If transwomen are women, and women are cis women, are transwomen cis women?

[Superlambaanana]

Obviously not. They're men. But how can transwomen insist on being women and then recategorise women as cis women without it exposing their whole position as fundamentally flawed?

https://www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

No. These words have been invented as devices to support the fiction that males can become women.

But you know that.

Thanks for that, I didn't know it was a banned term, I wasn't trying to cause offence & it is what they are & so it is truthful, on the other hand I find the terms cis or trans woman very offensive & disrespectful to women but it seems to be ok on here and is used widely. I will say no more on the matter lest I offend someone #letwomenspeak

I think you will find the majority of people, including many trans people, are fully aware they are not biological women hence the definition of using CIS to separate the two.

Yes indeedy. Men know they are men. That's the point.

No need to 'seperate' them from 'other' women. For they are men.

Just call them men.

If you want to be kind, maybe 'men who say they are women'.

It is banned because TIM is a male name and it sends them wild with [male] rage.

Well no, they are transwomen.

What is the difference between a man who says he is a woman and a 'trans woman' and a man?

Bullet points would be good.

Well no, they are transwomen.

Who are men.

Well no, they are transwomen.

You can't be a transwoman unless you are a man.

No male person is a type of woman regardless of whether there is a space in between trans and woman or not. Using the language of 'transwoman' does force people to never acknowledge that these male people are still men. They are men who hold a philosophical belief that they how they present or their actions are those of 'women' based only on their belief that women live the way they envision. Which is misogynistic in nature because it allocates female people a limitation in their behaviour and the way they look. This cannot be twisted to not be misogynistic.

Some people may choose to adhere to using 'transwomen' but the material reality is that this term is an honorific that is based on misogyny and these male people are no different from any other male person. Because there is no set way to be a male person, except to be born male, and they can be as 'gender non-conforming' as they want to be. Still men though.

I'm poised with a freshly sharpened pencil to take notes @valensiwalensi please come and educate me.

Which is misogynistic in nature because it allocates female people a limitation in their behaviour and the way they look. This cannot be twisted to not be misogynistic.

This is what I don't understand. The likes of Rachel Dolezal claiming to be a different race (which is, actually, mostly* a social construct, compared to sex - which isn't!), playing out a reductionist and narrow minded version of what she thinks a black person is, is seen by many as abhorrent and racist. I agree with them. But when men perform some sort of reductionist view of what they think women are, it's apparently fine!

Then there are the "Alex, madre de quatro" types who just baffle me completely, but at least they're not being offensive in role playing some stereotypes of women 😂

*I say mostly, but one could argue it's completely a social construct based on physical appearance and cultural background - I put mostly as you could argue that there are 'real' differences regarding physical appearance and some ability to genetically determine your race.

Some of us have to work so you wont get a response instantly......perhaps in the meantime you can go outside and touch some grass or something?

The time it took you to type that @valensiwalensi you could've given it a bash.

If I have learned anything from this Board, its to consider a response expecting it to be completely picked apart.

You are being unreasonable in using the redundant (and offensive) word 'cis'. There are women and there are men. People who wish to identify as the opposite are still women or men, just with different clothes and names, and in a very small percentage, surgical changes to the body.

I've probably touched more grass in the last 3 days than most, to be honest. I've just spent 3 days weeding it out of my fruit beds. I have a compost bin full of the stuff.

However, I appreciate that there is no actual difference and this is a diversionary tactic so I'll not hold up another gardening session in anticipation.

P.s...they are the exact same thing. I know it, you know it, we all know it. But do have a go if you think you can.

So what is the point of responding?

You and I clearly have different POV.

What is the point of coming on this board to state something that the majority of this board's posters know not to be true? And you don't even attempt to give any intelligent argument as to why you state what you state. Because it might be (rightfully) picked apart?

Because apparently, this isn't an echo chamber.

Allegedly.

It's not. It would be great if anyone came on with a smidgen of intelligent argument that doesn't go against basic biology and fact. Unfortunately that doesn't really happen on this board. Such evidenced by yourself.

@valensiwalensi

One could safely call a group of people who (for example) believe the earth is flat, an echo chamber.

As they will refuse to debate the fundamental tenet that the earth is flat, even though they have no evidence whatsoever.

This boards fundamental tenet is that sex is real and immutable. Which is biologically a fact.

How we feel about Trans identity politics, how to deal with pro nouns, who to vote for etc are all subjects we debate, and don’t always agree. We also exchange resources, and links to literature about the subject,

Which means this board is not an echo chamber.

You are just ignoring the basic tenet of this board and seem surprised to learn we are not abandoning a fact cos you come along and say so.

Why are you even here?

Yes. Do you not learn that way? I do. I learn a great deal in analysing and evaluating whether arguments stand up and still work when they are 'completely picked apart'.

If what you say doesn't hold its validity after it has been completely picked apart, and you cannot provide the evidence to support your statement, don't you then re-evaluate your understanding of something?

You say this is an echo chamber. Yet you are the one who seems to not want your statements to be considered or evaluated. Isn't that 'echo chamber' mentality? ie. what you are accusing the board of being? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Yes, that's generally how humans learn and develop.

If you have something to offer to persuade people what the difference between 'men' and 'trans women's is, then let rip.

Put us all in our places.

Crack on.