Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

[Catiette]

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

‘trans women are not women’ is seen as hate speech.

No it's not, that's fact. It's been said several times in court that this view is not hate speech and worthy of respect in a democratic society.

It's a way of shutting down an opposing view without any debate and discussion and it doesn't work, not in law and not here.

If you stop reading as soon as you hit a view that is opposed to you own ideas, a perfectly legitimate view at that, then you don't want to genuinely understand anything do you?

I would not disagree that kids shouldn’t be sterilised. I was certain that’s not what was happening

i would not disagree that rapists shouldn’t be put in women’s prisons where they could victimise women. I would additionally think that rapists shouldn’t be put in men’s prisons where they could victimise other men. Prison rape is a real issue. I would think that this case just exposes flaws in our current justice system that need to be addressed, and I don’t think ‘just segregate the prisoners by sex’ really addresses it in any substantial way

Segregating by sex would stop all rape by inmates in woman's prisons. I'd call that substantial.

In UK law rape requires a penis.

I can see why those things would connect for you on the surface level, but I feel like the difference is quite stark if you look at what people have to say, at least for me personally :s

With a lot of main stream homophobia back in the day it was very "belief" and "morals" based (supposedly), talking about faith, "think of the children!", sin etc.

With GC views there's none of that, it's purely physical reality.
To tackle each point you raised as best I can;

Children unfortunately are being sterilized from the prolonged use of puberty blockers, whereas children obviously were not being "corrupted" by LGB people.
(happy to get sources)

In regards to bathrooms, it's not about "seeing".
No one minds or cares, it's 2023, do what you like, dress how you like.
Male bodies are still stronger than female bodies though, female bodies are easily overpowered. It's not about anyone's sensibilities, it's about literal physical safety, whether that's a punch from a TW (a la "punch terfs") or a sexual assault from a predator, it all applies - and that's just one PoV for the bathroom topic.

On it being confusing for children, with gay marriage obviously it's not. Love is love.
With gender however... I mean, we can't even get grown adults on the TRA side to tell us their definition of what a woman is without just saying it's a "feeling" and calling us slurs for not agreeing. How is that not confusing?
When children are told that they can literally become the opposite sex, and meant as sex, not gender?
When children are told they can have a penis or a vagina made later on, and they're supposed to somehow understand the inner workings and intricacies of these kinds of surgeries that require lifelong up-keep when surgeons can't even consistently perform them correctly.

On "agenda's" I 100% agree with you that the wording is insanely unhelpful.
I do however have to say, if you've spent any time at all on spaces like Twitter, Tik Tok or Reddit, or even furry communities if you're so inclined - Like... I don't know what other word would be preferable, but there's definitely a push of some kind from somewhere for this ideology, there's a debate to be had where that's coming from.
Some people think it's predatory men, others think it's medical industries, etc.

I would also say re; Posie/KJK, you can support someone without agreeing with absolutely everything they say, I've not heard what you mentioned about abortion rights, but I can imagine I wouldn't agree if what you said is accurate.
I also don't agree with calling all trans women men, I find it unnecessary when "trans woman" gets across the same point.
I do agree however with what Let Women Speak stands for as a whole, letting women speak.

@Spooky, you say “And ‘trans women are not women’ is seen as hate speech.” Can you ask yourself why? Or ask yourself why it’s not seen as hate speech in the opposite direction - ie. misogyny? I mean, it removes women’s ability to name themselves and imposes a new meaning on them they subsumes them into the oppressor group a hundred years after they got the vote. I can understand different POVs in this phrase to a degree. But I can’t, just cannot fathom how, with something that could be taken to be deeply insulting from both sides, is reframed as ethical and used to silence one of those sides. That’s misogyny in action.

Even as I guiltily used the phrase all those years ago to those kids (a talisman to warn off a laughable accusation of transphobia, earlier post), without the understanding I have now, I winced.

Meant up add, the vote had been withheld because they were supposedly represented by their husbands etc. who would know what was best for them - so, again, subsumed into a male identity and value system. And protest was seen as irrational - maybe even confirmation women shouldn’t vote.

When a group has only just been recognised as a political class in its own right, then for society to remove the very ability to recognise and name that class within a short period afterwards, and to silence their dissent as irrational and immoral in a neat parallel to that very recent history, it’s deeply concerning.

I can see why those things would connect for you on the surface level, but I feel like the difference is quite stark if you look at what people have to say, at least for me personally :s

Jane Clare Jones did a good piece on this some years back. (Wow, has it been that long? Was going to say "a couple of years ago".)

https://janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/

Once more with feeling everyone: Trans rights are just like gay rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is some nasty backwards morally bankrupt fuddy-duddy asshole who is going to look back on their objections to the current trans rights agenda with an enormous eggy face-full of shame. Remember peoples, we’re just telling you this for your own good. YOU DON’T WANT TO GO GETTING CAUGHT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY DO YOU NOW????

This parallel between gay and trans rights has been leveraged for all its worth by the trans rights movement. It’s one Owen Jones has trotted out endlessly to justify his point-blank refusal to listen to anything anyone – particularly female anyones – have to say on the matter. It’s embedded in the way trans rights is now the centre of activity for many LGBTQI+ organizations, and has come, most notably, to dominate Stonewall’s campaign agenda. And it’s present, perhaps most potently, in the way objections to trans rights are immediately dismissed as bigotry and ‘transphobia’ – a thought-terminating lifting of the notion of discrimination-as-phobia taken straight from gay-rights discourse.

This strategy has been incredibly effective. One of the reasons the trans rights movement has been able to make such an historically unprecedented ascent from obscurity to wall-to-wall dominance is because if you glance at it running from twenty paces, it does look exactly like the gay rights movement. And, right now the whole world is bascially going to shit and a lot of people are too up-to-their-eyes in grind, precarity, sugar and anxiety to do anything but look at it running from twenty paces. People just want to be told what the good right-thinking progressive position is and then get on with the business of trying to get on with their business. Fair enough. But there’s a massive problem with all this. And that’s because the parallel between gay rights and trans rights is as superficial and insubstantial as that glossy sound-bite-stuffed Momentum video.

What I want to do here is think through why the concept of ‘discrimination-as-phobia’ worked for the gay rights movement, and why, despite superficial similarities, it doesn’t accurately capture what is at stake in the trans rights debate, and actually serves as a tool of political propaganda and obfuscation to push that agenda through. That is, I’m going to argue that accusations of ‘homophobia’ were a politically powerful and basically on-the-money part of gay rights discourse, while the use of ‘transphobia’ is an inaccurate parallel which grossly distorts public perceptions of the issues involved in the trans rights debate, and is doing so in the service of actually preventing that debate taking place.

Also on the astonishing number that’s been done on us in reframing TWA not W as hate speech to the degree that two cases are needed to legitimise saying it…

Let’s look at some actual hate speech.

The N- word. Used against POC. Reclaimed by some POC (whatever one may think of this) as empowering.

Queer. Used against lesbians & gays. Reclaimed by some lesbians & gays (whatever one may think of this - & wow, yes, its academic origins & subsequent evolution in common discourse) as empowering.

Woman. Used by (& against! “Stupid woman!” has connotations “Stupid man!” doesn’t) women gradually struggling towards the respect they deserve, with every news article on a “First Woman PM”, or about a woman excelling in athletics or a traditionally male-dominated sphere, a desperately needed rebuttal to those who would frame us as pink, fluffy and inferior. Intangibly, but essentially, contributing to the progressive dilution of damaging stereotypes. Woman. Reclaimed by men in a way that “re-empowers” the stereotypes used to disempower us.

Spot the difference.

Posie Parker said...

Kellie Jay Keen is a one issue campaigner. Abortion rights are not currently under threat in the UK.

Abortion rights in the USA are a hot issue, because there are some people that want abortion right up to the moment of birth, and some who do not want abortion in any case whatsoever. But most people are in the middle. I also don't agree with abortion up to the moment of birth, and this is framed as wanting to take away women's rights.

Kellie Jay Keen's point is, that if women as a concept in law ceases to exist, then abortion ceases to be a women's right. It becomes an anyone's right and by default, a Men's Right. It is one of the specific issues that really need the definition of woman/girl to be Human Female.

And her comments were about - if we have to drop the abortion issue until we sort this one out, then that may be what we have to do. She doesn't campaign against abortion does she?

Sterilisation of kids.

Puberty Blockers are the same drugs that are used to castrate rapists. Without going into the minutae of the Dutch Protocol, which Stella and Sasha at Genspect did, this alone is surely enough to make people think 'what the fuck'...??? I guess so many people are so far down the rabbit hole they cannot compute the horror of this. No matter how politely we put it, because it is a horrorshow. It is a catastrophic medical scandal and I still cannot believe that people think we are making this up.

Rapists in women's prisons.

Come on now, we talk about women being locked up in prison with rapists and you turn it back to 'what about the men'.

And “woman as a concept in law” is under threat. Clearly. Maya’s case. The EQA debates. There are tangible impacts on the collection of data necessary to protecting our interests even now.

And to whoever was arguing ages ago that the corruption of this data about AHFs is negligible, but may also even be to our benefit (a confused argument if ever I saw one!)… What about the ethics of it?

If the misuse of the word woman in private conversation can be desperately unethical - hate speech - then why is the corruption of equalities data on the same basis - definitions of groups - not seen as similarly problematic in principle?

Ok actually now that I look back there is a video I can point to. This video isn’t what first made me think that the gender critical ideology was ultimately against LGB people and women, but it was the first that laid it all out clearly whereas before I’d only seen hints of this idea

I think at the root of a lot of the confusion is the belief that there are no inherent differences between the sexes at all. That any sexed differences that do exist, or are observed, are socially constructed. To that extent sex itself is a social construct.

If sexed differences don't exist why does it matter what type of body or genitals you have; because who you really are is entirely within.

The enemy then become 'the patriarchy' which conditions and socialises 'cis' men to be sexual predators, voyeurs or violent offenders. Males who are really women inside are immune to this social conditioning and so pose no threat.

On the subject of what we all believe and think and support: it's important to consider that these issues have united women across political divides in the UK. The accusation women's rights are right-wing is laughable.

We have (very few, very brave) women in the Labour Party and the Conservatives, the Greens (not the Scottish Greens, as far as I know), the communist party, the Libdems and the SNP all asking patiently, politely, eloquently, angrily and loudly for the legal and political problems to be discussed and considered.

Women who understand that sex is dichotomous and that sex matters in some.instances cover women from every demographic, class, race, nationality, political leaning, religion, and as you can imagine that includes an incredibly disparate number of views.

There is no 'hive mind', there are no leaders. Its very much a grassroots movement, just as the setting up of rape and dv shelters was. Women across the country organising in their spare time, fundraising in £10 increments to get these issues into the courts. Meeting, writing letters, petitioning, standing up in all the ways we can.

There's no 'denouncing' and often very little consensus across various issues. Lots and lots of disagreement. Fights, even. But also a loooot of discussion, research, thinking, and listening.

the gender critical ideology was ultimately against LGB people and women

Hopefully you can start to see how much actual hogwash this is.

The way I see it, a woman shouldn’t be able to engage in hate speech with no consequences just because she’s a woman. And ‘trans women are not women’ is seen as hate speech

Saying a man can't be a woman because well they can't and so says human evolution and it's continued existence. You know saying the exact thing that has always been true. Women haven't changed the goal posts here - the radicalisation has come from this ideology. You can't just come in and demand we all start believing this shite. Changing hearts and minds can not be done by intimidation, abuse and telling everyone you've decided that saying transwomen are not women is hate speech because you don't have the moral or political authority to do so. You do not have the social consensus to do so. You are over reaching and this is a form of authoritarian power grab which does not have public consent. This is a democracy. You need public consent and consensus to do this. You can not arbitrarily tell us all that you believe this and we must accept it. It's tough shit.

I find your dismissal of consent most fascinating to see unravel in this respect. You don't understand consent. Which goes back to my point about what this thread is really about - women having to argue that consent is their lawful right and that consent matters. The fact we have to have this conversation says everything we need to know about the trans movement and it's intentions.

It wants to control and it wants to dictate. Well no. Not happening. This is bullshit. We demand our say and to voice our opinions. Democratically and in the courts.

And so a lot of people just stop listening after that, in the same way if a misogynist said ‘feminism is wrong.

And because you don't get this and recognise this you will not win the argument because you have not got one beyond 'I want this wah wah wah'. The toddler foot stamping of TRAs who don't get what they want is a sight to behold. Women are used to children who throw tantrums and refuse to listen when they don't like what they hear. It would be nice if the movement could manage to act like adults.

Also let’s talk about how suicide rates in men are higher because they’re socialised not to express their emotions’ I’m pretty sure a lot of people would tune out after the first point no matter how valid they might otherwise find the second point.’

Hmm why? What's this got to do with anything. I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's nonsense words scrambled up which don't make sense. I think lots of men actively support CALM. Indeed someone close to me is involved in Roundtable - a charity which is run by men to raise money for other charities. And one of the charities they most regularly support is CALM. I believe several of the local radio stations in Manchester which have a predominantly male listenership regularly do campaigns about men showing feelings and supporting CALM.

so even if it’s phrased in the most polite, nice way possible ‘I’m excuse me, if it’s not too much trouble, trans women are not women, and if we’ve got the time, no rush of course, could we please talk about these issues?’ Would still be seen as transphobia, whereas a very aggressive ‘alright listen here you effing morons. Trans women are women but I’m effing pissed off that no one seems to be talking about these completely comparable issues. Why don’t you all pull your heads out of your arses and start doing something about it for once?’ Would probably actually be listened to. At least I would listen, and I wouldn’t be put off by the tone.

Perhaps you would like to stay engaging with reality, democracy, the need for legal definitions to make sense, the mere concept of consent and the fact you don't get to tell over people that human history has suddenly changed and that biological reality which allows the continuation of the species isn't a taboo subject that we must not speak about for fear of offending a handful of people. The audacity to make this level of demand and then whine at the time of conversation coming from women - when it's not women making actual threats of violence and to the careers of women - is off the scale level arrogance.

After those last couple of posts I genuinely do not know how other posters can continue to not see the steaming horseshit of misgyony that the entire argument gives off and still pander to the 'we must be nice to posters who are brave enough to engage on MN in the face of potential pile ons'.

Why on earth do you think pile ons' happen when women are talked to as if they don't matter in any shape or form and they don't have their own agency to set out their boundaries or even use words to describe themselves and instead have to passively accept men telling them what a woman is now because they want to be one. And then when there's a pile on they get told they've been brainwashed and are a hive mind that all think the same.

Engage your own brain for half a second here.

Women have not changed their opinion nor radicalised. And that post is the absolute best illustration of who has been and what their objective is, that I've seen in a while.

Perhaps we should add up how many of Bewilderness's rules were packed into those last two posts:

Women are responsible for what men do.
Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
Women’s opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.
Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breastfeeding babies deserve punishment.
Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.
The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.
Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.
Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves.
Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.
Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.
Everyone owns and controls women’s bodies except the women themselves.
Men are better at performing femininity than women are because they invented it and it gives them a boner.

The answer is still "no".

As I say, what do women have to gain by 'being kind' in the face of this. We have to be blunt and direct. That's not using threats in anyway like we are getting. That's not even being directly disrespectful. It's saying this is a mountain of unacceptable dictatorial coercive sexist claptrap that's being peddled by a bunch of narcissistic men who don't like women, don't like women who tell them where to go, don't like the concept of consent because it prevents them from getting what they want and don't like it when women work together to stop them using them as doormats and support humans.

Women have been treated like this for centuries and we fought against that. That's what feminism is. And that's why TRA don't like feminists. Because they say no and realise exactly what this movement is all about. Mens Rights Activism dressed up as harmless and inoffensive when all the evidence that keeps spilling out says the exact opposite.

I'm really done with the lectures on what constitutes 'hate'. It's a coercive control strategy which has no real weight in law when it comes to describing the reality of women's lives in England. (Other places have lost their minds on this, but I remain convinced roll back will happen in time)

It is not hateful to stand up for your existing legal rights and for the underlying principles of liberal democracy and the material reality of human existence.

I do HTH.

Sorry make that the last few posts not the last two.

Also noting the times posted at, I'm assuming you aren't in the UK.

The law is thankfully not the same as in parts of the US, Canada or NZ.

And I bloody hope we've given ourselves enough time to ensure it stays like that and democracy runs its course rather than top down control being imposed without proper public debate and consent.

Exactly, one has to consider why men are applauded and celebrated for claiming the word "women", while women are derided and scorned and called hateful for claiming it back.

Why do many women who don't necessarily share all KJK views and are not necessarily politically aligned with her have a begrudging admiration for her?

Precisely because she doesn't do this 'be kind' thing and is being blunt and direct in saying she sees the spoiltbratitis for what it is.

TRAs might wish to reflect on why that's cutting through so well despite the accusations of far right association.

It's because no one else is doing it and because political parties are out of touch with their grassroots. So in a democracy women are looking for other voices which are better reflecting how they feel. And even if the content isn't always to their taste the sentiment of standing up to the codswallop and intimate certainly appeals.

As for the 'right side of history' bollocks, some things remain unchanged throughout history - humans need water, shelter and food to survive and biology (in some form) to reproduce. And in the right side of history' bollocks there were periods of oppression where history had various dictators winning until they weren't.

Thank you for coming back and for answering my questions.

I am going to add to what has been written about 'sterilising' children. This is actually not too hard to piece together once you understand the real negative side effects of these medical treatments, the ones that get ignored by so many. I even had a poster who was so entrenched in their beliefs that they posted that these were simply 'reasonable' side effects for trans health care and it was transphobic to view them any other way.

Obviously to start, puberty blockers do cause a great deal of harm. And in male children, it means they never produce mature sperm to have their own children. Then there are various surgical treatments that remove the testes, thus removing the opportunity to produce sperm again.

However, in female bodies, it the effects of testosterone that are also the issue. These are rarely discussed in the trans community. We have been told by trans people that to talk about these effects means that the mental health of others will be impacted, so they use social conditioning to stop adverse impacts of transition being discussed with other trans people. And you can go and look that up for yourself, however it is very easy to find amongst the detransitioner interviews too.

One of the effects of testosterone is to cause atrophy in the female reproductive organs. This atrophy has been heavily dismissed as not important by a few, thankfully very few, male transitioned posters we have had on this board. To be clear, we have had some other male transitioners, but they didn't discuss this. When it is discussed, too often the horrific impact of testosterone long term on the female body shows that there is negative sexist discrimination in that community, because it is minimised so people don't know about it so that male people can discuss their wonderful transitions.

The atrophy in the female reproductive organs lead to hysterectomies. And that leaves many female people sterile. So, when you then look at the current cohort of who is attending these gender clinics, you see that it is now the majority of female people and they are adolescents.

Have you been following the research that I believe is now being done into female dementia and hysterectomies. That those women having hysterectomies in their 20s (and maybe now even teens with these treatments) have an increased chance of dementia later. And the risk is that it is early dementia in their 40s with these very early hysterectomies.

So, not just life limiting in terms of losing fertility, but also life shortening. Yet, it is not discussed.

There was a statement by a Swedish fertility doctor a year or so ago about the upswing in women in their 20s coming to seek fertility treatments because they had been on testosterone and it had negatively effected their fertility even when they still retained their ovaries and uterus. However, I cannot find that doctor to locate their comment.

There is also now research that shows that female people taking testosterone that do successfully become pregnant significantly negatively effect the development of the foetus in utero. And despite this, there was an article about these people deciding to prioritise their testosterone treatment over their developing child quite recently. I will go and look for it.

It is not just puberty blockers. It is testosterone treatment as well.

When I first found FWR, as well as having my arse handed to me for low level “be kind”, I was also shocked to find that there were women who were still insisting that there were no inherent behavioural differences between the sexes. I work with animals, and though the differences vary between species, I don’t know any mammals where there are no behavioural and temperamental differences between males and females. The insistence of some feminists that it’s all socialisation is something I find bizarre.

The idea that boys who feel like they’re girls inside are somehow immune to being treated as if they were boys, with all the inherent privilege that carries, is equally bizarre. I’m glad you have introduced that concept as it’s not one I’ve come across before. This is where we end up if people with little life experience and too much time to ruminate gain positions in life where they can influence academic thinking. Ivory towers in feminist thinking are as dangerous as ivory towers in any other subject.

If one only assesses the superficial appearance of a statement, rather than investigating it in more depth, or testing it out - then you may well end up making such casual associations. in fact, most subscribers to gender do exactly that. There is a lack of in depth analysis, and because of that the core claims cannot be substantiated.

I also no longer identify a a 'feminist' in that for me what interests me most now is not so much political dogma and a fixed set of mandates or demands, rather than an appreciation women, their integrity as biological females, and the various issues that result from this fact. What is it that unifies women, rather than divides them? What is it that women have in common - regardless of their culture, religion, political allegiance?

I've just looked at the transcript and this video just does what you did earlier.

We do not say 'boys must not wear dresses' as she thinks, we are saying 'if you want to wear a dress then that's fine but we don't think you have to start strong drugs that will result in lifelong medical issues and regret just because you want to wear dresses and pink and play with dolls'.

She thinks that we think that men are biologically essentially determined to be violent towards women and girls, when actually we think men can be not violent and it is a choice that they continually make, but until they actually stop it we need safeguards in place to try and mitigate it.

She thinks that Gender Critical people are all Far, Alt, Religious and Conservative women. I mean - Rosie Duffield, JKR, Sharron Davies, Graham Linehan? And 89% of Guardian Columnsts?

You've been had love.

1. Who decides what constitutes hate. And why would stating biological truth be construed as hate? ( I suggest this is a very B&W, 'good versus evil' way of perceiving the world - which is indicative of religious fundamentalism)
2. Being concerned with women's rights and protections doesn't automatically mean that men are the enemy and their mental health needs not also important.
3. I think the reason that people may have zoned in on certain words and phrases is because we've been discussing this issue in depth for many years - and are therefore practiced at homing in on the essentials
4. Not agreeing with your points is not the same as not understanding your points.

Regarding the discussion about 'abortion' and Kellie Jay Keen. This has been wildly misinterpreted. It has been spliced and removed from context. This is a deliberate and dishonest tactic.

To be fair, when I see someone is being accused of saying something like this, even trans people, I immediately go and review it myself. I have been known, like others, to go and make transcripts so that we can analyse what was actually said and what has been misrepresented. I am all for holding people up to what they have said, even feminists, but it needs to be known what was actually said and in what context.

Did you even bother to go and check what she said, and not just a carefully curated clip, the original source?

As Alison said, it was a statement she made about the prioritisation of women's rights and how you cannot adequately protect women and girls if you don't even have a definition for those specific people in your laws.

And the USA doesn't seem to have that (please correct me if I am wrong), Australia after Gillard slipped gender identity into our Anti-discrimination act seems to have lost that ability. But the UK does have some law that just needs to be further clarified and then actually have organisations enact what is already available to them.

Kellie Jay said, the priority is to protect children from undergoing treatment that is being pushed through as 'affirming only' from making irreversible decisions. When you have 13 or 15 year olds having double mastectomies, do you think this is appropriate safeguarding of children who are not allowed to make so many other decisions such as whether they should drink alcohol?

So, what has been twisted was Kellie Jay stating that for her, the definition of woman was a priority, not abortion. She supports abortion. She is NOT anti-abortion. It was her saying her priority is to get all the other protections in place .

Here is an example of just how important loose language is, because if abortion laws are also now passed that uses the word 'people who want abortions', that includes men being involved in the process. Or it might be 'people who need abortions'. Who is to say that in 20 years language has not devolved to include those in defined terms that are opposite to the intention of the definition, so that other people other than the female can legally make that choice. Because it is girls as well, so any other people other than the women and girls wanting that abortion , may be making that decision. All because loose language is used or the word woman and girl has not been protected in laws to mean those female people.

You, Spooky, you can attempt the 'far fetched' argument all you want. This is the reality, we have already seen males leveraging unclear law to achieve their own goals. If you cannot define women and girls under law and limit it to just those female people, you cannot protect them properly.