If women cannot be defined biologically what happens to sex based oppression?

Ths is what is not allowed. To focus on the women, to centre the women, to not really give that much of a fuck about the rest of it. That's totally verboten. Remember women's rights are a dogwhistle, everyone!

Yes, it's her absolute fidelity to reality that is so inspiring for many and unnerving for some.

It is. And her other skill is to focus on the women, not the men. And it would appear, this is entirely instinctive.

So when that twit on the radio was talking about J. K. Rowling being left out of the celebration of her work, Kellie Jay's instinctive response was to focus on the fact that it was her work, and what she'd sacrificed to produce it. She simply didn't get involved in any kind of reasons for ignoring that.

That's the point, OP. When we can't self define as a sex class we lose our ability to organise in favour of our rights.

Isn't it wild that a woman asserting that a male is a man is considered beyond the pale?

Depressingly accurate, Datun.

'Women are whatever men say they are'.

One of the reasons Posie Parker is so clear is because she starts (and often ends) with this concept.

Transwomen are men. No ifs, not buts, no exceptions. She doesn't waver or deviate from applying that basic fact to all the questions, scenarios, etc.

So in answer to your thread title "if women cannot be defined biologically what happens to sex based oppression?", it carries on happening but we are denied the language to identify it, discuss it, and fight it. This is a feature, not a bug, of gender identity politics.

This is correct. Its a male domination movement on several fronts.

Sexism and misogyny happens to women. All the individual ways it happens is still because we're women.

We're thought of as 'lesser than' as an entire sex. It manifests itself in individual ways - period poverty, maternity neglect, rape, etc, but these are the means.

Removing the collective term 'woman' disguises the basic reason for sexism and misogyny. Deliberately.

And, of course, another strand is that some men want to stop the word woman from being based on biology so they can claim the term.

You never actually get told the new definition, if not based on biology though. The word 'woman' in TWAW is never defined. Just that it's nothing to do with actual female biology.

If you refuse to see or, in this case even acknowledge the concept of, biological sex, you can never see, or rather never articulate, sexism.

Women being controlled is nothing new. Removing the means for them to fight it, or even describe it, is.

Neat eh?

It's entirely deliberate. The war on women is real.

So in answer to your thread title "if women cannot be defined biologically what happens to sex based oppression?", it carries on happening but we are denied the language to identify it, discuss it, and fight it. This is a feature, not a bug, of gender identity politics

This however is truly terrifying.

I was looking at the post about the women's officer at Cambridge University. Who is a transman and seems concerned only with trans rights.

To be fair, their campaign doesn't centre trans rights. They are campaigning to end period poverty and for the uni to supply free san pro. Also campaigns for better support for student carers and their residency issues (which is an issue at Cambridge as they are expected to live on campus), plus other issues.
I do have less problem with a transman or NB being a woman's officer as they are biologically female, and no matter how they identify, generally they will be affected by the same issues as women. You can't identify out of oppression.

I was about to make a new thread related to this topic, but this thread fits well.

Subject: How gender neutral language stops the reader from noticing misogyny

In The Excessive Regulation of Early Abortion Medication in the UK: The Case for Reform, which is an interesting paper proposing that "the abortion pill" could continue to be taken at home (home treatment is currently allowed only temporarily under COVID rules) and be prescribed over the phone, I noticed the following in Section V:

Furthermore, such an objection is an instance of regulation assuming that people with the physiology to become pregnant are irresponsible users of healthcare.

The medical misogyny that authors have noticed that women face is much clearer when I reword that to:

Furthermore, such an objection is an instance of regulation assuming that women are irresponsible users of healthcare.

Female erasure is the flipside of the "pronouns are rohypnol" problem. Just as using female pronouns for someone male can conceal male pattern violence (for example, when discussing a certain person who once hit someone with a golf club, or certain prisoners with convictions for violent or sexual crimes), removing words like "women" and "female" can conceal sex-based oppression. Concealing sex-based oppression and male pattern violence stops women from recognising those phenomena, and hence stops us from organising to combat them.

So in answer to your thread title "if women cannot be defined biologically what happens to sex based oppression?", it carries on happening but we are denied the language to identify it, discuss it, and fight it. This is a feature, not a bug, of gender identity politics.

The "basic, social contract" days were nice, Artichoke.

I miss those.

Well, exactly.
It’s the most pernicious aspect of this wholly pernicious nonsense.

I was told by a trans colleague that the fact that I don't have a gender identity makes me a-gender, which is under the trans umbrella and therefore my complete lack of gender feelz makes me trans.

I have been transed against my will.

What flag do I get?

Other people can play with whatever labels they choose.

I'll be a woman. Adult biological female. My working definition.

I am quite enjoying watching sport etc realise that now that 'women' in their lexicon has become a mixed sex group they're now having to very reluctantly differentiate between female and women because they're not the same thing. And sometimes sex matters.

[quote GrinitchSpinach]Here is a thread from February when the brilliant anti-FGM campaigner Hibo Wardere was facing Twitter pile ons from transactivists: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4170253-Anti-FGM-campaigner-Hibo-Wardere-comes-under-attack[/quote]
I just read some of the replies to her tweets.
Its bizarre to see people triggered, not by FGM, but by the word FEMALE!

Ridiculous that women can cause offence by simply talking about our biology.

Its 2021 and there are still women who are unable to name the parts of their own body, or know how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
We are rapidly regressing to Victorian times, when women died of treatable medical conditions because it was taboo to talk about them to anyone, even a doctor. Women who rebelled could be labelled as mad, bad or dangerous, and locked up. Or sterilised.