to think that Ian Huntley is most definitely not a woman?

[ATeardropExplodes]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/15/call-lian-child-killer-ian-huntley-has-told-inmates-call-feminine/

If anyone has any evidence to convince me otherwise please do enlighten me, thanks in advance.

I suspect the definition is "Anyone who wants to be called 'she' ", Maryz.

Let's all move to - Finland, is it? - where pronouns are neutral anyway, and then ask for a definition of large-gamete people versus small-wiggly-gamete people.

JAPAB = 'Just A Pest And Bother', Maryz? (Other ruder terms available, but it's Christmas and I'm feeling charitable.)

Japab how are babies conceived? What is required? Who provides what is required and how and where from?

Lovesagin, that's easy.

Someone who feels like a woman and has a ladypenis has sex with someone who feels like a man but has postponed taking any hormones until after the baby is born.

Thus we can redefine woman, man, mother and father, and completely screw up the poor unfortunate hospital's information leaflets which will all have to be rewritten. Along with the biology books.

Obviously.

Ach! You beat me to it, Maryz

Datun That's because I read. A lot.

"And extrapolate a lot, it seems smile"

Not really, no. And we've been here before.

I listen to what transactivists say. And yes, it's nearly all of them. Because they plaster their words everywhere. If I can't read it, it's not activism.

If activism is done in secret, you can bet your life that the conclusions drawn will be published.

When men tell you what they are - listen.

@JAPAB.....you said - Except that the qualifiers "haired" or "non-hairless" were needed. Those were the "cis"/"non trans" of this example. So not sure why you think this proves the point that such is not needed

Let's make it less abstract - The qualifiers you were providing related to biology/ genes and not psychological factors such as 'cis'. In the case of a plague that affected either women or transwomen, the key thing would be the biological differences not factors relating to how someone identifies.

So let's use the example of cervical cancer and the prevention of. Saying cervical screening is available for cis women is not accurate. Women, regardless of how they identify can get cervical cancer. Men, regardless of how they identify, or what cosmetic procedures they have undergone, can not because they do not have a cervix.

Providing the qualifier 'cis' would not be accurate as no matter how they identify, typically developing women can get cervical cancer. Therefore, if you were going to provide qualifiers you would need to say women - no matter how they identify - can get cervical cancer. Trans women can't.

What do you think the average person would think if they saw information leaflets/posters inviting 'women who have vaginas and cervixes' for screening? Or, 'all women but not transwomen'?

For me, the terms women and trans women are all that is needed. I know that for some people, considering trans women as a sub set of women, is not acceptable. I think you are doing transpeople a huge disservice by pushing an agenda that completely unnecessarily alienates a significant number of people.

Under JAPAB'S scenario, you'd also have to specifically call all transmen for cervical screening as well.

So instead of "calling all women" you need to say "calling all women, but not those who were born with penises, and also calling all men with vaginas for cervical screening".

It's all a bit unnecessary when there is a word, there, waiting, that everyone understands [baffled]

MsBeaujangles Saying cervical screening is available for cis women is not accurate.

Yes, they are needed by trans men as well. Even if you can find one context where it is unnecessary or inaccurate to make this qualification, that does not mean that there are not others in which it is valid and necessary.

Datun, from what I remember it was not clear what was actually meant by a transactivist. Sometimes they are any trans person who does anything assertive at all, sometimes they are the specific ones who want certain rights (to enter female spaces). But from what I remember it turned out that it was only the latter ones who are the fetishist AGPs, not trans activists per se. Or at least this is what you assert about them all in the latter subset. Also not sure how much reading would enable someone to know that no transexual wants trans people to have anymore rights than what they currently have.

Lovesagin how are babies conceived? What is required? Who provides what is required and how and where from?

A person with a penis (who could be man, woman, black, white, bisexual, heterosexual, etc. etc.) meets a person with a vagina (ditto) and they get it on.

O God, he's back [groan]

Where is my definition? Should I presume you don't have one?

What is a woman?

To clarify once more: a definition of "woman" that includes all women who were born female, AND transwomen, but excludes men. And doesn't use the word woman.

A person with a penis

A person with a penis is a man. No women have penises. None.

To quote the fantastic Magdalen Burns.

A person with a penis (who could be man, woman, black, white, bisexual, heterosexual, etc. etc.) meets a person with a vagina (ditto) and they get it on

Erm, well that rubbish as it won’t work with a neo vagina or neo penis.

It does not cause you any hardship to use 'she' when talking to or about a trans woman.

How ignorant and arrogant. Yes it does. It's compelled speech, and its gaslighting. I don't believe it and I am forced to lie against my own interests.

It quite possibly causes me as much psychological distress as "misgendering" does to many trans people.

Right, JAPAB's latest post has confirmed my opinion; he doesn't want a reasoned argument, he is just saying any old irrational thing to get a response.

Correct. There is absolutely no point painstakingly laying out logic and reasoned arguments to the likes of him.

Sometimes they are any trans person who does anything assertive at all, sometimes they are the specific ones who want certain rights (to enter female spaces). But from what I remember it turned out that it was only the latter ones who are the fetishist AGPs, not trans activists per se.

Correct. I'm impressed with my own clarity if even you can get it.

Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish black men from white men, homosexual women from heterosexual women, trans men from non-trans men (or cis men). Saying 'I am not a [qualifier] man/woman I am a man/woman' creates a non-existent dichotomy.

This is a misogynist enjoying forcing a label on women against our will. He's getting pleasure out of goading and gloating about our lack of power. Don't feed him.

JAPAB......the term woman fits all adult natal females regardless of their gender identity. When women identify as men they are trans men. They are also women, but chose the term trans men to denote their ‘non confirming’ gender identity. I think it is polite to refer to their gender identity rather than their natal sex, but their natal sex cannot be changed and it is important for their health and well being to be fully cognisant of their natal sex and the lifelong implications this holds.

The fact that people are expected to express their gender in line with social expectations is absolute nonsense, as is the idea that any natal female does not grow up in to an adult natal female (aka woman).

Clearly you hold the in mind a different definition of woman to the majority of society so I can see why you need to provide your definition before any meaningful discussion with you can continue.

What term do you use to describe all adult natal females?

When men tell you what they are - listen.

YY.

Who cares he is still a despicable individual . I wouldn't give him the air space or media time

I am not convinced that JAPAB is necessarily being goady.

I think psychological defence mechanisms are probably acting outside of their awareness- manipulating, denying, and distorting reality in order to defend against the feelings of anxiety that would arise if they changed his world view.

I am not convinced that they will change their view as a result of participating on this thread but the fact that they are sticking around leads me to think that they may be experiencing internal struggles maintaining their world view.

I have seen JAPAB do the same hackneyed routine on hundreds of feminist threads. He's a wind up merchant.

I'm not sure which is more worrying.

Scenario 1: he is just posting to goad, and knows he's talking rubbish

Scenario 2: he really believes what he is saying.

Either way, I'm presuming he doesn't actually have a definition of "woman" that includes both women and transwomen, but excludes men.

Of course that might be because there isn't one.

It's quite possible he believes what he's saying. But it doesn't mean he's not on the wind up.

japab knows this won't affect him. He is just indulging in little intellectual masturbation. At the expense of women.