"Trans women ARE biological women"

[TangenitalContrivance]

I see this argument and comment more and more the last few weeks and hugely over the last 3 days.

For example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1k1tliv/trans_women_are_biological_women/

This statement, and the comments underneath it absolutely baffle me.

The approach, one that I am sure will only work with a minority of the people who said TWAW, is to undermine the definition of words, yet again, and deliberately cloud the water when it comes to speaking clearly and using terms that everyone agrees with

I have seen it said in more places than Reddit however, and by respected people

I don’t think you understand the principles of reproduction or how reproductive capability via sex is expressed and embodied in humans.

How do you know they are not women? By what they look like? No one has answered this question. Tell me how you determine this when using a piblic toilet.

Which is kind of the point really. Gender exists, sex doesn’t. You don't know someone’s sex based on what they look
like.

It wasn't in this thread but I mentioned recently hearing a person in heels walking across a tiled floor behind me and knowing it was a man (in 'women's clothes', make-up and wig) before I saw him, just from the gait pattern.

Well you can disbelieve objective, provable reality as much as you like; it's not dependent on how you feel about it. That's why it's objective and provable.

However, if we're talking about beliefs, then from this post I don't believe you've ever been in a female changing room. You think only small, petite women get in there? And no butch women? Do you think we also have pillow fights in there?

As I think I've said before, nobody found the sex binary complicated when it was women who were being excluded from fully participating in society, and certainly nobody wondered how men would manage to keep women out of Parliament, universities, voting booths and so on. It's very interesting that it only becomes an incredibly difficult, complicated and 100% completely unenforceable concept when it's women trying to keep men out of female spaces. Still, if you don't believe in the sex binary and it is beyond your comprehension, there's a simple and obvious solution. We can have designated single sex spaces for men and women, and an additional mixed sex space for people like you who don't understand what the other ones are for. Then everyone gets the space that suits them and you don't have to worry your head about the difficult concept.

You're in favour of that, then, right?

How telling they use the word gender all the way through then.

This is where some people’s lack of logical thinking leads them. And it is very common.

“So how are you going to determine someones sex in going to the toilet exactly. Based on how they look?”

People should know their sex. Except, of course, for those who believe in pseudo science or flawed theories and want to recategorise themselves according to these falsities.

‘You’ , as in society, has already determined that people who are female should go into female toilets. Did you hear the news from the Supreme Court? It has already been determined and it hasn’t changed for decades.

So, your question about determining who enters based on looks is nonsensical when you consider it. If someone isn’t female, and the space is designated female single sex, then it is already determined that they should not be accessing it.

Not really. Gender used to only mean sex.

Some people have not realised that a group of people changed the meaning of the term to render it meaningless.

Anyhow, ultimately, sex is about reproduction, whether a given sexed individual chooses to reproduce or not. It's what it is for, it is what shapes our female and our make bodies and what the secondary behavioral characteristics are about.

Reproducing the species. Using our sexed bodies to do so.

You have this backwards (again)...

99.lots% of the time, and 100% of the time for trans people because it's a pre-requisite for being trans,, the person who always knows someone's biological sex is the someone themself.

Society, by and large, is supposed to use laws and social contracts to self-police.

If someone chooses to go somewhere they know they have no right to be, probably that will be recognised, maybe they will be challenged, but the expectation that women themselves must be able to police their spaces with 100% accuracy that is not a prerequisite to having a rule that says only women should be there, and more than the fact that people don't necessarily realise they have been stolen from means we can't make theft illegal.

I think thats called gender stereotyping. Maybe ask them to pull down their pants instead 🙄

As a small aside, I am so, so sick of genderists claiming that only "small, petite" women look like women, and then accusing everyone else of being patriarchal and sexist and unable to determine sex. I would ask them if they could hear themselves but it's been almost ten years of this crap...

House!

No, that's what you do when you insist that a woman is anyone who wears a dress and lipstick, or that only "small, petite" women look like women. It's also only ever you lot who go on about genitals, even while you accuse everyone else of doing it.

The gaslighting and DARVO is just off the scale.

Thank you for your honesty.

Gender exists, sex doesn’t.

This is The Right Side of History, dear lurkers.

I'm so sick of the "right side of history" stuff. To paraphrase Graham Linehan, if the right side of history means sterilising children, gaslighting women, forcing women to share intimate spaces with men, erasing safeguards, homosexuality and lesbianism, putting men in women's sports and spreading lies about biological reality, then history can fuck off.

Ding, ding, ding! Well done player - choose your prize from the wonderful selection

binky bunky bonkers

This is the stage I have reached with those males who scold us: Go and be stunning and brave in the male loos, sport etc, and put your energy into charming your fellow men into accepting you for what you are - someone with a difference sense of fashion to them. Raise money to establish refuges etc and stop harassing females. Move on with your life.

It’s not gender stereotyping, it’s accurately depicting physiological traits displayed by men.

If she had said “by your love of football, your inability to remember wedding anniversaries or to empty the dishwasher and your habitual garb of trousers and shirt” it would be gender stereotyping.

Maybe the entitlement verges on stereotyping, I’ll give you that.

Oh dear. We have cycled around to the same tired trope again.

Female and male people have body cues that when perceived in combination over a period of time make miscategorising sex highly unlikely.

There is a greater chance of female people correctly sexing male people, it seems.

I think there is great danger in those who either cannot perceive sex correctly or performatively cannot believing that their inability is one the general population also has.

People believe all sorts of things. Thankfully the Supreme Court has more impact. Sex is binary.

And that being the case, gender should be entirely definable. But as it's totally not patriarchal, it certainly won't be just a collection of sexist and repressive stereotypes, like "a female gender is wearing dresses and lipstick and being sexually submissive".

So... what is it?

If they’d actually read the whole report from the Judicial Review from the court they’d understand why it is beneficial to trans people, particularly transmen, why there is a distinction between biological sex and certified sex, this judgement protected rights for everyone.

Just wanted to say Kucinghitam.... very nice bigly letter work you have been doing over past couple of days. Some of it is very artistic!

'Gender exists, sex doesn’t.'

And this, readers, is a great example of what believing pseudoscience and flawed theories does to your brain.

Don't do it!