Have we petitioned Stonewall directly?

[heresyandwitchcraft]

Stupid question. I was thinking with the momentum of Stickerwoman that perhaps we could start a direct petition to Stonewall UK just to engage in dialogue with women's groups/set up a public neutrally structured debate?
Does anyone know if we have recently tried directly petitioning the LGBT groups to even just TALK to us? I know there have been ones to the government, but I really think it's more than a little crazy that we can't even speak with the so-called "other side."
Maybe if we get enough signatures to them they can stop pretending this is just a minority concern?
What do you think?

No, cis just means "not trans". But I'm not expecting someone who thinks there's just one stereotype of femininity to grasp this

what is the difference between a 'woman' and a 'cis woman' then? You are the one making the point that you are 'cis' so what is that exactly?

12thGuelph

Why does there need to be a term for "not trans" because if a transwoman is a woman then why is a woman a cis woman?

That is also ignoring the fact that in your post transwoman has somehow become the default term and woman has to be defined as other than trans

We're all non-men anyway, so don't even need the cis thingy.

Ahem!

PUBLIC SERVICE ANOUNCEMENT.

I'm loving that to tell if someone is cis or not, the cis ones literally have to do all the stereotypes at once. And all the time.

They really didn't think that one through did they?

That is also ignoring the fact that in your post transwoman has somehow become the default term and woman has to be defined as other than trans

There needn't be a "default", they're relative to each other.

There needn't be a "default", they're relative to each other.

Guffaw. Srsly. Can't make this shit up,

12thGuelph

There needn't be a "default", they're relative to each other.

They are in no way related to each other and the term "cis" has no correct usage outside of geography or microbiology.

12thGuelph

And just in case you missed the question

If a transwoman is a woman. Why is a woman a ciswoman?

Let me introduce you to some head-saving logic.
You cannot define a term by saying it's whatever someone says it is.
That's completely unhelpful, circular, and useless to communicate.
Imagine you are defining "woman" to a child.
How will you tell them what it even MEANS to "identify as a woman", unless you root it in biology? Or will you then start peddling in the gendered stereotypes we talked about (women are submissive, men are forceful, etc)?
Therefore, the biological definition is what matters, and sex matters.
Otherwise biological females could be trans women. But they can't. Because there is nothing to transition from or to.
So I find it easiest to save the headache I get from this illogical nightmare of queer theory by saying the following:
Trans women are trans women. They are biological males who identify as women, and wish to live in the feminine cultural/social role. They can be a third category, just like they claim has always existed in history.
But they are not a sub-group of females / women.
Actual biological sex changes are impossible for humans.
Males can never actually become the same as females.
So: females and males who identify as women are not, and will never be, the same thing. Cis is a completely unnecessary qualifier.
We ALL know this.
There is no person on this planet that looks at Danielle Muscato and truly believes she is the same as a biological female. If they say they do, then they are lying to you.
Keep the concepts clear. Acknowledge that they are separate. Give them different names and definitions. Stop promoting an illogical, impossible ideology.
Trans is different from the opposite sex.
Gender identity is a personal belief.
Trans people should be treated as any other human being.
But insisting others pretend to believe something they do not is not a human right.
Trans women are trans women. But they're not the same as women. If they were, they wouldn't be trans.
And that's fine.

You know how Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul were both types of Gaul? I bet Caesar was spitting when those disgusting microbiologists appropriated the term.

And now, I revel in your ignorance as much as you do, but OP doesn't like the derailing, so try not to be so fixated on dissent. If you ignore me I might go away.

12thGuelph

So you can't or won't answer the question and just want to throw insults.

You are showing yourself to be the ignorant one, and I mean that in both senses of the word.

No, I answered the question. And there's only one sense of the word ignorant, the other is an ignorant appropriation of it, unless you believe that meaning can be changed by usage, in which case…

What I'm really enjoying is that you didn't stop to consider whether I might actually already agree with you on anything, I asked a mildly critical question and you all just piled in on me. Because that's how fundamentalists think function manage. Unwatching you again.

You've already done what you set out to do.
You could have asked politely, instead of framing it as a loaded question.
I am quite sure it was deliberate to derail.
It's a bit poor, because if you had decided to start a new thread - other people might have been able to join in and read arguments on your specific question.
Instead, this conversation is hidden away on a thread meant as a brainstorm, speculation, thinking out loud, of how we could speak to the "other side" when aggressive trans rights activists are silencing us and threatening us with actual violence on a daily basis.
I note you have not condemned the inflammatory rhetoric or actions, or taken the time to ask questions about why "we" are concerned.

But fine, let's talk here.

Your Gaul analogy does not hold, in my view, because geography doesn't really apply here, and even from a cheeky Wikipedia, the say:
By the 2nd century BC, the Romans described Gallia Transalpina as distinct from Gallia Cisalpina.
Places are still places, and distinct from each other. They're not the same, no matter what you call them, Paris, Texas is not the same as Paris, France. Additionally: a) there would still be clear boundaries for the greater region of sub-divisions of any territories (which there isn't for the concept of "woman" when it becomes a matter of self-definition and an internal claim of identity), b) the trans and cis areas were separated by the Alps (an actual physical boundary) - which means you're acknowleging that sex is the dividing line here, c) you would have to argue that trans and cis were the same place (which is what you're implicitly doing when you say that trans women the same as women) - when they clearly aren't, d) you would have to start from the premise that you had one region that then expanded, and you re-named it cis/trans, but pretended the whole territory had some kind of properties of the original place.

A better analogy would be to say we have human beings, but they are separated into two by the dividing line of reproductive sex. Humans have called these two groups various names, but they are Female and Male.

even in micro biology it essentially means this side of and that side of.

even in micro biology it essentially means this side of and that side of.

As I understand it it refers to different types of symmetry, but ultimately one isomer isn't more authentic than another.

this conversation is hidden away on a thread meant as a brainstorm, speculation, thinking out loud, of how we could speak to the "other side"

Well, I'm the other side", and it was watching Mumsnet in action that put me there. See, I find TWAW confusing too and I'd be much more comfortable if they stopped insisting on it and accept that we politely treat them as second class citizens. But I suspect not everyone experiences the same intensity of gender identitification, and I decided not to assume that my gender-meh experience is the only valid one.

Stonewall's fingerprints have been found all over Scottish Councils' 'cut and paste' reponse to people enquiring about the disappearance of sex as a protecrted characteristic. East Lothian Council actually name Stonewall as the source of the new protected characteristic of 'gender'

A CIS Mumsnetter (cismyfatarse) has also found records of Stonewall's activities in the 'Lobby Register'' showing meetings with MSPs on the Gender Recognition Act.

Can Stonewall confirm that they advised councils that 'sex' was just a minimum standard and that Parliament had meant to say 'gender' because Parliament wanted the law to be inclusive. Did they really tell Councils to disregard the law and follow Stonewall's interpretation?

It is very much a matter of public interest and I think we should be told.

See, I find TWAW confusing too and I'd be much more comfortable if they stopped insisting on it and accept that we politely treat them as second class citizens.

What rights do transgenders not have that others have? None.
So when you say "second class citizens" you mean they are being treated the same as everyone else when everyone should be able to see they are special and need special treatment.

@12thGuelph

WE ARE NOT THINGS!

Men center themselves in all of life and all of history and here they are demanding they be centered in Feminism too.
It is exhausting to be exposed to these self centered asshats day after day wherever we go.

12thGuelph
That's an insane accusation.
Stating the fact that males cannot become females literally tells you nothing about how you are meant to treat them.
I personally would be polite, and have REPEATEDLY stated that you, trans people, every person, can believe whatever. It's none of my concern, really.
But others have to extend me the same courtesy.
And when it comes to changes to the LAW, which can affect me - then I have the right in a democracy to explain my philosophical position, argue, and provide evidence. I should be able to do so without actual fear of physical violence - which you still have not condemned?
Trans activists, and you, also have a right to your opinion and your arguments should be heard. An actual open debate, held in neutral territory, would be the healthiest way to do this. Not you derailing this thread and smearing us for something we never said.
Distinctions are not dehumanizing. We to be able to acknowledge basic truths like sex! Saying trans women are trans women, but not the same as adult human females (women), is a neutral fact. It's not meant as a value judgement. Neither kind of person is more or less "authentic." They're just two different categories. Gay people are not straight, but they're still people who deserve love and respect. Trans women are not women, but they're still people who deserve love and respect. Blue-eyed people don't have brown eyes, but they're still people who deserve love and respect.
I am not going to go around abusing Christians, or tell them what to wear, or what to believe, just because I do not believe in any of the tenets of Christianity. But equally, I would find it irritating if people kept preaching passages of the Bible to me, or told me to give up something for Lent. The same principle goes for trans people - I would never dream of going around harassing them just because they are trans.
The problem is that some trans activists are demonizing and harassing people like me for having a simple difference of opinion.
Saying you agree to disagree - and explaining your rationale for believing what you do - is not bigotry.

But I suspect not everyone experiences the same intensity of gender identitification, and I decided not to assume that my gender-meh experience is the only valid one.
You're guilty of this yourself by dismissing the concerns of people who do not experience gender in accordance with your ideology. I am one of them. I don't have a gender identity. Stop trying to force this on me.

That's what I'm saying, I don't experience gender identity either AFAIK, but some people do.

So what? Some people are goths, vegetarians, socialists, animal-rights activists, Scientologists, Antifa members, anti-vaxxers, Conservatives, etc, etc, etc.
You define yourself according to your belief.
Gender identity itself may be in a different category, much more personal and complicated - but the ideology around trans activism is just a belief. Some transsexuals are perfectly happy to say they are not actually female, but have adopted a womanly role. I've seen stories online where trans people get increasingly frustrated by trying to chase an unattainable goal of "becoming" the opposite sex, and feeling great relief when they come to terms with the idea that it's not actually possible.
Be proud of the "trans" part, is my own opinion.
But every time you use "cis" you are saying you have a gender identity that matches with your sex.
I will not be coerced into re-defining myself, the Oxford English dictionary, biological facts, and laws, simply to validate others. Don't force me to believe that males can be females, or that sex doesn't matter.
I tried, I can't do it.
If you are going to keep engaging on this thread, I am going to need some kind of sign that you are against the violence against women being threatened by some trans activists right now. Otherwise you are condoning the idea that people like me should be assaulted, raped or harassed.
It is this silencing and toxic atmosphere that prompted me to post this thread in the first place. Because I think it's dangerous, a 60-year old grandmother has already been beaten up for wanting to attend a talk, women have been doxxed en-masse, and it's bad for everyone. Stonewall or other LGBT organizations could help calm this down, just by trying to call for rational discussions.
You still haven't said anything about that?
Have a look at these threads documenting violence and coercion of women, lesbians -

Threats:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3342464-collating-evidence-of-threats-against-women-by-tras

Lesbians who don't do penis:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3294339-cotton-ceiling-evidence-thread

If you cannot condemn this hatred of women, of lesbians, with the horrific dehumanizing language and open calls for violence, then I cannot continue to engage in any kind of good faith. Because it means you agree with them.

I think it's typical of this victim narrative both sides have going that you require me to state something so obvious as Threats And Violence Are Bad, of course they are, and that you think it's a one-sided thing; it’s not. And what do Maclachlan's grandmother credentials have to do with anything, and has anyone actually been doxxed as opposed to having existing public domain information circulated?

I'd rather not keep engaging on this thread, I didn't want to spend more than 100 words on it, but IME it's almost impossible to disagree with FWR without derailing a thread because people get angry and pile on when I disagree and angry when I try to leave. And I'm not sure how "Hi… Who's the "we" of the title please?" could have been more polite and less of a loaded question.