To not care whether people say sex or gender.

[TeeJay1970]

Many people and organisations use these words interchangerbly. The meaning is always clear. I actually don't give a stuff if others disagree.

Or are applying for one?

Still refers to trans women though, so the point remains "what discrimination do trans women face"?

Nope. "Trans women" is a larger category than "gender reassignment". Best check with Stonewall, really.

This is beside the point. I think we have established that some groups of men are discriminated against.

So, the question of what women have in common with transwomen that we don't have in common with men, still remains unanswered?

Indeed it does

no surprise there

But according to you "trans women" have a GRC, right?

Where did I say that?

You banged on about GRCs when posters were talking about "living meaningfully as a woman". You said that meant a GRC, didn't you?

Surely though the requirement to live meaningfully is imposed by the establishment that issues the GRC? It is them who decide whether a trans man or woman has transitioned "well enough" to be issued a GRC so is it not this mechanism that seeks to perpetuate gender stereotypes, rather than the individuals concerned? They are being made to jump through hoops so you can't blame them when they comply.

Where did I say any of the above? Where did anyone say that because women and gay men are both discriminated against that makes them both women? Where did I say that because both trans women and women face discrimination that means TWAW? Where have I said any of that?

You were using the discrimination thing as an example of what transwomen and women have in common to answer the question about what it is that women and transwomen have in common (ie. Not their biological bodies) that men don't? Presumably ultimately as an argument as to why transwomen should be treated as women and not men. If you were arguing something else then I have misunderstood.

You banged on about GRCs when posters were talking about "living meaningfully as a woman". You said that meant a GRC, didn't you?

Hardly "banging on" about them.

And that was in response to many "what does living meaningfully as a woman mean "questions. My point was, if the establishment sets this rule before they will issue a GRC then it isn't the trans person who sets out what "living meaningfully as" actually means is it? It is a set of criteria imposed on them.

Irrelevant to anyone's point. But do crack on.

Irrelevant to anyone's point. But do crack on.

Then why did you bring it up? If it's so irrelevant?

You brought it up. RTFT.

"That was in response to many what does living meaningfully as a woman mean"
Exactly! How were you the one who brought it up?!
These threads cray cray

I'm guessing the question is supposed to be what unites transwomen and women that means they should be categorised together? But excludes men so they are not included in the same category.

Discrimination doesn't work. Because men are discriminated against too.

it's a bit far back, but I felt I had to answer this

Nothing about being female makes us a drain on resources

In the UK around 90% of women have at least one child.

that means that for around a year they are out of commission for heavy physical labour.

being the ones who carry young and breast feed makes us, in the eyes of a very patriarchal society that doesn't value children and care givong properly, a drain on resources

so yes, our female biology makes fucked up societies view us a drain on resources

I'm astonished you don't see this

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

I see what you are saying. My view though, is that it is society that doesn't see the value in those things, so it is a construct imposed on women. In a different world where those things are valued, women would be treated very differently so that, to me, isn't sex based ie based solely on biology, but a result of the value that society places on people.

OK, Weetabixandshreddies, I think we kind of agree and kind of disagree

men don't carry young or breast feed, so my view would be that this discrimination is entirely sex based - men and boys would never be subject to that kind of discrimination

men don't carry young or breast feed, so my view would be that this discrimination is entirely sex based - men and boys would never be subject to that kind of discrimination

I agree with the first part but not necessarily the second part.

I think that the views of society can be changed - look how far they have changed over the last few hundred years. We aren't there yet but women aren't in the position that they were in 200 years ago.

If we were in a world where pregnancy and childbirth were valued then the situation would be different.

So I see it as a result of society's value of women, rather than as a result of biology. If biology remained the same but attitudes were different the result would be different.

In a different world where those things are valued, women would be treated very differently

Well that’s alright then. If sex based oppression/discrimination wouldn’t necessarily exist in a parallel universe, then there’s absolutely no need at all to recognise and address the sex-based oppression that exists in the real world we actually live in, then, is there!

And pray how did men ever gain ascendancy and dominance over women in the first place, if not for the physical advantage they have by virtue of our BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES?

Which advantage has been further compounded by the societal effect of THOUSANDS of years of male domination, which it’s going to take a lot more than a few decades of modern feminism to undo.

look how far they have changed over the last few hundred years. We aren't there yet but women aren't in the position that they were in 200 years ago.

The rate of change re women’s status in society has been positively glacial. We still live in a world where males are valued more, hold vastly more power and wealth, and commit an inhuman level of violence against females. Everything is still set up so that the male has primacy and is the default human. Worldwide, we’ve barely even scratched the surface of misogyny.

Compare that with the astonishing trajectory of trans rights. Over a decade or two, this tiny group of mostly male people, funded and backed by eye-wateringly wealthy male people, has succeeded in making fundamental changes to legislation and societal attitudes on a scale that women can only dream of.

Women who speak out against it, despite being marginalised/vulnerable ourselves and so theoretically having the right in a liberal society to be heard, are threatened with doxxing, losing our jobs, physical and sexual violence, arrest and ultimately potentially imprisonment.

This is male privilege. Male oppression of females. Patriarchy.

Same old, same fucking old. And so many women with Stockholm Syndrome falling for it and promoting it.

Boak.

TalkingintheDark

Because that's exactly what I said!!!???

I'm not saying it's ok.

What I am saying is that it is society's view of being female that is the problem, not the biological reality of being female.

If it were biology causing the inequality then it can never be different can it? For as long as biology remains the treatment of females can't ever be difference if it is only biology causing it.

And pray how did men ever gain ascendancy and dominance over women in the first place, if not for the physical advantage they have by virtue of our BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES?

Thousands of years ago I guess physical strength was the most valuable characteristic when you had to be strong to survive. We don't need to go out and catch a buffalo for dinner or fell trees to build a shelter. In today's society the physical differences between men and women are becoming much less relevant for survival.

Pregnancy and childbirth did make women more vulnerable because of the very real risk of dying. It made women obviously weaker and more vulnerable as did the need for women to have many children. The changes in healthcare, medicine and contraception again changes this.

So again, it isn't just biological fact but rather social changes that are slowly changing the prospects and chances for women.

Same old, same fucking old. And so many women with Stockholm Syndrome falling for it and promoting it.

I disagree.

So, the question of what women have in common with transwomen that we don't have in common with men, still remains unanswered?

This weetabix person certainly knows how to avoid answering a question.

In a different world where those things are valued, women would be treated very differently

I feel like you are missing the point here. If the world was different, if women were not treated differently/worse purely on the basis of biology, then this idea of gender and men becoming women wouldn't matter as much.

But we are not in that world are we? Women are still oppressed and have carved out some sex based protections which males now want access to. Women are oppressed (by society) on the basis of their biological female bodies but are now being told that the material reality of having a biologically female body is irrelevant and what we should be hanging everything on is an innate 'gender identity' and that if they are not on board with 'gender identity' then they are 'bigoted'.

It's double standard gaslighting at its finest