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.

If there is no universal female experience, there is also no universal male experience.

So why do males who think they are not men believe therefore they must be women? Surely the answer is that there is no universal male experience therefore they are just as much men as any other male.

Helen8220

None of those things really features heavily in my sense of who I am.

I don't need clear sex definitions because I want to commune and bond with other women, I need them because I need specific rights and services, none of which have anything whatsoever to do with my sense of who I am.

I need medical data to be disaggregated despite my sense of who I am.

I have needed birth control services despite my sense of who I am.

I needed maternity rights despite my sense of who I am.

If I suffer discrimination because of my sex, the last thing anyone will be thinking about is my sense of who I am.

I really don't understand why you would think it necessary to group people according to how much they feel they conform to societal expectations related to sex.

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman? Sounds circular?

There is nothing circular about the argument that a person cannot speak 'as a woman' because they are not a woman.

I could say "as a Christian I find ..." or "as a Scotsman I ...." or "as a meat eater I...". All of those would be nonsense because I am none of those things, so I cannot speak as any of them either.

I think you maybe don't understand the argument that the definition of woman can't include the word woman because it's a circular definition.

"A woman is a person who identifies as a woman" doesn't tell you anything about what a woman is.

The lack of logical thinking on the side of those who want to ignore women's rights is quite frustrating.

I could say "as a Christian I find ..." or "as a Scotsman I ...." or "as a meat eater I...". All of those would be nonsense because I am none of those things, so I cannot speak as any of them either.

An American could say "As an Italian I find..." and it would be fine for the Italian immigration service to point out that their claim was based on distant ancestry and did not give any rights to enter Italy without a visa.

That doesn't make the fact that the American identifies as Italian less true - it's just irrelevant for any policy based on actual nationality.

I just don’t think the socialisation and experience parts are sufficiently consistent and universal to support the kind of neat, absolute categorisation you’re arguing for.

Ah! Neato! The Reverse.

I say: biology maketh the woman, socialisation makes her 'feminine' and experience makes her an individual

You: No, you meant to say something else, or how can I argue against it? I know, I'll pretend what you wrote could be interpreted the other way round!

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman

No shit, Sherlock. You have it, the Alpha and the Omega of it

Sounds circular?

I don't think that means what you think it means!

Or if you mean that Butterfly can’t know what it feels like to have a period, then that’s true, but I don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant - so how are you deciding which experiences define and are essential to womanhood?

I don't. You are just choosing which 'female' word to use interchangeably with the one that is commonly used to denote sex.

I shall repeat

Biology - makes a woman
Socialisation - makes her feminine, by her society's mores
Experiences - makes her an individual

No "experiences" are essential to "womanhood". Woman is "human" and "female".

Neither part of which are defined by experience - they're pure biology.

Or if you mean that Butterfly can’t know what it feels like to have a period, then that’s true, but I don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant - so how are you deciding which experiences define and are essential to womanhood?

'Womanhood' sounds like a value or a virtue, but rights are not given because they are deserved in some way, they are given because they are needed.

Whether or not you know what it feels like to be pregnant or would like to be pregnant is irrelevant to the fact that if you are perceived as somebody who could become pregnant, you could be deprived of equal rights either directly (workplace discrimination because it is assumed you will become pregnant) or, indirectly, just because of your biology (lack of access to birth control, lack of access to much more involved fertility treatment e.g. during pandemic, rights after miscarriage or during pregnancy and after birth).

This is why we need to be able to clearly define sex.

Set against this, I'm not sure what your point is - that peoples' egos need protection so we shouldn't talk about sex? We should agree that 'woman' is just a set of stereotypes?

Why do we spend so much time and argument within this debate on what it "feels to be a woman?" Or what is is to be a woman?

There's a peculiar amount of analysis around this online and here, instigated by people who believe trans ideology. I'm now querying the reason behind this.

Why don't we spend all that time on what it feels like to be a man? disabled? Dyslexic? Hypothyroid? I've never seen people with dyslexia having to defend their position. I've never seen men have to defend their position as a man.

🤔

I know what I think about all this.

I am sorry Helen but do you read what you have written, because it really is quite extraordinary.
I’d rather be naked in front of a random female or male stranger rather than my brother (who I love and trust) - as that would be incredibly uncomfortable for both of us!

I mean really????

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman? Sounds circular
If the definition of woman is a member of the human sex class there is nothing circular about it as Butterfly is of the opposite sex.

Why don't we spend all that time on what it feels like to be a man? disabled? Dyslexic? Hypothyroid? I've never seen people with dyslexia having to defend their position.

I assume because the concept is part of the GRA 2004

I think it would be interesting to talk about 'living as a man', because I can only think of things that women have fought for the right to do - get paid properly, go to university, vote, participate in sport, marry a woman.

@Helen8220, every single human is an individual, there's no universal experience!

Mostly we are just people getting on with our lives.
Biological sex is real, and often irrelevant. Certainly nobody here would say it has any bearing on what sort of interests/personality/job anyone should have. Quite the opposite!

In some situations/contexts however, biological sex is relevant. Poster on here have listed these over and over. Prisons. Sports. Healthcare. Safeguarding. Services such as refuges/rape crisis centres.

Can you explain what definition of woman you think should be used in these situations?

Also, in what situations is it necessary or helpful to segregate by gender identity?

I may not speak for you, all women, or many women, But no man can speak about those things inherently female with any undertsanding or true empathy at all. Which was the point I was making. Which is why I said a woman not all women. Surprising what you find when you read the whole post!!

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman? Sounds circular? Or if you mean that Butterfly can’t know what it feels like to have a period, then that’s true, but I don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant - so how are you deciding which experiences define and are essential to womanhood?

You may not have experienced pregnancy Helen, but you have the body formed around the ability to be pregnant. This may or may not have meant that birth control decisions became very important to you in a way that is shared by other females and not males. You may or may not have also had consultations about fertility from a position that would be shared by other females and not males.

And so on.

Sure you might have some experiences that you would share with Butterfly. However, the potential of shared experiences with females with other females is significantly higher. And I am not talking about ‘sharing’ as interpreting them the same way, I am talking about simply the potential to have the same experiences from the same perspective.

So minimising this with a breezy, I have not been pregnant either and I share that with Buttedfly, is like saying you have also shared that experience with all males however they identify.

So, no. If you have a body formed around the potential to gestate another human, you don’t ‘share’ the experiences of not being pregnant with a male except at a very superficial level.

The whole point is that being a woman has became a tick box exercise when it is completely missing the point that I would expect Helen that the only things you and I have in common is that body formation. That and the experiences that may be common because of the potential of that body formation. That is why being a woman is simply living with a female body not a male one, whatever the modifications.

And it is why female single sex spaces are so necessary.

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman? Sounds circular? Or if you mean that Butterfly can’t know what it feels like to have a period, then that’s true, but I don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant - so how are you deciding which experiences define and are essential to womanhood?

Look. It's really not complicated.

And I'm not making it about a specific poster any more than I'm using DSD people for my point.

Transwomen are male. That is what the trans means. It is a male person who would prefer not to be called a man, who would like to be treated as if they were the opposite sex.

This is fine, no one has any problem with that. The issue is that they cannot expect their identity choice to extend to using all female spaces, because of the impact this has on turning all female resources and spaces mixed sex. This does not work for females. This excludes many females. If you believe that male identity choices must be prioritised over the inclusion and access to equal resources and spaces of females, then you are declaring yourself to be a male supremacist because you must believe that male people matter more than female ones do.

Whatever floats your boat, you do you, but I am speaking up for those female people and saying no. Transwomen's boundaries to their freedom of identity are where they negatively impact female people and start to remove their rights and resources. There is a limit beyond which their choices cannot be enabled and new and additional resources must be provided if they would prefer not to use resources of their sex.

And frankly, you would expect those who wish to be female would actually have some respect, care and regard for other females, and would not wish to exclude and remove services from them. We are back to 'absolutely a women (for the purpose of having access to everything without exception) but not that kind of woman who I'm definitely different from and more important than.'

No. The trans bit has meaning, the hard facts have to be faced up to by male people, and no, female people are not subordinates of male ones.

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman? Sounds circular?

No, it’s factual, they aren’t a woman. They don’t have the biology to be a woman, nothing about “lived experience”, everything about their bodies and basic biology. They may have their own challenges in daily life, but they will be different to the challenges many women face because of our biology.

While menstruating may not inform my sense of self, it does impact daily life, while I may have never been pregnant I have had to deal with the possibility of becoming pregnant eg through using contraception, and then dealing infertility, going through menopause is a uniquely female experience - all biological, none of which inform my sense of self but which do contribute to the person that I am.

Trans women will never experience the things that women do, because they aren’t women. Even when they transition, they still pull on male privilege to tell women how we feel, how we should respond to them, to give up our rights and accommodate them.

You may not like a woman’s “no” @Helen8220, in common with many men, but that doesn’t mean my right to say “no” isn’t valid.

Sounds circular?

I don't think that means what you think it means!

I assume because the concept is part of the GRA 2004.

This is the reason. And because men are trying to argue that all women's spaces should become mixed-sex, because some men "live as women".

Butterfly can only live as a man who thinks they are living as a woman because to assume that someone not a woman can live as a woman assumes

Either there is a set of things that women uniquely do that men don't

or to assume that the stereotypes used to restrict women are actually valid and so living to the stereotypes is living as a woman rather than living as a characture ( sorry spell check failing me) of a woman

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman?

It's not some weird, niche definition Butterfly is male. Women are female. That's what the word means. Therefore Butterfly is not a woman and can only speak as a member of the opposite sex to women. Butterfly obviously can't speak "as a woman" because that's absurd.

If there is no universal female experience, there is also no universal male experience.

So why do males who think they are not men believe therefore they must be women? Surely the answer is that there is no universal male experience therefore they are just as much men as any other male.

And this is an excellent point, and one for Helen to ponder on, I think.

I’d rather be naked in front of a random female or male stranger rather than my brother (who I love and trust) - as that would be incredibly uncomfortable for both of us!

Could you unpack why? If we're all supposed to be ok with zero male free spaces I'm interested in why you're allowed to feel discomfort with certain men and others apparently aren't?

I don't want to be naked in front of my brother either but I trust him more than some random. I'm not as bothered being naked in front of a woman who was also naked.

*I assume because the concept is part of the GRA 2004

I think it would be interesting to talk about 'living as a man', because I can only think of things that women have fought for the right to do - get paid properly, go to university, vote, participate in sport, marry a woman.*

Precisely. Let's have that conversation. Why can't a TW be a man? What is it about living as a man that's the problem?

So why do males who think they are not men believe therefore they must be women? Surely the answer is that there is no universal male experience therefore they are just as much men as any other male.

Exactly.

So what you seem to be saying is that Butterfly can’t speak ‘as a woman’ because - on the basis of your definition - she isn’t a woman? Sounds circular?

Of course it's not circular. Do you even understand what that means?

A French person is someone who belongs to the French ethnic group. Person A.B. belongs to the Italian etchnic group. It is not circular to conclude that A.B. cannot speak 'as a French person' because A.B. is not French. It's simple logic.

What does it mean to "live as a man?"

As I have said twice now.

The problem with the views of Helen types is that they start with a faith based belief in the superiority of a perceived innate essence of femaleness, something which can easily end up in the bodies of biological males and therefore it's not possible to define sex in biological terms.

All their assumptions rest on this. To make this fit the clear reality of biological sex, they must then use spurious reasoning. "Males can identify as females from a young age and no one is any the wiser so they aren't ever socialised as male, so essentially they are female or more female than male".

That still doesn't make them any less male. If you put a life size cardboard cut out visible through a window in your house to ward off burglars, that doesn't make life size cardboard cut outs of humans fall under the definition of Homo sapiens.