Are feminists getting played?

[Maniak]

It makes me sad that feminists are spending so much time banging on about bathrooms in a world that has women still working for no pay, old women still more likely to be poor, surrogacy, underfunded maternity care, and poor support for carers. And other stuff.

Yes, the trans thing is annoying, but have you noticed how it always fires up before major elections? It's like Afghanistan in the 80s when the US provided just enough weapons to keep the war going so Russia would use all it's energy and get weak.

I feel like feminism is getting distracted with the trans stuff. At most, it should take up 10 percent of our feminist attention. But I rarely see feminism these days that isn't all about trans. Seriously. Do you think we're getting played here? Is trans really such a big deal?

what I don't expect is for the "women only at all costs" view to be silenced on a feminist board.

Here is the problem. Many people who want justice or equality for women, who are feminists, do not think that makes it ok to be unjust toward men, or tell lies about them.

Feminism isn't about licence to do anything that supposedly supports women.

Feminism isn't about licence to do anything that supposedly supports women.

Feminism is about the liberation of females everywhere in the world from patriarchy. It is about achieving power and control over our own female lives without any reference to men.

We know what a woman is though. You know, and I know, and everyone knows. So if we wanted to have a conversation about women, we could easily. Sure, in some contexts we might be forced to say "cis women" or "biological women" or whatever the language of the day is. Yes, how annoying, but discussion is still possible.

I disagree totally with this Maniak. If TW are to be called women then, no, nobody knows what a woman is. Interestingly, you use forced in your sentence about how women will have to describe themselves in order to have a discussion about themselves and yet you think MN FWR invests too much time and energy on the trans issue, you don't think forcing women to accept a different descriptor is a sufficiently feminist issue? The use of force is not merely annoying.

I won't capitulate to using 'cis' or 'biological' to describe myself no matter how much force or threat is applied. The word woman is taken by adult human females, those who do not fit into that category need to find another word to describe themselves.

If legislators think ‘woman’ includes some males who feel really, really womanly, then no, we can’t have a conversation about women, if the conversation you want to have involves identifying people who face discrimination because of their perceived ability to gestate babies, either in the future, the present or the past

"If TW are to be called women then, no, nobody knows what a woman is."

Really? The existence of trans women really has the power to take away your knowledge of what women are? Not for me. I still know.

The word woman is taken by adult human females, those who do not fit into that category need to find another word to describe themselves.

Brava! Standing ovation for @RedDogsBeg

You see @Maniak sex is only to do with gametes.

If your body develops to supply or potentially supply the large gamete [ovum] it is labelled a female body. [This applies to all plants, animals and mammals which rely on sexual reproduction for perpetuation of their species.]

If your body develops to supply or potentially supply the small gamete [sperm] it is labelled a male body.

That is it. That is all there is.

You can change those labels but you can never change those gametes.

This is why no life form that relies on sexual reproduction for its survival can ever change sex. This is why transsexualism or transgenderism [call it what you like] is such a nonsense!

The point is Maniak that people who make the decisions have no understanding of what a woman is (or at least pretend that’s the case)

So to continue a point made by Datun upthread, we know women aren’t discriminated against in the film industry because the warsawski siblings have made loads of blockbusters and they’re women, right?

But councils sports bodies, shops, girl guides, political parties don’t know what a woman as they can’t define what a woman is apart from anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman

"The point is Maniak that people who make the decisions have no understanding of what a woman is (or at least pretend that’s the case)"

Sure. But we know. People here are talking as if that knowledge is stripped from us and that discussion of women's issues becomes impossible. I'm just saying that's not true. Of course not.

And yet, sensibly, UK law does know:

man = a male of any age

woman = a female of any age

Section 212, Equality Act 2010:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

I think the impact of gender recognition policies adopted by most of the main political parties extends way beyond women's rights.

It's a paradigm shift in the way the law regards everyone's rights and the way it deals with issues like prejudice, accessibility and equality.

Right wing Tories are usually seen as the main threat to human rights legislation, but I think the current threat comes from Labour and the Lib Dems. As I said before and will continue to say over and over again, the law can't protect people it can't define.

I'm just saying that's not true. Of course not

So what? If policy is being made as if nobody understands what ‘woman’ means, then who cares if you DO know? What difference does it make?

People here are talking as if that knowledge is stripped from us and that discussion of women's issues becomes impossible.

What the women here are saying is that if the word 'woman' does not retain its meaning in UK law as 'a female of any age' that will be the point at which discussion of women's issues becomes impossible because the sex class of female [woman] will cease to exist.

Cis woman or biological woman isn't defined in law tho. So it's useless.

Woman is. And now legally includes men with a GRC.

It's not about chatting over the dinner table. It's about laws defining women, actually defining them, as men. Self ID means anyone can do it. Legally.

Sure. But we know. People here are talking as if that knowledge is stripped from us and that discussion of women's issues becomes impossible.

Unless the word 'woman' can be defined legally you might as well be defending the rights of pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Why are they lesser men, not allowed the name, because they choose fabrics cut in a certain pattern?

How are they women, why do men get to name our reality and have the power of naming?

Words are incredibly important. For example, look how murder including a brutal rape has been recategorised as a sex game gone wrong. Or how when we say women have agency we deny that they were victims of abuse - it shifts the blame. If words were not important then men wouldn't be trying to control them.

Oh for crying out loud. Yes, everyone knows what a woman is. What a woman is does not change even if our language is stolen.

But we are not living in a neutral situation wherein those of the class which produce the large gamete are able to access all the rights and protections they require to live in equity and freedom

If we were in a reality where women were not at a disadvantage in the way our societies are set up, you might have a reasonable argument about shrugging your shoulders and letting the language slide.

But we are not living in a fair and equitable reality

We are living in a reality where women face male domination and violence, where our very biology is used against us. If we do not hold fast to every tool we have to stand against this, we will never be liberated.

Sorry to bold, it looks like shouting, but I think there is some colossal point-missing on this thread.

And we have crimes which are reacorded by the gender the person prefers.

So crime statistics become senseless

It is about achieving power and control over our own female lives without any reference to men.

I don't think it's possible for women to live without reference to men or vice versa. We are too interconnected, both as classes and as individuals. Not just men and women but all people. Thinking about it in those terms, IMO, is likely to lead to frustration.

"So what? If policy is being made as if nobody understands what ‘woman’ means, then who cares if you DO know? What difference does it make?"

Well, I suppose I value my own knowledge and the knowledge of women around me. And I value it more than whatever language policy is produced by some organization somewhere.

I was responding to the idea that we can't discuss women's issues because of trans. And it shocks me (it always does) how easily women hand away power. We're talking about our OWN conversations and our OWN knowledge. It's not so weak.

Sure. But we know. People here are talking as if that knowledge is stripped from us and that discussion of women's issues becomes impossible. I'm just saying that's not true. Of course not.

Where'd you get that from? No one's said that. People here obviously know the difference between women and male bodied people who like to be identified as women (jeez it's tiring having to do that) and obviously will continue to discuss women issues with that knowledge.

What we're saying over and over and over again is that the people in power, politicians, police, service providers etc are behaving like they don't know the difference and making the word 'woman' meaningless.

We see this as pretty much the most important threat to women so far and understandably it takes up a lot of our attention.

I was responding to the idea that we can't discuss women's issues because of trans. And it shocks me (it always does) how easily women hand away power. We're talking about our OWN conversations and our OWN knowledge. It's not so weak.

Where'd you get that idea from Maniak