For the Attention of Posters in the "bloody terf" thread

[PurgatoryOfPotholes]

So we can stop disrupting the OP's thread, and continue the discussion here.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee
"You don't need to be the same to have solidarity - how ridiculous"
Nobody ever said that trans women are the same as cis women. It's just the fact that you refuse to treat trans women as women at all, not even a different kind of woman, that precludes any kind of solidarity.

"And yes it bloody would hurt to use an adjective like cis because, as has been outlined loads of times before - most women are not cis."
Hahahahhahaha. Cis means not trans. That's it. Nothing else. Are you saying trans women make up the majority of all women? Now that's a novel idea.

Should I demonstrate to you that words can in fact be psychologically harmful or something

Yeah it includes the mass gaslighting of gender ideologists forcing us to hear about that woman rapist, or that woman with the penis winning women's awards in sport.
How we're now people with a cervix, people with ovaries or people with a vagina or people with breast take your pick of chosen body parts.
We're people who menstruate, birthing bodies, people who have the menopause, choose from the list.
So long as you make sure to never ever refer to us as what we are without a qualifier that we're "not male" first.
But who gives a fuck about psychological harm through words when it's only women affected?

"I'm not straight, I'm normal!! You're the ones who are abnormal and need a special word, not me!!"

That's what you sound like, except towards trans people instead.

Women don't want to be made a subset of their own sex class by males, so that males can try and insert themselves into that class.

"Words can be psychologically harmful so... let me call you words you don't like" is not the most coherent point ever made on this forum...

well, another tantrum

how completely and utterly super

Nobody ever said that trans women are the same as cis women. It's just the fact that you refuse to treat trans women as women at all, not even a different kind of woman, that precludes any kind of solidarity.

What do you mean 'treat transwomen as women'? Do you mean letting biological males into female spaces?

[quote SpookySeason77]@Whatiswrongwithmyknee
"You don't need to be the same to have solidarity - how ridiculous"
Nobody ever said that trans women are the same as cis women. It's just the fact that you refuse to treat trans women as women at all, not even a different kind of woman, that precludes any kind of solidarity.

"And yes it bloody would hurt to use an adjective like cis because, as has been outlined loads of times before - most women are not cis."
Hahahahhahaha. Cis means not trans. That's it. Nothing else. Are you saying trans women make up the majority of all women? Now that's a novel idea.[/quote]
If cis means not trans, then define... trans.

Hahahahhahaha. Cis means not trans. That's it. Nothing else.

Well, hahahahahaha transwomen are male. That's it.
Women don't need a qualifier to describe us as "not male" that's it. We're just women. That's it. Nothing else.

"I'm not straight, I'm normal!! You're the ones who are abnormal and need a special word, not me!!"

That's what you sound like, except towards trans people instead.

Wowsers.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse for gay people. Turns out it could!

@saluca
"Again, you cannot argue the different needs between two distinct groups of people if you have to use the same name for them."
Good thing we do have different names then: "trans women" and "cis women". Two subsets of the larger group, "women", to which both subsets belong.

That way you can use "women" to refer to the issues that affect both cis and trans women, and "cis women" to refer to the issues that affect cis women specifically.

[quote SpookySeason77]@saluca
"Again, you cannot argue the different needs between two distinct groups of people if you have to use the same name for them."
Good thing we do have different names then: "trans women" and "cis women". Two subsets of the larger group, "women", to which both subsets belong.

That way you can use "women" to refer to the issues that affect both cis and trans women, and "cis women" to refer to the issues that affect cis women specifically.[/quote]
Nope. Because we talk about issues that affect women because they are female, regardless of how they think about being female, and we're not interested in segmenting out young women who identify as voidgender.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

well, another tantrum

how completely and utterly super

Bet no one expect that

A transwoman is literally, by definition, not the same sex as me. My sex is woman, I am a woman because of my sexed body.

Therefore I do not have womanhood, as I understand it along with most other humans and the dictionary, as a shared characteristic with transwomen. So why do I have to say we are all women?

A male can identify as a woman on some other basis/definition but that doesn’t mean I have to agree.

Plenty of transwomen understand this.

OK, I'll try again.
Does 'not trans' mean you have and can identify a gender identity, that is called the same word that is used to describe your biological sex?

Some times, I feel like some people were never told that sharing toys at playgroup meant they weren't allowed to monopolise the garage with the flashing lights either. Not

@PurgatoryOfPotholes
"and we're not interested in segmenting out young women who identify as voidgender."
Guess what, AFAB non-binary people want absolutely nothing to do with you anyway. It's not like anything you do is actually helping them, quite the opposite, so cut the "for your own good" routine.

@SpookySeason77

I mean, you're the one who seems to insist on invalidating trans women's identities and reinforcing a seperation at every turn, seen even here with "TW and women", seemingly pressing the point on how they're "not real women" and inadvertently alienating them in the process.

This doesn't exactly encourage solidarity.

It wouldn't actually hurt to use adjective like "cis" to identify someone as not being trans – that's what the term means. The persistent need to assert yourself "above" trans women is more a matter of pride than anything else.

You misunderstand.

The criteria by which a trans woman understands herself to be a woman, and by which I understand myself to be a woman, are mutually exclusive.

I understand myself to be a woman because that is (was) the word for people with a female body. (The older ones anyway, the younger ones are (were) girls.)

A trans woman uses a different criteria. I don't know exactly what, I do ask but all I ever get is a list of what it is not, or "it's just what label you want to use". But the one thing I do know is that it cannot be the same as my definition because she is not female-bodied.

So the only thing that defines me as a woman is my body, and the one thing that cannot define a trans woman as a woman is hers.

Do you see the problem? If one of us, me or her, is a woman, the other cannot be. One of us has to step aside.

It's not just a case of "cis means not trans", if I were to call myself cis it means implicitly accepting for myself a definition of womanhood that I simply do not meet.

In the genderist rush to redefine womanhood as a state of mind so it can include trans women, they are also taking it away from me.

Genderists make a big thing about misgendering when it's the wrong label being applied but fail to acknowledge there is no difference between applying the wrong label to someone, and changing the meaning of the label someone already uses to something that does not apply for them.

And even so, I would be prepared to accept that, to give trans women more respect than they allow me and to step out of womanhood, except where do I step to? I don't stop being female, so whether I call myself a woman or not, I still need "women's rights", which are of course really female rights, since they were set up when "Woman" and "Female" were synonymous.

Oooft, the footstamping is something to behold. 'You have to do what I say!'. Very toddler like.

@MonsignorMirth

OK, I'll try again. Does 'not trans' mean you have and can identify a gender identity, that is called the same word that is used to describe your biological sex?

Uh, that's called being cisgender, yeah. It means your gender identity is the same as assigned at birth. Or "observed" as you call it, whatever.

[quote SpookySeason77]@PurgatoryOfPotholes
"and we're not interested in segmenting out young women who identify as voidgender."
Guess what, AFAB non-binary people want absolutely nothing to do with you anyway. It's not like anything you do is actually helping them, quite the opposite, so cut the "for your own good" routine.[/quote]
Aha! Thought that would get you! So you've remembered about the existence of non-binaries now then! Still sure every member on here must be "cis"?

@Waitwhat23

Oooft, the footstamping is something to behold. 'You have to do what I say!'. Very toddler like.

Aren't you the ones trying to dictate for trans women how they have to identify, or which spaces they shouldn't be allowed to use?

Uh, that's called being cisgender, yeah. It means your gender identity is the same as assigned at birth.
Or "observed" as you call it, whatever.

Cool. I'm not cis then, and having discussed this with most of the people posting here, neither are most of them.

(I don't have a gender assigned at birth, there is no record of it, and I notice you changed my wording from 'sex' to 'gender, which I believe is transphobic to conflate the two, but I'll overlook your transphobia this once and assume you meant sex).

As a trans person, can I ask that you please stop telling women they are screeching when they are actually typing text on a text-based forum? It's not helping our cause.

@MrsMadderRose

Because she chooses to identify that way, and there's no reason why you should be able to dictate her life and identity. Simple as that.

So as I asked on the other thread, why doesn't this apply to people who want to freely self-identify their race, age, species, disability etc?

You try to make it sound morally superior and wonderfully liberal that you don't want to restrict trans people's "identity" or dictate to them. But it's not dictating to point out if someone's identity or view of them themselves doesn't match material reality, or to not want to sanction it and let them live "as" that identity if it causes a problem for others and clashes with their rights.

So, generally we don't let adult men identify as 5-year-olds and go to primary school, let 30-year-olds identify as 70 and claim a pension, or let an able bodied person identify as paraplegic and claim DLA, or agree that Rachel Dolezal is black because she imitated black appearance, because that's really offensive.

So either you think that's all wrong and people should be affirmed in these identities because it's bad to restrict people's identity. Or you don't. and that means you do understand the need for restriction and the fact that the material reality of the body overrides feelings.

If the latter, why is "gender" the only one that must be taken seriously?
Could you answer this please SillyStrings?

@SillyStrings423 - thank you for at least trying to debate and answer our questions, particularly as you are clearly outnumbered.

Did you ever answer these points?

So you're a transphobe, fine enough. Now can you please cease your incessant screeching and flailing around whenever your blatant bigotry is called out for what it is?

Why is it that everyone should do what you want, but when you are asked not to use gay people as an example of something else, you decide to ignore my request and instead go on to post something overtly homophobic, then ignore the posters calling you out on it?

Why do you deserve respect but other people don't?