Why is the definition of a woman so confusing these days?

[Fairenuff]

I know it's probably been done to death but it used to be so simple.

There were men and women. All kinds of different people but two sexes.

But now no-one can define what a woman is.

We know it's not clothes, hair or make-up
We're being told it's not having a vagina, periods or child bearing
It's nothing to do with the male/female brain

So what is it? Is it purely down to chromosones?

And if it is, how can people without female chromosones still say that they are a woman?

So although you accept women are being harmed, you're ok with that, because it's not every woman being (directly) harmed. Right. So women's safety, their right not to be raped and abused, comes quite a long way below men's feelings in your opinion?

I don't think the floodgates are going to open and somehow the immoral or criminal behaviour of outliers is going to become commonplace, no.

And what if it is only a few men who take advantage of the situation? How many women and girls being hurt is acceptable in the name of "being on the right side of history"? Give us a number. How many would have to be harmed before it would be OK to take steps to protect them?

It doesn't matter whether there are 'hordes'. The issue is the principle of removing of women's existing legal protections and leaving them at the mercy of biological males decision to behave well or not.

I notice my questions have been ignored again.Today 19.00.

WTF are you doing on a feminist board?

Um, being a feminist, engaging in discussions, the usual stuff. I care very much about minimising harm to women and girls.

the potential problem isn't hugely likely.

I'm selfish in my interest really; I'm trying to maximise my chances of coming out of this on the right side of history.

O’Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.

‘There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,’ he said. ‘Repeat it, if you please.’

‘“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,”’ repeated Winston obediently.

‘“Who controls the present controls the past,”’ said O’Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. ‘Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?’

Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one.

O’Brien smiled faintly. ‘You are no metaphysician, Winston,’ he said. ‘Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past is still happening?’

‘No.’

‘Then where does the past exist, if at all?’

‘In records. It is written down.’

‘In records. And ——?’

‘In the mind. In human memories.’

‘In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?’

‘But how can you stop people remembering things?’ cried Winston again momentarily forgetting the dial. ‘It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!’

O’Brien’s manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.

Great, so about that number...

God, are we post-language now?

Yup, seems so.

And you can't protest either the male behaviour or the policy or law as affirming biological sex has become a hate crime. Can you grasp that?

@Bertrand

Mine too, but that was a different thread so apparently it doesn't count.

Um, being a feminist, engaging in discussions, the usual stuff. I care very much about minimising harm to women and girls.

Course you do.

Bertrand, forgive me, I have answered your questions specifically previously, although I appreciate I cannot and have not answered every question aimed in my direction. Which question was it in particular? I answered specifically quite recently why I believed what I do about organised sport - because I'm quite heavily involved in it.

Are you a better feminist than me then Ereshkigal? I didn't think it was a competitive sport.

I absolutely appreciate it is happening UpABitLate. I don't have an answer to that, or a way to resolve it

Then why the fuck are we all here wasting our precious energy on your navel-gazing woman-hating doublethinking gaslighting wank?

I'm out.

Are you a better feminist than me then Ereshkigal? I didn't think it was a competitive sport.

You're giving plenty of evidence that you don't actually give a fuck about women and girls. So I'm going on that.

I think you're deliberately goady anyway, so there's that. You're just playing devils advocate for shits and giggles. Like an MRA would.

So basically, oh don't worry about it-I'm sure everything will be fine. There'll be checks and balances. Not a big deal.

Then why the fuck are we all here wasting our precious energy on your navel-gazing woman-hating doublethinking gaslighting wank?

This.

"I'm selfish in my interest really; I'm trying to maximise my chances of coming out of this on the right side of history."

That's such a revealing phrase. It's not about doing what you believe to be right, to the best of your ability, in the knowledge that all humans have their flaws and get things wrong even with the best of intentions. Using that knowledge to gain a bit of humility as you try to do the best you can.

It's all about how you want other people to perceive you.

I care very much about minimising harm to women and girls.

Quite a feat if one doesn't actually know what a woman or a girl is.

I'm thinking trolly sealion, but if we assume that Rat is sincere then hey, most people who're that selfish don't admit it in public so points for that I guess.

but it would be prudent to step out of the way and allow those who're a bit more street smart to prepare for what happens if their starry eyed "oh I just think people are nice really" view doesn't quite work out as hoped.

YY. As you've acknowledged that you don't really care about the trans issue personally either way, perhaps you could be a dear and do this, rather than grandstanding across multiple threads about how you want to be persuaded there is a problem. That is called "sealioning".

Snap Angry!

I think Rat is deliberately goady but perhaps it's been a worthwhile conversation in some ways. Not least, I haven't read 1984 but I've enjoyed the excerpts Pencils has given.

Rather than thinking it through to it's most extreme conclusion which - let's face it - is hugely implausible.

Rat Only just picked up your response to my point. Contrary to it being implausible, as others have pointed out, it is already happening. And that's without the proposed changes to the GRA coming into law.

To take your view on implausibility is like putting a cushion over your head and going "can't hear you, lah lah lah lah"