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?

"If I believe trans women are women and believe they should be able to identify as "women" with certain legal caveats, am I still the enemy?"

Hard to say if your still "the enemy" without knowing if you're so woke you can't see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes/hard of thinking, or you want men to be able to identify as women, for nefarious purposes/just don't give a shit about vulnerable women.

*you're (excuse typos )

Nellie

To address your question the minute you start putting legal caveats in place to protect TW, you are saying that TWANW. The only way to achieve full woman status for TW is to say that all women are equal otherwise you create 2 classes of women which won't please anyone either.

Having addressed your question, could you address mine please?

You're not the enemy, Nellie - as long as you accept that your personal comfort levels are not the basis for extending consent on behalf of any other women.

Sorry typo. The minute you put in caveats to protect biological women you are saying that TWANW

You're not being turned away, Nellle. You've repeatedly asked to stay, in fact, and not to be pilloried, but to discuss. There are posters here who have different lines. Kittens is funny, sharp and severe, Datun is patient and calm, Rufus is delightful and much more middling than many of us in her standpoint. Some of us are willing to compromise on certain things but not on others, and all of us are expected to back up our statements.

You have made it clear you're happy to cede the word woman, and you've explained that it's because you both think it's important to TW and not important to you. Fair enough, that's your view. Most here disagree.

Who has said it means you can't discuss sport, prisons, healthcare provision, etc? It's been pointed out that your position will hamper that discussion, but no one has said you can't join in, have they?

And seriously, "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman" excludes the women who don't 'identify' that way, but are women. It's tautological nonsense.

@MrsCollinssettled

Sorry typo. The minute you put in caveats to protect biological women you are saying that TWANW

MrsCollins, I'm not picking a side. I'm saying what I think.

Sorry, what was your question? Please bear in mind I'm quite outnumbered.

But no one has addressed anything I said towards the end of my post.

If I believe trans women are women and believe they should be able to identify as "women" with certain legal caveats, am I still the enemy? Can you not get onto the discussion about sport, safe spaces etc with me because I fall at a stumbling block about words? Am I not welcome to discuss women's bodies and spaces because of my view about the word?

Please explain what legal caveats you believe will continue to protect women/females without the using women or female? This is exactly what I would like to see is the suggestions on how this can be done (and I am not a legal professional, just a woman who has experienced her fair share of sex discrimination in healthcare and as an employee). I am very happy to have a discussion about it as you can probably have seen from my posts. I have been asking your opinion if you want to give it.

Would you want me in your midst? Of course. You are very welcome to discuss your point of view and I think most of us would welcome having someone who can articulate why TW are, in their mind, W. And how that is handled when the nitty gritty needs to be discussed.

"If I believe trans women are women and believe they should be able to identify as "women" with certain legal caveats, am I still the enemy?"

'blue ticks' on twitter have been extensively trolled and received death threats for expressing that opinion.

The worst you should get on MN is a rant, and you can always hide the thread. Abusive posts should be reported.

If you want to discuss sport, then you discuss sport. If you make it a precondition that everyone here agrees that woman is a vague amorphous idea in people's heads and nothing to do with biology then that discussion is going to be a bit challenging, though. Some may have the patience for the linguistic contortions required to be all "those people, you know, the ones with the 40% greater upper body strength who're taller and heavier, probably not a brilliant idea to have them playing rugby with the smaller people with the more delicate bones who're less strong" rather than "men can't be allowed to play contact sports with women, it's dangerous", but many will not.

(And I don't mean trolled by GC feminists)

‘^Of course we can discuss women’s atheism, as soon as they recognise my Lord, Jesus Christ as their Risen Saviour’.
^How about “No, and why does me having boundaries make you feel full of rage?”

This!

Sorry typo. The minute you put in caveats to protect biological women you are saying that TWANW

Yes. Which everyone knows.

I am a brown woman. Let’s say I start identifying as a white person, it won’t make me one though. Nor will I get anything out of doing so. I will still have to deal with racism cause I cannot change my ethnicity. Why is this such a hard concept to get with respect to gender? Gender is a social construct that was designed to oppress a particular sex class i.e. female people. Gender needs to abolished not consecrated. When you tie the definition of women to anything but biology, you’re reinforcing gender. You are saying that womanhood is directly related to performing femininity. I am woman because I am an adult human female. The only thing I have in common with others women is my biology and the fact that I am oppressed on the basis of my biology. I don’t share any kind of oppression with trans women so I don’t know why our advocacy must be linked together? It’s harmful for both sides to efface differences like this and pretend we have the same priorities. Feminism is only for anyone who’s female, cause we suffer from sex-based oppression, and that’s that. Transwomen are oppressed for being gender non-conforming males and their advocates should address the men who rape and kill them instead of encroaching on women’s rights.

A woman is a person who identifies as a woman.

But that's meaningless? What are they identifying with?

To put legal caveats in, you are saying TWANW.

Which is why it won’t work if you believe TWAW.

You’re either a woman, or not.

This is the issue.

Although firstly, to put those legal caveats in place, you have to define what a woman is within those legal constraints

So you have to define a woman that is not a tw.

Which is transphobic. Thos legal caveats will be transphobic for not agreeing that TWAW.

See the problem?

Whats wrong with defining TW as just that.

A "transwoman" is a male person who identifies as a woman. Otherwise there would be female transwomen. The one requirement is to be male.

That's the truth of it.

What tarkovsky said. Brilliant post.

Thank you for this initiative. I think we should be supportive of all feminist voices including intersectional ones.

Nellle

Sport is actually a great one to start with. Have you read much on it? I really knew absolutely nothing about it until last year when I read the studies being done on women's menstrual cycles on how that effects their performance and even their training.

Then came the study done by one of the Welsh unis into how prone women are to concussion due to the delicacy of the nervous pathways in the brain compared to males. And the Swedish uni that then released the study on testosterone ointment on women runners.

And then, I am not sure whether you have read it, but Dr Emma Hilton and her research partner released this review of other peer reviewed studies (it is also due for publication soon).

www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0226/v1

What do you think about male's participation in female sports? Whether you think it is fair or not, have you read anything that helped you to form your opinion. I am up for more reading up on the subject. I have seen some that have been debunked, but I am sure there is plenty of others out there.

bluebluezoo
To put legal caveats in, you are saying TWANW.

But I'm not saying TWANW, because I'm literally saying exactly the opposite.

I'm saying TWAW, but I want to engage with the sport/spaces debate.

You're aware people with my view exist, right?

A woman is a person who identifies as a woman

Break this down, please.

If woman means nothing ,and is just a word, what are you supposedly identifying as?

There are some very basic logical flaws here. Can you not recognise it? Or are the things we say also just meaningless words. Do words have meaning, or not? If so, what does woman mean?

And if words have n meaning, why all of the fuss about identifying as a woman. Does it matter?