“Transwomen are women”

[BertrandRussell]

There are plenty of angsty threads on this topic, but please can this one not be.

Please can someone who thinks that transwomen are actually, literally women tell me the reasoning behind the thought? If you have come to this conclusion because you have read scientific research, please could you link to it.

I will only respond with “Thank you” or to give you clarification if you ask for it,and please will anyone else interested do the same.

Meant to say, there's always someone who will defend.

They can present themselves as very stereotypical masculine males yet declare they are a woman and expect to be accepted as such? There doesn't even seem to be any timescales attached. So they can be a woman for half an hour then be a man again?

Yes. This is where we need to have some common sense and tell them to fuck right off. This is what self ID would have enshrined in law. It's a bit of a grey area currently but hopefully it will be clarified that this bollocks doesn't fly.

They can present themselves as very stereotypical masculine males yet declare they are a woman and expect to be accepted as such?

It's happening already: in that Green Party debacle about a debate for "non-men,' I then read a tweet by someone saying he "identified as a woman but presented as a man," so the debate was perfect for people like him.

Utter madness ...

Also waiting re: Ian Huntley

And Danielle muscato

Why do the girls have to wear trousers, why isn't the other way round and boys have to wear skirts, or is that a silly question?

Not a silly question at all - it goes to the heart of the hierarchy of constructed gender roles.

In our time & place, skirts/dresses are "Othered" - coded only "feminine" whereas trousers are "unisex" because they're originally coded "masculine."

In a gender hierarchy, anything connected with femininity is considered lesser; it is humiliating and degrading to expect males to adopt anything coded feminine.

It's sexist bollocks.

It does go to the heirarchy however it is very astute of the head to make that ruling as it heads off the boys wanting access to girls toilets as they identify as girls because they want to wear skirts bullshit.

he "identified as a woman but presented as a man

Yes. Stupid narcissistic prick.

In a gender hierarchy, anything connected with femininity is considered lesser; it is humiliating and degrading to expect males to adopt anything coded feminine

And which is not helped by some feminists who laud anything masculine as being so much better than anything feminine. And don't say that doesn't happen - it happens regularly on here.

ATeardropExplodes, do you have the courage to start a "AIBU to not believe Ian Huntley is a woman" thread?

I know the whole of mn is pissed off with trans threads, but really, the topic is the gift that keeps giving [sigh]

CautionTape, it seems the answer to all your questions is "yes" - though wtf they are going to do in sex ed (or whatever they call it these days) is a bit confusing.

Biology lessons will be fine. Until some bright spark bursts into tears and threatens to commit suicide when some teacher tells her that penises are male organs.

And I've just read the Telegraph article properly and seen the comments about makeup. You couldn't make it up (said as a woman who hasn't worn makeup for about 25 years).

@LassWiTheDelicateAir - it's a tricky one, isn't it? We're all products of our socialisation, and in a world where traditional masculine pattern of life, work, and achievement are set up as the best , then it's tough to be constantly checking oneself.

Also, I was forged as a feminist in the late 70s and there was a debate then about essentialism (part of which then morphed into the "choice" and "equality" femininisms) which argued that because women had historically been oppressed & discriminated against because of their capacity for child-bearing & rearing, we needed to be careful about valuing the "feminine principle" etc etc over achievement in the public world. I think the debate was in part around writings of people such as Mary Daly, _Gyn/Ecology, and others like her.

And understandable to wish to aspire to success on the same footing as men in the public sphere if one has been barred from it (I am old enough to remember the legal declaration of the principle of equal pay in the 1970s).

So, there's a long and complex history which brings us to the feminisms we have today, and part of that is a thoroughly reasonable expectation that women participate in public life, work etc as men do, and on an equal footing.

Where liberal/choice/equality feminisms fail, and need radical feminisms is around how we get that equal footing ...

I asked the head whether he was going to insist that all his female staff wore trousers too. He said no of course.
I am waiting with baited breath to see what what happens once the current trouser wearing year sevens stop abiding by the rules and do what teens do best- break them.

Why does our society still have an issue with anyone wearing short skirts? I genuinely don't understand.
If someone finds a teenager's legs sexually provocative then surely The problem lies with the viewer rather than the leg owner?
Sorry I am going off on a tangent.

NotSupposedtobeHere

Your reply isn't really what I was talking about. I'm not talking about roles in society. I was referring to the many posts on here about how rubbish skirts are ; how rubbish all women's clothes are; the sneering at anything "girly". There was thread about presents just after Christmas and apparently the antonym of "interesting" is "girly".

So, there's a long and complex history which brings us to the feminisms we have today, and part of that is a thoroughly reasonable expectation that women participate in public life, work etc as men do, and on an equal footing

Er, yes. I'm not sure why you think I needed to be told that. I can and do all those things. I don't have to wear trousers to do them.

When it comes to clothing, though, masculine is (generally) easier to wear, more comfortable, more practical. If everyone is to be forced to wear one set of "uniform" clothing, skirts and high heels aren't going to be on the list, are they?

I do know a few women who hate trousers and never wear them. I only wear trousers simply because I think they suit me better than skirts.

By far the best way would be to give both sexes the choice. But as I said earlier the trans gender thing was a red herring.

I hate trousers and never wear them. I don't find them comfortable and I look terrible in them. The only times I have ever had thrush was when wearing trousers.

Forcing trousers as the only option is not an acceptable position.

Forcing trousers as the only option is not an acceptable position

I agree.

I didn't realise your point was just about trousers or "girly" things. I was thinking out loud about more structural matters, I suppose.

I guess the dislike of 'girly' presents is that it's lazy stereotyping.

That's interesting Lass. A lot of uniforms have gone trousers only - nurses, for example, paramedics, soldiers, police (on the beat anyway). Many production jobs wouldn't allow skirts (loose material could get caught). Ditto kitchens; I'm pretty sure an extra layer of material on legs would be needed for H&S reasons.

I expect refusing to wear trousers could be limiting for some jobs.

Whereas, in my opinion, refusing to wear a skirt should always be ok. And even more for high heels - insistence on women wearing impractical clothing should be illegal.

Sorry BertrandRussell, this is off topic (though I expect you have given up hope of any relevant scientific research being offered).

Whereas, in my opinion, refusing to wear a skirt should always be ok

As should refusing to wear trousers unless there is a genuine safety reason. I worked weekends in a hotel kitchen throughout my teen years. None of the female staff wore trousers. We seemed to manage to avoid falling into the deep fat frier or getting tangled up in the meat slicer.

There is absolutely no operational reason for forcing school children to wear trousers.

lass I agree . It's about them not showing the tops of their legs. that's all.

yy, that's fair enough. I was just saying if there has to be ONE (and only one) uniform, generally trousers are the way to go for the majority

As an aside, though, I think I must be a prude because while I have no objection to seeing teenagers' legs, I really object to seeing their bum cheeks, and very short skirts + thongs are not a nice sight on the bus at 8 am [sigh]. As usual it's the few who take it (much) too far who ruin it for everyone.

"There was thread about presents just after Christmas and apparently the antonym of "interesting" is "girly"."

One poster said this. She was challenged and on reflection, changed her mind about the turn of phrase.