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.

Jeeeeeeezo Butterfly. Are you for real?

"As a theoretical 'maxwell's demon' level thought experiement:
If a 46XY child was subjected to 'female' socialisation from the moment of birth by a completely impartial system (not subject to the usual subconscious biases that inevitably creep in), would you allow that child to be present in female-only spaces?
What if that 46XY child was born with female primary sex characteristics?"

The children you describe are undiagnosed. No one knows they have a DSD until puberty. As per many of the DSDs. They are complex.

A child which is born with male genitalia is treated differently from a child born with female genitalia. The majority of DSDs cannot be diagnosed by eyesight alone. Surely you, as a person with MAIS, knows that?

Or, are you assuming that you know more about DSDs than the other people on the thread?

Careful now.

@somethinginoffensive

If a 46XY child was subjected to 'female' socialisation from the moment of birth by a completely impartial system (not subject to the usual subconscious biases that inevitably creep in), would you allow that child to be present in female-only spaces? What if that 46XY child was born with female primary sex characteristics?

If a person has a female phenotype and is brought up as a girl but is actually male, I am quite happy to include them in women's spaces, as they would be perceived as female.

What relevance does this have to a boy growing up stating that they want to be a girl? Or a man wanting to "live as" a woman?

What would you define as a female phenotype? What must be present? What must not be present?

@somethinginoffensive

I am fairly certain that it's irrelevant to the issue of trans people that there's a rare condition in which people naturally appear to be of the opposite sex.

It's OK, we can screen for that when we do the brain scans. Shouldn't cost much more.

I'm not going to discuss that any further butterfly. That's a description of a person with a physical disorder not a psychological one. As I said, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a boy announcing he is a girl.

What would you define as a female phenotype? What must be present? What must not be present?
Whataboutery. You want someone to describe a female body so you can pull out people with DSDs like Pokemon and throw them into battle for your shitty argument. That's not on.

Ooh! Is that supposed to be clever?

What do you define as a female phenotype?

But I suppose when you dismantle a language that's what you are left with - the arguing power of a toddler!

We already did used to check for DSDs, but stopped, because they were no more frequent in attendees at GID clinics than the wider population.

Sort of human Top Trumps?

What do you define as a female phenotype?

The funny point about this question, is that Butterfly would presumably need training on how to identify the sex of a new born baby.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Jeeeeeeezo Butterfly. Are you for real?

"As a theoretical 'maxwell's demon' level thought experiement:
If a 46XY child was subjected to 'female' socialisation from the moment of birth by a completely impartial system (not subject to the usual subconscious biases that inevitably creep in), would you allow that child to be present in female-only spaces?
What if that 46XY child was born with female primary sex characteristics?"

The children you describe are undiagnosed. No one knows they have a DSD until puberty. As per many of the DSDs. They are complex.

A child which is born with male genitalia is treated differently from a child born with female genitalia. The majority of DSDs cannot be diagnosed by eyesight alone. Surely you, as a person with MAIS, knows that?

Or, are you assuming that you know more about DSDs than the other people on the thread?

Careful now.

I'm trying to determine the inflection point where femaleness is defined. It's clearly extremely important to posters on this thread! This seems like it lies at the very core of the issue being discussed here - how do we define femaleness? Is it genetic? Primary sex characteristics? Socialisation? The combination of all three?

You say the matter is complex - I agree! It's extremely complex! I'm trying to find a workable definition we can use in discussion.

I suspect waiting until it could speak and asking it is the only correct way to decide. And even then the mere act of asking would be an imposition. Just let the child be...

Who said femaleness was complex?

Presumably Butterfly has altered their outside appearance to resemble the fence phenotype? Butterfly knows what the female phenotype is.

It's not complex at all Butterfly. Men are not women.

Fence?

Female obviously. I don't think Butterfly identifies as a fence.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

We already did used to check for DSDs, but stopped, because they were no more frequent in attendees at GID clinics than the wider population.

I linked to this at 16:47 on page www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4363646-what-does-it-mean-live-as-a-woman?pg=24

I also shared the impact of the conflation of CCSDs and gender identity issues at 16:54, same page.

I'm trying to determine the inflection point where femaleness is defined.

Ye gods. Could you not just have said that in plain English?

Sex is determined, not defined, and we are all fully aware of the story about the daddy sperm and mummy egg.

Bloody tiresome. Not clever. Just ridiculous!

You say the matter is complex - I agree! It's extremely complex!
This is entirely disingenuous. Stating DSDs are complex is not saying femaleness is complex.

What's another word for a disingenuous person, Butterfly?

Care to explain your logic? What part of any of my posts here do you think qualifies as a rejection of evolution?

Certainly, ButterflyHatched. Humans have evolved as a sexually dimorphic species. Human sex is binary and immutable. It is dead easy to ascertain the sex of the vast majority of humans at birth, and where there is ambiguity it isn't because "sex is complicated" but due to congenital malformations that confirm rather than question the evolved binary nature of human sex, because without modern medicine the people born with most of these conditions are sterile (i.e. the conditions are an evolutionary dead end rather than beneficial mutations).

Sex can be observed (and in rare cases identified after medical investigation) in 99.999% of us. And there is not one human ever born as anything other than the result of a melding of sperm and egg.

Throughout your contributions on this and other threads, you have argued against Darwin's Theory of Evolution in claiming to have changed sex, in arguing against the binary and immutable nature of human sex, in writing about phenotype and hormones and DSDs as if the latter would disprove the immutable and binary nature of human sex classes.

This is easy - you either accept that humans cannot change sex or you don't. You either accept that genetic malformations do not invalidate the human blueprint or you don't.
You either accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution or you don't.

That's the first step in our debate for an equally simple reason: because sex matters in certain circumstances. Circumstances with which we as feminists and women's rights campaigners are predominantly concerned with here.

All of the arguments you make on behalf of and as a trans person for equal treatment you can make without rejecting the Theory of Evolution. The only arguments that require a rejection of that theory are those that deny that women have sex-based needs and should therefore have sex-based rights and sex-based provisions that exclude all male people, regardless of identity or transition status.

Jumping Jehoshaphat!

Some one hand me a Like button.

I'm trying to find a workable definition we can use in discussion.

No you are not. You are trying to coerce women into a definition of woman that includes you.

Ah! Chiz. Ya got me.

Said no gender ideologists ever!

don't think it's much of a reach to state that the UK still suffers from institutionalised transphobia! We've made a great deal of ground in addressing it, though.

I don't think there's any such thing as "institutionalised transphobia". Transgenderism isn't some universal thing everyone believes in and is scared of. It's not something that most people give that much thought to either way. I would say any genuine prejudice is grounded in homophobia or ableism.

Butterfly I have been patient with you. I have expressed gratitude for your input on this thread. I now don't think you are being genuine.

There is no "inflection point" for "femaleness". Something or someone who is a mammal is either female or is male. Fungi and clown fish and deluded humans might have different opinions, of course.

You are, I think, muddling "femaleness" with "woman hood". One is defined by being, you know, female; the other is, according to you, to do with poetry?

@somethinginoffensive

I'm trying to find a workable definition we can use in discussion.

No you are not. You are trying to coerce women into a definition of woman that includes you.

We have a workable definition of woman thank you - it's female adult human. It only becomes unworkable when you try to shoe horn men in.