"A woman who is trans"

[AllThisFuss]

I've been noticing this terminology creeping in. Just thought I might highlight it, so we can keep up to date with their ever-changing attempts to control language and muddy the waters. Have you seen any in the wild?

IndiaWilloughby
‪@indiawilloughby.bsky.social‬
Not a mention of the woman who’s trans, who did nothing wrong. This ruling is in direct conflict with the Gender Recognition Act. How is this happening? It is wrong on every level, and will be used to push trans people even further out of society and into danger

Assuming such a thing exists, there would be surely be some in the public eye that you could point me to?

I take an opal turtle identity as seriously as I take a male “woman” identity.

Please answer the question. Which public “trans women” pass?

"Passing" isn't binary. A glance in the street vs sharing a staff changing room for example, or interacting to buy a coffee vs taking part in a women-only professional confidence event.

And no man passes as a woman on the operating table.

But really, "passing" or nor is a red herring anyway.

Men who might "pass" as women in some contexts because of their appearance are in reality no more like actual women than any other men.

They might be closer to their idea of women but that's just them projecting their own stuff onto us. They don't actually see women at all, only the sexist bias of their own minds.

Like those cakes that are decorated to look like bacon or beercans or phones, they might look like something else but they are still cakes through and through.

And of course, the regular reminder that "It doesn't matter if women are being deceived to get me what I want as long as they don't find out" is not a morally justifable argument.

It really is weird listening to men saying women can't tell. No, men can't tell!

I've genuinely seen the most ridiculous looking men, complete with stubble, absolutely convinced they pass.

And, of course photos are totally irrelevant.

I haven't seen a single transwoman, as people say, in the public eye, who I wouldn't clock as a man. There are loads and loads at all the events where they are protesting about women, or pouring piss on themselves. None of them pass.

But yes, even the concept is utterly irrelevant. Any man violating my privacy and boundaries isn't less predatory because they've attempted to disguise it.

And we are back to the myth of 'passing'.

Yet, 'passing' is irrelevant. No male people should be in any female single sex provision using that provision.

""It doesn't matter if women are being deceived to get me what I want as long as they don't find out" is not a morally justifable argument."

and

"Any man violating my privacy and boundaries isn't less predatory because they've attempted to disguised it."

and

"Your misplaced confidence in passing is totally irrelevant to the point. Any male person who fully respected the needs of female people would never attempt to enter a female single sex provision."
"It is irrelevant whether you ‘pass’ or not. You cannot change material reality."

I wonder how many times and different ways we can all say it. FFS! Deceiving people that a male person is a female person is never appropriate, but is certainly not appropriate when consent is in involved.

The other thing, of course, is, quite how many of these men say absolutely no one knows they're male, but then bang on relentlessly about different cases, the law, toilet provision.

It's such a giveaway.

This. 100% this.

I don’t have an argument for why I should access female spaces

Here's an argument. You may not be a predatory male but plenty of others are. Do you want to normalise males being accepted in female only single sex spaces when there is no way to differentiate between men who are safe and men who intend harm?

If someone successfully picks my pocket and I haven't noticed, is that ok? Are they morally in the right because I haven't realised they stole from me?

What about when I go to take my keys out my pocket a couple hours later and realise they are gone, is the person now in the wrong?

Maybe they took something from someone else who didn't care as they were going to throw it away. Does that mean that I can't complain because someone else didn't mind that it happened to them?

There is a desperate incoherence to the arguments that are made while acknowledging that the poster has knowledge about the cases. This has been done on quite a few threads now.

They declare that their presence 'doesn't harm anyone' while knowing about the cases where women have complained about a male using a female single sex space. It is a complete disconnect that I associate with them believing that they must be a special case of 'passing' or have 'done enough to pass' so should be rewarded with being allowed access while others don't.

Which is of course, ludicrous for numerous reasons where just considering the illegitimacy of that type of discrimination is only the start of the reasons, yet is enough to stop that argument completely. End of story.

I thought "passing" had been deemed transphobic anyway

If there was a magic wand that enabled a man to 'pass' as a woman visually all the time, even IRL, women would still know that he is a man as soon as they had any sort of real-life conversation with him. The conversation between a woman and another woman is different in a thousand tiny ways, both verbal and non-verbal, from the conversation between a man and a woman. I would give it a maximum of 2 minutes chat in the checkout queue before the man was outed.

On Reddit a man was asking how he could stop the male head nod - that little tiny chin up or chin down to acknowledge another man. So many little tiny movements give it away.

I am one of those lucky women who would probably be ok sharing facilities formally defined and designed as mixed sex with men (well, in an imaginary world where the beggars kept shared spaces clean anyway). I don't have a trauma response from past experiences so I can take a relatively sanguine "chances are it will be fine" position like I do with other risks like crossing the road.

Yet despite that, I would still react negatively to encountering a man (including a trans woman) somewhere that is supposed to be woman only and not there as part of his job because he has chosen to insert himself into a woman-only space, meaning he at best has sexist and reductive ideas about women and believes his ideas about us should take precedence over our own needs and wants, and at worst all the above with the needs and wants being specifically sexual.

Just spoke to my wife about this, effectively according to this new nomenclature she's "a woman who's not trans".
Her response was that she's a woman, anything else (or anyone else) is "bollocks".
Literal truth telling.

I’m not playing that game with you. If I name someone you’ll pick out some detail that most people wouldn’t notice in normal daily life. Did you ever consider there might be people in the public eye that are trans but not open about it?

It doesn’t matter. Stealthing is illegal.

I say no.

do you generally violate women’s consent?

Amazing really, we've had the post modern BS language wars.
Women are non men, chest feeders, uterus havers etc
Ironically even the highly trained and highly motivated barristers for these chumps accidentally misgender them in court (is my client a transman or trans woman?...well, he still looks like a man...)
So transmen and transwomen is even for their side a tactic that's backfired, stumping even the most elite legal activists.
TIM and TIW is too close to the actual truth, so this won't do.
Biological man/woman IDing as a woman/man, again the truth just won't do for TRAs
So what's left...let's call them all women, and then delineate the trans ones.
Like, y'know, all women, the red headed ones, the slim ones, the sporty ones, the loving ones, the argumentative ones...and now, the trans ones.
Sorry chumps, it's not gonna float.
You're not all women including some trans ones.
There are women, and then there are men, and amongst the men are some who just won't play by the rules, trying to re-write the rules of the game.
Of course, society runs on rules and linguistic rigour.
Ditch the rules, the rigour, you then lose all meaning as commonly understood.
Once that's lost, society is more easily bent to one group's will.
That's not going to happen.
Women, some of whom are trans?
No, women and some men.

"Did you ever consider there might be people in the public eye that are trans but not open about it?

It is irrelevant for the purposes of access to single sex provisions. There is no right to privacy for a male person seeking access to a female single sex provision. Therefore, if they choose to deceive people by entering, and they are doing so with full knowledge that they potentially may cause harm to the female people by simply being in that space, they are knowingly harming female people.

Who does that?

Its like when jamie wallis was billed as the first openly trans MP. Like there was lots of women 'with a trans history' who never admitted it.

"Did you ever consider there might be people in the public eye that are trans but not open about it?"

Also, to repeat, why should society act as if someone's identity is materially real if it is not materially real? There is NO biological marker that indicates that someone is 'transgender', therefore it is purely a philosophical belief.

If someone is a male person in the public eye and saying they are female and is using female single sex provisions, why the fuck should this be acceptable?

All this amounts to is 'whataboutery'. It is irrelevant to the facts.

Of course you aren’t 🤷‍♀️

"I’m not playing that game with you."

No. You are trying to play a game where you find the right message to allow you to feel better about accessing female single sex provisions. You are playing a 'whataboutery' game with the end goal being that you feel better about doing something you know that is highly likely to be harmful to others.

How do you know most people wouldn't notice it?
Did you ever consider they might just be being kind?