I am embracing virtue signalling pronouns in emails

So we've moved from
"transwomen and women" to
"trans women and women" to
"trans women and cis women" to
"women and cis women" . . . .

Because no-one "wummons" better than a man . . . 😶

Yeah, they make it very clear that they despise women don't they?

There is a male person, who has been accused of sexual assault, who has posted a picture of male person's self, wearing a t-shirt saying "I support women and cis women".

I have seen a twitter bio that states "supporting all women and cis women"

I DON'T THINK SO, BUSTER!

Did I miss a flounce? Or was it a silent slipping away?

Agree - the number of people who aren't sure if a transwoman is a man, or a woman who is trans.

There was a comment (on Twitter, I think) yesterday where TiMs exhibiting male-offending patterns was being discussed. Someone insisted that statistics of violent sexual assault, including rape) were considerably lower for 'transmen" than they were for men - not realising that "transmen" are women.

It is a deliberate obfuscation of language - terms shift and alter all of the time in the trans lexicon.

Look what Paul started! I hope this will make everyone think long and hard before going anywhere near 'pronouns'.

Mine is the Safe For Work version!

Now it goes

Person 1: No boy plays with dolls.

Person 2: My nephew loves Barbies?

Person 1: No true boy plays with dolls. Take her to the doctor to get on the waiting list for GnRH agonists.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes that's exactly what it is, except in the version I know it's about what he wears under his kilt.

For FWR, your version is safer 😂

You are so right, and 'sex reassignment surgery' it is impossible to reassign someone's sex.

I think it's a giant "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which is the official term for backpedalling when people want to avoid admitting they were wrong to make a massive generalisation.

It goes like this
Person 1: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. They know how to respect food!

Person 2: But my cousin is Scottish and he always puts sugar on his porridge...

Person 1: ah, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Brilliant pulling down of a bollocks argument Conflictedunicorn, mind you as an argument it makes a refreshing change from swishy hair, and liking the colour pink.

aseriesofstillimages transwoman are biologically male they have to meet that criteria in order to be a transwoman. Women are not, by any measure or stretch of the imagination, biologically male therefore transwomen are not women, they are transwomen, male, men.

Hm. As we know, males commit the vast majority of homicides and violent crimes and virtually all sexual assaults and rapes.

So it's a 'stereotype' based on overwhelmingly strong evidence that males present far more of a risk to females than the converse.

I suppose one could sort of equate 'absence of being murderous rapists' with being naice.

As for 'greater empathy' - any evidence of this, at all? How does one even quantify that? It's fairly straightforward to count how many women are murderers v how many males - at least, it was, until they started using 'self ID' to record crimes, of course. Oops!

But then, it became apparent there were quite gender conforming males who defined themselves as trans or NB. Last I heard, the Scottish government thinks 'living as a woman' can be nothing more than having female pronouns and title on various documents. Oh yes, pronouns don't affect women....

Is it time now to point out that the only reason that this idea of living as a woman even got off the ground is that, in order to prove that they really, really wanted sex reassignment surgery to the doctors, was that the doctors insisted that men 'lived as a woman' for a specified time period. And that meant dressing as a woman and using female utilities, and changing names and utility bills. None of the doctors ever actually asked what living as a woman actually meant for women. And in order to prove some sort of back story, they started rewriting non conforming people in the history books as 'trans'.

It is all such utter nonsense.

It's also hugely frustrating isn't it? As it makes meaningful discussion about this impossible.

Easier just to say "look, there are some cis women being bigoted and nasty."

See also "educate yourself" followed by either a flounce or a "Google it, there's plenty of information online" when you ask for any peer reviewed sources / studies with which to educate yourself...

I don't understand the logic that jumps from "here's some character traits we've observed as common to many, though not all, people in one sex, and observed less, or less strongly in most, but not, people of the other sex" to "the people of the other sex that have these traits must be really the first sex inside, and therefore the actual body sex is a red herring and we can ignore it".

Surely it's more logical to conclude "oh, I guess that thing we observed is not exclusive to one sex"?

In fact you could even go on to think "but it seems like quite an important factor in a person's personality, maybe we should officially recognise those people as being the same type of person" and it still doesn't lead to the conclusion that sex is irrelevant. Finding a new way people can be the same does not mean that other ways they are different go away.

After all, it’s we the living who say collectively what “woman” means

But apparently only a subset of living people are allowed to make this 'collective' decision. I'd stake good money that the majority of people living now find 'adult human female' to be a completely satisfactory definition. It defines what is necessary and sufficient.

when they can't themselves articulate their own views on the most fundamental issues of this topic.

I know right. It's absolutely extraordinary.

From the TRA article:

Labeling others contrary to how they have labeled themselves is an ethically loaded act, but “woman” remains a useful shorthand for the entanglement of femininity and social status regardless of biology

What is "femininity" and if it refers to women and girls, why would it be divorced from our shared biology?

—not as an identity, but as the name for an imagined community that honors the female, enacts the feminine and exceeds the limitations of a sexist society.

How does "enacting the feminine" ie sex stereotypes "exceed the limitations" of a sexist society rather than exacerbate them? And how does this honour what it is to be female?

Why can’t womanhood jettison its biocentrism to expand its political horizons and include people like Marsha P. Johnson?

Because Marsha was a gay male drag queen? Not in any sense a woman.

After all, it’s we the living who say collectively what “woman” means,

I don't look to male people to tell me what women are.

hopefully in ways that center the voices and experiences of all those who live as women, across all our other differences.

The only way to live as a woman is to be born female and survive to adulthood. Stryker doesn't make the grade.

Nobody has ever answered when I've asked. And it's not even a 'gotcha', I just don't understand how people can be so sure that those they disagree with are being nasty, mean, bigoted etc when they can't themselves articulate their own views on the most fundamental issues of this topic.

I'll try again in case they answer...

Can you name some that aren't biological and aren't gender stereotypes that aren't accurate and are often damaging e.g. women should wear dresses, women should wear make up, men shouldn't cry, men should earn more etc?

Genuinely asking as I have done before on here and nobody has answered.

If being a woman can be defined as a gender identity, what are the signifiers of that identity please?

If that article is supposed to help the transactivist position it's pretty poor. The example of Marsha P Johnson - a person who as the article said was a gay man who time. She used she/her pronouns but thought of herself as a “queen,” not as a “woman,” or even a “transsexual.”. Those who retrospectively declare Johnson to be a woman are disrespectful idiots. What is a woman? Not Johnson, for sure.

in my view, it’s complicated. This article is pretty good at setting out the issues time.com/5795626/what-womanhood-means/?amp=true

it doesn't actually address any of the questions that the poster asked you though, does it?

What do you make of the obviously not empathetic traits in sexual offending males who identify as trans? In that they are 3 times as likely as males who do not identify as trans, who themselves make up 97% of sex offenders that are imprisoned?

You think that article is particularly good at setting out the issues? It's just empty verbiage from a TRA.