Gay men quite often share some characteristics and superficial adaptations most commonly associated with women. That does not make gay men women though. It simply means quite a number might have good taste and be interested in home interiors or fashion and design and so on; or that they may be very 'camp' - expressing mannerisms that are deemed 'girly'.

I suggest that anyone categorising a human into a sex class using "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" is going to be making a fuckton of category errors.

There is a reason it is not used to categorise humans by sex class. It is meaningless as a categorisation tool because one set of "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" simply will not include the majority within one sex class while excluding people from the other sex class.

To continue to refer to this as a meaningful way to categorise humans is clearly someone trying to find the 'in' that will allow them to be included in one sex class when they are the opposite sex class. It is just another form of wheedling.

But because of female socialisation, women can't always say what they think and the fact that you don't understand this is part of the problem - if you have been raised male you don't have the same attitude to sticking your neck out in a group. You assume that women will say no if they think that. But they won't.

Commonalities exist because we are all human...regardless of our Sex.

Something either exists or it doesn't. 'Legitimate' has got nothing to do with it.
If a trans identified male person was really a female person then they wouldn't be 'trans' would they? The whole concept of 'trans' is suggestive of a movement between one state to another.......but that is only possible at the level of imagination and psychology...and not at a physical/biological level. A male cannot become a female.

if your definition of 'legitimacy' is one in which people believe exactly what you say or tell them, regardless of what the the measurable evidence and facts say to the contrary, then no, there can be no legitimacy unless there is a universal acceptance of your premise. There isn't.

I'm not sure what it is that you think " legitimises" the existence of trans identified people?

You seem to believe that being male or female is rooted in behaviour or psychological profile. It isn't. Sex is rooted in the body, in the biological function: the chromosomal formation and the subsequent unfolding of that blue-print.

Nobody disputes that there are people who exist that believe they are the opposite sex.....but they are wrong. You cannot be the opposite sex to that which you are no matter how many hormones you ingest. In fact, taking cross sex hormones in large amounts is not conducive to the good health of a body not naturally designed to be receptive to them.

Indeed.

The thing is that the "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" exercise is just a Venn diagram exercise. It is irrelevant.

Because the only commonality that truly defines whether someone is female or not is their body formation. And even if their body is not producing the gametes that it was designed to produce, that too is a shared experience with other female people that is uniquely female.

Discussing "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" is only ever a philosophical discussion that is designed to leverage some male people into the female sex category and vice versa. It also relies on philosophical theories, such as postmodernism.

Opening the discussion is then supposed to allow some people to be convinced that the impossible can indeed be possible and plausible. There is also the emotional wheedling as well as the aggressive trying to force the message to be accepted. All because some male people demand to be treated as if they are female people.

And some of them will use whatever means possible. Wheedling. Aggression. Trying to rationalise through twisted logic and contortions. Or all three at once, or in cycles.

Actually, I think this would be excellent to know what aspects of someone's personality has led them to be categorised as a 'woman'.

I remember that male poster who assured us all it was his empathetic nurturing nature and that he really loved dresses and make up. But within a few pages, all that empathy and nurturing had disappeared because he didn't like being told that didn't make him the woman he demanded to be treated as.

Then we had had the ones who say it is undefinable but they feel that they are woman and have done since they were children. And because they had felt they were girls, then obviously they reacted to the world as girls and therefore had always lived as if they were a girl or a woman. While never actually navigating and interacting with the world with the body of a female person. So, they could have been feeling just like a boy/man and wouldn't have known it.

You know, one of the reasons why whenever I try to find reasons I might be wrong on this whole "sex matters too!" thing I conclude I'm not is because if we were to make Womanhood contingent on Howie's "commonalities of behaviour", I like many other women would no longer be a woman.

And yet all the sex based commonalities, the risks, challenges, frustrations and experiences I have shared with other women (in the original sex based meaning), and the clear lines I see between those experiences today and the social history of women both here and all over the world, would still have happened. That reality would not have gone away simply because the word "woman" was tugged off me.

And this is what leads me to conclude again and again that wherever men like Howie eventually end up in their demands to be seen as meaningfully different to other men, it cannot be used to replace the reality and significance of sex to women.

So you’re super feminine @Howseitgoin , and you’ve previously mentioned you’re also chock full of logic and rationale

on balance, taking all your personality traits into account, you consider yourself to be a woman

given that you consider the ‘personality test’ method of diving sex to be a known fact, could you outline the psychological, behavioural & cultural aspects of your personality that have led you to believe you’re a woman?

Just to be clear Howsa , that bit about 'anti trans hysteria' was you very first post on this board. Would you like me to refer to the eye opening many posts that followed that one that were absolutely clear in the hostility you hold for women and for posters on this board?

As I said, it is almost like you have forgotten, expect that we have forgotten or are just a completely different person now.

Women who sexually assault women are female because they have the body type that is female. They belong to the female sex class due to their body formation -meaning they are woman because they are mature female people.

That they have psychological, behavioural and cultural commonalities with other female people is irrelevant as to whether they are 'women.'

What psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities do women share again?

And what psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities do women have with male people with the philosophical belief that they are not the sex they materially are that women don't also have with male people?

Yeah, whatever OP. I don't care what you think. Nor does the law.

Red nails it as usual

If your argument is essentially that women and girls don't need safety, privacy and dignity from men you are either a creep, a perv or enabling one. Whichever it is, you hate women either openly or subconsciously because you have utter contempt for their needs.

Or in other words fuck off out of my daughter's changing room. It's a risk to her safety, dignity and privacy to have naked men in there. She also just doesn't want to share with men. Women say 'no'. The law agrees. The end.

Nope.

I'm entirely pragmatic.

For as long as being female bodied brings social and physical consequences, we need social and legal recognition for female people in our own right. We need to be clear about who we are, what happens to us and why it happens, the times it disadvantages us versus male people and the rights, protections and opportunities we need to mitigate that.

But if the risks and sexual encroachment and disadvantages and mistreatment and unfairness stopped, I'd be more than happy to give up the single sex supports.

Mate, if we no longer need them someday I'll be dancing in the fucking streets.

But here and now, being female does have these consequences so we do need them. Not because of average sexless commonalities of mind, but because of commonalities of sex.

Now if you also want similar social and legal recognition for the "people of average womanny commonalities" please go ahead and fight for it. Fill your boots. I won't stop you. I might even fight with you! As a Feminist I can see the benefits of separating "average womannyness of mind" from the actual lives and experiences of women.

But this is something that must exist beside womanhood, something separate from it not an appropriation of it. Women exist as embodied female people with all that brings. And until you can take that fact out of reality you cannot morally take it out of language and law.

I get that the fact that you are not a woman and have no experience of what I'm talking about is why you dismiss its relevance, but as someone who is and does, I am telling you you are wrong.

Cough.

Guess what.

This conversation has only gone one way.

It is impossible to have this conversation and for it to go in any other direction.

Impossible.

All they have is MRA and TRA arguments along the lines of 'well some women abuse too'.

Except actually they don't. There is a miniscule number of cases (that usually involve men) that are exceptions. That's the point.

Ah. Yes. The feminine energy! I forgot that.

Howse is being super feminine today.

Bla bla bla

The common what ever has zero to do with single sex spaces.

If you cant justify why Karen White should/should not be let into women single sex spaces and Karen Whites stabbing victim should /should not be let into womens single sex spaces you have nothing except TRA/MRA to offer.

FFS?

I don’t think I am the poster who lacks rational pushback on this thread. Perhaps you missed my post to the OP answering their question.

I also don’t think you can make accusations about hostility without showing the depth of your hypocrisy. What was it that women wanting single sex spaces were accused of by you - ‘anti-trans hysteria’ ?

It is almost like you have forgotten. Or are you just a completely different person now?

Ah yes.

The old 'but women do too' line except it's so vanishingly rare and even when it does happen tends to be with men. Hence why we are currently getting threads suggesting that women who walk around the women's changing rooms naked are the same as male flashers because they 'make some women feel uncomfortable' and we get women who look at these 'parading' women cast as voyeurists.

Except mate, none of the data really backs up the claim that women being sexual abusers is widespread...

So that 'argument' can piss off. It's nonsense

Typical the poster who doesn't know the difference between men and women doesn't know the difference between biglies and capitals.

Share please🙃

I think so.

It's not working.

No because women can sexually assault women & still have psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities that associate them to the category of women.