US erasing Women - Janice Turner

[feelingquitehopeful]

It was totally shocking to me this week as a supporter of the Democrats to see Biden choosing his moment carefully on day one to wipe out women's and girl's rights in the states in one fail swoop. There was no discussion, no consultation. No warning. Just like that he removed centuries of our rights as women.

He will now go down in history as the first President that abolished womenhood and Motherhood and women's rights. I am astonished and horrified and reeling actually, even this morning. I have had a few days to process the shock, but no, I am still reeling.

It is now punishable to describe a woman as a mother for instance, or to stop a man/boy with a penis showering with your pre teen daughter at school.
Prisons can no longer keep women safe, they will now lock up male rapists (Identifying as women, which anyone can now do no questions asked) with trapped female prisoners in cells. Can you imagine being in that position? The horror of being trapped in that situation, as survivor this actually keeps me awake at night.

Men can use lavatories, locker rooms and showers with young girls. It is ILLEGAL to now stop them. It is also illegal to stop a man competing in women's sports, making women's and girls sports now obsolete. What girl is going to outrun a biological male?

We have literally, as a sex been erased completely from the legal framework and with it all of our protections thanks to Biden. Men can still be men, because that doesn't offend anyone apparently - they will not be called 'testicle havers' or 'ejaculators' it will only be women subjected to this. So that says a lot of modern equality and where we are with it today in the US.

Women have been reduced to 'Menstruators' and the highly offensive 'black birthing bodies' if you are describing a mother from the BAME community. That is what we must all be called now.

That is the new healing landscape Biden describes as he cuts out the rights of half the nation.

Janice Turner as always is an absolute legend, and her excellent article 'War of words risks wiping women from our Language' in the Times this morning is outstanding, and covers the grave situation we ALL now face. For anyone thinking it could never happen here, think again.

Read it for yourself:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-of-words-risks-wiping-women-from-our-language-djhp2mwjg

Looks like you're the one making things up here.

Shocked, shocked I say.

@Datun

Trans inclusion has been a fact since before the Equality Act and the world hasn't fallen in nor has it affected the fight for women's rights. What I would argue has affected the fight for women's rights is this constant fantasy that 1-2% of the population have somehow 'erased women'

What's your definition of woman, if you don't mind me asking?

You see this would be an interesting question to be discussed if it wasn't, I suspect, being used as a gotcha. Definitions of woman have changed over history and differing cultures and have never remained totally static as some people seem to think - see Sojourner Truth on her 'Ain't I a Woman' speech. For me I am happy to accept that people who self-identify as women are women - after all that's what you're all doing here - and I have no reason to doubt it. To come up with a definition of women that includes all cis women and excludes all trans women is pretty nigh impossible particularly when you can't possibly know the chromosomes of who you are talking to - and you certainly shouldn't be asking to look at anyone's genitals!

As for the poster talking about science above - does it not give you pause for thought that the WHO, the BMA, and numerous other well-respected scientific organisations disagree with you - although usually this is where it strays into outright conspiracy theory that they have all been 'captured' (and often with antisemitic undertones)

Anyway I see the 'discussion' has descended into accusing anyone who disagrees of supporting pedophilia (didn't take long) and I have an anti-racist meeting to go to so am bowing out.

For those of you reading who may be interested in reading something other than right-wing gender-critical theory here's a link to Sarah Ahmed's blog - she's a well-established feminist with a somewhat different view than the people on Mumsnet
feministkilljoys.com/2015/02/15/you-are-oppressing-us/

Then for things like support groups for women who have been abused there are exceptions as I’m sure you know. The equality act states that trans people can be excluded on the basis of biological sex in certain situations and there is specific examples.

They're not being used, because women centred organisations have been lied to about the law by transactivists, or targeted in intimidation campaigns, or infiltrated by TRAs and other queer theory fans.

after all that's what you're all doing here

No. Women are adult human females. I am an adult human female. No "identifying" necessary. The only people who need to "identify" as women are male.

Hope that helps.

You see this would be an interesting question to be discussed if it wasn't, I suspect, being used as a gotcha.
Definitions of woman have changed over history and differing cultures and have never remained totally static as some people seem to think - see Sojourner Truth on her 'Ain't I a Woman' speech. For me I am happy to accept that people who self-identify as women are women - after all that's what you're all doing here - and I have no reason to doubt it. To come up with a definition of women that includes all cis women and excludes all trans women is pretty nigh impossible particularly when you can't possibly know the chromosomes of who you are talking to - and you certainly shouldn't be asking to look at anyone's genitals!

That's a lot of waffle for 'I dont know how to define what a woman is'. If it's not about chromosomes and genitals, then what does define a woman, @katrina11? What, for example, you went to the doctors and said you felt 'female', what small list of examples do you think are given as a definition of 'female' outside of physical and biological factors? Obviously there are some boxes to 'tick' to separate male and female, otherwise whats the point of gender?

I suspect you don't know the answer to this as much as my previous question directed at you, but might as well as and try and get an educated response rather than just 'I don't agree with you, so you're all bigoted conspiracy theory nutters!'.

To come up with a definition of women that includes all cis women and excludes all trans women is pretty nigh impossible

It really isn't. It's a question of which gametes your body developed to produce. No known person has ever been able to produce both, even with very ambiguous intersex conditions people are still male or female.

And yet everyone knows what a woman is if a surrogate is wanted. Suddenly it’s not hard to tell at all

Conveniently, brumboo, Katrina is bowing out, so I guess won't be answering any of these questions.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Conveniently, brumboo, Katrina is bowing out, so I guess won't be answering any of these questions.

Won't answer, can't answer, thinks yelling 'transphobe' wins any argument about women's sex based rights, all the same thing.

And yet everyone knows what a woman is if a surrogate is wanted. Suddenly it’s not hard to tell at all

Quite. Amazing how one type of person seems to be targeted, I find it quite exclusionary of MTF trans people, I mean biological sex isn't a thing, is it?

I know it's a (very)minority view on here but I think it's wonderful news.

Why? One good reason.

@ Katrina 11
You have an anti racist meeting to attend ! Sorry, that did make me smile. Surely then you are able to see why certain groups need protection. The case of Rachel Dolzel ( I may have got her name wrong) would be a case in point. In the US, there are girls’ sports scholarships. They are separated from boys’ sports scholarships for a very good reason. The Wall Street Journal reported on this issue this week. The writer identified themselves as trans so these views are not as entrenched and oppositional as some suggest.
Language too is important. If we are parents, not mothers, how can we discuss real issues facing mothers during lockdown ( and yes it is affecting mothers in a different way than fathers as a general trend ).
The issues are myriad and need real discussion.
To suggest that people want to make spaces uncomfortable for trans people is a very big leap to make. I think most here would prefer a kind and tolerant society. That includes not riding roughshod over the rights of women to their words, their safety and their opportunities.
The only shutting down of debate I have seen is in the no platforming of feminists such as Germaine Greer and other female academics. I would class the online abuse of J K Rowling as a shutting down of debate also. The dismissal of the views of many mumsnet users ( a female platform) as transphobic also seems simplistic and also designed to shut down discussion of real concerns.
You state that The Times is misinformed. I am sure you realise that they are bound by journalistic codes so maybe you need to raise that with press complaints. Maybe though you just don’t like the facts that are being discussed in relation to the census and recording of data. In that case I think it is clear who is trying to shut down debate.

Anyway I see the 'discussion' has descended into accusing anyone who disagrees of supporting pedophilia (didn't take long) and I have an anti-racist meeting to go to so am bowing out.

socially distanced I hope!

The idea that anyone needs to see anyone elses genitals to know what sex they are is just so disingenuous its actually absurd.
Dont be ridiculous.
We all know what a man is.
Even babies and dogs can tell.

Was Katrina just chucking out any random meaningless insults they could think of? I suppose we're lucky they didn't include smellybum and poobrain.

Everyone knows what a woman is. It's not complicated. I mean, look at this site's name. Every single human who ever existed has one.

Definitions of woman have changed over history and differing cultures and have never remained totally static as some people seem to think

Bullshit.

Throughout history and across the world, humans have always known which 'people' to murder at birth, who to deny a vote to, who to deny an education to, who to try and murder because they were trying to get an education, who to deny a vote to, who to impregnate by rape as a weapon in war, who to deny an abortion to, whose genitals to mutilate, who to stone to death after they were raped, who to deny a promotion to, who to pay less. There was never any ambiguity about it, no one had to check anyone's fucking chromosomes.

And now, just when women, at least in the West, are making significant gains in having some semblance of equality with males... Suddenly its just oh so hard to tell who are the women and who are the men? Suddenly 'woman' is impossible to define?

Please.

You are being so offensive.

That's a lot of waffle for 'I dont know how to define what a woman is

Nailed it.

Jetatyeovilaerodrome
Brilliantly said.

And now, just when women, at least in the West, are making significant gains in having some semblance of equality with males... Suddenly its justoh so hardto tell who are the women and who are the men? Suddenly 'woman' is impossible to define?

Exactly. All though history girls and women were used, abused, told they were the 'weaker sex', that we have 'ladybrains' all due to our biology and nothing else. It was the idea that the very fact we're born women that made our personalities 'female', and those of us who did not fit into that box of 'female' set by men usually found themselves punished physically and mentally.

The moment women stood up and fought back against the idea that 'woman' was how you act, dress, behave, part of your 'personality', that's when society men decide to move the goalposts again and decide that 'gender' or personal belief is the true measure of what female or male is, not biology that is nothing more than atoms, chemicals and building blocks. How on earth can we fit people in specific boxes (and decided what part of society's hierarchy they belong to), without knowing if their personalities are 'true' male or female? One way or another, having a lady-brain will be a thing, even if we have to gaslighted into believing it's part of a progressive, liberal society to have an Emperor's New Clothes mentality.

So when archaeologists talk about male and female skeletons and describe the differences, they don’t know what they’re talking about then? They always seem pretty certain to me. I shall tell my archaeologist niece that she must stop with this nonsense.

see Sojourner Truth on her 'Ain't I a Woman' speech.

Now there's a massive piece of racist appropriation if ever I saw one. If you read Sojourner Truth's speech (which is magnificent, btw), it is "woman" in the sense of "being accepted as a member of the human race rather than a slave". It has nothing to do with modern gender ideology whatsoever.

@FOJN

chomalungma

I understand your point. I'm looking at the best of a bad lot.

The Greens called women "non-men" and ignored significant safe guarding concerns about the behaviour of a party member.

Labour called for women's rights campaigners to be expelled from the party and labelled WPUK a hate group. They did not condemn the intimidation of women when a WPUK meeting was disrupted by Labour Party activists. At least one of the leadership candidates stated rapists should be housed with female prisoners if they identified as women.

The Liberal Democrats literally told me they didn't want my vote if I didn't support self ID.

I spoilt my ballot at the last election but if developments in the USA are anything to go by then I don't think I can afford to do that again.

No for sure under 'First Past The Post' you need to support the lesser of two evils. I was shocked how far Teresa May had gone down the Trans tunnel, until by luck I think Johnson/Truss cottoned on to what a vote loser it potentially was. They are also worth voting for in Scotland if you want to stop IndyRef 2/Neverendum.

What a woman is has always been constant.

The sex role stereotypes pushed on us have varied throughout history and differ from different cultures/countries/societies.

Except one very very constant fact, that the hirachy is men in power and women oppressed by them. Even in the few, very very few, examples of supposedly matrilineal societies out there the same patriarchal hirachy of power still rings true. There are no matriarchal societies. Power only goes men over women. And that constant is based on the constant that woman = adult human female and therefore we have physically weaker bodies and different biological needs. If what a woman is has changed lots over time this constant wouldn’t be evidenced.

Is anybody else really irritated every time that MN pop up about the "gender pension gap" appears above these threads?
I can't help but feel betrayed by MN.

*katrina11

Datun
Trans inclusion has been a fact since before the Equality Act and the world hasn't fallen in nor has it affected the fight for women's rights. What I would argue has affected the fight for women's rights is this constant fantasy that 1-2% of the population have somehow 'erased women'

What's your definition of woman, if you don't mind me asking?

You see this would be an interesting question to be discussed if it wasn't, I suspect, being used as a gotcha.
Definitions of woman have changed over history and differing cultures and have never remained totally static as some people seem to think - see Sojourner Truth on her 'Ain't I a Woman' speech. For me I am happy to accept that people who self-identify as women are women - after all that's what you're all doing here - and I have no reason to doubt it. To come up with a definition of women that includes all cis women and excludes all trans women is pretty nigh impossible particularly when you can't possibly know the chromosomes of who you are talking to - and you certainly shouldn't be asking to look at anyone's genitals!

It's rather disturbing that, when we are basing laws on what a woman actually is, you think asking an actual advocate of that what they think a woman is, is a trick question! And not utterly central to the protocols you, yourself, are endorsing.

You say women are not being erased. You even put it in inverted commas, as though the idea is preposterous. And yet you have simultaneously based your entire argument on your claim that women cannot be defined.

'It's not static, it changes, it depends which speech you read.'

Do you have any idea how hypocritical this is? We're not being erased, but you have no way of saying what we even are.

It's the very definition of gaslighting.

And, I need to let you, that the answer is no. Women are not taking that. We're not going to be told we are not being erased at the same time as you telling us you don't know who or what we are.