Questions for TRAs or Transpeople on here

[Bloodmagic]

Genuine question and I hope some of you will answer.

From my perspective, Gender Critical people (you would call us TERFs) want to accept you exactly as you are. Your sex (which you cannot change) and you personality, your fashion, mannerisms etc etc are all perfectly fine to us. We accept you as you are. We accept Transwomen as feminine men because that is exactly what you are. We accept Transmen as masculine women because that is what you are. We don't think there's anything shameful or degrading about that. Quite the opposite, we think it's pretty great. I think that men who identify as transwomen as a group should have: safety, freedom, political representation, political speech, suitable facilities (bathrooms, changerooms), inclusion in sports (co-ed, on teams of your own sex, or trans teams), free expression, happiness, the right to be around people like you and share experiences with them, organize with them, etc.

I don't think that has to come at the expense of the same rights for women.

Why is that such a terrible thing, in your eyes?

They only thing we won't do is lie for you, or prioritize your needs over our own.

How does it hurt you that we accept you exactly as we see you?

On the other hand, a lot of the people who claim to be trans supportive will not accept you as you are. Lily Madigan would not have been appointed to labor as a feminine man. They would not have accepted him as he is. They hate feminine men so much they demand that you hate yourselves and deny your reality before they will even let you be used as pawns in the Game of Patriarchy. Your self loathing is the only part of you that they value. It's the only part that I don't.

How many of your trans allies and supporters would still stand by you if you came out as a man who aspires to be as feminine as possible and understands that makes him no less a man and no less worthy than anyone else? They might not, but we would.

I'm having trouble understanding how you can look at us and see hate? We are the ones saying that everything you are is fine and perfect. We can't make you something you're not, no one can. But we also think you don't need to be anything other than exactly as you really are. What's so bad about that?

What it would be better to take away is that the word "woman" can mean different things in different contexts.

What?! What else can woman mean? In what contexts? Even if you want to argue about when 'adult' applies, when does woman mean anything other than 'female human'? Never, that's when.

Woah! So, when am I, a woman, something other than and adult human female? When do I have my day off?

Lol, that's arse about face really. Words describe what you are, they don't dictate it!

The word "woman" can be used in a social context to describe both a female adult and, according to some, an adult transwoman. That doesn't make you a transwoman sometimes, it just means that sometimes it's quite okay for the word woman to mean both a natal female and a transwoman.

And that, even if you disagree with those people, is a perfectly acceptable way to use words which have a number of meanings dependant on context.

Nat, it seems that you want to differentiate when it's important to you, but not when it is important to women and girls.

Indeed. Entitlement writ large. As per.

Never, that's when.

Except if you're the kind of person who uses it in a social context to mean transwomen too. Obvs.

Let's recap, shall we?

Trans-exclusionary perspective: "woman" means one thing and you can't mean it to include others who aren't that thing.

Trans-inclusionary: yes you can, because words can have more than one meaning in different contexts.

Trans-ex: No, it only means that one thing, so there is no other context in which it can mean something else.

Trans-inc: Well look, lots of people think it's okay to use it to include people who aren't that thing, and I've just told you why that's okay, on account of the fact that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

Trans-ex: Yes, but to me it only means this one thing so to me there is no context where that's okay.

Trans-inc: okay, well not everyone agrees with you, and they're not being completely unreasonable actually.

Trans-ex: Ok, well not everyone agrees with you that those people are not being completely unreasonable actually.

Care to explain why Eolian? Because I've explained why is would seem far from unusual for a word to have different meanings dependant on whether they refer to a social, biological or legal context.

Ratrolypoly

I think the objections to changing the use of the word women to mean something other than adult human female are more to do with what that means as a consequence eg males taking part in women's sports, males using women's shelter's etc. Not that it doesn't align with what one personally believes about the word.

I say that as someone who is happy to concede the word woman to include transwomen but think as a consequence we will need 'female' sports and 'female' crisis shelter's that do exclude transwomen on the basis that they are not females and this is the important bit. Just using sports and shelters as an example here but not limited to just those things.

There are lots of people who use lots of words incorrectly. That doesn't mean that the word itself has changed meaning.

Does everyone know that woman can mean adult human male? Does everyone agree when an adult male is a women and when they are not? Or are we back to women is anything a man says they are?

Care to explain why Eolian?

Because acknowledging that some people use a word in a certain context does not mean that you agree that the word actually has that meaning.

For example lots of people call spiders insects. I know they are not insects, but I probably wouldn't correct someone in public about that, as it would be a bit rude. But I also wouldn't say it is true that "In some contexts, spiders are insects".

I actually think all the problems started with the GRC process. The idea of legally giving status to men who performed stereotypical femininity for two years has essentially cemented gender in law, just at the point where it was beginning to be smashed up. So now every Tom, Dick or Harry thinks they are a woman because they perform in woman face.
It’s complex. I have sort of sympathy for the men who are told by the law that they have to conform to stereotypes, but in reality, no law should have ever been passed that allows for the legal fiction of a sex change.
Treatment for gender identity is a giant money making and medicalising con. We have an entire generation of children who have been brainwashed to believe they are special for not occupying performative gender stereotypes, and somehow believing that everyone else does.
Body dysphoria is shit. But the way to treat a mental illness (or a difference, if people are tetchy about the MH connotations and wilfully blind to the similarities with anorexia and thinking you shouldn’t have legs) isn’t to insist everyone else alters their behaviour and loses their rights to treat it. It requires both mental health treatment to stop the mutilation of bodies (or acceptance that it’s a form of cosmetic surgery with no legal or reality altering status) and the social abolition of gender stereotypes.
Unfortunately, much as trans people hate the two year implications of the GRC process, they also love the legal precedent of codifying gender stereotypes into law. It makes an easy check box exercise to ‘prove’ you are a woman, when the reality is, it does nothing of the sort. It just proves longevity of the parody.
Back in the day I read a shit ton of transition stories for a research paper. People effectively used them as a trademarked narrative for what to say at Charing Cross, for what to say at all appointments, for what to claim to get what they wanted. It wasn’t about telling the truth. It was about replicating the narrative to tick the boxes and ‘get’ womanhood.
The officially trademarked trans narrative, which used to be used as a guide to get what you wanted is now being used to brainwash people into believing it as truth. And kids are starting to actually believe it. From ‘say this’ it has actually become ‘you must believe and inhabit this’.
The GRC was a disaster for women. It was a pita for tg folk, but it gave them what they wanted.

A better example might be the word "bank", which could refer to the institution or the building depending on the context and the speaker. Both are correct .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy

I think the objections to changing the use of the word women to mean something other than adult human female are more to do with what that means as a consequence eg males taking part in women's sports, males using women's shelter's etc.

I think that's a totally fair interpretation Irene, but this issue of the word "woman" does seem to be a great big hurdle in the way of actually addressing those issues.

But I also wouldn't say it is true that "In some contexts, spiders are insects".

No, although it's not exactly comparable because "insect" is definitely not a variable word; whereas woman, even if you don't believe it is variable in itself, it definitely is if only in virtue of the fact that one of it's qualifiers is in fact variable!

So an insect has to have six legs - all the time - not variable. A woman has to be an adult - sometimes denoting sexual maturity, sometimes denoting a legal state, sometimes a social one... definitely variable. I would say as a word "woman" has more in common with "adult" than with "insect". Some disagree, but I think that fact alone would give my argument good standing.

You could say of your scenario that it's sometimes irrelevant if you call a spider an insect, but not that it's sometimes true. I would urge you to consider that even if you don't think it's sometimes true that a transwoman is a woman, it is sometimes irrelevant. Sometimes.

And then at least we can all argue about when it is and isn't relevant, rather than this starting point of "transwomen can't be called women, ever, no way", which I think is a bit of a stumbling block to debate.

No it isn't. Its not up for debate, remember? There's a whole hashtag for it and everything. 'Transwomen are women and #nodebate'.

Words have meaning so lets change the meaning to what one group wants = moving the goalposts, and in this case, in a spectacular, breathtaking way. To the detriment of another group.

This is why class politics is being eradicated. It insists on a meaningful description.

In this instance you have mentioned, it is important to denote that this poor woman was a trans woman, because then it can be recorded as a crime potentially motivated by her trans status

If trans women are women then transphobia ceases to exist. You can't say you want to be offered smears to be validated as a woman but also offered prostrate screens to save your life. You cannot have it both ways.

So an insect has to have six legs - all the time - not variable.

A woman has to be female - all the time - not variable, regardless of your quibbling about the 'adult' part of the definition.

If you chop off two of a spider's legs, does that make it an insect? If you surgically add two legs to an insect, does that make it an arachnid?

No it isn't. Its not up for debate, remember? There's a whole hashtag for it and everything. 'Transwomen are women and #nodebate'.

Well that obviously isn't my hashtag, although can't we debate the issues without going into the whole "transwomen are or aren't women or men" thing? I believe we can.

A woman has to be female - all the time - not variable, regardless of your quibbling about the 'adult' part of the definition.

Eolian, you missed the bit where I said that some words are variable, some are not, and that IMO "woman" had more in common with "adult" as a word of variable meanings. Buuuut you disagree.

That's okay; neither of us is going to get to be right and the other wrong; I say it's variable, you say it's not; stalemate! That's rather the situation right across the nation on that point, isn't it.

But using your analogy sometimes it is not relevant to make a distinction and you let it pass; can't we settle on discussing when it might be irrelevant to separate out transwomen? And then, when it's relevant to do so, we can separate them out on the basis of being transwomen rather than because they're "men"?

it's not exactly comparable because "insect" is definitely not a variable word; Erm...

whereas woman, even if you don't believe it is variable in itself, it definitely is if only in virtue of the fact that one of it's qualifiers is in fact variable! What? Again, tautology, mumblings, nonsensical double think! That post is ludicrous and again you include a lie

"transwomen can't be called women, ever, no way" You see, that is NOT really what is being said. What is being said ts that transwomen CANNOT BE women, not ever, no way! You just fudged it to try and make it fit! Tiresome and transparent!

As so very many posters have said, transwomen can be whatever they like and we, as a society, should, and probably would, support them, But what they cannot do, physiologically, is change sex. So whilst they can be accorded legal rights they cannot be accorded different chromosomes.

Once that is accepted, said out loud, by TRAs and their suporters, then a wider debate can be had. Currently the "I want a smear test even though I still have my bollocks" brigade is destroying any chance of a discussion. As are women like you, who seem to be determined to prove you don't actually exist!

I say it's variable, you say it's not; stalemate! Well, yes except the science, chromosomes as opposed to feelings, beliefs, desires!

I'm perfectly happy to separate them as being transwomen. Just not women. Because to me, 'transwoman' means a man who chooses to present as a woman. Whereas woman, as previously discussed, means a (physically and or legally adult) human female.

Plus I didn't say it was ever not relevant to make a distinction. I said that people might be considered impolite to do so out loud.

No, although it's not exactly comparable because "insect" is definitely not a variable word; whereas woman, even if you don't believe it is variable in itself, it definitely is if only in virtue of the fact that one of it's qualifiers is in fact variable!

Honestly. That peadophiles primer of a wikipedia article makes much of children reaching sexual maturation at 12/13, and the fact adulthood really is just a social construct, does not mention that the 12/13 year old child still has years left of growing and developing. Adulthood in many different animals is recognised as a point past the age of sexual maturity, often years past.

But have it your way.

An woman is a human female who is at least 18 years old.

Even if we classed adult as somebody who has reached an age at which menstruation could reasonably have been expected to commence (12/13 years old), this still doesn't pave the way to a definition of woman that includes male's.

/discussion.

Who would say that a sexual mature 14 year was an adult?

A biologist?

No, a paedophile/someone who wants to marry a 14 year old.

Honestly, your arguments are becoming worrying.

Differentiating to control where I pee does not make sense.

It's not about you. It's not personal or a value judgment that women don't want you in their spaces, you're simply male. So yes it does make sense that you stay out of women's spaces.

Fine, have it your way. It seems to baffle so many people around here that a good number of intelligent, educated people are happy to say transwomen are women. And whilst that's obviously my position, I'm not trying to make you believe it; I'm just telling you the logic behind it, because it's not nonsensical.

But if next time someone says "a transwoman is a woman" you choose to ignore why they might think that and instead batter them round the head with this "adult human female" dogma then fine.

They'll simply think you're wrong, and you'll simply think they are. And we'll all come out of it not one step closer to anything.

But if next time someone says "a transwoman is a woman" you choose to ignore why they might think that and instead batter them round the head with this "adult human female" dogma then fine.

Adult human female is not dogma.

Your idea of 'telling us the logic' of it isn't really working is it, particularly when you are starting make the argument that paedophiles make. You have been doing it for weeks now and it still makes no sense. Because there is no logic. It defies logic. It is merely trying to make people believe something that is not true. It is also damaging to trans people to try and force people to believe something that is not true.