TWAW

[Billi77]

Thought it might be an idea to start a thread for women who support TWAW. I understand ‘Feminism chat’ should also include us and give us our own space?

@merrymouse

To say TWAW is to claim that actually no, biology isn't really part of being a woman, actually it's all those stereotypes that's the important thing about being a woman.

Yes, I think there is no getting away from this.

I can't see it meaning anything else, particularly when you add the often-missed second part to the mantra - TMAM.

Someone might (will) ask what I mean by this. I know we can't change chromosomes, but I believe trans women are women (and trans men are men). This is because language has power and everyone has the right to own their own identity and how they label themselves. Does it mean they were born female? NO. Does it mean the debate about women's spaces and sport should be silenced? NO. Does it mean that in a medical/scientific setting their birth sex is irrelevant and should be erased? NO.

But can we call TWW? Fucking yes. Why the hell not? Maybe if we gave up a bit of language, we wouldn't have to give up all the rest? Surely, we want to align ourselves as allies with the 99.99% of trans people who pose zero threat and sympathise with the legitimate feminist debate. Maybe if we could all be women together, we could move the debate along and come to some solutions?

I would say that I previously agreed with you on that. Inface most people probably do. Most women have always accepted transexual women in female spaces. The sort who had dysphoria and hid their pennies because they were upsetting to them. They tried to pass as women and you got on with it.

but I've been called transphobic for saying far less that what you just posted. So where do we go from there? It's not just 'woman' they want, it's 'female' And the word doesn't have any specific meaning.

I hate that I've been in a position of having to push back against transsexuals because of trans activism. I don't want Alex Drummond in my locker room. I don't think that person is Karen White, but seriously look at them. This is a person who doesn't care about the sensibilities of any women they come in contact with.

Pennies is penises. My prudish autocorrect

Who's told you that? Neither me nor any woman I know has been told we can't call ourselves women. I've seen lots of people tweeting about it, I've seen articles about it from partisan sources. But it's always someone claiming soon women will have to call themselves womb havers ...

But - YOU'RE doing it! You keep referring to "cis women"!

In repsonse to your very patronising "Who's told you that?" - I can (and I will, though I invite others to assist) seek out and copy and paste examples for you.

In 2018, Munroe Bergdorf was invited to lead a women's march. Munroe decided that women joining this march must not mention our biology because "centering women's biology at the heart of these demonstrations (women's marches - marches solely about the issues that affect women) is reductive and exclusionary".

The thing is, without our biology the things that are the root of our oppression don't actually exist.

Here's an example of language relating to women's biology (I alluded to this in my earlier post which you very patronisingly suggested was a figment of my imagination, or the result of reading the Daily Mail) - this is being promoted by the Inernational Doula Organisation:

Woman means adult human female. It's not yours or anyone else's to give away out of kindness or otherwise. So no, I won't 'share' it

10000 times this!

*Wanting to be called something doesn't actually make you that something, you know. You do understand that, don't you? It's not just a matter of linguistics either. It's our entire existence. Our entire world. Everything women have built for themselves will be open to anyone who says that magic phrase "I am a woman". Anyone. Absolutely anyone. No guards at the gate. No recourse. No option for those of us who don't want to share space with masculine bodies. Nothing for us at all. You are handing me over to them on a plate, Nellie.

Does it feel good?*

And THIS!

Nellie you're either clueless or just goady. But you're massively unaware of what's going on either way.

.

Sorry for posting the image again - couldn't see it on my first attempt.

Can I ask where do people think menstrual taboos, FGM, and things like that should be fought for? If you think TWAW do you still see a need for feminism to fight for things that are female even if those things aren't for women?

Can I ask where do people think menstrual taboos, FGM, and things like that should be fought for? If you think TWAW do you still see a need for feminism to fight for things that are female even if those things aren't for women?

As I indicated earlier, Munroe Bergdorf definitely doesn't.

Who's told you that? Neither me nor any woman I know has been told we can't call ourselves women

Exactly! Just because a few extremists on Twitter might say it (I wouldn't know, not seen it myself) doesn't mean you're not allowed to call yourself a woman anymore.
Of course you are.
You're no less a woman despite any hyperbolic posts on here telling women that they're not allowed to use the word woman anymore.

You're no less a woman despite any hyperbolic posts on here telling women that they're not allowed to use the word woman anymore.

But she herself was calling us "cis women. THAT is the point. SHE* was doing it.

I heard woman on an advert earlier and was actually shocked as I didn’t think we could call ourselves that anymore so publicly!! Goes to show how much this has messed up our thinking.

I'm not a radical feminist. I was happy to go along with TWAW until I realised (through this board) how few actually committed and removed their male genitalia.

Now, I will say that I do actually understand, in one way, why that would be something they'd be reluctant to do. I'm imagining removal would essentially remove sexual satisfaction forever. It's a massive step. It's huge, irreversible and pretty terrifying, to me at least. But it got me thinking. If you were genuinely dysphoric about your genitals, surely keeping them would be so distressing that you'd be unable to live your life? So why do these people keep their male genitalia? They add breasts, as far as I know. Hormones is something I'm not totally up to speed on so I can't speculate what is generally taken, but I'd imagine some sort of hormone treatment would be on the list.

Do female hormones cause the male genitalia to fall off? Do they stop them working? In that case, surely it would be better to have surgery, not have a useless set of organs hanging around that distress you?
The fact that it's a part of the transition that a significant proportion choose not to move on to makes me suspect that the tackle is actually fully functioning.

In which case - what the fuck is it doing in my changing room?

BigGee

Autogynephilia is the answer to most of your questions.

“Be nice. Be kind. Think about others before yourself? What will it cost you? Think about how they feel?”

Did all that and then more and more was demanded without any concessions for women. Funny how it is a one way street.

Vicky, I apologise about the cis thing. I was careful to read the MN guidelines before posting and it wasn't there. Have also heard it in mainstream media. But when it refers to you, you deserve to be addressed with respect and you are who you say you are. I won't say it again.

To the squirrel person who said I'm clueless and goady, I think that's pretty unfair.

A couple of people said they felt like me re: language at first and have changed their way of thinking over time. Particularly interested in your responses and will reply properly soon!

I don't think Nellle is goady. For that matter, I don't think Billi77 is either. I think they are coming from a libfem perspective, and I suspect haven't had much radfem input. Heck, 15 years ago I was a vocal anti-feminist, so I'm not going to write of women who at the very least understand that feminism is a positive thing.

And getting to grips with feminism was hard for me - there are still posts on here where I am denying I am a feminist because I was staunchly prolife. And a number of other regulars have posted in this very thread that they got robustly responded to on FWR and realized they lost the argument and changed their minds.

As much as I get weary of baiting, I think this is a rare opportunity to have a conversation with someone who disagrees but doesn't want to bait, goad and derail. These are the kinds of opportunities we have been begging for over the last few years. I'm happy to take this one with both hands.

I agree, I don't think this is goady at all. I think it's sad as fuck. But not goady.

And again, Vicky thank you for providing the image. I knew you would. It's a really fucking silly poster, you're right.

No one has ever made you stop using the gendered language though, surely?

Gendered and non - gendered language exists, sure. But I've never been expected to use it, let alone been oppressed by it.

@MadBadDaddy, I accept your point that your numbers are made up. But you are resting your argument on the fact that because 60k are dangerous, women should therefore be willing to accept another 10% increase of dangerous people into their spaces. Why on earth would any women accept an increase to the dangers they already face.

And of course safety is one facet only of the issues in question. Sports, appointments, awards etc etc are a few more examples where women stand to lose out.

I think women's ability to assemble and discuss their unique sex-based issues is important.

Trans women should be able to do the same.

But their struggles are not our struggles because we are not the same.

This is hypothetical. But say a women's group organised a meeting to discuss local women's issues. On the agenda is: problems caused to women by the maternity leave provision of a local business; the availability of menstrual products for girls in a local school, the proposed changes to an NHS labour ward and the opening of a new women's refuge.

How does any of that relate to the trans woman who has joined the group and wants to come along? Yes, they might be interested and have opinions, but then any man off the street might too. The fact is that none of those issues effect them. The women's meeting is not relevant and does not include them.

So do we change the name of the Women's Group? What to?

We can't call it the 'birthing person's group' or the 'menstruator's group' because that doesn't cover all of the issues up for discussion - nor some of the women in the group who are post-menopausal or infertile.

Do we have to add in extra agenda items to include trans women? So: the consequences of cross-sex hormones' or ' being misgendered in public places' just to include them? Then the women in the room would have nothing to contribute - in their own meeting.

It's maybe not a great example, but women's issues are not the same as trans issues. We are not the same. And we need to be able to talk about our problems in groups of people with the same problems - and we need to be able to give that a name! What name?

And don't say Cis women because I'll scream.

Words matter.

Feminism has to be about women. In order to define and discuss the power relationship between the two sexes, we need language that is commonly understandable.

If woman means anything other what woman has meant across the globe for thousands of years, we lose the ability to talk and organise around sexism and misogyny.

Why on earth should women - the oppressed sex - agree to that?

So based on the picture posted by Vicky...

We're changing from teaching our children the correct terms for their private parts because its known that this is better in terms of preventing CSA, to calling our vulvas 'external genitals"

Can you imagine going to the drs and telling them you had issues with you internal organs. Not sure how they would diagnose anything based on that!

@Nellle thank you for engaging with posters and answering questions. I posted my lived experience of being a woman early on in the thread. Other than to tell me that 'yes' we should be teaching that to men/trans women the OP has not engaged with me. I wonder if you could answer my question about how we teach this experience. (I believe my experience is far from unusual for women and has hugely shaped my life as a woman). Thanks .

But I'm afraid that if we're starting to be labelled in a way we don't like... Well, why should trans people have to suffer the same thing?

It really doesn't matter whether I like or dislike 'woman', or even if the word 'woman' can be claimed by anyone. My sex can be observed, even when I am literally wearing clothes that have been designed for a man, and regardless of whether I identify as female. The fact that I would need surgery to get close to being read as male puts me in the class of people who are female.

I need 'woman' to protect basic human rights. You are suggesting that 'woman' can be used to label a subjective concept of identity. Can you see the conflict?

I was also happy with TWAW - when I thought it was "Hayley from Corrie" and old-school transsexuals (homosexual, effeminate males) rejecting masculinity. That wasn't a problem.

Until I found out about the "lady-dicks" and the cotton ceiling, and the "you're a cis woman" and the sexual assaults in women's prisons by male sex offenders identifying as women. And the threat to women's sports by 6ft, 200lb transwomen with clearly male bodies., and women being told talking about their female bodies is transphobic, and then everything being transphobic, and the misogyny, and the punching of a woman in Hyde Park, and women having "Terf" yelled at them...all of that stuff.

Then it was, no, sorry. This isn't a case of "being kind to a vulnerable minority" - this is an outright, misogynistic attack on women's rights, on the very definition of woman, and what it means to be female.