Trans women are women, is the biggest oxymoron ever written.

[happydappy2]

If trans women are women, then why do the words trans women exist? I don't understand how law can not be written in a way that recognises women as women and trans women as trans women.

Thus trans women are treated with respect and dignity, and so are women. This blurring of the lines is helping no one.

Who ever claimed that trans women are women? Unless we can differentiate between the 2 there will always be conflict. Is it too late for reality to kick in here?

Also if transwomen are women, how do you target the group of people who require access to sanitary protection, reproductive rights and so on.? The repeal the 8th campaign got accused of being transphobic because it focused on "women" which was taken to exclude transmen.

Vicky, that is an actual definition.

Currently woman = adult human female.
Potential expanded definitions is woman = adult human female and transwomen

Still merely a claim - because 'women = AHF' makes sense biologically/scientifically.

Your claim makes NO sense and cannot therefore be a definition. At all.

To try to make it make sense, you'd have to define 'transwoman' in a way that makes sense biologically. Can you?

Potential expanded definitions is woman = adult human female and transwomen

Humans cannot change sex. This definition includes both sexes. It doesn’t work.

My experience is with all trans and non gender binary people. They weren't all lovely, just human, like the rest of us. There is a conflation between trans and NGB people and a certain form of predatory sexuality... I have never witnessed this not heard of this from any colleagues. There still can be women born women spaces (with or without children) - this falls under positive action (not discrimination) in the Equality Act 2010. This is just moral panic. If these rulings are exploited by a small percentage of predators they will be altered. We are behind much of Europe in terms of trans rights; this self I'd works in other countries without any real issue.

I'm going to expand the meaning of "table" to mean "chair".

A dog is: A domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice (including some cats)

As for the photo, I have no context. My guess would be they are Trans male allies holding signs but that is common sense really.

we expand the definition of woman to include both adult human females and transwomen.

Why would we do that? Who benefits from making the biological class of women meaningless? Why would we include males in the term for adult human female? I presume you must have some really watertight compelling evidence why this should be done, right?

A woman is an adult human female (including some men)

Breton, did you read the link in my post about a transgender male who sexually assaulted four female inmates in a women's prison?

Do you think those incidents were "just moral panic"?

As for the photo, I have no context. My guess would be they are Trans male allies holding signs but that is common sense really.

Maybe you're right. But there are many examples of transwomen (all over the internet) who look just like that.

A woman is an adult human female (including tables) (and snargles).

I mean, this makes no sense so why not be completely ridiculous.

I'm expanding the definition of woman to include everyone. I must tell my dad he's a woman under the new, expanded, definition.

Some men want to create a category that can include them and also females but exclude other men.

Fine.
Describe the characteristics of that category and give it its own label (not woman, that already has a very specific meaning) and wait to see which men and women WANT to identify into it.

I am never going to accept being shoehorned into a category with some males and excluded from a category with other males without full understanding of the characteristics that define each category.

And I won't cede the word that belongs to adult female hunans, nor the one that means juvenile female humans either. Those words are already in use and men can't have them.

Describe first, label second.
Tell us the characteristics of this group that are SHARED within the group and NOT shared by people outside the group.

Balls in your court, TRAs. We're waiting.

...This is just moral panic. If these rulings are exploited by a small percentage of predators they will be altered....

Except given that the court cases have already started, that it was predicted that such cases would probably occur in prisons, perhaps better not to make the changes in the first place? Just a suggestion...............

My guess would be they are Trans male allies holding signs Oh, how dare you assume their gender just cos they have beards, you naughty person you.

I am arguing to expand the definition of women to include both AHF and transwomen.

Why though? Why does the definition need to change when it has a very meaningful application? And what is the definition of "trans woman"?

nor a desire to infiltrate spaces where some women require sanctuary from males

They are males.

There still can be women born women spaces (with or without children) - this falls under positive action (not discrimination) in the Equality Act 2010.

No. Self ID sets up a direct conflict with the EA. Redefining sex as gender does too.

If self ID comes in, any man will be able to ID as a woman and enter spaces. It’s already happening in places - the Caledonian sleeper, the Scottish youth hostels. Hospital wards. You won’t be able to ask for a GRC, so there will be nothing you can do to challenge anyone

Your assertion that ‘oh if predators do bad things then people will sort it’ is not acceptable. Safeguarding works by preventing such acts, not by acting after the fact.

Self ID and using gender instead of sex will render the EA useless.

It will also seriously damage child safeguarding - again this is already happening - look at the girl guides issues.

Any group, who for any reason are proposing something that will damage child safeguarding are not acting in the best interests of society.

Potential expanded definitions is woman = adult human female and transwomen

Except you forgot to exclude transmen, and anyone non-binary who doesn't identify as a woman, so very sloppy and still ridiculous and unworkable............

Again - you are making a claim. It's like me saying the definition of 'goat' is goats + ducks.

This. But only if the duck really really felt like a goat.

If we include transwomen under woman, then what will be the new word to define "adult human female"? I think I already know.

What we'll be left is with is women and c*s-women. But I already know, put, shut up and stop being transphobic.

Okay, so is the proposal:

Woman = either an adult human female or an adult human male who sincerely feels that they are a woman.

One problem with this is that transactivists seem to also consider transwomen to be female, so not sure it would be acceptable to the transactivist community.

Another is that it is circular. What is the "woman" that they sincerely feel like?

Another is that we don't usually allow subjective feelings to dictate reality. For example an adult is someone actually over the age of 18, or whatever the cutoff in their local community, not just someone who feels like an adult. We treat mature 16 and 17 year olds as adults in many ways because it is polite and socially appropriate to do so, but no-one claims they actually are adults and should be allowed all the rights adults have.

Another problem is there is no objective way to verify a claim about what someone sincerely feels. The definition is automatically and necessarily watered down to
"Woman = either an adult human female or an adult human male who states that they feel they are a woman."
Where for social purposes like accessing changing spaces they may only need to state it verbally and in the moment they want to access the space, for e.g. prison, refuges they may need to state it consistently and in writing. Either way this is problematical as it opens the doors wide to abuse by ill-intentioned men.

I think perhaps the definition trans-activists have in mind in fact is more
Woman = A social category consisting of anyone who chooses to be included in it. Associated with but not limited to bodies with a female reproductive system and stereotypes historically assigned to those with such bodies.
Maybe too blatant to be publicly owned to though?

But not all transgender males say that they are women, Maryz.

Miranda Yardley for example.

So:

A woman is an adult human female (including some men who claim that they are women but excluding other men who have had sexual reassignment surgery but still maintain that they are not women).

Catchy, no?

There still can be women born women spaces (with or without children) - this falls under positive action (not discrimination) in the Equality Act 2010.

Talk to many transactivists here who will gleefully tell you that there can't be. The onus is on the service provider to risk a legal case. They don't do this. They would rather discriminate against women who no one gives a fuck about, to pander to male feelings.

A dog is: A domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice (including some cats)

This. Exactly.

Yeah, my second one is simpler: Woman = adult human.

I mean, why not? We may as well have no sex segregation at all, since we are being told we have no sex-based rights any more.

I would prefer to see loos (yes we are back to loos, sorry) as completely non-segregated than segregated by "all decent men go into the men's, all the men who want to violate women's boundaries go into the women's with the women and children". At least in the former, there would be a few decent men around rather than just those who don't allow women to have any boundaries at all.