anymore according to you, so what am I?

[quote SpookySeason77]@Alektopteryx
"If squares are rectangles then rectangles aren't rectangles."[/quote]
Women aren't bleedin rectangles!

Come onnn

Anyway, to sum up:
-spooky suggests it's possible for people to lie about their gender identity
-spooky uses 'sex' and 'gender identity' interchangeably, denying the trans existence.
-they use 'non-binary' as a separate category to 'trans', invalidating non-binary people as being trans
-they misgender people in this thread

Great work buddy! Way to be inclusive.

And when did trans women consent to being subjected to forced segregation?

What will be the next level of hyperbole?

Comparing the GC position with homophobia is a sophistry.

That's literally all they have, besides insults.

And when did trans women consent to being subjected to forced segregation? Why do you ignore trans women saying "no" to your attempts to police their own lives?

Comparing the GC position with homophobia is a sophistry. Gay people and straight people describe material reality. So do male and female. Gender identity does not. GC feminists do not have a problem with anyone having a non-standard sexual orientation or a non-standard gender expression. This would be bigotry - hating people for being different or deviating from gendered norms. That is the motivation of actual anti-trans bigots, the kind who beat people up for being trans. (and who transactivists largely ignore in favour of demonising women)

GC feminists don’t hate trans people, they object to a concerted campaign to get women’s rights and protections removed in the name of gender identity. That is already resulting in women suffering.

But even if you can’t understand this, surely you can notice that large numbers of GC people are homosexual? Increasingly so as it becomes clearer that trans ideology tells people it’s wrong to be same-sex attracted. Why do you think these people would be homophobic bigots looking for a new target? How does that make any sense?

You continue to use recycled homophobic rhetoric, so I will continue to point it out
Deal with it.

You're bastardising homophobic rhetoric by bringing it up in discussion where you're imposing an ideology on us, and women are in response objecting to their own identity, their own existence and spaces being destroyed.
They're not. The. Same. Thing.

Cracking extinction burst.

Sorry, chaps, but I don't subscribe to your belief system, & it's a resounding #nothankyou.

I like feminism lots more.

For as long as you consider that word to describe you, you are a woman
...when the word woman has absolutely no meaning whatsoever

These people never quite seem to be able to explain/rationalise that bit. Maybe Spooky will be the one to do it!

@Alektopteryx
"If squares are rectangles then rectangles aren't rectangles."