Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

Can we all see that woman is enough to describe a female? We do not need cis/natal prefixes.

Can we see that the cult of trans is determined to eradicate women? The Labour Party have rightly said only women can attend Labour Women’s Conference. Trans allies and supporters are planning to stage a protest outside that men have been excluded - rightly excluded - and people such as Andrea Egan union leader supports men challenging women wanting their own conference. Why?

Women fought hard for rights based on our sex.

I think we are in very dark times for women.

If men were being impacted by the girls/women with severe mental health issues being advised to remove healthy body parts to present as male, take jobs/union positions etc I would hope they would be speaking up.

sought to be imposed on the population

You clearly don't understand how words get in the dictionary which isn't by some nebulous force from above imposed on anyone in fact words need to be in popular usage broadly to be accepted in dictionaries first which trans woman/man certainly qualifies as.

https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/how-new-words-get-added-to-cambridge-dictionary

And meaning arises as a descriptor of what a phenomena is or does which in the case of trans woman/man is accurate to any one with a working brain that's why the term is now ubiquitous if it wasn't it wouldn't have gained broad social usage.

I mean, it used to be social usage that a man could rape his wife and it was legal so…….

‘Social usage’ is rarely ‘king’. The only thing king-like about social usage is that it is transient and can be sought to be imposed on the population while the population with reject that king.

Mary is a sexist misogynist who believes being a woman means conforming to outdated offensive stereotypes. Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

All the justifications in the world can't change the fact that social usage is king when it comes to meaning:

woman
noun
uk
/ˈwʊm.ən/ us
/ˈwʊm.ən/
plural women uk
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/ us
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/
Add to word list
A1 [ C ]
an adult female human being:
She's a really nice woman.
A woman and two men were arrested the day after the explosion.
Women first got the vote in Britain in 1918.
She is Ireland's first woman (= female) president.

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been considered to have a different sex at birth:
Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
transgender woman Marie is a transgender woman (= she was considered to be male at birth).

Woman is the word for a female human who has been through puberty. You even agree it refers to the sex category.

Gender as those with transgender identities wish to use it, is an abstract concept that is only supported by philosophical theory. However, ‘woman’ etc has is a common use word that also had political and legal use before a group of people chose to attempt to coerce society that it meant something other than it had been used for.

This attempt at forced change has not been done randomly, because the very people who wish to impose a ‘gender’ meaning to the word demanded that they acquire all that word meant. Those who demanded the use of word woman, demanded that they were seen or treated as not being different from female people.

If the original meaning of the word woman was not the target of that demand, new language would have been created for that specific purpose with no reference at all to female language in any way.

“'Woman' is both a sex & sociological category”

Woman is a reference term that never included male people. It was never intended to include male people or to be expandable in definition to include male people. As a sociological category, it was and still does remain solely within the sex category reference.

There is no meaningful way to detach it so that a group of male people can acquire it for use for anything they wish to describe. The word is an integral, everyday usage word that describes a group of female humans.

In that way it is not in any way comparative to religious and political belief. Because as a term, it always had a scientifically proven meaning that was well established and well defined.

Any argument that is attempted that claims meanings change with language all the time is misrepresenting the specific scenario. Common use reference terms that relate to unchangeable objects in the world around us do not simply have terminology definition changes to include the opposite category, particularly, and specifically, those that also carry legal and safety implications. The outcome is to render the word meaningless.

The word woman gets rendered meaningless when it also includes male people. Woman then means any human who has gone through puberty.

There is an easy way to solve this. As sex and gender are different, as you have said, all single sex spaces are designated for males or females and it doesn’t matter what “gender” you are, you use the ones relevant to your sex. Sorted. Everyone is happy and we can stop this entire batshit argument.

Good explanation of how some it got embedded. Someone mentioned Mia Hughes but can’t be bothered to go back over each page to see if this from a few hours ago has been posted:

https://genspect.substack.com/p/the-fork-in-the-road-0e0

I dont understand why every one indulges those who come to take the piss.

An intervention after quite a long discussion prompted by the OP (not all of which I agreed with but is important to try and understand) has got lost in a "discussion" that is just a re-run of what is now 90% of posts on FWR.

I dont understand why anyone colludes with the derail.

If someone thinks something they want to say is brought up by the OP but in a different direction, why not just say I've set up a thread to talk about this other aspect.

It would be nice to think that somehow the power of words on FWR are deterring saboteurs, but I suspect FWR now has the reputation that they can come here and shit stir and everyone will respond.

Baffling

"Woman" meant female years before the Genderists came along with their neo-sexist ideas. I'm sure we can all recall that famously simple dictionary definition they all hate so much 😂

If Genderists had really wanted sex and gender to be seen as different things, they'd have picked a different name.

They didn't do that because they wanted sex and gender to be confused. They wanted to create a mental connection between female people ( or "women" as they were always unproblematically called) and trans "women". They wanted male people who claim to be "women" to be able to claim spaces, rights and language everyone knew referred to female people without ever having to make an honest case for it.

They only start to retcon it now - "oooo no sex and gender were never supposed to be treated the same, we never said that" - because enough people have seen through the scam and started to challenge it, and they belatedly realise in trying to grab it all by grabbing the name Woman, they also risk losing it all because of the name Woman.

Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails from this dogs breakfast. Can you make your point more coherent?

No one is suggesting gender is a sex category that's why its definition is different. You are confusing 'woman' with 'female' here. Female is a sex category. 'Woman' is both a sex & sociological category. And just like religious & beliefs political qualify as valid sociological categories so does gender.

The litmus test - we don't allow religions to tell other people who they are.

I see the facile comparison between those who opposed the great civil rights movements of anti-slavery, anti-racism and Feminism, and people who are simply saying no to people who want everyone to play along that they are the opposite sex, reared its daft head again.

Let's think about that.

For oppressed minorities, their battle was to have wider society recognise that they had the same human potential and the same human value, and so should have the same human freedom and the same basic human respect as everyone else.

TRAs, looking to make their cause an equally moral one when they demand trans "equality" and trans "rights", like to claim it's the same thing again.

And indeed, at first glance it seems the same. Just as people's skin colour shouldn't dictate who they are allowed to be, or a woman's sex dictate her intellect or what life choices she has, nor, they argue, should a person's body sex stop them being the man or woman they know themselves to be. Probably, most of them genuinely think it is the same thing, because they haven't thought about it deeply enough to realise why it's not.

But look properly and it's very different.

Because while a certain skin colour or body sex isn't required to exhibit the capabilities or capacities or potential that white people and male people were claiming belonged only to themselves, being a certain sex is required to be a woman or girl, or a man or a boy, because that is what those words mean. Those words, those concepts only exist because of the sexes they label, and sex is all that they label.

If you then take the sex part out of it, there is literally nothing left.

So to have a male woman or a female man, to make that "accept us, because we are just the same as you" case, you must first change what those words mean from sex to something else.

They have to change what it means to be a woman or a man before they can become one.

It's literally the opposite to the other movements. It's not saying "you are wrong about who I am, the difference in me you think matters doesn't", it's saying "you are wrong about who you are, and any difference in you you think matters doesn't count"

And yet, the people who were women (and men) before, by the old defintion, they still exist. Their reality doesn't change. It's just their own self knowledge is no longer acceptable because it contradicts what Genderists need us to be.

Yeah. Religious or political beliefs also make poor sex categorisation tools for human sex categories.

Luckily there is a very accurate way to categorise sex categories in humans and it is not psychological or behaviorial traits. Religious and political segregation outcomes are not really relevant or comparable to sex categorisation of humans. Particularly since religious and political belief can change whereas sex categories in humans cannot.

You could say exactly the same about any other beliefs as in religious or political ones that society has deemed worthy of rights.

And again.

Inclinations and behavioural traits are not valid sex category tools in anyway. There is a overlap that makes both of those not meaningful to use to define sex categories in humans.

You were the one so insistent in bringing in butch women as some
kind of gotcha.

Men are the sex class that continually tries to reduce women to sex objects and exploit them on that basis.

Members of that sex class performing overtly sexualised representations of femaleness is therefore arguably in poor taste, at the very least.

Claiming that their male sexualised representation of femaleness is actually real womanhood is a whole other level of obnoxious.

Good grief.

Since men can't become women, it's hugely insulting to women for such deluded individuals to take on the appearance of women while saying they are, have become, women.

You speak for all woman do you? I'm a natal female & I'm not insulted as many aren't. Why be insulted by facts? And those facts are certain traits, behaviours and aesthetics ARE more associated with women. 'Woman' like any other socially constructed category requires associations of which include both common reproductive & behavioural traits.

I don't see the majority of women, incl GC ones, have any issue with gender non conformiity.

Then you would be wilfully blind if you had spent any time on this forum given the routine mocking of feminine expression by natal males.

impersonating.

Don't look now but you are doing 'the thing' as in mocking natal males expression of their feminine inclinations you just said doesn't happen.

WELL DONE!

'enraged' by men with gender identities..... er, no. And certainly not about what they're wearing. Yes, it's frequently sexist, reductive and a visual representation of what turns out to be unpleasant and sexist attitudes towards women being enacted, but whatever.

It's the total lack of capacity to permit women single sex spaces or equality that is the issue. Not the costume.

thats exactly how it works. Explains most political party conferences, for one thing.