"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

Um - you literally joined the thread to say "woman who is trans" is how you describe yourself. Did you just mean inside your own head?

Giving you an enormous shoveful of the benefit of the doubt, and assuming yes...

If you also carry that philosophy into the rest of your life: if you use the men's or unisex spaces, if you would not attempt to join women's social, professional or sporting events, and if you retain your biological sex markers on documents and medical records, then there's no issue.

If you do all this, if you are able to recognise your self image as a "woman" does not give you any more claim to women's rights, protections and opportunities than any other man (in the biological sex meaning), you must be horrified at what trans activists are demanding in your name.

By using the term ‘woman’ to describe yourself, you have indeed imposed on all female people. Taking a word that female people use to reference their lives and forceably (through use) changing it to refer to any male person is an imposition.

You might not like to have that pointed out, but it can never be any other way. A group of male people decided to use female language and did so because they wanted to, without one thought about the people using those words.

And no! ‘Woman’ doesn’t describe a ‘look’ or someone’s appearance. If someone led you to believe that it did, they were very wrong to do so.

That’s a start but it does mean you’re not a woman.

How can you be if you acknowledge you haven’t changed biological sex.

And again, it absolutely is a deliberate attempt to change the meaning of established words and to cause confusion.

By detaching the term ‘transgender’ the way this phrase does leaves people confused - is it a female person who describes themselves as transgender or a male person . It is very deliberate

People are free to see me however they want, but I also free to describe myself in a way that fits my situation. I see myself as a woman and other people might not and that’s ok.

I have to ask again then: what is a woman?

Here we go a bloke popping in to share his inner self, yawn

That’s nice, mate. It doesn’t really matter how we see ourselves, material reality will prevail and male people will still not be women.

If you are male and use woman to mean women and some men and/or are using women only single sex spaces you are imposing your self image on others.

I agree. The evidence in front of us is important. And I see how everyday how being born male is not a relevant part of my life now

Also, hilarious edit on your part 🤣

It truly doesn’t matter how you see yourself. If you are misdescribing yourself by using terms that doesn’t describe your material reality it is offensive to those who use that term.

Personally, no. I was really worried how life would change after the FWS judgement, but life hasn’t changed

You can describe yourself as a unicorn. Doesn't mean we have to go along with it, or budge up for unicorns in women's spaces, or change the law.

And they try to tell us language isn't about power and control and pronouns are neutral.

Nope.

Orwell understood this.

So what were you worried about? I am interested

Did you not interpret the judgement to have clarified that women's spaces such as toilets, changing rooms etc are not inclusive of you? And if so, does this mean you never used them, or that you will continue to use them?

Only if you think that the word women has a new meaning and you ignore that the social contract recognises womens rights and protections are not mens rights or protections.

You diminish the social contract when you try to blur the meaning of the word woman

I’m not sure the situation has been clarified as much as you would like. We’ve had three similar tribunals now where 2 found we could be included and 1 found we couldn’t. We’re also waiting for the EHRC high court decision

I changed it because I realised I didn’t want to potentially feed a male person’s fetishisation of womanhood.

You see everyday how being born male is not a relevant part of your life in the same way that fish don't see that water is a relevant part of their lives: because they have not experienced, and never can experience, other ways of living.

You have no idea how being a man (in the sex based sense) shapes your life because you have never, and will never, not be one.

Similarly, you have no idea how being a woman (in the sex based sense) would have changed how your life went because you have never, and will never, be one.

Your beliefs about what it is to be a "woman" not a "man" are simply your own inner sexism reflected back to you. In reality your concept of a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with who we really are and how we really live. You have never, and can never, step outside your own mind and it's exactly the same one you had as (and continue to have as) a man.

There's few weeks go by when some body or other isn't making decisions driven by an interpretation that you shouldn't be included though. The WI, The Guides, Gym changing areas (forget which gym), councils, sporting bodies. While I appreciate you may not personally wish to join the Guides or a woman's football team, I think its fair to say that life is changing for your community, and that its becoming increasingly the case that your rights and options are not those of women. The point being, that whether you think a qualifier to 'woman' is part of your life or not, the rest of society will apply it to you regardless.

This 'new' language switch has been around for a while now. Other terms fail to serve their purpose so they move on.

IW also says 'woman who happens to be trans' as well which is odd because we don't say 'woman who happens to be biological' but there you go. if it makes him happy, why not. No one takes him seriously. He is making a fool of himself almost daily.

He just posted this earlier - The person on trial was the woman who is trans - Ruth Henderson.

Who is Ruth Henderson?

@ThatOpalTurtle

Since you're unable to define the word "woman", I can only conclude that you know perfectly well that you're not actually a woman. So you're lying to yourself as well as to others.

😂😂😂

That’s true, but in a lot of those cases they’ve been forced to make changes to avoid expensive litigation from deep pocketed pressure groups.

Whatever the decision I’ll be relieved when the GLP v EHRC comes back so we finally have a definitive precedent