"Trans women ARE biological women"

Actually meant to post on this thread, but there was the same identical obfuscatory nonsense on the other thread.

I wonder how many Righteous people genuinely live by the non-sex-specific-bollocks they espouse.

• Are they unsure which Gallus gallus cloaca they hope to get something edible out of?
• Do they feel puzzled which white fluid from Bos taurus to put in their tea?
• When planting a farm of papaya or hops or kiwifruit, do they shrug in confusion if no fruit appear?
• If at puberty they start bleeding from their genitals, do they seek medical attention, or conversely if at puberty they don't start bleeding from their genitals?

I am a woman and I am not petite or small. I am still female though. Being female is not something I am 'reduced' to. It is just a fact and there is nothing degrading or offensive about being female.
The idea that as a woman, my ideal body should be petite and small is what the social construct is.
A biological definition of woman includes all women, tall and short, masculine or feminine, any personality or opinion. It also doesn't require us to conform to any gender stereotype. We are simply female people.
The 'trans inclusive' definition of woman conversely requires a socially constructed and deeply sexist concept of womanhood. It demands that being a woman is to put on a display of femininity. It is regressive and sexist.
The concept of 'cis' is even worse. Not only does this shove women into a gender box based on stereotypes but it then insists that makes us privileged.

Well, there is the GRA for a start!

If male and female sexes don't exist, it's amazing how people-of-gender know that they need to "change" sex.

And there would be no way to define the sexed spaces that people-of-gender are so determined that they belong in.

The next time I watch the foxes of an evening, I must remember that vixens aren't really 20% smaller than dog foxes, but are just socially conditioned to present themselves that way.

Well quite. Reality doesn't change because someone fervently doesn't believe in it.

You are confusing gender stereotypes with biology.

Howoeople dress, are expected to look and act, it's harmful stereotyping and nothing to do with biology.

The surpreme court is wrong - laws dont make morality. How many laws throughout history have we looked back and thought what they hell were they thinking.

One wonders how much of reality you do actually “believe in”.

Specifically mentioned in the judgment which looks at this and still concludes that the only way for the act to be coherent and usable and to protect all rights is to go on the principle of binary sex.

Well no because I don’t believe in binary male and female anyway. My point actually is how much this plays into the patriarchy. You dont look like a woman - so you shouldnt be in here. We are socially conditioned as women to look and act a certain way - not butch, but petite and small.

It’s deliberately trying to cloud the narrative. Saying that these men are biological women and always were and merely assigned male at birth, is ridiculous obfuscation.

The so called experts who claim this, are so captured and In so deep with this harmful and corrupt ideology that they have to claim these bizarre lies otherwise the whole argument and rhetoric collapses, and they can’t be seen to have supported a lie.

I agree the big guns you mention are the first and most important ones.

But I'm not giving up on toilets, to roll over on this and say in effect 'boys will be boys' is to accept that there's a significant proportion of women who will have lost public access to facilities because men's bad behaviour worked so well for them and it was too much trouble to stand up for women. If you want to see actual oppression and marginalisation and minorities going unseen and without a voice, it would be those women.

Personally, I have given up on toilets. They are pretty much a lost cause as far as single sex integrity goes, for the simple reason that they are not policed.

Where is matters most is those situations where male "women" have been exposing themselves in female changing rooms, been on wards next to incapacitated women, strip-searching women, or present in rape crisis centres. And now something can be done about that at last.

So you are saying trans people will break the law anyway?

The point is it's not just about toilets, it's changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, security searches.

You seem to be suggesting that some people are selfish, dishonest and like transgressing social boundaries for their own gratification.

So how are you going to determine someones sex in going to the toilet exactly? Based on how they look?

I must admit I do find the embryological development difficult to keep in my head. But then it doesn’t really come up in my everyday clinical practice.
Knowing when I need to consider an ectopic pregnancy or prostate cancer in my differential diagnosis does though. Funny that. I wonder how I know?

I actually hate the messy/complicated argument @Faffertea yes, developmental pathways are complicated (but we do understand them quite well at this point, it's 2025) and things can and do go wrong but the basic principle of binary sex and its role and importance within evolution is really quite simple.
Right dp (BSc, MSc, PhD, one postdoc) and I (MSc, PhD, two postdocs) are off to the allotment, there's asparagus and rhubarb to be harvested.

I know! I did laugh when I saw that iggy was involved.

I do enjoy the posts telling women here that biology is more complicated than they think etc.
What with our backgrounds in medicine, genetics, biology etc.
Especially to @Igneococcus . How many degrees/postdocs do you have again? 😂

Ah... viques.... you are far too logical..

and the concept of male and female is reductive

Systematics is reductive it's the entire point of it. The definition of mammals for example allows you to sort tigers, naked molerats and sunbears into the class Mammalia but you wouldn't be able to picture any of them based on the definition of mammals alone. So for sex we reduce the definition to the most basic characteristic every man or every women shares with every other man or every other woman, the size of the gametes their bodies will make during the fertile period of their lives. Nothing else matters, not their hairstyle, not their clothes, not their brains, not their feelings. If you make small gametes you can wear whatever you want, wear make up or not, have long or short hair, play rugby or not, like a pint or not, you are male. I don't care if this is reductive, you can not have useful systematic categories otherwise.

I love the weird pretzel logic here.

A transwoman is not a man though

If a transwoman was a woman he would just be a woman, the fact that a transwoman needs to call themselves a transwoman is because he isn’t a woman, he started life as a boy, and grew into a man.

The transwomen I know have zero interest in seeing naked women …because they are straight ….and only like men

So they are men who like other men. You mean gay men.