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?

Are we back to that if you get raped you can always report it thing again?
If a transwoman gets bashed in the men’s toilets can’t they just report it? Being male I expect they’d have a better outcome from the criminal justice system than women.

I’m not getting raped just to protect them.
Blunt, but there you are.

Tbh I agree with you bowlofbabelfish - you seem considered and thoughtful in your responses. My work with Trans people makes me sympathetic to their struggles - they are vulnerable people, in the main. For many the decision to socially transition is a matter of life and death. More than a few service users have taken their own lives, as the current process to get the GRC is long, expensive and invasive...

Popchyk - I don't usually read your posts. They make me sad. This sounds an extreme example that is detrimental to the advancement of trans rights but one individual does not define a community.

Women born women spaces - head explodes

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

Firstly, as an 'AHF' may I say do fuck off to the far side of fuck for your attempt to remove my own word from me and reallocate me an acronym in its place.
Secondly, there is no possible characteristic that I could share with a transwomen and NOT with any other man that would make sense of me being put into a group this way.
Thirdly, this once again illustrates the purest of pure misogyny that insists that females must be forced to participate in this charade that WE are LIKE YOU when we are not.

You do not get to tell other people that they are to be forced into a group to which they patently don't belong, and you don't get to brazenly steal their own name to make this happen.

I'm a woman. The only group I fit into with anyone who calls themselves transwoman is the group "all humans of both sexes".

Barracker calls it.

110% with you.

We don’t need u defining us

We are women that is it. Nothing else and not a AFH whatever the feck that is.

Ffs the pur3 cheek

We don’t need expanded. Go expand the men

Bretonstripedcat Miranda Yardley is not a lone voice. There are also a few transgender and transsexual posters on mumsnet. Their posts are very informative. Very much worth reading and getting all sides of the story.
I agree with you, I have worked with transwomen in Brazil so I know the struggles are very real and very serious. I have also worked with vulnerable girls and women. We cannot push the agenda of one group at the expense of another. There needs to be another way!

Every time you post I am heartened by the reminder of the honest transsexuals who identify with women rather than bully us, and with whom women can find common ground over the issue of Self-ID, Homefromthehills.

YY To this, I am also very happy to hear such a sane and thoughtful voice supporting women and our concerns.

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

So I think what Glitched is saying is that they would like this to be the definition of woman. Not that it actually is the definition (like the "is/ought" conundrum which has preoccupied philosophers over the years - is what is the same as what ought to be?)

In other words, Glitched hasn't answered the question, only told us what they want. Which I think we knew already.

If Transwomen are women under a new expanded definition, does that mean that Transwomen are now at risk of women’s cancers?

And if so, does that mean I can ID as a man or non binary and identify out of my genetic risk?

Bretonstripedcat

The trans people I work with are those whose dysphoria is so troubling that they tend to avoid going in to spaces where access is designed to be determined by sexed bodies as their dysphoria prevents them accessing either available space.

I am sympathetic to their difficulties and think society needs to do a lot more to help dysphoric people, but abandoning sex based provision is not the solution. For provision to be determined by sex, sexed bodies need to be significant. As such, it makes no sense to overlook sexed bodies in favour of gender identity, when determining access. If sexed bodies are key, then sexed bodies need to determine access.

For people with gender dysphoria, additional provision is needed. It is likely that many (perhaps most) without SRS would not want to access male or female provision. Those without SRS who want to access provision for those with differently sexed bodies are likely to cause distress to other provision users. It may well be appropriate for those who have had full SRS surgery to access provision for the opposite sex, but that should be determined on a case by case basis depending on the type of provision and the other people accessing the provision at any one point in time.

Breton, four women being sexually assaulted is "an extreme example that is detrimental to the cause of trans rights"?

The harm is to trans people of course.

Not to the women who were sexually assaulted. The harm to them didn't even occur to you.

I think you've nailed your colours very firmly to the mast with that post.

And isn't is just a teensy bit odd how my posts usually make you sad when you've only just joined?

I'm going to ask again for the definition of 'transwoman' - given that Stonewall include an extremely wide range of men (including fetishists) in theirs.

Eddie Izzard calls himself 'trans' - is he also included in the proposed new definition of 'woman'?

NB Mumsnet - I'm pretty sure Eddie Izzard still uses 'he'.

Lol I am not trans.

I believe we should expand OUR definition of women to include transwomen.

I believe this because I believe transwomen are real women. They may not be the same as the majority of women, but that's no reason to exclude people.

And the phrase adult human female is in common usage on these boards. I simple made it easier to type by making it AHF.

I am not reducing you or anyone to an abbreviation

I didn't pen this. One of the bloody brilliant women on here did. It sums up my thoughts

I'm sick of hearing about "expanding the definition of women" - it means erasing women as a class of people who are oppressed because of our bodies! It means redefining actual structural oppression around men's feelings. It means erasing patriarchy.

I believe this because I believe transwomen are real women. They may not be the same as the majority of women, but that's no reason to exclude people.

Tell me how they're the same as biological women, please.

I believe this because I believe transwomen are real women. They may not be the same as the majority of women, but that's no reason to exclude people.

Glitched what do transwomen have in common with "the majority of women" (aside from what all humans have in common)? What is it that they have in common that means they shouldn't be "excluded" from the definition of women?

Great minds, Vicky!

Why should we expand OUR definition of women to include men? Trans women are a subset of men. They never were (or will be) women, just for the asking.

What is it that make them realwomen?

If you took the time to actually read what I said you will see I have never claimed trans women are the same as biological women.

We don't have to expand our definition. I appreciate you don't agree.

I think we should and many other women do too.

Why don’t the men expand theirs

So they’re like women, but different? How does that make them the real deal? Your arguments are so sloppy, Glitched.
You don’t even have a coherent theme to them. Very difficult to even try to take you seriously.