I am a woman because I say so

[Darrowisred]

Bought Grazia not realising it was a special gender issue.

Paris Lees has three pages of editorial.

Gems include;

'I don't need permission to use the label 'woman', I'm a woman because I say so'.

And

'Womankind is a broad church, and it's time to celebrate our wonderfully diverse congregation'.

And

'When my win (as female comment writer of the year) was announced, it unleashed a barrage of transphobic abuse. 'What a farce, Lees is a man' wrote one'.

Finally

'I love being a woman'.

Aaaargh.

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

You are broadening the bandwidth of what it means to be a mermaid. The other mermaids should be grateful to you, not just laugh.
And they need to stop building underwater palaces because they are exclusionary to trans mermaids. Bigots.

[ChardonnayKnickertonSmythe]

Yes, the weird thing is that reducing trams women to their looks too is somehow seen as progressive.

[ChardonnayKnickertonSmythe]

And they are happy to go along with it.

[WriteforFun1]

Countess, that me lol!

Chardonnay - it kind of sums it up really - thinking biological female is just all about what you look like.

[SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace]

Is that an ironic post, blink?

[stealtheatingtunnocks]

What happened about that clever RadFem woman doing a webchat on MN about trans issues?

I am kind of torn - I know a trans person who has really struggled to make themselves comfortable in their skin. I'm no psychiatrist, but, body dysmorphia fits what I've seen them live. It's a tough life, with no clear happy ending that I can see so far - passing is a problem for her.

But, I REALLY object to women being reduced to lipstick and petticoats in Grazia. It's so fukcing offensive!

I often think about Ireland - where you can get married if you are a homosexual, but, you cannot get safe reproductive rights if you are a woman. GAy marriage was a campaign I supported, but, it appeared to be driven by gay men, there was barely a squeak from a lesbian in the press during the whole time of the campaigning.

Trans activism is all about MTF, barely a squeak from FTM. All about men who pass, no matter what you think of Paris Lees, she's done a good job of looking like a Sindy Doll.

The person I know doesn't pass. Never will. She wants to keep a low profile. She's not going to be in the media, because it'll do her no favours at all.

The TAs with the voices in the media show off. They're not looking for equality for the trans person I know, they spend more time telling me that they are a better version of me rather than fighting for acceptance of my non-passing trans-woman friend. She could have an easier life if we just accepted her appearance for what it is instead of Man In A Frock.

I've got an ever increasing moustache, a wonky tit, cellulite and a bikini line that has seen better days. Doesn't make me any less of a woman than one who looks like a Sindy Doll, but, Paris, sorry love, you are only ever going to be an appropriation. And, that's a shame for you. Whoever told you that you could be a woman was selling you snake oil.

[LovingLuna]

I am sure you can be trans with no MH issues or personality disorder, just like the rest of the population. I suspect the TA telling women they are better women have some sort of delusional MH issue or a personality disorder.

[Kidnapped]

Shinynewusername,

"Two big factors have been the media's uncritical peddling of the transactivist line and the fact that this is about men suppressing women, so it is consistent with how society works. You will note the absence of FTM trans people demanding that men stop calling themselves men or avoid talking about prostate cancer".

Agree with you. It also requires absolutely nothing from the people in power (men). They don't have to do anything or give up anything. It is only women who are being told to move over and shut up.

So the starting position is a neutral one for most men. Doesn't affect them. However, if you are a man who seeks to disadvantage women though, it is a great thing to get behind.

[WriteforFun1]

I haven't heard of Paris Lees - can't say I'm hugely up to date on these issues - so I looked her up.

it led me to this
www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/16/prominent-trans-campaigners-condemn-use-of-fckcispeople-in-twitter-argument/

which tbh underlined the madness, for me.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

What amuses me about Paris Lees (whom I had never heard of either until I saw her mentioned on here a few month's ago) is that she is full of contempt for Julie Burchill whilst apparently being oblivious to the fact her writing style is a blatant and very poor copy of Burchill's.

[CoteDAzur]

"the meaning of the words man and woman has already started to change, these meanings are quite obviously contested now.... you also can't deny that it's not simply a case (any more) of a few people deciding to redefine them."

It is actually the case of (proportionally) a very small number of people deciding to define them and media following their lead for fear of being called bigots. Ask some man on the street and more likely than not he will have never even heard of any such debate. Even here on MN, there are a few people on every trans thread saying that this is the first time they are hearing of people claiming that womanhood is all about a feeling and has nothing to do with their genitals. Dictionaries have certainly not heard of any such redefinition, as you can't even find "feeling feminine" or "feeling normal when society treats you as female" as a secondary definition under "woman".

"The meaning has changed to the extent that the law looks as though it may well follow."

What someone is considered to be under law is not necessarily the same thing as what he actually is. Law defines under-16s as "children" although everyone knows that a fully grown young man who is a few months shy of his 16th birthday is not a child. Law also defines corporations as "artificial persons", but we are under no illusion that the definition of a person has changed to include companies.

These are terms that are only valid in a legal context. Laws don't change the meaning of words already used by a population.

[CoteDAzur]

And I'm saying it's still some people deciding exactly that.

[Lottapianos]

I really enjoyed that Grayson Perry interview in the Guardian too. He specifically said that when he wears dresses and make up, its just him in a dress and he makes absolutely no claims about knowing what its like to be a woman. He's a man who sometimes wears outlandish dresses and make up. Makes perfect sense to me.

David Bowie had his head screwed on too. Anytime he got asked why he wore 'women's dresses', he would point out that its a man's dress. He was a man, wearing a dress, so therefore its a man's dress. Again, makes perfect sense.

'I'm a woman because I say so' - makes absolutely no sense at all. Offensive, narcissistic rubbish

[CoteDAzur]

Dictionaries don't seek anything at all, let alone control people in some way.

If social evolution does take place one day and one meaning of the word becomes "a male who feels female", then no doubt dictionaries will reflect that evolution and list that as a secondary definition of the word.

We are not even there yet. There is no secondary trans-friendly definition in dictionaries, let alone a complete redefining of the word, including erasing the current definition.

Those who pretend that is the case are gaslighting and purposefully spreading disinformation.

[CoteDAzur]

"Combative" because I disagreed? No need to be so delicate.

I don't think you have actually read my last post on definitions because your reply has no relevance to it. Or the previous ones on legal terms.

[WriteforFun1]

Cote, I think most people do perceive an under-16 to be a child.

I seem to recall a lot of talk about how important the precedent of law is when equal marriage went through. I totally agree. So I think if the legal definition of woman changes, that's problematic.

not sure if I would feel that way if the legal definition of man changed as well.

[CoteDAzur]

"most people do perceive an under-16 to be a child"

Yes, they are legally children - i.e. not capable of giving consent & should not be tried as an adult in a court of law. But we all know that they are not physically children.

It is an example, to show that legal considerations are not necessarily the same thing as what words actually mean in everyday use.

[shinynewusername]

not sure if I would feel that way if the legal definition of man changed as well

At the moment, the change is completely asymmetrical. The Green Party for instance have re-defined women as non-males. Men remain - you've guessed it - men. So women are being erased and men are gaining ground by taking over the tiny space that women were able to call their own. What is truly depressing is that many younger feminists are cheering this on.

[HermioneWeasley]

Have written to Grazia to complain.

[SilverBirchWithout]

I wonder about the first time, in this 'brave new world' of the future, we experience the rape of a woman by another woman with a penis.

How will the victim be permitted to describe her assailant? How the police will be permitted to describe the perpetrator they are looking for? What will the pronouns used in court sound like; the prosecuting council asking 'and then she inserted her penis?' How will the crime statistics show the crime? Who will be expected to share a cell with this woman who is a rapist?

Definitions of words are important and need to reflect the world they describe.