Thank you for giving examples of comments you find offensive, OP. That helps.
“Therefore women might want to have their private spaces such as toilets limited to well..women. You know. People with vaginas.” It’s intolerant,
I respect that you believe that the group 'women' include biological females and people who are biologically male and self identify as women. So I understand that you don't agree that the word 'woman' should mean 'people with vaginas' as this excludes.
My point of view isn't based on hate or suspicion or intolerance, it's based on several concerns.
- What do we call biological females if the word 'woman' no longer specifically means them? This is a massive and unilateral redefinition of language and identity.
- Biological women cannot identify out of their biology, and their disadvantage is biological , ie sex based not gender based. Please see the awful case of the transman raped in a London taxi who sobbed to the police 'but I kept telling him I was a man'. A ten year old girl being forcibly taken to Africa for FMG cannot identify her way out of that fate. (I know, mentioning and campaigning against FMG is thought by some to be highly transphobic too.) It is different for biological women and ignoring that helps no one.
- What impact is this going to have if the biological aspects of being an adult female like periods, pregnancy, abortion, rape, are no longer allowed to be called women's issues or campaigned for as women's rights, or as is already happening not allowed to be talked about in women's groups as 'triggering' for the women present who were born with male biology? Throughout history women have fought for the right to talk about these things, meet about these things as a group, and to create resources for them. If the GRB goes through, women will not be allowed to meet outside of the presence and supervision of men . The real impact of accomodating inclusiveness needs to be looked at seriously here, and weighed up. Are there no other, better ways and middle ground?
“Have seen people say they don’t believe a man with a penis is a woman just because he says so.”
Again, I respect that to you, self definition means someone is what they say they are. I respectfully disagree. Gender identity is a spectrum and something everyone should be free to express in their own way without limitation or discrimination. Biological sex is a fixed, factual reality and I believe in science coming before validation of feelings. Not to be mean or difficult, but because the ramifications are serious and immense. Transracial is already under discussion (people who identify as black who are white), transdisabled (people wanting limbs removed or to enact disability because they feel disabled in an able body) -- all cases where it is argued that people are appropriating the experience, language and culture of something they cannot possibly truly understand. Are you aware of Stephonknee Walscht, who is biologically an adult male in his 50s who identifies as a six year old girl and has given interviews stating enjoyment being sodomised by the man who within her identity is her father? Where are the limits of self identification, and where does self expression become self indulgence, particularly where it crosses over into sexual expression as it does for many autogynephilic men? In my mind the right of anyone to wave their fist around ends at someone else's nose.
“Have seen people disagreeing with the transing of children.” In most cases I would be inclined to agree with you but for example have you seen the transchild Jazz, can you deny that she sees herself and will continue to see herself as a female?
I agree she sees herself as female and is fully entitled to see herself in any way she chooses. That may or may not change as she gets older. But what has been done to Jazz Jennings is effectively a chemical castration. The poor child will never experience any sex drive of any kind, she is effectively a modern eunuch. I think there is serious conversation to be had here around child safeguarding.
“Create a bloody transwoman category if you must but leave us be.” another example of intolerance “we don’t want your kind here” in other words.
An alternative view is people are frustrated and angered by the appropriation of their spaces, language, refiguring and denigrating womanhood to be performing femininity in ways most biological women don't, and constantly seeing online material about demands to be centred in all womens issues alongside very frequent statements such as 'punch a terf', 'rape a terf' 'cis scum' and many other lovely inclusive language.
Inclusion is surely a two way street with responsibilities on both sides. Otherwise it can feel like an expectation that often falls on women, that whoever has a vagina will meet all the needs of the others and take responsibility for them. That's an experience of oppression (which means the demand of labour in some form) that most women have experienced.