Hey! We're just "non-trans women" now"!

[HootyMcBooby76]

So I've seen a quite a few numbers of social media videos now, where the increasing trend in the ideology is to describe women (the original type) as "non-trans women".

So, not women.
Not even "biological women".
Not even the revolting "cis" women.

We are now "non-trans women".

Talk about linguistic gymnastics!

SO...trans women are actually women, but WE are "non-trans" women.

Ok, gotcha.

Women are now defined by what they are NOT (ie, men).

My two girls are at an age where they are applying for their first jobs for a bit of extra cash while they study. The remarkable array of choices now that exist for the old "sex" category (instead of the traditional and REALISTIC two) are astounding. I think I counted seven on one form.

I'm not sure how I feel about my new status as a "non-trans|" woman?
Oh actually I do.
Fuck right off.

Oh I don’t know , it’s a nice change from penis havers or bollocks carriers.

Same as the word hen refers to a female chicken and rooster refers to a male chicken, we do not require an adjective. Unless of course you also advocate for non-hen and non-rooster?

Woman is an adult human female. That's it. A transwoman is an adult human male who desires to be seen as a female.

Just because you, @DadJoke, are happy to use 'woman' interchangeably for a man or a woman based on what the man 'feels' like, doesn't mean you are right.

Woman is perfectly adequate for adult human females. No qualifier or adjective is required.

Yes. The same word patterns can be used to say rational, reasonable things, dangerous, malicious things, and impossible, batshit things.

Define rectangle
Define refugee
Define rebibbleblooble

Nazi Germany has fallen
Civilisation has fallen
Custardbomb has fallen

This is hardly news!

The difference between the rational, the malicious and the ridiculous is not in the pattern of the words. The difference is in the meaning of the words and in the differences in how the speaker, and the audience, value those meanings.

And debate, and disagreement, and progress come when people holding different meanings, and different values, come together to understand those differences and if possible resolve them.

It all starts from meaning.

This is something genderists, with their adoption of an ideology entirely predicated on removing any objective meaning from the core words that define it, who dismiss any significance to meaning with "blah blah blah", are uniquely unable to comprehend.

My son says bagina, it is cute 😂

I'm surprised at the inclusion of the word women! I thought that we would now be labelled as 'non trans people' or 'not men'.

No, we don't need a language to refer to people who are not transgender. We are females, women period.

🤣

The problem, of course, is this surreptitious repurposing of the words 'woman' and 'man' (though really only the first one) so that the gender identitarians define it based on the unfalsifiable concept of an inner, abstract gender identity, a feeling of femininity or masculinity or both or neither, and not on the basis of sex at all.

Once you accept that (or don't spot the switch), then of course there will be male people and female people in all the new gender categories, and if we wish to discuss the fact that the individuals in the many new genders are, in fact, still either male or female by sex, then we need words (nouns or adjectives) to reflect all the different combinations of gender feelings and sex.

But this repurposing of 'woman' has been done without any public consultations and many of us don't accept these new definitions or the ideology they come from.

If we use the traditional definition of 'women' as adult female human beings we don't need adjectives which would describe women as some sub-class of their own sex.

Those adjectives are only needed when sex is linguistically erased so that from the beginning the class 'women' is assumed to be a mixed sex one.

The problem, in my view, has always been this appropriation of the term 'woman' and the assumption that the material reality of living as a female person can simply be erased. Had the gender identity movement created a new set of vocabulary for those who believe in the unfalsifiable concept of abstract gender feelings we wouldn't be having these arguments, medical information would be much clearer, those who want to have identities could have them and those who don't could continue using the old sex-based terms.

Thank you to the women who are clearly explaining the issue. Women refers to a person who is of the female sex. Not female gender because gender is imaginary.

When I was a child I was taught it was wrong to lie.

Now it seems in certain cases people are forced to lie in order not to hurt other people's imaginary beliefs. A transwoman is still a man. The fiction is not convincing nor is the behaviour displayed by certain gender ideologists.

I've seen 'women and cis women before'. So they are women and we are a sub category.

If I am honest, it's hard not to laugh at that.

Only the official changes that actually affect real life, like men in changing rooms or women's prisons, those make me feel really angry and worried.

But it's the change in language that creates those situations.

If language is changed so that transwomen are a subset of women, then they are consequently women. So of course they will be allowed access to changing rooms and women's prisons.

This has happened before. In old English, 'man' referred to the whole set of humans, while 'wifman' which would become 'woman' to the subset 'Adult human female', and men had their own word, 'werman'. 'wer' being cognate with Latin 'vir' and no connection with wolves. But they stole 'man' for themselves, as the default human, and nobody noticed. Well, this time we are noticing. I suggest we return to 'werman' for any man who shows a propensity for adding prefixes or adjectives to us. His humanity is in question, and if he feels there is a suggestion of danger by reminding people of werewolves, that's probably right. (Funny, no-one makes films about wifwolves.)

@HootyMcBooby76 thank you for this very helpful explanation.

@DadJoke i would like to try again to address your question regarding language.

How do you define “transwoman”? Can you define it without using the word “woman”? (I assume you would agree you cannot define transwoman using the word “female” because you would agree it is biologically impossible for a man to transition to be “female”?)

i myself cannot define “transwoman” without reference to the word “woman” (or “man”). I can, however, define “woman” without reference to “transwoman” (ie “adult human female”). Hence my statement earlier that “trans” is a modifier to woman to indicate men who want to live like women (whatever that means…). “Woman” has a long-standing definition, without reference to “trans” and does not require a modifier.

How on earth is that difficult to understand?

Absolutely

I mean on the bright side it's just sounding so nuts now you have to laugh

Dadjoke (such a wonderfully apt user name)

As it's the trans community demanding the world and their dog (I'm in danger of misgendering I know, poor pooch may not identify as such) change language to accommodate their gender feels perhaps they can just stick with transman/woman and we can just keep women?

Why must everyone else accommodate what's apparently such a small minority, in validating their imagined self?

Have to say though I applaud your love of grammar

Not so your need to patronise adult human females on the internet

Actually if I had to change then I'm lo happily be adult human female and hey can be non biological females

That works for me

Typos ahoy there

In the real world no one uses this term.

You’re enjoying being angry at nothing.

Clearly lots of non biological women are getting cross too otherwise all this farcical bollocks wouldn't even be happening

But yes, keep on telling the wimmin to calm down

Is that in the same way that "menstruators" and "people who bleed" and "those with a cervix" and "chestfeeding" and all the other disgusting mangling of language "isn't happening"?
It happens a few times, then it happens another few times, and then suddenly institutions like the NHS are falling over themselves trying to pander to this complete tripe.
If you don't think these insidious changes in language are happening, take a look at everything that has been altered to acquiesce to this nonsense.

This

You identify as this not being real.

Yep, there's a whole lot of identifying going on.

And reality cracks on regardless. Soz about that.