Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

Dadjoke has failed to provide a definition of woman which allows him to say categorically that thanswomen are in fact women, and why he will contnue to use the word woman of them.
It is certainly not a definition based in biology.
Conceived by an x sperm meeting an x ovum. Nope.
Gestated in such a way that all the male parts are resorbed. Nope, and they've got them to prove it.
Socialised as a girl child to give way to males. Nope, no girl charcteristcs, except possibly Mean Girl ones. And I'm not sure about the femaleness of those. The most effective boy bullies used those in my experience.
Gone through female puberty. Nope, though cosplay at it. Period starts in double Biology. I don't think so.
And so on.
THEY ARE NOT WOMEN. THEY WANT TO SWIM WITH THEM? TOUGH. GET REAL AND IN THE MIXED POOL. There are women there who consent to their presence.
If they were women they would understand why some women, real women, cannot consent, and would respect that while one woman does not consent, a place is not open to them.
Any arguing against that is rape argument, since Dadjoke brings Brighton into it.
They are not, in any shape or form, women.

This is a very good tweet in the same vein as Barracker's famous pronouns essay:

https://x.com/babybeginner/status/1733005509857534401?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Think language isn’t important?

Let’s talk about trans rabbits.

Imagine calling a tiger a trans rabbit. How much slower would you react to a trans rabbit than you’d react to a tiger? How would it dull your movement?

Now it might be a very nice trans rabbit. It might be fed. It’s possible it is tired. You might have nothing to fear.

If a trans rabbit came into a village what would you think of it? If the trans rabbit was playing in the field behind children what image does it put in your head? Are you thinking of a big cat with stripes or have you already forgotten just a smidge what we said a trans rabbit is?

Now imagine you have to fight with the people who support trans rabbit rights. They talk all day long about trans rabbits. And that’s the only language they use. This is dementing. It dements people. It stops you from visualizing what we are speaking about. We need language.

There are no trans rabbits. They are not a separate species. We cannot speak of trans animals. There are rabbits and tigers.

It is exhausting all day long to ask why are you afraid of a trans rabbit? Just because one trans rabbit acted poorly doesn’t mean all other trans rabbits are bad.

We speak of our safety and are told it is absurd to fear a trans rabbit.

Again. Do you even remember which animal we are talking about? How tired are you of flipping the word in your head? Do you think of a trans rabbit as a nicer, sweeter, more fluffy tiger? Is it the same thing? Have you tamed it just a bit in your head? Have you decided it is not a rabbit but not exactly a tiger either? If so, you have been tricked. Do you see how easy it is? In just a few paragraphs, you have created a new species. Have just a bit of your defenses been dulled?

I’ve only written a short essay here. For a few minutes you’ve thought about trans rabbits. Now try it for years. It messes with your brain.

And if newspapers spoke of rabbits and kept using rabbit references then how would you know what they were talking about if they said four rabbits were spotted in your village. Should you watch your vegetable garden or get a shotgun?

Language matters. Do not dement yourself. There is no such thing as a trans rabbit. If even for one second you thought of a trans rabbit as a separate species, you’ve seen how fast your brain gets tricked.

This is one tweet.

And obviously stands out as misogynistic.

There really are only so many times and ways to stand in the middle of a feminist forum and repeat that nice, decent women subordinate themselves to men before it becomes tedious.

Emotionalsupportviper · Today 12:47

That's because DadJoke hasn't got a definition for "woman", so it can mean anything. Or nothing. And often both in the same sentence.

Ah, got you. A Dumpty of the Humptiest variety.

If you want any debate at all on this subject on this forum, then it's best to accept that each group will use different meanings for the same word.

If we all have different meanings for the same word, then there can, by definition, be no debate.

That is why we are trying to get definitions from people like yourself for such words as "woman, "girl" and "lesbian".

Your definitions (if you have any) are so far from what those words mean that we seem to be discussing different topics. And if our definitions of "woman" are different, then there shouldn't be any room for debate, because OBVIOUSLY transwomen won't be acceptable in female spaces, because we are not talking about our definition of "woman" at all. We are talking about entirely different things.

If you are using the word "rabbit" where we would use the word "stoat", then obviously there is a conflict of interest - we don't want your transrabbit (stoat) in the same warren as our rabbits, which are entirely different creatures.

In fact, to avoid confusion you would be best to name them something that doesn't mention "rabbit" at all. "Stoats" perhaps.

Edited in the eternal battle with autocarrot

Gender critical people think trans woman are not women

<Ahem>

Gender critical people KNOW that transwomen are not women.

Otherwise they would be women. Not transwomen.

Like my biology teacher would doubtless have said "The answer's in the question"

That's because @DadJoke hasn't got a definition for "woman", so it can mean anything. Or nothing. And often both in the same sentence.

I'm disagreeing with you and other gender critical people on this forum. You don't appear to have an issue with the men who agree with you.

Gender critical people think trans woman are not women, trans rights supporters say they are. As the former, you will not use the word "women" to refer to trans women. As the latter I will.

If you want any debate at all on this subject on this forum, then it's best to accept that each group will use different meanings for the same word.

The only way to police this is to exclude people who think trans woman are woman., or have a moderation policy which prevents this (which is pretty much the same thing) It's an option, but then you'd have an echo chamber, Perhaps that's what you want? It's also entirely reasonable for mumsnet to confine this forum to women. But they have not.

@DadJoke I don't know why you are here or feel your point of view is warranted?

I am shocked that this is still the prevalent view among women.

It comes down to a basic belief that males are of higher value and precedence than females, and females have a birth right to sacrifice to provide penis portions.

It's your basic, ugly sexism. On a binary, sexed basis.

Which makes an absolute farce of pretending anyone has any belief that the men in question are women.

DadJoke · Today 11:14

That doesn’t stop them conflating “women” with gender critical women in most cases.

I'm sorry, but words seem to mean something different to you.

This is the crux of the matter, really. They have made their choice, and chosen to exclude many women in favour of including some men.

We will see how it goes. It's very unfair on the women who can no longer use the pond. And I bloody well hope the signage is very clear that it's a mixed sex space.

Yes. As ever, disruptive men suck all the energy and make themselves the focus.

Enough derailing.

What does it matter if 'they' do sometimes conflate women with GC women? It's possible, no, to understand that (as I said earlier) sometimes it's just a shorthand?

We've gone well off the core subject of the thread.

@DadJoke

The women who are happy with transwomen in women's spaces are women who don't mind mixed-sex spaces. They exist. Some women need the option of a single-sex space instead. Why don't you want them to have that option?

Or, put another way, everyone on the planet agrees that sex-segregation is sometimes a good idea. Transwomen agree - but they want to be the only people not subject to the rules. Why?

Waffle.

I was directly addressing you, a bloke, who comes on this board for fuck knows what reason, to lecture and sneer at women.

That doesn’t stop them conflating “women” with gender critical women in most cases.

Oh - righty-ho.

I'd better get the Duraglit out - my constellation isn't shimmering much at the moment.

It's a shimmering constellation or something I expect

Still haven't heard @DadJoke 's definition of "woman"

If I've missed it in the melee, I apologise

But you're conflating transwomen with women. When they are men.

I'm right here.

You are a man on a feminist board, n a site for mothers, arguing with women about what we should think and feel.

That was my point.

So “quite a lot of women” - not all women in general. That was my point.

No, but as a woman and a feminist, I will speak for women, just like not all women agreed with women's fight for suffrage.

You are not a woman so your male view about what women think is unimportant to me, and many other people.

Yip.

Women's privacy dignity and safety are reasonable aims.