To ask for someone to actually explain how trans women are women???

[Lilyyulelog]

I genuinely would love a satisfactory explanation, one which gets to the point. Since becoming aware of the 'trans debate' I've yet to see one that makes any sense at all.

Or is it just that whether or not they are isn't actually the real issue? But surely it is...

There are a wide range of characteristics that people/humans in general have. Being a woman in STEM doesn't make my brain any more 'male' any more than my cousin being a whizz at corchet makes his brain 'female'.

*crochet
Also, how on earth do you quantify 'feeling like a woman'.

"However, despite apparently being the woman-hating party, the Tories make women into excellent Prime Ministers"
Not really relevant but I can't let this pass. It is a ridiculously simplistic and inaccurate view of the political scene and the reasons Thatcher and May became PMs. But that's for another thread.

Where are all these ment trampling over women's rights , female only spaces ? In my life time I have met 2 fully transitioned trans women whilst working in mental health and both were just trying to get in with their lives and a friends son who I have never met is transitioning

ShotsFired that has to be the most succinct yet comprehensive explanation I've seen, thank you!x

Men trampling *

@csifemale. Just want to pick you up regarding the brain. The evidence that there are strong genetic differences in the brain is weak. We must remember that the brain is influenced and develops in accordance with the nurture it receives. A study asked nursery workers to describe the characteristic on some children. The nursery workers described the girls as kind, gentle, sharing. The boys as boisterous, prone to fighting. And then it was revealed that the girls were in fact boys dressed as girls and vice versa. We condition from a very early age.
Then looking at stem, there are countries where there are drives to improve the diversity ...by encouraging boys to take up physics.
There is an overlap physically in males and female capabilities post puberty. Most men would not be able to out run/fight etc Olympic female athletes. The overlap in brain capability is much stronger. That is why we need to think of people as people, take them on their individual strengths and not try to discriminate based on hunches that are reinforced by stereotypes enforced on people.

And for the record, I am perfectly happy for people to identify any way they want to. I am meticulous about names and pronouns. But I am not prepared to accept self identification fully until I have received a satisfactory explanation as to why and how it will have no impact on crime statistics, women's sport, intimate care and the measures currently in place to address the underrepresentation in various areas in public life. These points are never addressed.

Shotsfired I’ve enjoyed reading your replies on this thread. Quite clear and concise and has helped me gain a little bit of understanding.

In regards to the ballooning gender identity spectrum, I heard on a tv programme yesterday there are currently 72 gender identities and the list is still growing

I tell you something, as soon as someone disagrees with you, you'll be happy enough to call them a man irrespective of their actual gender.

Yet another trans thread, but made totally worth it for this comment alone.

I'm with Random and CSI.

"The problem is not with transsexuals who live, work and play in their social construct of woman. "

So what's the definition of women? What is the word for adult human female?

We can acknowledge that transexuals and transvestitism exists without changing the definition of women.

there are currently 72 gender identities and the list is still growing

There are 71 genders for you to choose from on Facebook. Is Facebook usually your definitive source?

to Random and CSIfemale

Thank you for your explanations. But here's why I think you are wrong.

You have entirely underestimated the effect of social conditioning, which emphasises some characteristics in girls and other characteristics in boys. Although you have mentioned it, you have suggested it is only part of the effect. But it is so powerful, and so prevalent, and we are not conscious of it because we cannot extricate ourselves from it.

Arguments based on 'evolution' are baloney, because they start with a backward projection from present day society, then they use that to 'explain' present day society. EG; the argument starts with the notion that women are the stay-at-home nurturers; so it is suggested that primitive societies had a category of stay-at-home nurturers; and that is used to justify the starting point that women are stay-at-home nurturers.

If you think about it, it is inconceivable that primitive societies could have had a group of people who just stayed at home, sweeping the cave and tending the fire, because the process of finding food is so energy intensive. Most of those societies must have been on the verge of starvation for a lot of the time. They could not have supported members who were not actively engaged in providing for the whole group.

And as to 'leadership qualities' - remember that the early British tribes had female High Priestesses, female warrior leaders, etc - mostly eradicated when the Roman Church took hold in Britain.

CSIfemale you suggest that animals have different personalities according to whether they are male or female. Please point to any research that establishes such a thing. Certainly there are different behaviours - all around courting and reproducing - but across all the species and within species these behaviours are not consistently performed by males and females. EG penguin males looking after eggs and chicks, male seahorses raising offspring, etc.

Within the animals where it might be possible to observe something that's more like a personality - eg domestic dogs and cats - surely you aren't really suggesting there is a consistent tendency for male dogs vs female dogs to have different 'personalities' or to behave in particular ways? Each of them can be dominant or submissive, aggressive or docile, etc.

But the chief and central point is this. Biology is binary. Personalities are not. Even if one accepts your view that there are tendencies across large groups of people for certain characteristics to be more prevalent in men or in women, 'Gender' is not a helpful concept because it tries to force people into boxes or requires them to reject the boxes and declare themselves non-binary gender or gender fluid. Why have the boxes at all?

If women with women’s biology, life experiences and socialisation can’t define what a woman is based on an internal feeling, how can anyone know how a woman feels? How can a man without all the other stuff know how a woman feels? How can a man feel a certain way and just assume it’s how a woman feels and expect us all to go along with it? There is no logic to this stuff at all, which really pisses me off.

72 gender identities

if that is so, they aren't aligned to biology AT ALL then.

so wtf does it mean to be trans gender?

72 gender identities is just a list of the ways to be human.

72 gender identities is just a list of the ways to be human.

Actually it's just a list of stuff on Facebook.

Option 1. Woman = female = adult human with female biology

Option 2. Woman = not male = any human who for any reason does not identify as male and is over 18

Option 3. Woman = Person with preference for particular clothing, hairstyle, job or behaviour that is not stereotypically masculine.

Option 4. Woman = person with a female (or pink) brain. This one is tricky because we have scientific evidence that actually brains aren’t gendered but that’s ok, science is transphobic

Option 5. Woman = men who identify as women, previously known as trans women. People who used to be understood as women are now cis-women.

At some point the only definition that seems to be consistent and to make actual sense is 1. But that’s not a nice inclusive womanly way of thinking or talking.

no, fair enough, it's just a list on Facebook - but it makes the point about how useless gender is as a concept.

In answer to the OP:

The only way that transwomen can be women is if you accept that the definition of "woman" has changed. It used to be based on biology (woman = "of the sex that bears young" etc). It is now, according to some, based on feeling (woman = "anyone who identifies as a woman")

This is obviously circular bullshit. But it's how we're now supposed to think

Personally I don't understand the idea of "feeling like a woman" or "identifying as a woman". I'm a woman and I have no idea whether I "feel like a woman". I only know how it feels to be me. Same applies to everyone else. So I have no idea how someone decides they feel like a particular gender (one that matches their biological sex or not).

Most men aren't in employed in STEM careers either so you cant really decide STEM is what a man is.

And in some sections of STEM women make up 40% of the workforce although engineering is particularly low.

I have come to the realisation that the question is all about language and meaning. Up till now, woman has been used to describe a biologically sexed body of an adult human female. It has not meant anything to do with brain, personality or even lived experience. It has just been biological. XX chromosomes.

In order to say trans women are women, trans activists are using a new definition of the word woman. This new definition is about personality, interests and feelings. Hence it is perfectly logical once you are using this definition to talk about a female penis and to argue that discussing FGM as a woman’s issue is exclusionary to those women who have a biological XY body but know they are women.

So it’s simply a question of agreeing that the word woman has changed its definition. Or maybe we were using it wrongly before.

Those of us who thought we were the group known as woman before haven’t exactly been consulted on this question, nor has the wider populace. But that is the crux of the debate and if we could focus on this simple question we would lose lots of the emotion and confusion.

Of course if we agree to changing the definition of woman we will need a new word to describe us pesky XX people and we will need to argue once again that since these XXers suffer oppression then we need legal protection and rights. Those should belong to the possessors of XX bodies not the possessors of the word woman.

Cross post with mini pie there by the time I had typed out my whole screed!

They aren't women, they are men. No explanation or further discussion required.

Did boko haram kidnap those schoolgirls because of their biology or because of how they felt?

Are the people in Saudi Arabia who are not allowed to drive prevented from doing so on the basis of their biology or because of how they feel?

Were women denied the vote here on the basis of their biology or their feelings?