"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

"Professor of gibberish Judith Butler calls gender-critical feminism 'one of the dominant strains of fascism in our time'. It used to be alt-right wankers who called feminists ‘feminazis’. Now it’s nonbinary wankers. Two cheeks of the same arse."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/17/the-hilarious-meltdown-of-men-who-think-theyre-women/

Good point.

Raised by wolves after a plane crash in the mountains?

Oh, sweetheart... You're only around the 1000th tedious misogynistic teenager to think insulting women's intelligence is amusing. Just wait.

I think the underlying issue is that's not really true at all. It's a misunderstanding of religious thought.

People believe in all kinds of unevidenced things, all thought systems are based on them - including scientific materialism. People that think they don't are on shakey ground.

And it's by no means a given that the only way to know things is material evidence - materialism, despite what some people may believe, is not a self-evident truth. Some might even say that it's logically incoherent due to that.

Gender ideology is supposedly based on material facts, but those objective facts can't be evidence. That's a failure, like other mistaken theories about the material world. It's also, arguably, not a very internally coherent theory.

Most religious systems, as well as many philosophical ones, are not about the material world, they are closer to mathematical thinking. So saying they are "evidenced" is a category error.

Just found this "I meant to do that" on the MN menu of GIFs

That’s a helpful last paragraph. I’m religious. I find people trying to argue that science proves religion is rubbish quite bewildering. It’s got very little to do with science.

Most religious systems, as well as many philosophical ones, are not about the material world, they are closer to mathematical thinking. So saying they are "evidenced" is a category error.

Meanwhile the rest of us live in the material world and the wisest of us try to base our lives and decisions on the evidence rather than magical thinking.

I don’t understand the link to maths at all? To me
maths is language and set of rules that is self cosnsitent with the natural world and observations

Most religious systems, as well as many philosophical ones, are not about the material world, they are closer to mathematical thinking.

If you mean that they exhibit some sort of internal logical consistency, similar to mathematics, you are right, except that their internal consistency relies on magical thinking and words that are poorly defined and open to misinterpretation. Mathematics - in which everything is precisely defined and relies on rigorous proofs - also has the quality of being able to make reliable predictions in the real world, which religion does not.

🤷‍♀️

Mathematics can make mostly-reliable predictions about things in the real world, but it can also describe things that don’t exist in the material world. As I recall, it also uses simplifications and deliberate omissions when dealing with real life.

The religions I’m familiar with aren’t keen on magical thinking. A belief that your internal thoughts can affect the external world is not the same belief as thinking there is a super-external force affecting the external world.

But this is derailing the thread…

Mathematics can make mostly-reliable predictions about things in the real world, but it can also describe things that don’t exist in the material world.

It doesn’t claim those things are true and that others should accept their truth. But yes, it’s a derail, so I’ll stop.

This is a bit of a diversion. I being of a religious persuasion used to go on a website where there were interesting discussions, but when this subject came up I felt uncomfortable. In a place where it was considered inappropriate to use insulting language, there was one sort of insult actively encouraged, TERF, and allied terms. I avoided such threads at first, but eventually dropped the place as people I had liked revealed their dark side. And I had discovered Mumsnet, and normal people. Oddly Mumsnetters being rude about religion doesn't affect me like that.
I have just paid a brief visit to see how they responded to the Supreme Court ruling. Fuming is a mild word. It was like being in a parallel universe, with absolutely no understanding of women - and a lot of contributers are women, so churches' historical gynophobia can't explain it. They will keep fighting to return to what they think of as the status quo. All the rights the trans have lost. Despite quoting the bits of the judgement which explained how trans are still protected.

One called this place Prosecco Stormfront! Really. Has she ever been here? With the Tunnocks and all.

I'm not going back there ever. I feel much more comfortable here.I needed to spill that or try to sleep with the hatred wasing over me.

It was like being in a parallel universe, with absolutely no understanding of women - and a lot of contributers are women, so churches' historical gynophobia can't explain it.

I'm not sure I have the words to explain it but it's something like this:

• Women (original sex based meaning) have little power compared to men
• We do however have some protections which men do not have, which men could see as "privileges"

We can't as individuals gain more by taking the things that men have in their power, but we can give up things we already have, and that feels kind of like power to the powerless.

To be able to say "oh, I don't need these rights, you need them more than me" feels for a moment like you are the person with the power, the person who doesn't need special protections to be safe.

So I can see why so many women step up to sacrifice their own voice and their own rights and protections, because in giving these things away they can pretend to themselves that they have no need of them.

"Would say that"..

So, a gay man, who says he has no interest in seeing a naked woman, your response would be..."they would say that"?

Can you see how ridiculous your comment is?

The two transwomen with whom this subject came up in conversation are both straight identifying and only date men.

And this idea that transwomen (legitimate transwomen, not the minuscule, fake minority who are predators) would go to all that trouble to change their body, take hormones, go through feminizing surgery, voice alteration, and go through therapy before doing so, just so they could use a changing room to get a glimpse of a naked woman, that's some reach.

More reaching.

You have never met a transwoman have you?

MarieDeGournay · 18/04/2025 11:01

I am biological. Shergar is biological, therefore.......

... You're a kebab?

I'm just going to pop over to the Bingo thread to add "You've never met a trans person"

But abuse and harm of women and children is not limited to ‘getting a glimpse of a naked body’. It is why the thought terminating trope answers simply don’t work.

Because abusing and harming of women and children takes on many different forms from male people. Just the boundary breach into spaces they should not be can be the exciting aim for some male people. Even homosexual male people.

Trying to justify your position with these male people are not sexually interested in you simply missed a huge raft of other pertinent information. Even before the obvious of a male person is currently with a male partner they still could be bisexual in orientation of sex attractedness.

But the comments really oversimplify the motivation for some male actions. And is incredibly dismissive of other harm perpetrated when male people access spaces they should not enter.

And nice bit of transphobia in your arbitrating who is and isn’t a person with a transgender identity. But also, how can anyone tell who is and isn’t?

Hardly any transwomen 'change their body, take hormones, go through feminizing surgery, voice alteration, and go through therapy before doing so' and most of them are heterosexual.

Some of them are gay, sure. Some gay men (personal experience talking here), just like some straight men, despise women, particularly older women, and wouldn't object to a chance to intimidate or bully them, even without any sexual element.

I've been getting a lot of "talk to trans people" on Facebook and I've just been relentlessly turning it back round to focus on the impact on women.

I am not yet being as blunt on Facebook as I am on here, but the truth is that I could talk to a thousand trans people and they could all be adorable and so incredibly and genuinely sad about all of this and it would not change my mind that women are entitled to exist and to have sex based rights even one iota.

Why on earth should it?

The idea that women should put other people's needs first because otherwise those people will be really sad is patriarchy 101.

And when they say trans 'people' they almost always mean transwomen.

Sometimes I see young transmen being interviewed at protests and at least half the time they're foregrounding transwomen in their complaints.

Now possibly their ideology has allowed them to really believe that someone twice their age and twice their size is more vulnerable than them. But I have a feeling that it's more straightforward. That they know they're women (girls, really) and instinctively defer to the blokes.

No, you need to understand that ‘trans’ is an umbrella term that covers many distinct groups.

One such group is effeminate gay men who have internalised homophobia to the extent that they believe that they can’t really be men because they don’t live up to heterosexual male stereotypes therefore by logic they must be ‘women’.

As a side note, you gave no way of telling what the motivations of any ‘trans person are in their trans identity so you can’t claim its a ‘minuscule minority’ that are fake because you can’t tell who’s fake and who’s not.