what does it mean "live as a woman"?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

I gather that in order for a male person who believes themselves to be feminine they have to "live as their acquired gender" for 2 years in order to get a GRC.

Is there a definition of how women live? Because I don't think I qualify.

What was deletion worthy in Necessary's post? Seemed a perfectly rational part of the conversation.

The crux is that dysphoria is a feeling/belief that is not congruent with biological reality. That is pretty much the definition, no? How come it's not allowed to say that?

This is something you can also do at home, although with less precision. For example, if you take a healthy, consenting male partner who does not have any degree of erectile dysfunction or body modification to interfere, you will be able to observe external signals that indicate his interest in either men or women.

Yay, citizen science! I love experiments. Bring in Shakira!

I would like to take this opportunity to remind younger readers that if you cannot tell that your partner wants you, then stop having sex.

Enthusiastic consent is the minimum standard, and it is really very easy to tell when someone else in the bed finds you sexually attractive.

I did check with MNHQ whether this was an acceptable term to discuss the definition of a couple of weeks ago, and was given assent.

That's interesting. You went to Miss to ask permission to use Wikipedia and think that makes it OK? We had another poster who did that, for different reasons. That poster was NOT here in good faith, yet was given many chances that a GC poster would not have been given.

My objection (read amusement) to Wikipedia is based on it's inherent lack of trustworthiness - as in anyone can edit it. For more years than I care to remember I had my psych student add information to various wiki pages, to show them the necessity of choosing reputable sources. It wa amazing how long it took for Gary Oldman not to be a celebrated landlady in Blackpool; one of my students was the much lauded assistant to Karl Jung for years.

And now all things TWAW are true, never to be questioned!

This week I learned from listening to a scientist, with reference to proper studies, that there really are ways in which people who self report as gay or lesbian have certain physical characteristics in various ways: it was really fascinating stuff!

(The Huberman Lab podcast if anyone is interested. Not controversial in any way)

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

I would like to take this opportunity to remind younger readers that if you cannot tell that your partner wants you, then stop having sex.

Enthusiastic consent is the minimum standard, and it is really very easy to tell when someone else in the bed finds you sexually attractive.

P.S. the hips don't lie.

Rather like many a university today, you can go to different 'faculties' of Wikipedia and a get different quality of material.

Sciency pages are orthodox, well-sourced and deal with objections to prevailing theory even-handedly. History likewise, thankfully almost entirely free of the cancer of anti-historical presentism. For now.

Aaaaah, but social sciences. Too often, the weeds have taken over and strangled the delicate buds of truth with all their POMO wooo.

So, in 25 pages of fascinating and insightful and challenging posts - what I have learned is that there is, in fact, no definition of how women live.

We just know that some male people really, really want to be seen as women, and most of them demonstrate that by adopting stereotypical dress, habits and style.

Despite there not being a definition of how people like me live - I am losing my rights to single sex spaces because those male people want to be included in every aspect of "woman hood". Therefore, excluding those males from the single sex spaces (designed to protect my privacy, dignity and safety because some males have historically proven that not all men can be trusted around women in a state of undress or at a time of vulnerability) is, and I quote, "rude".

That seems a bit harsh. Is it just me that thinks this is not a reasonable adjustment?

@ArabellaScott

What was deletion worthy in Necessary's post? Seemed a perfectly rational part of the conversation.

The crux is that dysphoria is a feeling/belief that is not congruent with biological reality. That is pretty much the definition, no? How come it's not allowed to say that?

I didn't see that deletion coming, either.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria
Let men kick women in the head in kickboxing as long as they are partial to a bit of lippy because to say no is rude. But said man waving his penis about in a space designed for women to protect their safety is brave.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

So, in 25 pages of fascinating and insightful and challenging posts - what I have learned is that there is, in fact, no definition of how women live.

We just know that some male people really, really want to be seen as women, and most of them demonstrate that by adopting stereotypical dress, habits and style.

Despite there not being a definition of how people like me live - I am losing my rights to single sex spaces because those male people want to be included in every aspect of "woman hood". Therefore, excluding those males from the single sex spaces (designed to protect my privacy, dignity and safety because some males have historically proven that not all men can be trusted around women in a state of undress or at a time of vulnerability) is, and I quote, "rude".

That seems a bit harsh. Is it just me that thinks this is not a reasonable adjustment?

Not just you, OP, no.

Wanting to be the opposite sex or deeply feeling one is the opposite sex does not make one the opposite sex.

Sex matters. Not in all situations, but in some situations. And in some of those situations, it is a matter of safety, dignity and consent for women.

So the only way it makes any sense to cede sex based rights is if you prioritise one sex over the other.

Males want to be included in female spaces.

Women don't want males in female spaces.

The only way the former overrides the latter is because one sex is privileged over the other, and one sex's preferences, desires, feelings and wants are privileged over the other's.

As is traditional, it's the male that is given the privilege. Women just have to shut up and move over.

So, in 25 pages of fascinating and insightful and challenging posts - what I have learned is that there is, in fact, no definition of how women live.

15 pages to go!

We need a definition that encompasses the 3.9 billion female people of divers nations and cultures, and the male people who want to be counted as women, but excludes any other male people.

We need a definition that encompasses the 3.9 billion female people of divers nations and cultures, and the male people who want to be counted as women, but excludes any other male people.

Hang on. Why do you want to exclude male people who don't want to be counted as women?

Are you saying such men are more of threat than men who do?

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

So, in 25 pages of fascinating and insightful and challenging posts - what I have learned is that there is, in fact, no definition of how women live.

We just know that some male people really, really want to be seen as women, and most of them demonstrate that by adopting stereotypical dress, habits and style.

Despite there not being a definition of how people like me live - I am losing my rights to single sex spaces because those male people want to be included in every aspect of "woman hood". Therefore, excluding those males from the single sex spaces (designed to protect my privacy, dignity and safety because some males have historically proven that not all men can be trusted around women in a state of undress or at a time of vulnerability) is, and I quote, "rude".

That seems a bit harsh. Is it just me that thinks this is not a reasonable adjustment?

Thanks for making the post - this has been an interesting discussion!

I've tried to answer your questions about the definition of womanhood, and other asked questions, to the best of my ability. Many other posters have given their perspectives. This thread has illustrated quite how close our opinions are, and quite how fiercely any differences manifest!

@NecessaryScene

We need a definition that encompasses the 3.9 billion female people of divers nations and cultures, and the male people who want to be counted as women, but excludes any other male people.

Hang on. Why do you want to exclude male people who don't want to be counted as women?

Are you saying such men are more of threat than men who do?

I wouldn't have thought they'd be more of a threat. Thinking through it logically, surely the venn diagram of low threat men and men who respect women's spaces must have a pretty large overlap, thus bringing down the average threat level of the group of men happy to be called men?

I think the only value of such a word and its definition would be to be polite to the male people who didn't want to be men.

I can't see what use the category is for informing public health policy or social policy otherwise.

I've tried to answer your questions about the definition of womanhood, and other asked questions, to the best of my ability.

Yes, you have tried to answer but the major stumbling block is the fact you are giving a definition of womanhood from a viewpoint that is, essentially, male.

There is still no convincing argument as to why women should be expected to cede single sex female only spaces and services to assuage the feelings of some men, because that is all it is feelings and I'm not prepared for the safety, dignity and privacy of women to be overridden on the basis of indefinable, unquantifiable, untestable feelings.

Your wants do not outweigh our needs or indeed our wants.

I've tried to answer your questions about the definition of womanhood, and other asked questions, to the best of my ability From your wholly subjective perspective, that of a bilogical male wanting to be included

Many other posters have given their perspectives. AKA standard science. Biology.

This thread has illustrated quite how close our opinions are, and quite how fiercely any differences manifest! No. It has shown just how eloquent women are when defending their right to be heard from those who seek to overrule them.

And just how tenacious sophism can be.

Someone shared the guidance from Scotland:

always using female pronouns; using a female name on official documents such as a driving licence or passport, or on utility bills or bank accounts; using female titles; updating the gender marker to female on official documents such as a driving licence or passport; describing themselves and being described by others in written or other communication as a woman

I can see problems with this:

always using female pronouns; - when would someone use pronouns to describe themselves?

using a female name on official documents such as a driving licence or passport, or on utility bills or bank accounts; - what is a female name? Who decides the gender of a name. I have friends with what might be called unisex names.

using female titles; updating the gender marker to female on official documents such as a driving licence or passport; I think I am right in thinking Quakers don't use titles. And one might not have a passport or a driving license.

describing themselves and being described by others in written or other communication as a woman - what does this mean?

I rest my case ...

I still think living as a woman is something only a man can do. I think women just get on with living while being woman. No need for pretendies. And the deeper levels of male behaviour, that are baked in with the male body, will never be lost in transition.

Thinking through it logically, surely the venn diagram of low threat men and men who respect women's spaces must have a pretty large overlap, thus bringing down the average threat level of the group of men happy to be called men?

Possibly. But such males would naturally not want to enter - respecting the space. Despite any feeling that they would be safer there. (And that's true - any male would be safer in a female space, not just transwomen.)

But if males are being permitted into such spaces anyway, then the equation changes, doesn't it?

It's no longer a female space - it is mixed. So the female-respecting men are no longer violating a female space. And, arguably, they might feel they would protect the women by providing balance - they know they're not a threat, but other males might be. So, they'd lower the "average threat level", as you say.

But further, I think a more-mixed space that properly acknowledges its mixedness is generally safer for women than a mainly-women space with a few space-violating males that is trying to pretend it's still female-only and applying female-only safeguarding rules.

A lone male in an otherwise female space is kind of the worst-case safety scenario, for women. So, at least to some extent, the more males the better. And if it got totally out of hand, they'd have to reinvent real female-only spaces, or at least abandon self-ID. Which would make everyone happy.

So given all that, what reason is there for any male not to request entry to a mixed-sex self-ID "female" space? Even if they don't believe they have a "female gender identity". Lots of actual women don't believe they have one either...

By Jove, I've got the answer to this:

We need a definition that encompasses the 3.9 billion female people of divers nations and cultures, and the male people who want to be counted as women, but excludes any other male people.

First of all, we create single-gender spaces. Call them feminine and masculine. Then, the definition that will pull them all together is "someone who feels entitled to use the feminine spaces".

Even if they don't want to, and prefer the aingle- sex spaces!

Taking the statistic quoted in the recent Bari Weiss report that 1 in 20 females at university are now identifying as trans as a data point, and assuming that the assurances we have had that this is because of a more accepting society of something that has always existed, what we are expected to believe is probably more impactful on the human race than climate change.

5 percent of 4 billion females have been wrongly determined as female. That's 200 million females world wide that need their bodies altering. The human race gets it wrong 5 percent of the time and it's the right side of history to provide drugs and surgery to remake 200 million females into an approximation of a male body.

And this has been the case for the whole of human existence but we are only just realising this now we have anesthesia and antibiotics to perform the surgery.

Or maybe, as that's fucking nuts, and something else is going on.

These sorts of conversations should be happening in the public domain.

The questions should be asked and answered. With experts in various fields on hand to translate studies and laws.

The entire business would get wrapped up in an afternoon.

That's 200 million females world wide that need their bodies altering.

Better hurry up before 80 million of them attempt suicide.

The entire business would get wrapped up in an afternoon.

That's what Ross Tucker said about the World Rugby thing.

They sat the sides down, made them make their cases (regarding safety, law, ethics, biology...) in front of a panel of "judges" and it was clear within a couple of hours that all the current evidence was on one side.