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.

"The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman! You're changing definitions to suit your agenda!"

As I was saying

The definition of marriage was changed not by people just suddenly insisting it meant something different, but by campaigning to change the law. That change was accompanied by proper assessment of everything else that would have to change alongside it to make it work. Pensions, insurance, adoption, next of kin, literally everything that depended on the old definition was reviewed and adjusted to make the new one work. Because that is what real, progressive social change does.

That’s exactly not what is happening when Genderists redefine Woman. On the contrary, they insist that we do not look at how that changes everything that was hanging off the original definition, in particular the single sex provisions that support female people, to see whether they need to change, or whether any female people actually can identify as cis, but instead expect that everyone else has to keep exactly as they were so that the new male women can appropriate the female world exactly as they want it.

I would genuinely have no problem with society choosing to redefine Woman in they way you want if it went alongside protection of all the existing single sex provisions. It’s the way it seems to involve the social, political and legal undefinition of female people I cannot accept.

If you redefine the word to mean anything other than adult human female than I, and most women, don't believe it describes us. This point is not going to go away not matter how much you try and invalidate it.

I don't think this person understands that.

@Ereshkigalangcleg
"It doesn't require me to believe an absurd premise about my own reality."
Neither does accepting transgender people.

This ismore of a Friday night thread. It's confusing me, I feel like a glass of wine and a sleep in.

It's really sad people are so desperate to get people to believe.

It's a bit undignified. What ever happened to dignity?

Neither does accepting transgender people

Accepting them where, though?

Neither does accepting transgender people.

Yes, it does. You can't decide for me what I do and don't believe. The arrogance is breathtaking. I utterly reject your ideology as absurd.

@allmywhat

Okay. I think it might be against forum rules if I were to indicate that I don’t believe you, so I won’t. Can you explain why you think the four-billion member club of human females is “exclusive?”

The comment was more about your attitude towards womanhood. You seem to think including trans women "devalues" it somehow.

Make up a new word for yourselves if you want

I’d have been okay with “female” once, but then transwomen started calling themselves female, and even biological female. Whatever word we make up, the colonisers will come for it. So, no thank you. The word “women” is taken and you can’t have it.

*Whatiswrongwithmyknee

*You insist that the word must mean the thing you want it to mean, and that all other uses of the word are invalid.

Same nonsense about "redefining of words".*

Oh my god, I think you must have been hit on the heat. You are the one insisting that words should mean what you want them to mean. The definition of woman is adult human female. You don't like that definition so are trying to change it to something which suits your agenda better. I am struggling to believe that you are a real poster as what you are saying is so clearly ridiculous.

"The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman! You're changing definitions to suit your agenda!"

As I was saying.*

I'm thinking you must have had a few drinks by now as your comment is about as irrelevant a response as you could possibly get. I am pro gay marriage. I am pro marriage between any two consenting people whatever their identity and indeed any number of consenting people. That has got nothing to do with anything I said. Woman has, and still formally means adult human female. You want to change the definition so that trans women are women (not trans women). Not sure why you think this has got anything to do with gay marriage? Feel free to actually give a coherent answer to that rather than these angry meaningless soundbites.

It doesn't devalue it. They aren't included, because it has a definition they don't meet. It's ok to be male, it's not a value judgement. But women need to organise for ourselves occasionally, as a sex class and traditionally oppressed group, and we need accurate language to do so.

We simple know they aren't women. It's no more complicated than that.

@SpookySeason77

You know what, sure. If trans women being recognized as women means you don't want to call yourselves women anymore, go for it.

Make up a new word for yourselves if you want. I'm actually curious what you'd come up with.

You still misunderstand. It’s not a case of “want”, it’s a case of “can’t”.

If woman is a state of mind rather than just the name of my sex, it would a lie for me to say I am a woman.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

If you redefine the word to mean anything other than adult human female than I, and most women, don't believe it describes us. This point is not going to go away not matter how much you try and invalidate it.

I don't think this person understands that.

You already got my go ahead on this, lol. Make up your own word for yourselves if including trans women makes you think "woman" doesn't describe you.

We simple know they aren't women. It's no more complicated than that.

Exactly. And no amount of sophistry, arrogance and insults can change that.

This sounds horribly transphobic to me, Spooky.

You seem to like the idea of additional unisex spaces (common sense idea & frankly we are pretty much all on board with that).

But you want SOME people who identify as the opposite sex to get to use opposite sex facilities, if they are sufficiently along their transition journey?

I think you'll find that's not the party line.

You seem to think including trans women devalues it somehow

Yes, that's what I don't get, why people feel mocked, or less of a woman just by the act of including trans women.
Trans women existing and going about their lives doesn't make me less of a woman.
I'm still one.

[quote SpookySeason77]@Ereshkigalangcleg
"It doesn't require me to believe an absurd premise about my own reality."
Neither does accepting transgender people.[/quote]
Are you feeling OK? Actually starting to worry about your now.

We accept trans people as trans people. What makes you think we don't? Most of us, due to not having a gender identity, don't understand the issues but most of us don't feel we need to understand in order to accept that is how others feel. Accepting does not mean woman now means something else though.

@SpookySeason77

You know what, sure. If trans women being recognized as women means you don't want to call yourselves women anymore, go for it.

Make up a new word for yourselves if you want. I'm actually curious what you'd come up with.

The word woman is already has a meaning. It means adult human female.

Why don't transwomen invent a new word for themselves? What about 'transwomen'?

[quote SpookySeason77]@Ereshkigalangcleg
"It doesn't require me to believe an absurd premise about my own reality."
Neither does accepting transgender people.[/quote]
Please answer.

Accepting transgender people where and when, exactly?

Because 99% of the time Absolutely! Everyday life, working, socialising, family members, whatever else of course Express yourself and we we will accept that.
, But the 1% that involves physiology and privacy, let's not.

99% yes. Why can't you take yes for an answer?

You already got my go ahead on this, lol.

I don't need your go ahead for anything. Try to stop imagining that you get to decide what women do. But I won't be adopting any new words. Women are adult human females, the word is taken and it doesn't include males.

@Blibbyblobby

I have loved your posts. They are clear, succinct and respectful. I am off to bed now though I expect the abuse (some of it directed at me now) will continue for a while. You can't argue with people who truly believe they are better than everyone else, so little point in trying. Anyway, I just wanted to say that tonight I was thinking that if someone asked "if you could have any person, living or dead, round for dinner, who would it be?" I'd say blibbyblobby. In all seriousness I am very glad to have people as eloquent as you elucidating the issues. Thank you to all the other women on this thread who are also refusing to be flattened by the onslaught of hate and bullying being fired at us. Sleep well all.

@CorvusPurpureus

This sounds horribly transphobic to me, Spooky.

You seem to like the idea of additional unisex spaces (common sense idea & frankly we are pretty much all on board with that).

But you want SOME people who identify as the opposite sex to get to use opposite sex facilities, if they are sufficiently along their transition journey?

I think you'll find that's not the party line.

It sounds to me like you're just being facetious again. As if you give a damn about transphobia at all.

Most trans women simply do not want to use women's bathrooms until they're comfortable enough with their appearance. That's just a fact. That's all I was saying.

I wasn't saying they should be actively restricted from using women's bathrooms. That'd require actively policing femininity, and unlike you, I do not support that.

Yes.

We genuinely can't help you with this one, Spooky.

You're asking the impossible.

Hate and bullying because you're hearing a different opinion?!
Hardly.