"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

It won't stick anyway.

Very quickly society will start to read "a woman who is trans" as "a woman who is male" and the whole merry go round starts again.

There simply is no language that can make people think the difference between female people and male people is insignificant unless society changes to the point it actually is insignificant.

Until then, whatever new phrases TRAs try to push, people will always end up understanding exactly what they are really talking about - a biological man who wants everyone to pretend he is a woman.

Again, it is being left up to strangers on the internet, women on the internet to explain to someone how male and female physiology differs and to the point where female people are highly likely to correctly identify a male person.

The people who support these male people are letting them down significantly. It should not be up to the general public to explain these things. No male should ever have been left to believe that they could 'pass' as being female to 100% of the female population 100% of the time.

The inherent misogyny in forcibly changing the language female people need to describe themselves to include any male person is bad enough.

The trans logic is that trans is a very small, marginalised group of people. Women are very unlikely to meet any in our spaces, and if we do would rarely know because they pass. They also have been using the spaces for years, both with our permission and unknown to us.

But when trans allies talk, they speak of knowing lots of trans people, all lovely. Odd that they know so many.

Trans friendly organisations put up signs saying never question anyone using the women toilets. Odd for such a small, mainly passing group.

TRA have changed policies to trans inclusion. Again, odd for a group that has been using the spaces with permission for years.

What is odd is when men who 'transitioned' ten minutes ago, tell me what was normal in womens spaces years ago.

Also, if they mainly pass and hardly every talk about being trans, where is the transphobia coming from?

It was the same problem with Political Correctness back in the 90s (which being young and idealist I bought into at the time)

Where the new words reflected reality - firefighter instead of fireman, chair instead of chairman - they made sense and they stuck.

But where words tried to paper over issues without fixing them, they just over time became the new bad words.

A "woman who is trans" is a transman or a trans-identifying woman. A transwoman is a man, or a trans-identifying man.

Who is paying India Willoughby to write this rubbish?

In fairness, its you who introduced passing into the discussion. Most people on here don't operate a hierarchy as to how much of a woman a man is based on his appearance, or suggest handing out toilet privileges to people in your community based on how close to the feminine ideal they manage to get.
Most people on the board do not create divisions based on superficial things a person can't help.
There is a consistency in the position that all biological males should be excluded that appears lacking in those who feel the need to tell us they pass to bolster arguments for their inclusion.

If I name someone you’ll pick out some detail that most people wouldn’t notice in normal daily life.

Brains work holistically when assessing threat, and the biggest threat to women is men. Often we are not even consciously aware of the details that we are noticing, but our brain is monitoring detail on a deeper level.

'Passing' privilege is transphobic. The transgender community states that it is elitist, exclusionary and all round 'not fair'.

A "woman who is trans" is a transman or a trans-identifying woman. A transwoman is a man, or a trans-identifying man.

Just reading that sentence makes it obvious how confusing this all is for the average person who answers a census question, or a survey, or wants to #bekind. It's making my brain explode, and I follow this stuff!

And that is what they are trying to do - confuse and obfuscate, and move into our definitions.

Protect the Bricks

Exactly

It’s not fair, but for most of the time transsexuals have existed it was accepted that you have to blend in so you don’t upset the cis people

If you can't think of a single 'transwoman' in the public eye who passes, the chances are nobody passes.

Any detail that I might notice could be noticed by anyone.

I’m not playing that game with you.

It's not a game for women.

you’ll pick out some detail that most people wouldn’t notice in normal daily life.

You mean YOU wouldn't notice. You are a man and have different evolutionary signals and cues. Women take identifying men seriously (possibly at an unconscious level for most of us) because it's not a game for them that they can play or not play.

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

Give over.

Indeed.
TRAs using a salami slicer on language and concepts, thinking that society is a pizza
Society likes going out for a pizza, but society isn't a pizza.

What? And miss their chance to be special and important. Stunning and brave? You're 'avin a larf aren't you?
Literal nobodies are clamouring for their 15 minutes in newspapers and podcasts all over the world. Not a chance in Hell that someone already in the public eye is not milking their special identity for all it's worth.

Blend in according to whom? Which other people were supposed to be believing that male people with a transgender identities 'blended in' as female people? Other male people?

Do you understand that not one of those male people ever considered the needs of female people? All these decisions were made to benefit male people by male people.

Not sure what you're saying here?
That "passing" is designed to meet 'cis' people's needs, not trans people's needs?
I thought "passing" was the ultimate aim for trans people. Certainly seems like it.

Fair to whom?

@ThatOpalTurtle why don’t you think that trans identifying men have to obey the law?

It’s both. Passing means other people won’t be uncomfortable in your presence, and you will have an easier life.

That makes no sense at all. The best way for a trans person to blend in would be appear as per the conventions for their biological sex while still being just as much a woman (because woman is a noun not an verb, no?)

But I can always tell.

therefore. They don’t pass. And it certainly doesn’t make my life easier to have my consent violated. And they’re breaking the law.

Again, why should people either be encouraged to deceive people or why should the general population accept being deceived as to the sex of a person in front of them when it is important to know this?

And under Article 8, there are situations where restrictions can be applied to those rights. Yet we keep cycling around to 'passing'. And again, it is irrelevant to the use of female single sex provisions.

No, trans people wanted to pass invisibily so they could live out their fantasy of being the opposite sex without facing the reactions and changes in behaviour that their true sex would give rise to.