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?

Yeah, and it's going to keep being done to death until we don't have people campaigning to move male sexual perverts to women's prisons, remove sex segregation in healthcare and rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters, make women's sport meaningless, DAD

Or until the law has changed so that we're all imprisoned for the thought crime of not believing there is such a thing as a female penis.

Rat you are being disingenuous and are not answering any of the very relevant questions about whether people are able to 'identify' as being anything they like

I'm really not being disingenuous; how do you figure that? Is it because you think I'm avoiding questions? Have a look at my posts - I'm answering as much as I can! I am but one woman, and not even a woman for whom this is an especially pressing issue; I really thought I'd be the one asking the questions, but as it is I'm doing the best I can in explaining my position.

Hairy I really do know quite a great deal about amateur sport, I assure you. Certain sport(s) more than others, doubtless, but none the less I'm far better informed in that arena than most.

Haven't read the rest of the posts yet.

Also encouraging to hear that the missing millions are dead not because they are female but because of ... well not entirely sure but they probably don't matter much so why bother thinking about it.

Ditto the girls kept as sex slaves by daesh, and the ones kidnapped by boko haram. Nothing to do with female, female is an illusory semantic nothing. Of no importance. The ones who were picked for that probably just looked at them funny or something, it was just a coincidence they all had cunts not dicks.

Very heartwarming for the girls who undergo early marriage, rape and impregnation resulting in pregnancies that can kill them that there's no real such thing as female, or girl, or woman. And that those things could've happened to anyone really...

This utter disregard for the actual lives of girls and women all over the world is a defining characteristic of the most extreme TRAs. Which is another reason to question.

If you for a moment imagine agreeing with the premise "transwomen are women", just imagine where that logic would take you. That's where your opposition stand. They're buying that premise, not your "it's impossible" premise, and it's a door I haven't been persuaded to close. That's where the problem lies.

‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.

‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’

‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’

and not even a woman for whom this is an especially pressing issue

With all due respect, this is obviously not true, or you wouldn't be active in multiple threads arguing the issue.

Bertrand I'm pretty heavily involved in league-structured amateur sport.

Maryz sorry, I got onto your post about sport segregation, perhaps not sufficiently. It's so hard to respond to anyone sufficiently on here, it's like trying to have 25 discussions all at once!

the real problem is that in order to widen the definition to include "some men" - those who "identify" as women - in reality the definition of woman has to include all men, simply because there is no way of proving which men identify as women

"woman" will therefore mean "adult human"

Do you accept that?

No, because is easily established simply by asking someone isn't it?

Also: how do you include "anyone who identifies as a woman" in sex-segregated women's spaces, but exclude "men"?

Do you have a way of doing that?

I don't know of all that many segregated spaces (proportionally) that currently have "gatekeepers" (e.g. public toilets) so I imagine spaces such as those would continue to be self-policed just as they are now. Ones where segregation is necessarily policed, again, I imagine people will primarily ask the question.

If not, then I'd really like to hear your take on whether sex segregation should be completely done away with (sport, changing rooms, prisons, support groups, refuges, etc etc).

I don't think it should be done away with. Except perhaps "sex" segregation would become a misnomer?

ILoveDolly

https://www.ted.com/talks/paulajohnsonnhisanddhers_healthcare/up-next

This is a great TED talk on the subject of the medical differences between men and women.

Hate the way MN inserts random letters into links sometimes!

https://www.ted.com/talks/paulajohnsonnhisanddhers_healthcare/up-next

With all due respect, this is obviously not true, or you wouldn't be active in multiple threads arguing the issue.

What do you mean Angry? I got a bit narked by a similar thread on Saturday morning so posted for the first time on the subject. One Monday, following my brooding on it all weekend, I posted on two threads - one of them being this one - to explore what I'd been thinking about. I haven't had time to return to the other one because it filled up with posts so fast, whereas this one had a more manageable number of replies and a more helpful tone from posters.

This is easily verifiable.

So you will segregate based on everyone going where they feel at the time.

So there really isn't any point in segregation whatsoever.

I would feel safer to have things like toilets completely mixed than have them men's and women's and anyone who wants can come into the women's. That feels like asking for trouble.

Aargh it did it again! I'll see if I can find a YouTube video.

I sometimes think that biological women should just adopt the word 'cis women' and let transwomen have the term 'woman'. At least that then allows there to be a distinguisher (is that a word ) between us. I suspect that if cis was completely adopted transwomen would come after that word as well.

Where is that written Rat? Where is the legislation? Or is this something that you and your friends are campaigning for?

Have you really thought this through? You are determined to stand by that definition?

No, it's not legislation, and I'm not campaigning for anything. Neither are any friends I have, as we don't really talk about much beyond sport and/or wine, except after copious amounts of the latter. It's not a definition I'm determined to "stand by", I'm just suggesting that it might work and inviting comment as to why it wouldn't.

I don't know of all that many segregated spaces (proportionally) that currently have "gatekeepers" (e.g. public toilets) so I imagine spaces such as those would continue to be self-policed just as they are now. Ones where segregation is necessarily policed, again, I imagine people will primarily ask the question

What question? What question would be asked for entry to a womans refuge, for example? Are you a woman would be the sensible one, but you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to saying yes to that, and presumably gaining access?
What about women's prisons? What question do we ask there?

I suspect that if cis was completely adopted transwomen would come after that word as well.

I'd put money on it.

"Oh I'm sure there will be enough checks and balances". Except there aren't. And people are pushing hard for none.

would feel safer to have things like toilets completely mixed than have them men's and women's and anyone who wants can come into the women's. That feels like asking for trouble.

YY, I agree.

So, as I said, active on multiple threads.

The women whose rights you're arguing should be compromised are not required to be "helpful", though some of them (kinder than I) seem to be willing to maintain that tone anyway.

I don't think it should be done away with. Except perhaps "sex" segregation would become a misnomer?

So what would spaces be segregated by, then? Whether or not people wear makeup? Hair length? The genitals that we're not supposed to ask about and that the words woman and man would give us no information about any more?

RatRolyPoly, please, please (if you are genuine) go back and read your last reply to me.

1. "No, because is easily established simply by asking someone isn't it?" - that is the entire point. Ask someone, they say they are a woman, just accept it means ANY man can AT ANY TIME claim to be a woman and no-one can question it; leading to

1. "I imagine people will primarily ask the question." - it's now transphobic to ask the question, so men in women's spaces can no longer be challenged (See TopShop Travis). Legal self-id concretes that in law; leading on to

1. "sex" segregation would become a misnomer? - what do you suggest instead? How to have a space where women can go but men can't? What to use instead of sex segregation for sport/prison etc, having admited that ANY man can say AT ANY TIME he is woman, and we have to accept his say-so?

If you don't understand this is a problem, then there is no point in discussion really.

If I said that, to me, identifying as a woman means having long hair and liking the look of my legs in dresses, and you said it was knowing you have two x chromosomes, it doesn't mean either of us isn't a woman. So I don't think "what it means" - and that being universal - really matters as much as one might think

It is illegal to intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat. Bats should be treated with a light coat of raw linseed oil before use. It is important that we create new suitable habitats and manage and enhance existing habitats to help bats recover and survive. A bat's lifespan can be extended by careful 'knocking-in' with an old leather cricket ball.

You have won me over Rat, I can see no problem at all with the word 'woman' having two completely different meanings and then treating them as if they are the same.

KennDodd - I've wondered that too (the cis-woman bit), but then all laws/names for groups/ sport etc would have to be rewritten using cis-woman instead of woman, and by then the TRAs would probably claim to be cis anyway

[sigh]

"So what would spaces be segregated by, then? Whether or not people wear makeup? Hair length? "

Well yes so I'd be in the gents and they would be really unhappy with me wandering in while they're dick in hand at the urinal.

Men don't like women coming in the gents any more than the other way around.

I'm not trying to convince you Pencils.

So, as I said, active on multiple threads.

If you'd like to be specific, I am currently active on one thread. But hey ho.

Also "cis" is an identity so would mean buying into it all

And also lots of trans boys / women who don't go through much in the way of hormones etc or indeed agender and so on, still experience discrimination and bodily functions that affect their lives, so we couldn't have laws for "cis women" as it would exclude them and they need to be able to access recourse around sex discrimination - pregnancy / bf and anything else like that.

The words female / women / girl used to just mean "cunty person" and that was OK.

Cis woman does not mean "cunty person" it means "cunty person who internally identifies as woman / girl" which would exclude very large numbers of cunty people.