Do pronouns feel alien to anyone else?

Her identity, sense of self.

Why does that have to be the word for a female person rather than a male one? How are male people making that connection?

It's funny, how many times have I seen the question asked "what is trans identity based on if it isn't sex or sex role stereotypes", and the amount of times I've seen it answered in any meaningful way? Zero.

Absolutely this. I had been going to say it, but @CoastalWave has said it for me.

If anyone asked me to go along with this pronoun nonsense, I would point blank refuse.

Otherwise you'd have to confront the fact you're just attacking people for breaking away from the rigid gender norms imposed on them based on their "sex".
It's amazing how far fetched you will get in your arguments, to claim that feminists want to attack people for breaking away from gender norms. You are desperate and have no argument, those arguing from your position never do. You haven't answered any of my points on how your ideology is based on equating 'woman' and 'man' with sexist stereotypes, and forcing others to use this framework. I don't identify as a 'cis woman', because I don't identify with sexist stereotypes that have been forced on women by patriarchy. Gender identity ideology claims all women, unless stating otherwise by announcing pronouns etc, by default are happy with sexist stereotypes. I do not accept this, nor do I wish to claim a 'non-binary' identity, because I don't think there is anything special about me, I think most women are not happy with sexist stereotypes and modes of behaviour that are forced on them. Therefore I am just a woman, not 'cis', not 'non-binary'.

Exactly! They have a journey of their own and unique challenges. Why deny that?

I was at a lunch a few weeks ago and a TW was there (with wife). They seemed a perfectly polite person - a little nervy, but hey ho - and I had some friendly chats and a laugh with them. I obviously called them by their chosen name (not that I know their birth name). I felt a certain sympathy and obligation towards them because I felt they must worry about the reactions they might get from people. However, it was very clear to everyone that they were male. That's almost inevitable.

Her identity, sense of self.

Non-trans and trans women can both like whatever they want and be women, regardless of how feminine or masculine that may be.

None of that dictates either's identity.

If "feminine pronouns" are a stereotype, then referring to a trans woman with "he" pronouns is imposing stereotypes.

When you say a trans woman is a woman what do you mean exactly?

Do you mean she is female?

Or that you don't have to be female to be a woman?

A trans woman being a woman has nothing to do with what she "likes".

What does it have to do with then?

@IstayedForTheFeminism
> “doesn't make you the opposite sex”
Misinterpreting everything as usual.

> “It makes you a man who likes x or a woman who likes y.”
A trans woman being a woman has nothing to do with what she "likes".

> “He's breaking away from gender norms whilst still being a boy.”
Okay. And some other peoples gender non-conformity extends to pronouns and labels. What's your issue with that?

I've never been asked in a formal situation and don't know what I would do if I was.

I've had thoughts about it. But I'm a person who can't bring myself to be incongruent, it's difficult for me to be so.

I cannot imagine a circumstance that would get me to say 'she/her' in response. I think I'll go for Socratic method and just keep asking 'what do you mean?'

what are your pronouns?

what do you mean?

how shall I refer to you?

by my name.

I mean are you male or female

Female

So you're she/her?

What do you mean?

-Until they leave me alone.

Pile of ridiculous, self indulgent nonsense and I won’t be joining in.

You are the only one who talks about stereotypes, despite me telling you repeatedly that it's got nothing to do with that.
You gave a definition that was entirely based on stereotypes!

Just popping in to point out, again, that just because the words we use to describe phenomena in the world are a social construct (in that the word 'cat', 'neko', 'chat', 'Katze') this does not mean that the thing itself (cats) are a social construct. Cats themselves are a biological species that do not depend on human thought and discourse for their existence, whereas the word 'cat' is a linguistic convention that does require human thought for its existence.

But it's a basic error to mistake the label, the word, for the thing itself and to infer that because the label is a social construct the thing is also a social construct. The words 'sex', 'male' and 'female' are social constructs, but this does not mean the underlying reality (biological sex, which is an evolved property to facilitate reproduction ) is also a social construct. We could label the reproductive sexes anything we like, but this doesn't change the fact that in reality there are still two reproductive sex roles which we call male and female.

Precisely.

You are the only one who talks about stereotypes, despite me telling you repeatedly that it's got nothing to do with that.

You didn't answer my question earlier. What is it about then, if it's not about sex and it's not about sex-based stereotypes?

Quite. I'm a woman who doesn't have kids or do much housework, yet I'd still feel a bond with another woman that I wouldn't feel with a transwoman on account of our shared sex. In fact, I could be in the company of a woman who has a completely different identity to me in terms of lifestyle, beliefs, politics, job, family, responsibilities, interests, personality, taste etc and I would still have that common bond with her, because we are both women and have had to navigate the world from childhood, through puberty, through adulthood as female. Everyone was on board with supporting transwomen when it was accepted that they are transwomen and have their own issues that are different to those of women. It's male entitlement that is underlying this mission to dismantle what a woman actually is, our commonality, in order to suit them and their egos. In turn, this destroys what women have fought for and laws that protect us.

Otherwise you'd have to confront the fact you're just attacking people for breaking away from the rigid gender norms imposed on them based on their "sex".

Nobody is attacking anyone.
What we are saying. (Well me anyway. Not going to speak for everyone) is that breaking away from those 'gender norms' doesn't make you the opposite sex. Or I opposite gender. It makes you a man who likes x or a woman who likes y.

My own ds2 is pretty 'gnc'. He's still a boy because as he so subtly words it "I have a dick and male chromosomes". He's breaking away from gender norms whilst still being a boy.

Can you desist from saying "transwomen" instead of "trans women", and from policing whether trans women are referred to as women?

You are the only one who talks about stereotypes, despite me telling you repeatedly that it's got nothing to do with that.

But I get it, it's a convenient line, so you're not willing to ever give it up.

Otherwise you'd have to confront the fact you're just attacking people for breaking away from the rigid gender norms imposed on them based on their "sex".

Ooh, have we had an answer yet about what it means to have a 'woman' identity? How do I know if I have a woman identity, a man identity or neither?

Just popping in to point out, again, that just because the words we use to describe phenomena in the world are a social construct (in that the word 'cat', 'neko', 'chat', 'Katze') this does not mean that the thing itself (cats) are a social construct. Cats themselves are a biological species that do not depend on human thought and discourse for their existence, whereas the word 'cat' is a linguistic convention that does require human thought for its existence.

But it's a basic error to mistake the label, the word, for the thing itself and to infer that because the label is a social construct the thing is also a social construct. The words 'sex', 'male' and 'female' are social constructs, but this does not mean the underlying reality (biological sex, which is an evolved property to facilitate reproduction ) is also a social construct. We could label the reproductive sexes anything we like, but this doesn't change the fact that in reality there are still two reproductive sex roles which we call male and female.

It's also a very strange argument. If you go down the path that sex/gender is a social construct, and so we can identify as anything we like (which appears to suggest that social constructs aren't real, and are entirely down to our whims) then why does this argument ONLY apply to gender? I don't particularly give a shit about my 'gender' but I would very much like to shave a few years off my age. Why can't I self identify as 21 years old? Why can't I self identify as ANYTHING else? If sex/gender is a social construct then so is every other social concept...age, race, ethnicity, class, etc. And I don't see gender enthusiasts advocating for us to identify as anything we like, so why is that?

I'd also be interested to know which aspects of the "social category" of women TW are keen on participating in - childcare? Housework? Or just being addressed with a woman's name and wearing the clothes? How is this a social category, other than in the mind of the individual? Am I supposed to consider myself to be in the same category?

I've never heard such sophistry as this "social categories of man and woman" balls.

If social conventions have evolved to meet the needs of/address the perceived problems posed by a certain sex, we can say with certainty that those conventions may not suit each member of that sex, and that members of that sex might prefer to opt out of some or all of them.

E.g. women's clothes in different societies will generally be designed (in varying proportions depending on the culture and the stage of life) for some mix of practicality for women's activities (less relevant in our technologically advanced age but still seen in maternity and nursing clothes), perceived need for modesty/protection from men, and also enhancing sexual attraction (e.g. corsets creating hourglass figure to help attract a husband). Some women might not like some features of women's clothes in their culture - fine.

It is nonsense to say that those conventions constitute a "social category" which the opposite sex can opt into. For one thing, a social category depends on being recognised by other people.

Some want the "social category" because it relates to the opposite sex, not because it just so happens by coincidence to meet all the requirements of their unworldly inner souls.

Not all trans women wear dresses. Trans women's identity is not in any way contingent on wearing dresses, or on any stereotypes.

It's all a matter of identity, nothing else.
Exactly. And identity is not relevant. I don't have anything in common with a tw that I don't also have in common with a man. You are basically saying that gender identity is entirely in someone's head - so what relevance does that have to anyone else?

On this thread you have called us bigots and assholes and cis (which afaik is against mn guidelines) while everyone has been civil to you. You can't bully women into accepting tw as women. It's just not going to happen. That doesn't mean we lack respect or want to destroy anyone. It just means that we recognise sex as being more relevant to our lives.

Also, @SeldomHere I see you use the term 'cis women.'

If you're going to be lecturing me on my use of pronouns, can you desist from using a term for me that I find downright bloody annoying. I reject the term 'cis'. I am a woman. That's it.

@SeldomHere
This argument doesn’t stand up because you’re not comparing like with like.