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.

Nor can anyone consent on the behalf of the entire female population!

And in matters of consent, for obvious reasons, no always trumps yes. Basic tea analogy.

I think the relationship between women and trans women has deteriorated due to the aggressive, non negotiable tactics of trans rights activists.

An acknowledgement of this and quite frankly, a fucking apology from Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, Press for Change et all and all the others who has pushed and pushed to erase women’s rights in law is the only way to try and mend this. It would be nice if individuals did this too but I think that’s asking too much because, hey, it’s just women it’s affected, eh?

The goodwill has gone and it’s not up to us to fix it.

It is always "well, you don't speak for all women!" And? When did anyone think they spoke for 3.9 billion human beings? They speak for some women, and that is sufficient. Women's consent matters. My father doesn't have the right to consent for me, my brother doesn't, my husband doesn't, and nor do other women.

It doesn't matter if you want to share a hospital ward with Butterfly. My mother doesn't, and I will go to the mats for her and women like her and I do not care how many lurkers tell me I don't speak for all women. I never claimed to. But I know whom I do speak for and they matter too.

Perfectly put 👏

It's also about people like my 70 year old Mum, who was horrified to encounter this year on holiday, a 6.5ft transwoman coming into the female toilets, built like the proverbial brick outhouse with micro mini skirt, boob tube, bad wig and makeup, and 5 o'clock shadow.
When I explained to her that we can no longer challenge in any way, and have to accept that any man who says he is a woman, IS a woman, she could not believe her ears. Some people don't follow politics or current affairs, or read the news very much.
It's the INSIDIOUS nature of the changes that are concerning. There are huge swaths of the population that this affects, and they won't KNOW that, until they are presented with man on a hospital ward next to them, or giving them an intimate examination in a medical setting, or frisking them in a security setting. I'm sure many would feel violated but would be so shocked or threatened that they would not speak up.
It's about the intimidation and fear that these scenarios can instil in women.
And we are being told to suck it up and be kind while sneaking, insidious policies are made which gradually erode our rights and safe spaces.
It's not inclusive. It's trampling roughshod over the dignity and privacy of woman .

Most people really don’t know what’s going on and are horrified when they find out.

Last night my teen DD and I went to a comedy improv. We sat watching 4 men do improv with f^*k being every 2nd word and a lot of references to large male anatomy. Par for the course of puerile humour.

During intermission I looked at the bios. Surprised to see one referred to as ‘she’… No effort at all to ‘pass’, no stereotypical ‘female’ clothes, male voice, male body, male in every way. In the bio referred to as trans and gay. So gay as in liking women? But trans woman who looks and speaks as a man?

And we’re all meant to just accept this sleight of hand and if we don’t, we’re horrible people. It took me aback actually seeing this before my eyes. And deeply perturbed and saddened me on my DDs behalf that the society that she’s growing up in demands that she accept this denial of the evidence of her own eyes and that she’s living in a world that seemingly wishes to pretend that the word ‘woman’ no longer exists.

Women were never consulted or asked for our consent it was presented as a fait accompli, when women realised and objected a deaf ear was turned and is still being turned when women say NO, then we get all the handwringing and platitudes about how dreadful violence is against women and girls whilst simultaneously allowing it to be perpetrated on vulnerable women in prison, psychiatric wards and hospitals.

Enough. This stops now.

If the result is inconvenience and upset to those males who have used single sex female only spaces and services too bad, my concern is solely for women and girls. The reason we are in this mess is purely because an exception was made, the results for women of that exception are clear for all to see, women and girls safety, privacy, dignity and comfort sacrificed for the benefit or males to the absolute detriment of females.

@Jellycatspyjamas

“If a woman wants to sacrifice the most vulnerable women we have to validate men, then let everyone hear it and make up their own mind.*

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Absolutely this.

Definitely. Let's hear it, let those women who want to do this own it and look the victims who have and are being sacrificed in the eyes when they do.

[quote HarlanPepper]@Datun

"And I'd bet my mortgage that this thread is doing exactly that for all and any lurkers."

Hi! Lurker here. You couldn't be more wrong in my case, I'm afraid. Don't make the mistake of thinking you speak for all biological women, or even all survivors of sexual assault, because you very much don't.

I'm still working out what I think about a lot of trans issues and if anything I tend more towards the GC perspective in some respects. But I have found a lot that resonates with me in Butterfly's posts on this thread and a lot that repels me the responses to them. She has described her experiences with sincerity and openness and in return she has been hectored, mocked, misgendered, and otherwise ill treated.

The only mistake she's made here, so far as I can tell, is in trying to appeal to some sense of shared humanity - but you're so entrenched in your beliefs that you don't even seem to see her as a person. It's actually rather chilling.[/quote]
I've dipped in and out of the thread, but I agree with @HarlanPepper on this.

I've found @ButterflyHatched's posts to be articulate and vulnerable, and her willingness to engage with honesty and introspection in a hostile environment quite moving.

Some of the responses I have found to be unnecessarily unkind, especially given her persistent politeness, and that's never a way to win an argument or persuade fence-sitters.

Some of the responses I have found to be unnecessarily unkind, especially given her persistent politeness, and that's never a way to win an argument or persuade fence-sitters.

I'm done with being polite, it has got us nowhere, all it does is put us on the receiving end of violent and abusive threats.

I find Butterfly's determination to erase the category of woman in order that they and any other male who claims to be feeling like a woman is included, selfish, self-serving and offensive.

I find Butterfly's lack of concern for the women who are being damaged and excluded by the pursuance of this ideology appalling quite frankly.

Where is the humanity for the women and girls harmed and excluded?

I've found @ButterflyHatched's posts to be articulate and vulnerable, and her willingness to engage with honesty and introspection in a hostile environment quite moving.

I find the posts highly manipulative.

The references to "all women" actually meaning women and some men.

The repeated attempts to use people with DSDs to make it seem as though some men are actually really women.

The argument that they fully pass and want single sex spaces to remain. Despite the fact that their presence means it's not single sex. And they do want to allow other men in this space.

The repeated forced teaming, using "we" as though we are all women together.

Where's the introspection or willingness to actually engage with any of the points the women on this thread are making?

Some of the responses I have found to be unnecessarily unkind, especially given her persistent politeness, and that's never a way to win an argument or persuade fence-sitters.

Again, if you are willing to sacrifice vulnerable women, rape victims, female prison inmates, women in homeless shelters, to validate men, that's on you.

Personally I struggle not to feel hostile to people who regard that as fence sitting.

I think if you aren't very familiar with certain behaviour patterns, it's hard to understand what's going on when other people are more aware of probable dynamics and appear "unnecessarily" hostile.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I think if you aren't very familiar with certain behaviour patterns, it's hard to understand what's going on when other people are more aware of probable dynamics and appear "unnecessarily" hostile.

True.

butterfly, thanks v much for your response to my questions. I find it actually hard to know what people mean by "trans" these days, I've been "online" way too much that it's all become a spiralling blur....

I just feel bloody irritated that I explained that "strident" wasn't a unisex adjective and Butterfly carried on using it anyway, despite the emotional labour I went to, in order to find material on how it was using on women's workplace appraisals, but not men's.

Surely it's just living the exact opposite of what you said below?

Is there a definition of how men live? Because I don't my husband qualifies.

Bet there isn't a guide for that.

I am just worn out with it all.

My 65 year old mum had to do a course on this next week. I've explained it all, she's just literally like wtaf. Is this real? Are you telling me Jenny can be Phil or Phil can be Jenny if and when they feel like and I have to know who they are that day or I could lose my job?

I have sympathy for Butterfly as an individual, and some admiration for the fact she's stuck around so long and has engaged in more nuanced discussions rather than just getting shouty.

At first I thought other posters were being unnecessarily harsh.

However, after reading a few threads that she's been involved in, I agree that she often avoids key points/direct questions raised by other posters. And so may appear to be polite and reasonable, but perhaps is not being fully honest with herself - or us - about the wider implications of her views.

She has described some of her own struggles, and I believe her and feel for her. But she repeatedly fails to acknowledge women and girls' experiences. So I can understand why some posters are getting frustrated. Particularly if they have seen this pattern before.

The thing I just thought to mention. Happens constantly on this topic but on others sometimes as well.

Those who come to discuss are pretty much always arguing why they personally should be accepted. Anything general tends to be framed to support the argument for their personal situation.

The sex matters side tends much more to be about vagina people as a whole.

The most obvious example of this is when questions are asked about women and girls in other countries. What this means for them etc. That there has been no thought about that at all.

I've only ever once got an actual answer around for me an important question.

Why do charities media individuals are very definite that the people with etc terms just be used when it's about a group of female people. Fail to follow their own firm rules on language?

Example was when there's a headline referring to only female sex people. And yet woman/ girl is used? EG Uighar women raped in Chinese detainment facilities.

And it was (paraphrase) it's unlikely that any aren't cis so it's fine. See no reason to use anything other than women/ girls. The not going to be trans point was flippant in tone. As if it was obvious.

I asked why not gender ID is internal etc. And no real answer.

In the end on this topic it is constant.

I can't see why I can't use/ go to X because Y.
My lovely trans friend / child etc.

It's all very focused on that thinking.

Unless it's when making statements to say that transpeople are the most oppressed in all ways, generally using really dodgy usually definitely incorrect information.

Eg
Suicide rate in children
Risk of being murdered
Etc.

Early on in all the special pleading posts the purpose Butterfly came here with was set out quite clearly.

Now Keira's case is over, we were told, it was time to talk about how reactionary women should be monitored.

So fuck that. It's been a non stop lecture about how wrong we are.

Is the monitoring of us reactionary women going to rigorous enough that it extends to reading our posts, though?

I think we've explained about the impact on people with medical conditions of conflating their CCSDs with having gender dysphoria, repeatedly. As I explained about the word strident. Did I mention that?

Cos, if not, I don't think we've got much to worry about with the monitoring. A fascist regime that knocks off early and spends half its time having a sneaky cigarette behind the bike sheds seems manageable to deal with.

'Is the monitoring of us reactionary women going to rigorous enough that it extends to reading our posts, though?'

I see zero chance of that changing.

that's never a way to win an argument or persuade fence-sitters

I think that what is missing here is the history of the week of posts on other threads prior to this. Threads where Butterfly’s language was undermining. Where MN was designated right from the start as hostile, where women’s voices were called strident and adult’s interest in ensuring children were receiving medical care shaped by robust research and tailored to their specific needs rather than affirming only was consider to come from ignorance and hate.

Where it was intimated that posters expecting robust and up to date evidence to support arguments rather than constant self-focused anecdotes was the equivalent to the fetishisation of 'rationalism'.

And where on a thread about young female transitioners and detransitioners, the focus was constantly on male’s needs and no clear acknowledgement of the significant risks for young female transitioners until the end of the thread.

There is history here of a poster whose style has nurtured distrust on other threads and this has carried from other threads. If those posts were skimmed through or superificially read, the tactics could have been missed. However, frim the first posts there has been little reason to believe this poster is posting purely in good faith.

Even on this thread, the push is to force the access of some males into the definition of female to suit Butterfly’s needs. And they have consistently over threads maintained that any woman harmed because of their presence is acceptable collateral.

That is what is happening on this thread.