Is it OK to be undecided about certain things?

babyjellyfish I think we agree

But the answer to that is that we need to fight sexism, not redefine the word woman to include people who have so successfully disguised their appearances - by choice - that they experience it.

I don't want women to be defined as "people who experience sexism" any more than I want us to be defined as "people who wear dresses".

Well... to be fair... if a transwoman "passes" as a woman then she really is going to experience some of the sexism from other people that a woman will experience. She wont have the same history, and for her it must have been at some point a decision and a choice whereas for the rest of us it's just the shit that happens regardless. But if she's committed to passing as a woman so there's no real way back (and by the time she's been thoroughly hormoned and de-penised there isn't much of a way back so I'd call that a commitment) then I'm up for making a certain amount of space. Though not enough space to cause problems for women (so no space in the women-only rape support group) and not enough space to positively encourage anyone to transition (because it's really so unhealthy).

But no, even committing to passing as a woman and facing the same sexism from then on is still not enough to justify calling a transwoman a woman. It's still a very different life experience.

*male people who DON'T like to think of themselves as male

Yes, the point is that if the word "women" doesn't mean "adult humans of the female biological sex" it doesn't really mean anything at all. It is a word for some unspecified people with nothing in common beyond the fact that they are all calling themselves women, even though they don't all agree on what a woman is.

We don't need a word for that group of people.

We do need a word for female people.

Male people and female people are the only labels that actually matter and they are sexes, not genders.

If people want to stick other labels on themselves, that's up to them. But if you're using the word "women" to mean "female people except the ones who don't like to think of themselves as female plus male people who like to think of themselves as male", you're denying female people a word for themselves, and that's not OK.

And you're creating a group which includes a large number of people who don't want to be in it, for the sole purpose of forcing them to share their spaces and sporting categories with you when they don't want to.

@aseriesofstillimages the starting point should be that an individual decides which label feels right to them
Well not always; its not ok to appropriate identity, the woman in this video explains why more clearly than I can;

The starting point is never that people chose their own labels

You can't be prime minister or queen or tree or a doctor. Sex is one of those factual agreed language labels

The starting point is that people achieve certain labels as a result of their actions which leads to others seeing them in a certain way

Until you actually run you are not a runner but a wannabe runner

the starting point should be that an individual decides which label feels right to them

And the end point?

That's the problem your fluffy niceties don't even begin to acknowledge, let alone address as real life issues.

I am not going to repeat the entire contents of the FWR board but, when transwomen started referring to themselves as women we women said "OK! That's nice." Then transwomen said that as women they could do anything, go anywhere women go. Some women said "Wait a moment, no!"

Then came the label wars:
Political parties referred to "trans women and non trans women" - note which came first on that list in contravention to every listing principle going!
We also had the unintentionally funny UNWomen
And not forgetting cis women - a label women, in droves let alone as individuals, say they will not accept it does not feel right - but you still say it is OK to force it upon us!

Now transwomen claim to be female, to have actual female genitalia, etc.

And women are raped, bullied, hounded out of work, hounded by police, threatened, doxxed, forced to spend hundreds of thousand of pounds to protect themselves against those people appropriating the term women.

So, even with that slimmed down version, can you see why words are so important and why so many women, and the majority of all people if asked a clear, unambiguous question, are saying NO!

But these labels are bullcrap. They are also subjective, changing throughout history culturally and socially. It's obnoxious to say that you are 'such and such' and regressive to boot.

It wasn't five minutes ago scientists were arguing against a gendered mind. I feel it's narrow minded of the TRA or ally to argue that gender identity is in anyway a solid thing.

We have female people, we have male people, we are all weird and wonderful individuals.

Can you try looking at it through that lens to see why I mind a man deciding he's a woman? He's just not. He will never understand what being a woman is like, hell always be faking it whatever he does, and whatever he does that he thinks makes him a woman, is not necessarily something I do, it's not something all women do, as women aren't just a bunch of stereotypes and a costume. We are a physical reality that a man cannot be.

the starting point should be that an individual decides which label feels right to them

But people have a sex, they are a man or a woman biologically. (The fact that there's a small group with developmental disorders doesn't change this.)

Likewise we have an age, an ethnicity, a height, genetic traits and other things that are simply bodily material reality. With these things, we understand that no matter how you feel, how much you wish you were or identify with another category, you're just not. Even if you do your best to fake it, you're still not. I don't have achondroplasia which would give me a short stature, and I am tall. It doesn't matter how much it would feel right to me to be 2 feet shorter - I'm just not. Even if I cut my legs off to achieve being 2 feet shorter, I would still never have achondroplasia, know how that feels or have experienced the unique challenges that go with it. And people who do have it would have every right to tell me that, wouldn't they? Not to mention to be fucking pissed off at me deluded bullshit.

And for all other physical realities like these, we understand that. Sex is no different. You could argue (if you were a massive racist) that you could be "socially" black by liking hip hop and rice and peas and wearing African prints, painting your face and "getting treated like a black person" and that that would be great because it feels nice so you have a right to do that. But guess what, you don't because it's fucking insulting and wrong. Not all black people do meet those stereotypes, and people's cultural expression and how they are treated is not what decides their ethnicity. Their physical self is.

The example was just to illustrate that man and woman are social categories as well as biological categories. It does not answer the question of what importance we should attach to those categories, or how it is decided (or who gets to decide) who goes in which. As you say, it doesn’t seem right that something that can be so central to a person’s identity should rely on other people’s perceptions of them. The categories are not concrete, objective or clear at the edges, like categories of sexuality. This is why I believe the starting point should be that an individual decides which label feels right to them.

Sorry but I don't agree with this.

I don't think there is a social category that includes both me and trans women, other than "people" I suppose.

The only situations in which we are supposed to distinguish between men and women are things like toilets, changing rooms, prisons, sports etc.

I don't agree that an individual should be able to decide "which label feels right to them" in those circumstances, because that makes the labels completely meaningless.

If a trans woman decides that the label "woman" feels right to them and is determined to use it, that removes my ability to label myself in any way that doesn't include them.

It's not a neutral act, nor a personal one. It has an impact on others. It's essentially manspreading.

Never mind the baggage, I think we should be doing all we can to remove the pans from sex, and any other random kitchen implements. Think of the hygiene!

I think we should be doing everything we can to remove baggage from sex.
I don't think you can fight for change when also adding people to the woman category because of the baggage.

As well as entrenching stereotypes (which harm everyone) it alienates those of us with female anatomy who very much don't relate to the baggage.

By saying that someone can be a woman 'socially' you are upholding the notion that people should be treated differently.

I believe you can fight for change while also accepting that, as things currently stand, some people need to (and do) change the social category they fall within. As I explained in an earlier post, I am fully committed to challenging assumptions made about people because of them being a man or a woman.

But the focus is on the wrong thing. Yes men and women are treated differently socially. Instead of just accepting that the push should be to change that - which would help everyone.

My example did not say anything about whether people should be treated differently because they are a man or a woman. It just illustrated that they clearly are - and in multiple and often subtle ways that can be beneficial to them as well as detrimental.

The example was just to illustrate that man and woman are social categories as well as biological categories. It does not answer the question of what importance we should attach to those categories, or how it is decided (or who gets to decide) who goes in which. As you say, it doesn’t seem right that something that can be so central to a person’s identity should rely on other people’s perceptions of them. The categories are not concrete, objective or clear at the edges, like categories of sexuality. This is why I believe the starting point should be that an individual decides which label feels right to them.

I agree, @jellyfrizz.

In situations where sex matters and there are good reasons for treating men and women differently due to their different physiology, e.g. sports, trans women should be treated like male people, not female people. The reason for the difference in treatment is due to sex, not gender, and "identifying as" the opposite sex negates the purpose of that difference in treatment.

In all other situations, who is treating men and women differently, and why?

I honestly cannot think of a single situation in life where it is necessary or desirable to treat people differently based on "gender", which is a social construct based on regressive stereotypes.

This is what I don't get. Why is treating someone 'as a woman' in social situations a thing to be upheld rather than discouraged? I don't want to be treated 'as a woman' in social situations. I don't want assumptions made about me because of my sex. It is not a good thing for either sex.

they might assume he is interested in sports, not interested in babies, finds it hard to express emotion, that he’s assertive or potentially aggressive. That he’s more likely to be a lorry driver or doctor than a ballet dancer or nanny. That he’s more likely to be attracted to women than men. Of course, it may be that these assumptions are all incorrect.
Exactly. So applying a blanket label like this is just reifying stereotypes - why do we need it? It seems actively harmful.

So why should this totally passing transman be treated differently to any woman? Just why ?

Why can't I look like myself , no hormones and surgery that might affect my life expectancy, and get treated the same as all men?

Why should having boobs mean o get different interaction?

Why? It shouldn't happen. It's wrong.

I believe the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ can have varying meanings - biological or social - depending on the context

Only if you decide people can make up their own new meanings for established words. I could decide 'giraffe' meant 'someone tall who likes eating leaves' and therefore my 6'3" salad-eating friend is a giraffe. Doesn't make it true. Anyway, what does it mean to be 'socially' a woman?

From Stonewall guidance it would appear I'm more likely trans than cis. But until there are solid definitions I'll remain flexible and would rather not be called either, because I'm not comfortable with not really knowing exactly what they mean (when I've asked I've had conflicting answers from different people, so it's clearly not as set in stone as I thought when I thought 'trans' essentially meant transsexual, a few years ago!)