Genuine question re “living as a woman”

[PinkyU]

I’m a woman and therefore (imo) “live as a woman”, this involves be being addressed in female pronouns, accessing woman’s toilets/changing rooms etc unquestioned, being seen as “safe” by other women, experiencing discrimination based on being obviously visually female. (I purposely don’t add anything related to fertility, pregnancy, female diseases, breastfeeding as these things are not necessarily experienced by ALL women, if that makes sense.) if a transperson can experience these same things, are they then not also living as a woman (under my poorly defined criteria)?

If (as I’ve seen on posts in this board) living as a female is not a “thing”, I don’t understand the drive to segregate things and experiences as only for xx women, wouldn’t that then be living as a woman because only women can then experience these things?

I know this is a bit confused and garbled, it’s not a concept or idea I’ve considered before, but rather than processing it from a singular (fairly liberal) view, I feel I should open myself to views and ideas I wouldn’t naturally gravitate towards.

BatShite

Yes, I agree, it is weird to see how people try and make it all work. I had dinner with a group of students recently and the subject came up, and it was a similar kind of experience. "Sex is non-binary though." "Really, what do you mean by that?" "Oh, you know, like there is a spectrum." "A spectrum of what?" "oh you know, sex." "But you only need two sexes for reproduction." "Yes, but people are non-binary."
I think it's because the have tried to build up an understanding with this crazy language. They assume it has a meaning but they haven't really sussed out what it is yet. I know it has no meaning, but they have not figured it out yet.

The language is a huge huge issue. And I think its meant to be that way. Supposed to confuse people so much that they think it must be true as its so confusing or something.

Something I have came across a fair bit is people thinking transwoman means a female person who identifies as trans, and a transman the opposite. Those people seem uutterly baffled if you say, for example, I don't think transwomen should be in womens prisons. Because, its you saying you don't think female people belong in prisons for females to them, even though obviously you mean the opposite. Sometimes takes a while to work out that they think that. And really, their way around, it makes a bit more sense and would probably make the public more able to understand it. When people hear of these Evil TERFs who are campaigning to stop transwomen from going to womens prisons, they think 'horrible people, why on earth would a female who wants to dress as a man/thinks she is a man go to a mens prison, when they are women. It would obviously be unsafe for them in with the men' and think nothing much more of it besides thinking these terfs are obviously a bit derranged or something. Once you get past the language issue, they agree with you, speaking broadly.

I guess its a bit similar to those public polls. You could ask the same question a few ways, but wording it in easier to understand language and self ID and such become more and more unpopular. Especially once you get to 'should a fully intact man who makes no changes at all besides saying he is a woman be in a womans prison' the answer would be a resounding no. But if you start from 'should a self identifying non binary transwoman be in a womans prison' a lot would say eh..why not.

BatShite, yes, the language is one of my specific hobby horses. This is why I flat out refuse to use any version of 'woman' in reference to someone who is a man. Quite apart from the excellent Barracker's Rohypnol analogy, it just confuses everyone who hasn't spent quite a bit of time studying the cult language of the movement.

If you say woman, even with a disclaiming 'trans' prefix, the average person will think you mean an actual woman and respond accordingly.

Women being a biological group 'excludes others'?

You mean it excludes men. Yes it does. That isn't naughty of women you know.

Good point.

I don’t know why we’ve got to the point where any kind of exclusion is seen as evil.

Clearly inclusion is important in some cases: it’s important for people with disabilities to be included fully in society, with rights to access, for example.

But the world is full of categories which are exclusionary, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it subject to social engineering.

I can’t sing, so I’m excluded from the category of pop star. I’m short and stocky, so the category of supermodel excludes me. I’m elderly, so the category of kindergarten excludes me.

No amount of wishful thinking will give me a singing voice, a models figure or youth.

The category of woman excludes men because that’s how biology works. The category of cats excludes humans; the category of reptiles excludes mammals.

Living as a woman means having XX chromosomes in every cell in my body; that’s my biological category. Getting around in my body is living as a woman; everything else is culture, personality or choice.

Some fantastic and logical posts here, thank you.

But really, a huge and strong and determined "fuck you" to every single man out there who uses my painful experience of infertility to tell me that I'm now just like them/they're like me.

They have no concept at all of what it's like to be an infertile woman.

I hope some lurkers here who still think this is a good point that TRAs have made understand what they're supporting.

To go through the fucking endless suicidal hell that was infertility and be told now that it's ALSO a reason that men can cheerfully use the spaces I'm in (because I can't breed, so I'm indistinguishable from them after all!) is just awful.

Lack of engagement by the OP after the initial comments, ignoring a number of questions put to them, does make their posting look a bit suspect, but I have no problem with people continuing to address the points as there are no doubt lurkers who will learn something.

For me, I'm impressed that posters have drawn attention to childless women, those by choice or those who are infertile. So often they are a side note in any biology discussion or used as a whataboutery trump card by TRAs, often ignoring what others have said, that these women are still subject to female biology; it's dangers and it's failings. Perhaps more so for childless women because they will live with a certain amount of daily stigma, either by having their lack of desire to have children presented as selfishness or their inability to have children framed as some kind of failing. It's likely in the case of infertile women that they have additional health issues, hormonal conditions or have had cancer, and it's likely that these conditions will be sex specific. And that's before you even go into the increased risk of certain cancers that not having children or even not breastfeeding can be associated with, cancers that for biological males will either be non existent or massively unlikely, not because they won't be giving birth, but because they are male and that risk isn't there in the first place.

So OP, if you are still reading what has been posted here, your fundamental undrstanding of 'living as a woman' will never be accurate as long as you dismiss the one thing ALL women have in common, Our reproductive biology, dictated at cellular level.

PS. I realise I dug myself into a bit of hole there by suggesting that infertile women were subject to failings of biology and at the same time had to fight the stigma of being viewed as a failure. I of course would never suggest that a woman is a failure for not being able to have children, I just couldn't come up with a better term for 'things not working as they normally should'. Apologies if it was insensitive.

Who knew going to the loo was such a landmark part of being a woman?! You TRAs really are obsessed.

The problems we are currently having are not due to genuine transexuals who have done everything possible to fit quietly and humbly into society's alloted female roles for many decades.

The 'trans' problem is down to unreconstructed misogynistic males discovering a new, socially acceptable way to make women's lives shit and exploiting the loopholes created by equalities legislation for their own sexual and controlling purposes.

If you've been on MN more than 5 minutes you'll already be well aware of the above but probably choose to ignore it for your own reasons.

Pinkyu
There is no such thing as living as a woman. You either are a woman or you are not. I know I'm a woman and that I'm not a man.
There is a biological group of humans called Women, and yes this group excludes that other biological group Men.
Get over it.
Human beings cannot change Sex, ever. Woman is not a fucking costume to be worn sometimes, you know if a man fancies a bit of down time.

If you don't start menstruating, or you stop menstruating, part of your "lived experience" will be to go for medical tests. You'll worry about what it means for your future fertility. Whether or not you carry a pregnancy, you're still affected by the possibility of it. You plan around contraception, ask yourself hypothetical questions about what you'd choose if you became pregnant, stress over your "closing window of fertility", worry about which time of life is best to have a child, field questions from family members on the subject, experience the pressure of advertising and media to have children. You still experience these things, even if it turns out you can't have children, or even if you choose not to have children. Our biology affects every step of our lives, even if that affect comes from the lack of our biology presenting or progressing in a "normal" way.
^^ This.
As women, our bodies are programmed to have children. It's our default setting. Every moment of every day, if we are of childbearing age, our bodies are preparing for conception. If we are of childbearing age, fertile, heterosexual, and sexually active, we have to do something to STOP contraception if we make the choice not to have a child. Yes, even women who never wanted children and do n't have a maternal bone in their body, have bodies that prepare for conception.
There's no way we can remove menstruation from the markers of what it means to be a woman.

Having XX chromosomes makes you a woman.

Being a mum does not.

No one lives 'as a woman' as we all live different lives so there is no one way to live as a woman. You either are a woman or you aren't, you are a man.

Most transwomen don't experience life as a woman. They experience life and are treated by the world around them as a transwoman, having people stumbling over their correct pronoun, ppl getting their name wrong sometimes, getting side-eyed in the women's areas, etc all these experiences are a far cry from living as a woman.

A transwoman cannot "live as a woman", because a transwoman is not a woman.
Simple biology.
A skirt does not a woman make.
The removal of a penis does not a woman make.
Using the women's public loo does not a woman make.
We need to be quite clear and quite firm on this. No waffling, no fuzziness. No niceness.

There was a video posted on MN recently in the middle of which that poem, I will not say it (sic?) was recited. It is so powerful.

Iont I'm in the same situation. Also infertile and infuriated at being used in arguments to suggest i am not a woman.

OHJ, SMT, are you referring to my post above? I was speaking of menstruation, not of childbearing. We women all menstruate because it's the default setting for being female; it's the body preparing for a baby. A woman who is infertile will probably still menstruate and she is (obviously!) still a woman. A woman who does not menstruate will most likely undergo tests to find out why now, because a healthy woman should, and not menstruating could indicate a problem.

They have to mean something and honestly, I find it ridiculous that theres all this handwringing about what a woman is these days when for many many years, everyone has known what a woman is. Its only recently that people seem to try and make out its this complicated thing, when its really not.

I quite frequently go through security at an airport. How many hundred thousands of people do this every day, every hour! Yet funnily enough, security officers know very well who is a woman and who is a man! Women are patted down by female officers, men by male ones. No need to have their chromosomes inspected.
I can imagine that transpeople would have a hard time in such situations. "Misgendering" at airport security could be an issue.

I've never had my chromosomes analysed. I still know they are XX. We don't need chromosome tests at airport security. Everyone knows.

LangCleg brilliant point about 'living as a woman':
It is a sexist concept invented by male doctors to assist male patients. It has no relevance to the lives lived by actual women: it is a euphemism for using women's spaces before medical intervention.

And I would add without asking women if they were OK with it.

Needs saying, often.

That you think they are stupid questions does not mean that they aren't sincere

I agree! It's the teacher in me.....

I know this board gets trolled very frequently - but I'm prepared to treat a poster as genuine unless/until they display otherwise. If genuinely not able to understand the root of an issue - then explaining it clearly; in simple terms; in non-threatening tone - is the best way to teach, or help understand.

I really want for people to be clear exactly why you cannot just become a woman because you have a fantasy that you are.

I think it's because the have tried to build up an understanding with this crazy language. They assume it has a meaning but they haven't really sussed out what it is yet. I know it has no meaning, but they have not figured it out yet

Yes, most often you have to own your own understanding; having thought it through properly for yourself. And then observed 'it' in action around you. Until that point you are just riffing, or bullshitting - because you don't actually really understand what you are saying.

And the thing about transgenderism is that it is based on inherently shaky foundations, since it is constructed out of untruths and fantasies; on feelings. It doesn't stand up to rational thought or scrutiny at all.

That you think they are stupid questions does not mean that they aren't sincere

You're completely missing my point. OP turns up in FWR from time to time in order to present the genderist view of things. It's fine. They might be sincere, they might be JAQing. I don't much care either way.

The point is the framing of the OP, which is a rhetorical trick so that responders spend their time and energy replying but are bamboozled into accepting a false premise.

There's a book about it: Don't think of an elephant! As soon as somebody says it, you immediately start thinking in terms of elephants.

Here, the only reason that anyone ever uses the phrase living as a woman is because male doctors wanted to help heterosexual male patients transition, when before they'd been gatekept out.

My point is that the framing of the OP is what needs to be opposed. Not accepting it and trying to argue against it. Resisting false framing is as important as resisting language changes a la Barracker and her fabulous pronouns piece.

Huh.
"Living as a woman" is a euphemism for "using women only spaces without women's consent..."
This makes so much sense. Thank you Lang

I see on another thread the AWA have been trying to edge away from "born in the wrong body" I wonder when they will edge away from this...

The point is the framing of the OP, which is a rhetorical trick so that responders spend their time and energy replying but are bamboozled into accepting a false premise.

Absolutely it is framed improperly, which is why I said in my first post that the framing for the question was wrong, and that was why it was difficult to try and make sense of it.
I'd not assume though, which you seem to be doing even now, that it's really the OP trying to trick people here into responding to an impossible and biased question.

Maybe that's the case. But it's also something that is repeated so often, a lot of people think about it in those terms - they are the ones who have been bamboozled into accepting the framing. What people like that need is someone clearly and kindly show them what the problem is and what a clearer, more accurate way to think might be.