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’ve not seen that.

I’m sure (I would like to think anyway) that ‘Lily’ wouldn’t want to be sharing with a female, they are just putting down how they see themselves.

The irony is that it is far less likely to happen the other way as a trans man might well feel uncomfortable sharing with a man.

So a trans man will put female or trans man on their form. Once again the men get it the way they want and the women have to dance around it.

The trouble is that if a "Lily" did want to share with a woman, she could. And if she doesn't want to, I'm sure she won't have to.

But I wonder what the position is of the other woman/girl showing up, being put in the dorm, realising who she is sharing with?

In the old days she could have gone to see her SU Women's Officer who would have been a woman but lots of them aren't now.

How can it be sexist when women can have penises too?

Just burst out laughing on the train catching up with this thread

SimonBridges ^It’s fact. There is no need to respond. It’s a fact. It’s like trying to have an opinion on me being shorter than someone or how far it is to Manchester. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is when your opinion is the opposite of facts.
Woman meaning adult human female is not up for debate.^

Once again, you conflate instiutional facts with objective facts under the umbrella of "facts".

Objective fact: there is a substance that consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms.

Institutional fact: the word water is used to mean this substance.

Objective fact: some humans produce sperm, some ova.

Institutional fact: the words men and women are used to mean these two types of human.

By all means disagree with attempts to move away from current meanings, but it is simply inaccurate to act as if the people who want the move are going against unarguable
objective facts. To portray this as "opinion vs objective reality".

How can it be sexist when women can have penises too?

Just a technical point. Since sex and gender are not the same thing, and since sex is linked to penis-ownership, I am not sure that women having penises would preclude a comment related to penises or their owners from being sexist.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeelll, you are still missing the point. Really... your logic is impeccable, but life isn't all about objectivity. Humanity is all about subjective interpretation of the world around us.

The elephant in the room is that we institutionalised women are happy with our label. We really truly don't want some man wandering in and telling us that now he has decided that he wants to wear our label. In fact he likes it so much he has decided that if we want to carry on wearing it we have to include a qualifying word, just so The Man can wear the label without feeling he is being side lined.

In fact, if any woman, sorry female, decides to tell The Man that he is being unfair, illogical and is team rollering all women, sorry, females, that woman, sorry, female gets a new label... TERF, a hate filled label that is all to do with how upset The Man is that women, sorry females, don't want to let him take away their core identity.

Do you see how that might make a lot of females extremely pissed off?

Just a technical point. Since sex and gender are not the same thing, and since sex is linked to penis-ownership, I am not sure that women having penises would preclude a comment related to penises or their owners from being sexist.

Many trans activists don't believe there is such a thing as biological sex. So no, by their logic it's not actually a technical point.

Just a technical point.

Have you got us a definition of 'woman' yet that includes transwomen, that doesn't use the word 'woman' yet?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3126883-Terrible-article-from-the-Independent?pg=2#prettyPhoto

On page 2 there is a picture of a tweet from a trans activist... revelling in the extinction of women, sorry, females.

JAPAB... that is what we are talking about. Refusal to condemn such behaviour, the current media rush to embrace them, give them a national platform, gives them a loud voice with which to make their point - and their point is, generally, a hate of real women, females who are not sorry and don't want to de redefined out of existence.

To you this all seems to be a matter of semantics. To us it is a matter of a very personal erasure, a new leap in patriarchy and misogyny.

You might want to consider the subjective, alongside your objective facts!

Of course you may be enjoying yourself far too much to do that!

Is see. So now we haven’t only redefined the meaning of woman but also the concept of facts.

JAPAB could argue for ever, as he basically just redifines facts and meaning to suit his argument

JAPAB, you really a patronising cunt aren’t you.

Report that as a personal attack if you want. I don’t care.

Everyone on this thread has reasoned with you, answered your questions and talked to you and you will not answer the one simple question.

I have a day or so more of intense typing up... so I am quite happy to continue appealing to the human behind the username, Scabbersley.

You never know, he may have a sudden epiphany and realise he how sad it is that he needs to engage like this to feel what, superior, fulfilled?

That and, no matter how hard he tries he can't even claim he is getting a rise out of us, as we have all acknowledged we know his posting history and that we are merely using him to distract us from more important things, to amuse ourselves.

It would be hard to claim any superiority or satisfaction knowing that a group of women, females one and all, are simply toying with him

Then again...

It's a bit hard to have a discussion about whether someone should be seen as a woman or not when JAPAB appears to have a separate definition of the word woman from the Oxford English dictionary and pretty much everyone else. He also won't tell anyone else what his definition is (just that the word has a new meaning) making it very difficult to understand anything he says.

Is the latest thing that we can't assume water no longer means "substance that consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms" ? Is water wet? Or does wet now mean dry? Should we perhaps eat it (if it means food), or walk on it (if it means land)?

Do any words mean anything any more? What does "word" mean? What language are we speaking?

Yay!

Word up...
...There's got to be a reason and we know the reason why
You try to put on those airs and act real cool
But you've got to realize that you're acting like fools

My internal jukebox is working well today

CuriousaboutSamphire Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeelll, you are still missing the point. Really... your logic is impeccable, but life isn't all about objectivity. Humanity is all about subjective interpretation of the world around us.

Perhaps we are all living in The Matrix. Not sure why you write the above as it doesn't really contradict my own point. Which was simply against a specific argument someone was using. By all means make OTHER arguments.

And while I am not sure about the implications of your words that all women feel the same as what you write, it is understandable that identity issues are important to humans on whichever side of the fence they are on. So yes, understandable if someone was trying to deny your identity.

P.S. FWIW my general approach is that if you make some point or argument and rather than responding with an argument or other response that is specific and meaningful, the other person just tries to auto-discredit or auto-dismiss you with generic or stock retorts, just take it as a sign that (a) they do not have a real argument against the things you are saying, and (b) they are a bit intellectually lazy. So that would apply here in relation to the use of TERF if it is just being used as a "magic" auto-dismisser etc.

SimonBridges Is see. So now we haven’t only redefined the meaning of woman but also the concept of facts.

Nope, just pointing out that there are different types, and that you are conflating them/confusing them in order to provide a false barrier to a change you do not want, that just isn't there.

Ereshkigal Many trans activists don't believe there is such a thing as biological sex. So no, by their logic it's not actually a technical point.

Do you mean people like Riley J Dennis who argue that biological sex is a social construct? Except her notion of what biological sex is has seemingly been created by conflating the factors that provide the evidence people use to infer someone;s sex, with the factors that define it?

I'd be interested to hear an argument for why biological sex does not exist that does not boild down to 'because things like having a penis or ovaries determine sex, and since these can be changed or removed, sex is not a fixed reality'.

I'd be interested to hear an argument...

Definition of woman that includes transwoman and doesn't include men first please. Thanks in advance.

[It will never happen, because there is none. As you well know.]

Thanks JAPAB. I can see that you do think it is all about semantics.

Sadly your last post simply shows how little you actually want to engage with any points being made. You reprimanded me for deliberately misreading a previous post you made, consider yourself similarly admonished!

Could we have you definition of woman that includes transwoman and doesn't include men first please?

I'd be very happy to discuss anything with you, but you won't talk to me [sob].

Are we agreeing it's a fact that water is a substance that consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms? Is that a fact? Can we rely on the dictionary here?

In which case a woman is an adult human female, and Ian Huntley isn't one.

CuriousaboutSamphire didn't say that you deliberately did anything. Just expressed that I was unsure how the highlighted comment came about. And while I do think a lot is about semantics (well this aspect of the debate anyway), that does not mean this is not important. In a sense it was a matter of semantics that civil partnerships weren't labelled marriage. But this was important to people.

:::pops back on to see if the definition curious and others ask for over and over again has been given::::

:::Sees it hasn't::::

:::Isn't surprised:::

Does "semantics" equal "using the correct words"

Oh I do like the dictionary definition of semantics (is it ok to use a dictionary these days, I wonder?)

semantics noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

So logical semantics: I presume people with penises are men
Lexical semantics: The definition of "woman" as "adult human female"

Aaaaaaaargh.. he gaslit me, he did, he gaslit me... then he side stepped, obfuscated, slithered

Can we please have your definition of woman..... pretty please?