Women have the right to state that trans women are actually trans-identifying men

[Terfulike]

This is our right: to state simple biological truths.
We will not be told to lie.
We will not be silenced.
Biological lies must stop.
Biological lies have no place in UK legislation.

Oh ffs how can it be transphobic to say transwomen are men??

It’s TRUE!!

I am aghast.

That sounded a bit harsh. It's your choice. But it's not possible for me to go back and call them "women" now, it feels like I'm gaslighting myself. On the plus side, I rarely get "trans women are women" chanted at me by transactivists and allies because it kind of takes the wind out of their sails when you don't indulge it at all.

Also, they won't stop there. They want to stop us being able to discuss women as a sex. That's the end goal.

No it's fine Eresh I totally get you!

Ceinwein - don't you think this is odd?

'trans women' can say they have a 'lady penis' and if you don't like it you can suck their dicks.

But women are not allowed to point out that these people saying 'suck my dick' are not women, they are men and this would be 'trans phobic'.

who wins here?

My interpretation from people not fully engaged with this debate is the term 'trans women' is often misinterpreted as 'woman who is transing to a man' or 'man who has fully transitioned and has no penis'.

Which is why so many people fall into the trap of repeating it without fully understanding the implications of it.

We need to be aware of the implications of language use:

It starts with 'transwomen'

Then moves on to 'trans women'

Then becomes 'women with trans experience'

Using this language, even in the context of disagreement and even with the caveat (either in your head or actually stated) that they are men, reifies trans. Qualifying the word 'woman' in any way, is stating that they are a 'type of woman'. Even if we don;t believe that. Even if we argue in the same breath that they are not. We have already said it. Language is powerful. The right to name is the right to control. And by using their terminology, even for the sake of politeness, is giving them the power to name and the power to control.

I've said it before, and I'll keep on saying it, time to just call them men. Not 'trans identified'. Not with any other qualifier. Men.

And all that happened was that boundaries were pushed and pushed until women said 'no, STOP!'

I think this is a point that's worth repeating. Women are not stopping TIM living and presenting as they wish. This is TIM pushing women's boundaries, trying to stop women talking about their experiences and trying to reduce hard won and important sex segregated spaces.

I might in certain situations use the term TW, to be polite, for example. But never in relation to feminism.

Apart from the examples given above, a man identifying as a woman and demanding to counsel raped women, tied up a rape refuge in Canada for TWELVE years with litigation. Costing them tens of thousands of dollars and crippling them in the process.

That would be 'Kimberly Nixon' taking on Vancouver Rape Relief. Nixon was formerly an airline pilot (not something many actual women achieve), and basically would not take 'no' for taking the year off between being counseled and becoming a counselor. That was all there was. He would not abide by VRR's rules, which apply to EVERYONE. Got his knickers in a twist, and just kept going with lawsuit after lawsuit, putting the organisation into hardship. VRR eventually won.

But, even though VRR still continue to take on TIMs as clients, the TRAs continue to protest the organisation as 'transphobic', even to the point of disrupting a fundraising activity in a park.

Which is the reasonable side here? I can only see one. Nixon was not concerned about the women who needed refuge/counseling (so frankly a poor choice as a counselor anyway). TRAs continue to hound the org, because they don't like losing. This is all very 'man' stuff. Nixon was a transsexual, not a transgender, before you go all out defending the TS as harmless fluffy bunnies. That is a continuum (TS>TG), not an absolute dividing line. Male entitlement is NOT removed by surgery.

www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/chronology-events-kimberly-nixon-vs-vancouver-rape-relief-society

Oh, Uterati - you are so right!
Then becomes 'women with trans experience'

Indeed, that is where it will go next.

BTW, we are 'told' (ordered) by TRAs to spell 'transwoman' as two words. I am an old woman now... I just keep forgetting that order!

By making it one word, it is a separate entity, and not 'a type of woman'.

Yes, TheUterati - that is absolutely it. It's a gradual push to redefine, redefine, redefine with the aim of eventual erasure of women. And we all know who said that.

Orchid, so basically mtf/ftm transexuals have had surgery while TIMs / TIFs haven't, and no additional nomenclature is required?

Ok, the whole point of language is that it permits shared meaning. If shared meaning is lost, then no one understands anyone or can clearly express information.

Key words that have lost shared meaning in this debate: (ie the dictionary definition would no longer apply to the way a poster is using it)

Hate.
Bigot.
Woman.
Transphobia.
Violence.

I'm sure there are others, but it would help this debate a great deal if for the moment those labels were just put on one side and to ask instead for a poster to use more specific language with shared meaning to explain their point of view.

Tinkle Another lost word:
Literal

Very true blue , good addition.

Someone on another thread mentioned the European Convention on Human Rights, Section 9. Here's the wikipedia entry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

"

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

I believe women are defined by biology. TRAs believe women are defined by some amorphous internal feeling. I can't see that either believe can trump the other under the European Convention.

However, if you read it you will notice it is sloppily drafted - what's the scope of "public" for instance? Just order, or health and morals too?

Hence why TRAs also redefine violence - "you stating your beliefs are driving innocent people to suicide..." - which presumably would (if it were true, which it isn't) come under the heading of both public order and health. Hence why TRAs redefine bigotry - if saying "person A has XY chromosomes and this makes them, biologically speaking, male" is bigotry then it could (if this redefinition were in any way reasonable, which it isn't) come under hte heading of morals.

It also reinforces Barracker's point about resisting the push towards wrong-pronouns being something one does not do in polite society. If it becomes an established social norm it's a short step to it's becoming "immoral" to go against it.

Which is why (and note, I am going to pick a transsexual person who has said publicly that they are male and don't have an issue with being called he, so this isn't a personal attack on a named individual, it's an example of a political stance being taken) it is important to keep saying things like "Miranda Yardley is male and he had a masculinised upbringing, in that he was surrounded by people who treated him a certain way in virtue of his being male in a sexist society which applies different standards of behaviour to men and women." If we give up the ability to say this, we lose free speech.

(Miranda - I know you're around here sometimes, and I hope you don't mind me using you as an example).

lasqrrrl

add a dick to me wow that’s a really horrible term, you’ve put t in quotes is that a term ftm’s use themselves?

No, not a term they are likely to use. My slang. For whatever they call the penile construction surgery. I could not be bothered looking it up.

But out of all I said, that was all you picked up on? Not the heterosexual dudes causing all the problems for women?

Most of the women that get that surgery were lesbians. So they would be in the transsexual camp. However, with the rise of transgenderism, bisexual and heterosexual women are taking on the 'transman' thing. Some bind, some mastectomy. Their efforts to guilt homosexual men into having sex with them has largely fallen on deaf ears.

Couldn't agree more op. It was ok when there were just a few trying to live their own lives and not bother anyone. It's something else when it's being used by men everywhere to justify pushing women around and out, stop us from talking about our own biological needs, and even justify sexual abuse and rape. Next thing will be that rape doesn't exist again, because that's all women are there for. Women everywhere need to remember the old sayings about men - give them an inch and they take a bloody mile, and they're all bloody spoilt children basically.

*It starts with 'transwomen'

Then moves on to 'trans women'

Then becomes 'women with trans experience'*

Someone on Reddit mentioned 'women and cis women'. So that's the next step.

On the plus side, I rarely get "trans women are women" chanted at me by transactivists and allies because it kind of takes the wind out of their sails when you don't indulge it at all.

The phrase 'trans women are women' is dependent on the term 'transwoman'. The manta could not exist without the neologism. In fact, everything that is happening now with the male invasion of women's sports, jails etc is all predicated on the logic inherent in 'transwoman', which linguistically groups males as a subgroup of women, who then become women's problem and duty to accommodate.

By making it one word, it is a separate entity, and not 'a type of woman'.

Yes, 'transwoman' absolutely implies that men are a type of woman. The clue is in the 'woman' bit.

However I use it with the caveat that I absolutely believe that transwomen are men.

If feminists understand how important it is point out that male people are men, I don't understand why they would refer to them as '(adjective)woman'. It's totally counterproductive to the point we wish to make. I really don't get why feminists who understand how harmful the male appropriation of womanhood is are also happy to refer to those males linguistically as 'women' (with or without a space), simply because men invented this word for themselves, with the express purpose of colonising womanhood.

I wasn't surprised by the responses to my earlier post, to be honest. To anyone reading this with an open mind about this matter, and not sure what the "facts" are, please be assured that I am broadly aware of the issues on both sides, including recent and current issues around a young man ( and yes I will say that) who after humane and sensitive assessment and at the Tavistock is now well on the way through his treatment at the main UK Gender Identity Clinic. Since he now has a beard, and a deep voice, it would be rude in the extreme to refer to him as "her". The same applies to people going the other way. The writer Jan Morris, then, should be referred to as " him"?

It is all horribly complicated, though both sides don't see it that way, and there is room even for informed people to have different views. It seems to depend on their " core beliefs" about society, as much as on objective facts. Which are in short supply. Or quoted out of context, etc.

Please be clear; I am personally concerned by the prospect of it being " too easy" to "register" an official "changed gender/ done and dusted" identity. What I have seen over many years is that the " change in the head" takes many years.

Having said all that, it has always been perfectly possible for any nut case with a suitable physique to disguise themselves as a woman and get past a door . Nearly 20 years ago someone did it at female open plan changing room at a sports centre in south Birmingham, UK. The police were called, there was a fuss, and the idiot was ejected. That would still be possible even after the change; behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace is gloriously flexible!

Things will work out as they will. I stand quite firmly with those who want the GRA to be much as it is now, and against ( too rapid?) self diagnosis. But I also think that much of the current hoo haa will prove to have been over reaction. Internationally that seem to have been the experience. Though it may be that we have a bigger, bolder group of particularly idiotic trans activists here. I do concede that.

But what can anyone say, without being vilified by someone. This post would enrage the most committed on both sides, and can only influence people in the middle somewhere. Who, lets face it, may not be reading this thread anyway! Ah me.