Trans rights are a part of women's rights

[ASugar]

Trans people don't negatively affect women's rights. They are a part of the women's rights. Both trans men and trans women experience oppression based on being female/a woman.

What does 'difficult to engage with' mean? Because I suspect you're using it in the context of 'keep having different views and not agreeing'.

As I said earlier, it's a case of mutual tolerance and finding answers that work for all alongside each other. Religious tolerance is a pretty good simile and example.

[quote ASugar]@acatcalledjohn Incorrect. You do not need to be biologically female to be a woman.[/quote]
How are you defining woman?

QueenCoconut, not yet but feel free to contact MNHQ to ask for one!

What specific issues are you thinking that would be good for, if you dont mind me asking?

Some people don’t come here to discuss laws. They come here to ask you as a group why you are so difficult to engage with

That is the crux of the issue. When you have a profound ideological difference, it is very difficult to discuss issues on the the same terms.
If you are trying to force an ideological position onto someone, of course they are going to resist.

Both trans men and trans women experience oppression based on being female/a woman

Don't you even try to make sense, even to yourself? You contradict yourself within 2 sentences.

Nope to it all. Transwomen are not women.

*@acatcalledjohn Incorrect. You do not need to be biologically female to be a woman

That is an ideological position.

Incorrect. You do not need to be biologically female to be a woman

You do though, since woman means adult human female. You literally one hundred per cent do need to be biologically female to be a woman.

Some people don’t come here to discuss laws. They come here to ask you as a group why you are so difficult to engage with.
It’s nothing to do with the law and yet you still go back to asking for definitions.

Sorry? This thread is 'Trans rights are a part of women's rights'. In the discussion of 'rights' I believe that much of it revolves around laws and guidance. What is your understanding of the basis of these rights?

I am keen not to derail this thread.

On the contrary, @QueenCoconut, lots of us came here not for an echo chamber but to see what the fuss was about. We hadn't made our minds up about whether TWAW is true, or how to manage conflicting demands.

I personally have learnt a great deal from the knowledge, experiences and data shared by the many women on FWR. It's been an education.

Even as an undergrad, the first thing I did when starting to write an essay was to state what definitions of terms in the title I would be using. What an earth is the point of a debate where people are using thr same words to mean completely different things? (I do query why TRAs didn't just come up with new terms for 'people with feminine gender identities' and 'people with male gender identities' rather than trying to take terms that are already in use and established. Except I don't, obviously, because conflation of sex and gender is very deliberate and has a very obvious purpose.)
I also find it extraordinary to be accused of bigotry for sticking with the accepted dictionary definitions of man and woman rather than replacing them for a definitions that are meaningless, circular and generally offensive.

Are you saying both transmen and transwomen are female? Can you please explain how they both meet that definition

Please do! That sentence actually reveals what we all know is the truth; even those who go along with the concept of gender identity.

Kittens, tho

@PheasantPlucker1

QueenCoconut, not yet but feel free to contact MNHQ to ask for one!

What specific issues are you thinking that would be good for, if you dont mind me asking?

Hi PP

I don’t think your question is genuine and I feel like you’re trying to catch me out and whatever I say will be used against me :)
It’s probably more about a new group of people who might not be so fixated (sorry) on definitions, while you could carry on your discussions uninterrupted.
Something that feels less like you’re being in a court room and perhaps even less eloquent or less educated members could feel included and feel like they can participate? Inclusive.
But thank you for the suggestion about contacting MNHQ.

When I first came here I was very much TWAW.

That was several years ago. I read all the threads, the questions, and the responses, and changed my mind.

I have changed my opinion on many things due to MN, its fantastic to discuss so many different things and share others knowledge and experiences.

@QueenCoconut

A genuine question , meaning no offence: is there another feminist group on mumsnet ? Perhaps this one could be renamed to gender critical feminism and another group could be used for women who want to include trans women in the ‘definition’ . I’m conscious that if you post about feminism in general groups on MN your post might get moved to ‘feminism chat’ and that might not be the target group some posters want to engage with?

Why don't you ask MN to start a board especially for those discussions under the LGBT board.

@JosephineBaker

On the contrary, *@QueenCoconut*, lots of us came here not for an echo chamber but to see what the fuss was about. We hadn't made our minds up about whether TWAW is true, or how to manage conflicting demands.

I personally have learnt a great deal from the knowledge, experiences and data shared by the many women on FWR. It's been an education.

That’s reassuring and thank you for a non-condescending response.

What is your obsession with pronouns and identity?

As a less eloquent and less educated poster I would like to confirm that no other poster has ever made me feel unwelcome here.

CharleyParley If we could agree on this much, that those who don't share a belief in gender identity, are not automatically hateful, bigoted and phobic and do not wish the believers ill, we would probably have a much better engagement going forward.

That would be fantastic - such a shame that this belief in the hatefulness of non-believers seems to be a fundamental part of gender ideology.

@DialSquare

As a less eloquent and less educated poster I would like to confirm that no other poster has ever made me feel unwelcome here.

Reassuring. I highly doubt we will here from those that have been made to feel unwelcome , as they probably avoid the place like a plague.

There doesn’t have to be anything in it. It doesn’t have to help us with anything. It’s just including more people and not building walls, based on fear

That sounds lovely!

However, a healthy organism has a defence system. It is the organism's way of protecting itself. Boundaries are important and act as safeguards. Women and girls have single sex spaces, provisions and sports for the purpose of not only safeguarding, but also for the reasons of the dignity and privacy of their sex; and to allow fair competition.

Females in most species retain boundaries of some sort in certain situations or at certain times. It is an instinctive urge and felt need.

There doesn’t have to be anything in it. It doesn’t have to help us with anything. It’s just including more people and not building walls, based on fear.

We're not excluding anyone based on fear. We're excluding based on evidence.

There's 4000 year's worth of evidence of male violence towards women. It is a reasonable risk assessment strategy to identify the group that routinely causes harm and exclude them from spaces where we are vulnerable. If you wish include another group in the "not a risk" category, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence why this group should be included in the no harm category. If you cannot define the group in a meaningful and easily understood way, you've fallen at the first hurdle, even before you've got to the providing evidence stage.

To illustrate my point about the law here is a couple of screen shots from the Coronavirus Act 2020 which can be found in full here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents

As you can see the very first point is definitions and meanings of terms.

This is the same for every piece of legislation you will find.

Go have a look.

Without definitions the law ceases to function.

Basics.

I highly doubt we will here from those that have been made to feel unwelcome , as they probably avoid the place like a plague

My experience is that the reason for that avoidance is that there is often very little demonstrated ability to engage in genuine discussion, beyond parroting mantras and unqualified statements, which everyone is meant to take as a matter of fact.

That is not how it works!

Fundamental ideological differences can mostly not be reconciled.
Then you both have to find a way to exist alongside each other with differences intact.

I suggest the only way forward is third spaces, services and provisions.

As you can see the very first point is definitions and meanings of terms.

This is the same for every piece of legislation you will find.

Go have a look.

Without definitions the law ceases to function.

Yes, and I think this is why the laws around trans issues and how they relate to women's rights are so problematic, as the legal definitions of key concepts as "gender reassignment", "gender" and "transition" aren't particularly clear.