to think no one can define living as a woman

[funtimess]

if you are a biological man.

Or indeed define living as a man if they are a biological woman.

What is the definition, how do you define a person ‘living" as the opposite sex?

AIBU to think that nobody is going to be able to define this unless they resort to regressive stereotypes.

YABU - I can define this for you without using regressive stereotypes.
YANBU - You are right, you can’t define this without using regressive stereotypes.

Firstly, all women know by instinct it's not safe for us to go walking alone late at night. We know that by instinct. Secondly, you don't get it. It's not about 'trans people'. It's about MALES. MALE vs FEMALE. And women may not be defined by our bodily functions, but we are oppressed by them, and our sex-based rights are based on them. Denying that the female sex is the oppressed sex is more harmful to womens rights than anything else. You are denying reality here, because you think women are not vulnerable, to be a 'cool girl'. It's just not reality. Women are the vulnerable and oppressed sex. Males are the predator and oppressor sex. That doesn't change if you put some feathers on the fox and stick it in the hen house.

You're wrong. You've started this thread and you literally don't know what you're talking about. This really exemplifies the type of people pushing the anti-trans rhetoric.

Rape is about consent and penetration can be with anything.

You claim to be representing women and safety and you don't understand the basics.

Not in UK Law
and this is a UK site

Rape is legally defined as sexual penetration with a PENIS without consent.

What you are describing, is sexual assault ie penetration with an object.

But RAPE is a crime that entails a P.E.N.I.S.

You, are the one that is wrong. And that is what those like yourself with an anti-women rhetoric get wrong.

This is a hypothesis, not a fact. You don't speak for all women. In the same way that just because Donald Trump says something a million times, it doesn't mean that it's the truth.

Talking of which, some men are vile, I accept this, but that doesn't mean every trans woman is a danger. You can't go from the particular to the universal, otherwise you're back in Trump land.

Firstly, all women know by instinct it's not safe for us to go walking alone late at night

The post I was referring to was saying it's not safe for women to walk down a road by themselves.
Nothing about at night. Just not safe to be walking down a road.
Also - should women stay at home or only be allowed out with a chaperone? As one logical conclusion to your way of thinking is to "keep women safe by reducing them to victims and unable to be out by themselves.
Which is far more harmful to women's rights than trans people.

Oh, ok, my bad, obviously all those women who say they've been raped by penetration with an object are lying. Good to know they're not allowed to make sense of their experience because someone's obsessed with making sure their anti trans rhetoric sticks. How super supportive of you. Bet it's really helpful for those women. And I'm the anti-woman!

Safeguarding works on the universal.

Why do you think there are single sex spaces in the first place? Because some men cause harm to women and girls in vulnerable situations. But we don't which ones. So we keep all men out - universal.

Or we used to.

Give over.

UK Law is utterly clear.
In the UK rape is with a penis - so by men.

Other assaults are sexual assault

Transwomen are men. Male. They are no less a danger just because they are wearing a dress.

So so if a woman isn’t defined by biology, lived experience or stereotypes, how exactly are you defining woman? Whose rights as a feminist are you fighting for?

Which is far more harmful to women's rights than trans people.

You just don't get it, do you? 'Trans people' are not a third sex. We are not scared of 'trans' people. We are scared of MALES. You are not fooling anyone by re-labelling men as 'trans' and thinking we will now feel safe with those men.

Sexual Offences Act 2003

1 Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

2 Assault by penetration
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

3 Sexual assault
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

If we are 'anti trans', then they are anti-women. It is not 'anti-trans' to defend the sex-based rights of the female sex class.

Errr. What is a hypothesis?

Is it hypothetical that female people are being told that “male people are being included and the female people there are being told that those male people are women”?

No. This has been documented as happening. Have you missed it? Maybe read the thread that I linked and check out the background. Happy to post a link to the background if you cannot find it for yourself.

Is “the fact that female people need single sex provisions and that not one male above about 8 years old should be included”, hypothesis?

No. There is overwhelming self published content available of women making just that point clear.

What part is hypothesis and not fact that I posted? I look forward to the clarification.

“You don't speak for all women”.

No. I don’t and have said that I have. Besides which, that is also not how consent works. It only takes one female person to not consent to having a male person in a group or accommodation that a male person is present for that female person’s consent to have been ignored.

Surely, if you work in the sector you understand consent?

“In the same way that just because Donald Trump says something a million times, it doesn't mean that it's the truth.”

This is an irrelevant comparison and says more about you than any woman in this thread. Who the fuck cares about what Trump says? Why is this relevant?

“Talking of which, some men are vile, I accept this, but that doesn't mean every trans woman is a danger.”

Gosh…. Imagine that. Not all male people are a danger? No shit Sherlock.

Not all male people are a danger, yet strong safeguarding principles for publicly accessed provisions are based on excluding all male people as the starting basis. Have you got any evidence that the sub group of male people you refer to have the same risk or lower than female people in the UK of harming female people?

Yes? Please post it. No? Then that sub group of male people should be treated the same as every other male person in the UK.

”You can't go from the particular to the universal”

That is where safeguarding for publicly accessed provisions starts. All male people being treated the same.

”otherwise you're back in Trump land.”

You seem preoccupied with Trump. Why?

The live as a woman thing is only in the context of the NHS requirement in order to get the treatment. If you have to satisfy that requirement, the easiest and most obvious way to do it is to adopt a traditionally feminine presentation. I don’t think this says anything at all about real women. I don’t think it’s that deep.

You seem to be the one who is ignoring women’s voices.

Why? Do you mean to centre the demands of a group of male people to be included in female single sex spaces?

Is that what feminism means to you?

No. But it’s such an easy and obvious way to qualify.

The living as a woman/man is a requirement for getting a gender recognition certificate.

For safeguarding purposes, yes you absolutely do universalise. Not all men are threats to women, but men are overwhelmingly more of a danger to women than other women. Therefore single sex spaces are necessary for women's safety (among other things).

Why on earth would we grant access to women's spaces to one specific group of men? On what grounds? 😵‍💫

And it shows what absolute bloody nonsense all of this is.

I don’t think anyone thinks that by adopting a traditionally female presentation, a man is living like an actual real woman does.

Yes this drives me mad. Living as a woman is apparently a dress for every occasion and bad make up.
You never see a transwoman in jeans, tshirt, short hair and no make up (a pretty ordinary female look)

So why are we tolerating all the ridiculous legal fiction that's been created?