Mumsnet says Trans Rights are Human Rights!

[ool0n]

I always assumed Mumsnet were not the biggest supporters of trans rights, given the stories about them. But this is a good statement on Twitter, "of course trans people exist, and of course trans rights are human rights"
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367071394870276099

Also I thought using terms like cisgender or cis were against the rules, this isn't true either -
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367080005193318401

So can I get a trans rights are human rights, trans women are women, trans men are men and non binary people are valid!

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex.

This isn't true.

@bigotryisbad - might I encourage you to check your references, before you reference? For example, it is pseudophilosophical or pseudo-philosophical - not "sudo-philosophical". This might seem pedantic, but language matters - as this thread evidences.

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex. That is far more important medically than an inactive X chromosome.

No it really isn't. If a transwoman didn't declare that they were trans and needed a blood transfusion, they couldn't receive the blood from a woman who has given birth.

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex.

Have you links to evidence showing this, please?

Also, what do you mean by 'acquired' sex? These conversations are so hard because we're all using similar words but some of us have different meanings attached, I think.

Pressed too soon, that's all bollocks that genes don't matter:

www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/news/target-for-new-male-donors-up-26-for-2020/

@PheasantPlucker1

TransRightRCool again, not trying to be goady.

We are both the same sex. You have a non-binary gender, i reject any gender for myself, and would describe myself as having no gender.

To me, they seem similar positions but I assume you'd disagree? Can you explain what you think the difference is?

I don't know you or how you define your gender or lack of, so I'd feel uncomfortable making any sort of commentary.

@TheHeathenOfSuburbia - "But there is no possible defining characteristic of woman other than 'female bodied', that isn't a gender stereotype. And that's why you're getting stuck when you try to define it.
Gender stereotypes are SO deeply embedded in your worldview that you can't even see them."

That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are.

[quote ool0n]@9toenails - "And, if so, are you a big enough person to admit it and try for another, non-circular, definition?"

That's fallacious, there are lots of words that are defined in a circular manner. That doesn't make the definition less valid. They're also rather ill defined or have multiple defns as you can see here

1. Is ill-defined and wooly
2. Is circular

... But we can all manage to identify chairs and understand the word www.dictionary.com/browse/chair[/quote] Well, but I explained what was wrong with circularity in definition. I thought I was clear about the uninformative aspect. Did you also not understand?

If all we had to go on was a circular definition of 'chair', we would not know what a chair was, would we? Think of explaining to a small child, say, who had never heard the word 'chair' before.

Or do you claim to have learned what a saussurite-gabbro is from my circular definition? Can you explain?

Seriously, ool0n, have a think about this. It is really not that difficult to understand.

[Oh, and I would suggest the OED: www.oed.com. All you need is a UK library card. Given OED's existence online, you waste your time with dictionary.com and the like.]

Maybe you are just trailing your coat, of course.

["What is a 'coat-trailer' ", I hear you ask. A coat trailer of course, is a human who identifies as one who trails his or her coat. If that is uninformative, check in oed; I am not sure dictionary.com will cut the mustard for this.]

[' cut the mustard ': a human cuts the mustard when s/he says s/he is cutting the mustard or otherwise identifies as cutting the mustard on a particular occasion ... no, well, enough of that for now ...]

Seriously, do have a think about this. (It is not particularly about definition , but let us leave that alone just now.)

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex.

They don’t have an acquired sex. You can’t acquire a sex. Your sex is the same throughout your life.

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex. That is far more important medically than an inactive X chromosome.

This is the biggest lie.

It really matters. Hugely. Especially the impact of hormones on a woman's body of age becomes trans.

Early Menopause, vaginal atrophy and I don't think they've even begun to look at the impact of loss of oestrogen on the brain. In women, the early seeds of dementia can start in women's 40s due to hormonal cycles and imbalances.

TransRightsRCool as I explained, I feel gender is irrelevant to me personally. I dont understand the concepts or recognise a feeling of "gender".

Im genuinely interested how feeling non binary differs from this, or how you define it, as the few explanations I have read seem very similar.

@ArabellaScott

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex.

Have you links to evidence showing this, please?

Also, what do you mean by 'acquired' sex? These conversations are so hard because we're all using similar words but some of us have different meanings attached, I think.

Sure, the US National Trans Survey. Shows 80-90% of trans men and women do, or want to, take HRT. transequality.org/issues/us-trans-survey

I only know of one official defn of "woman" by biology
The Equality Act 2010 defines a " woman' as a female of any age. Therefore does not include transwomen who are members of the male sex.

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex. That is far more important medically than an inactive X chromosome.

It isn't scientifically possible to 'acquire' a sex. Also, 'hormonal makeup' - what do you mean by that?

As I said before, you people will not be satisfied by whatever definition of woman I provide. It'll always be too circular for you. This is meaningless exercise that is getting no one anywhere. Why does woman have to be defined anyway? Wouldn't it be better to leave it undefined? So that you don't have to look and dress and be a specific way to be considered a woman? Or is that just for excluding trans women?

Surely you can express what the word ‘woman’ to describe yourself gives you beyond the word ‘transwoman’.

Is it a level of acceptance that the word transwoman doesn’t give you? Is it legal rights you would achieve? Is it a feeling that you have left your births sex? I’m genuinely interested, perhaps if people could really understand what the word women means to you it would lead us down a road of more mutual understanding. I am very deeply concerned that the level of comfort some transwoman are seeking from becoming ‘woman’ is not actually possible without eroding all women’s rights and safety.

Some people on this thread have equated these discussions to religious beliefs. The analogy works well for me. TWAW is a fundamental belief, it is a faith which cannot be explained with science or evidence. I don’t have that belief, others do - that’s ok. A faith group cannot demand that non-believers accept their belief or change their behaviours beyond giving believers the right to state that belief.

That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are.

This really is bordering on offensive.

It only makes sense if you pretend that women have been able to identify into voting rights or identify out of the need for birth control.

@ool0n

Correct me if I'm wrong but gender critical people want to define "woman" by biology. I only know of one official defn of "woman" by biology, that used by sporting bodies. This has massively harmed women, including enforced non-consensual surgery, as detailed here - www.hrw.org/report/2020/12/04/theyre-chasing-us-away-sport/human-rights-violations-sex-testing-elite-women

Why would anyone want that to be applied to all women?

Really? You want to make that assertion using that example?

You are wrong on so many counts

Woman
noun
an adult female human being.

Female
adjective
of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

And trying to use individuals with any form of DSD to make your argument for you won't get you anywherer either. Firstly it is insulting to those individuals, many of whom have long asked not to be misrepresented in this argument; Secondly it illustrates your complete lack of understanding and/or honesty in this!

And yes, I am one of those pesky women who is not only educated in this area but lectured in it for a couple of decades.

Ah, cross-posted, I see you've tried to answer the question I asked.

That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are.

I don't know a single woman who would describe their physical biological reality as an identity. It is their biology that makes them a woman. Nothing else.

@UhtredRagnarson

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex.

They don’t have an acquired sex. You can’t acquire a sex. Your sex is the same throughout your life.

Indeed.

Trans women and trans men acquire sex in the same way those who have plastic surgery acquire youth. Ie they don’t.

That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are.

Pray tell what is this particular role? There must be some defining criteria for it.

"That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are."

But what are they saying they are? They must have SOME idea of the thing they are identifying as? Or is it literally the case that "woman" is a uniquely defined concept for every single person, such that it can be whatever they want it to be? So if I define woman as 'a small furry creature with four legs' my dog is thereby a woman, and my definition is to be respected? And you might define a woman as 'anyone who enjoys hot dogs with mustard' in which case anyone with that particular taste is also a woman?

This is the thing that confuses me. You are one if you say you are - VERY few concepts in the world are like this. I"m not a royal if I say I am.I'm not black if I say I am. I'm not rich, or 8 years old, or blind, or a cat, or beautiful, or thin, or a member of the Labour Party, or an astronaut JUST because I say I am. We acknowledge that in the world membership of categories have conditions that have to be met. I can't be thin if I weigh 500 lbs. I can't be blind if I have 20/20 vision. I can't be 8 years old if my birth year is 1950. So why is 'woman' magically the only concept where the mere utterance 'I am one' makes it so?

I would also question why this concept is even useful or so hotly contested. If 'woman' is entirely idiosyncratic, then why have that concept at all? There is nothing which usually ties the concept of 'woman' together. Every single human might qualify as a woman. So what is the point?

[quote SabinaHefferon]@bigotryisbad - might I encourage you to check your references, before you reference? For example, it is pseudophilosophical or pseudo-philosophical - not "sudo-philosophical". This might seem pedantic, but language matters - as this thread evidences.[/quote]
Cool.

Not really the point at hand but I will take the spelling lesson as I agree that words are important.

[quote ool0n]@TheHeathenOfSuburbia - "But there is no possible defining characteristic of woman other than 'female bodied', that isn't a gender stereotype. And that's why you're getting stuck when you try to define it.
Gender stereotypes are SO deeply embedded in your worldview that you can't even see them."

That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are.[/quote]
Utter tosh!

@334bu

*I only know of one official defn of "woman" by biology* The Equality Act 2010 defines a " woman' as a female of any age. Therefore does not include transwomen who are members of the male sex.

That isn't a definition by biology, as much as you may want it to be. There is no definition of "female" in the law by biology. In fact trans women and trans men can change their sex markers, the governments legal recognition of their sex, to F and M respectively on all their documentation. That stands for "Female" and "Male". I refer you to the Scottish legal definition of "woman" that includes trans women with and without a GRC. That's based on the EA 2010 and the GRA 2004.