Are We Really 'Women' On The Inside?

[HazelLemur]

Dear friends,

As anyone paying attention to current trans affairs knows, the anti-trans brigade like to throw around what they think is the “killer question”.

"What is a woman, then?"

These people will often engage in triumphal sneering as they further insist "Your chromosomes are what you are; XX are women and XY are men. It's science, innit?"

And as a confident trans-woman I say to these people "Absolutely! What is a woman? Great question! Let's examine that".

To begin, let's consult three definitive sources:

First, the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language.
Then, modern genetics and neurophysiology.
And finally, up to date research on brain structure in cisgender and transgender women.

First, the dictionary.
For this, let's go with the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language:

Woman (noun)

1. an adult female human being
2. an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth

As we can see from #2, despite the recent social backlash and disproportionately loud screeching from certain murky corners of the internet, Western culture as a whole is moving toward accepting the validity of trans peoples' inner gender identity. No person with a working moral compass would consider this a bad thing.

Next, let’s summarize genetics and neurophysiology.

Modern society routinely treats all the following “XY” humans as WOMEN, however...
-You can be a woman because you have X & Y chromosomes but your body is insensitive to androgens and you have female anatomy & gender identity.
Ah, so much for the childishly simplistic “But women = XX and men = XY".
-You can be a woman with X & Y chromosomes but your Y is missing the SRY gene, so you have a female body and gender identity (yes, this is a real thing despite your denials).

People who have X & Y chromosomes, but their Y is missing the SRY gene, develop a female body.
Should we treat such people as men, in society, when they have the body of a woman, simply because simpletons insist that XY = Male?
Only an inveterate bigot with some weird religious and/or psychosexual axe to grind would say yes.

You can be a woman with XXY or XXXY chromosomes, giving you a male body but female brain/body map and gender identity.
-You can be a woman with XY chromosomes but a mutation called CBX2 that blocks the influence of the SRY gene.
-You can be a woman because you have 46,XY in some cells but 46,XX in other cells, or 47, XXY.

These are all valid, scientifically obervable genetic variations that highlight the "But XX = women and XY = men" mantra for the simplistic, unscientific nonsense that it is.

And lastly, there are studies of brain structure.
These show that in the section of the brain that determines one’s sense of gender identity.

The brains of transgender women are almost identical to those of cisgender women.
The brains of trans men also align more with cisgender men than they do with women.

And so, to summarize

Modern science, which is how rational people resolve differences of opinion.
It is not about referring to holy books, written in pre-scientific ages past.
It is not about regurgitating simplistic, binary statements that you learnt in the 4th grade.

This shows us that, genetically and biologically speaking, there are many types of women; including transgender women like me.

P.S. In this essay we have a summary of the cutting edge science which validates transgender womens' biologically determined, inner sense of gender identity.

As I’ve said, a rational society follows rational explanations, and doesn’t define its people via outdated religious or cultural ideas.
But beyond that, there is simply human courtesy and kindness.

It’s cruel, hateful and rude for the transphobic bigots to demand that people be forced to conform to their anti-scientific notions.

No one's life is affected negatively by honoring a transwoman as a woman, as the historical record of many trans accepting societies have shown.

Good people will see the very challenging dilemma that transwomen are in, and their natural empathy, coupled with scientific insight, will make them want to support their fellow human beings in being who they know they are.

And so, I ask all of you:

Should we as a society treat trans-women as the women their brain and neurobiology tells us they are? And, if not, why on earth wouldn’t we?

P.P.S. The image in this post is of women who have XY chromosomes, but an androgen insensitivity syndrome which causes their bodies to develop as female.
Would anyone in their right mind insist we treat them as males, simply because of their chromosomal makeup?
The bigots might, but you know you're better than that, right?

Now I'd be up for hearing the answer to that too.

You clearly had no idea what an overbearing, tone-deaf reply this was to 'I just wish there was a way of having a chat about sensitive subjects with just women', did you?

God help any male trying to impose his myopic ideals of active debate on a group of women sharing their experiences of birth traumas, hyperemesis, menorrhagia, marital rape or, basically, any 'sensitive subject with just women'.

which, to be fair, I knew before I ever registered

Thanks for confirming you have no interest whatsoever in learning anything about the women here and where they are coming from, because in your arrogance you assume you already know anything there could be to know. Broadcast only mode.

You could not make it any plainer how our role in your eyes is just to be told what to do and obey.

The same energy that drove and still drives patriarchal abuse and exploitation of women.

And the exact same energy with which trans women assume they know everything there could be to know about what it is to be a woman.

Dear OP,

1. I do not care what a cowardly dictionary pretends is the meaning of the word woman. A woman is an adult human female.

1. Some people have disorders of sexual development. They should be treated with compassion and respect and helped to live the life they want, bearing in mind the impacts of their unique physiology on things like sporting competition.

1. tl:dr. My body produces hormones which affect my brain, change my emotional state and do things like manage my menstrual cycle. However your brain makes you feel, male brains dont manage the menstrual cycle and female brains don't promote sperm production.

Trans women are trans. They should not be harassed or discriminated against and are rightly protected from that in law.

It is unfair and has negative consequences for actual women to include male trans people in some, possibly all, female spaces. Women have a right to privacy, dignity and safety and this generally means from the men infringing these rights. Single-sex spaces need to be just that. Domestic violence refuges, prisons, rape crisis centres, toilets, sports, leadership programmes and changing rooms are for women only for a reason.

If trans people need extra support in society, it needs to be on the grounds of being trans.

As we approach thread limit, here is a handy and quite good I think, ChatGPT Summary of the whole thing... especially the end closing paragraph.

• OP’s opening claim: HazelLemur argued that “what is a woman?” can be answered by dictionary updates, DSD examples, genetics, and claimed brain-sex/neurobiology evidence. The OP relied heavily on the Cambridge Dictionary’s newer identity-based definition and argued that trans women are biologically validated as women.
• Core GC rebuttal: Posters repeatedly rejected chromosomes as the sole definition but argued that sex is binary and reproductive, organised around the production of large or small gametes. The point made was that DSDs do not create third sexes and do not prove that male people become female.
• DSDs were a major battleground: The OP used AIS, SRY absence, mosaicism and other conditions to argue against “XX = woman, XY = man”. GC posters countered that rare developmental differences do not alter the basic male/female reproductive distinction and should not be used as rhetorical cover for male inclusion in female spaces.
• Dictionary definitions were dismissed as weak evidence: Several posters argued that dictionaries record usage, including political or contested usage, and do not settle biological reality.
• Brain-sex claims were challenged: Posters pushed back on the idea that trans women have “female brains” or that brain structure can make a male person female. The rebuttal was that feelings, identity, personality, behaviour, or brain patterns do not change sex.
• “Women on the inside” was treated as circular: Many posters asked what “woman” means if detached from adult human female. The repeated challenge was: if a woman is not a female person, what is the non-circular definition?
• Single-sex spaces became the main practical issue: The thread moved from definitions into toilets, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis services, sport and schools. GC posters argued that women’s privacy, dignity, safety and consent are materially affected when male people are admitted to female spaces.
• “Most trans women just want to pee” was rejected as irrelevant: The counterpoint was that female-only spaces are not based on proving every individual male is predatory. They are based on sex-class risk, privacy, dignity and boundaries. Women do not have to wait for harm before saying no.
• IggyPopsPlasticTrousers took a compromise position: Iggy said they were “proudly pro-trans”, believed trans women are women, but also accepted some female-only spaces such as sport, prisons and rape shelters, while not including bathrooms or changing rooms in that category.
• That compromise was heavily challenged: Posters argued that excluding prisons and rape shelters but not toilets and changing rooms was incoherent because the same principles of privacy, dignity, vulnerability and consent apply.
• The tone became a fight about “attack” versus scrutiny: HazelLemur repeatedly described GC posters as a “cult”, “TERF-y”, “howling”, “screeching” and similar. GC posters argued that asking someone to justify male inclusion in female spaces is scrutiny, not abuse.
• The OP framed GC disagreement as persecution: HazelLemur claimed trans posters were being attacked and treated as monsters. GC posters responded that disagreement with a man’s claim to be a woman is not hatred, and that women defending boundaries is not abuse.
• Women-only discussion itself became an issue: One poster said they wished there were a way to discuss sensitive subjects with just women. HazelLemur replied that this risked becoming an echo chamber. Other posters saw that as tone-deaf, because the desire for female-only discussion was itself part of the issue.
• The thread exposed a clash between “kindness” and consent: Pro-trans posters tended to argue from compassion, inclusion and accommodation. GC posters replied that kindness cannot require women to surrender sex-based boundaries, especially where privacy and safeguarding are involved.
• There was a political detour: The thread moved into Greens, socialism, Reform, wealth redistribution and wider politics. Iggy defended voting Green and redistribution; you and others challenged this from an anti-socialist, property-rights and anti-authoritarian position.
• The OP and Iggy appeared to avoid the central challenge: The repeated unanswered question was essentially: on what grounds should female people lose single-sex privacy, dignity and consent for male people who identify as trans? Much of the later thread became about whether refusing to answer that was evasive.
• Final GC position in the thread: Trans people should be treated with ordinary human courtesy and protected from harassment, but that does not make male people female, and does not give males a right of access to female-only spaces. One late summary put it as: “Trans women are trans… Women have a right to privacy, dignity and safety… Single-sex spaces need to be just that.”

Overall, the thread started as an attempted scientific defence of “trans women are women”, but the replies pushed it back to three hard questions: what is a woman without circularity, what is sex biologically, and why should women’s boundaries be overridden?

Because you wanted to broadcast to women who say no to you.

You certainly didn't post here to learn anything about why we say no, or even bother to find out if the unevidenced contents of your copy n paste diatribe have already been covered here.

Word to the would-be-wise....even if we were an echo-chamber, you ain't going to convince an echo chamber they are wrong just by plopping old and well debunked bollocks into it.

Do better. Engage with what we actually think not what your own echo chambers tell you we think.

And always

always

Bring Evidence!

On the contrary, women and girls' single sex spaces, resources, equalities and services would be returned and we could all go back to what we used to talk about in terms of feminism before this activist MRA movement made such a determined attack upon us. It would be one hell of a relief, it really would. Bring on that happy day.

Second thread in which women are being scolded for daring to look a bit cross and get a bit terse or even rude to the bloke who is repeatedly jumping up and down on their toes. Bit of a sexist and limited view of womenhood really.

No, we're all exactly where we were. No-one has ever said MN is a single-sex space.

As for the "treatment" you have been "subjected to", I’m not sure what you mean. If people have been insulting or gratuitously offensive, I hope you have reported them so that their posts are removed, as happens to anyone posting such comments. Or do you just mean that some people expressed their strong disagreement with you?

Just leaving this here on last page as people scroll through to the end.

Thread Summary.

Well this is EXCELLENT. Let's have one of these at the end of every such thread!

Gubbins was not happy to be holding the H rather than her triangle!

Im flattered that ChatGPT quoted me but I don't like giving my future robot overlord my homework 😉

I could really do with my third arm right now. I need to scratch my nose but my hands are full of flaming brands and pitchforks.

to be fair this whole BoyMom thing needs to be shot into the sun.

So go on then. Without using outdated sexist tropes, explain how a male claiming to be a woman and a woman are the same? What do these males have in common with all women that they do not have with men? Why should women allow these males into female spaces but exclude those males without a trans identity?

You should, because the TRAs are desperate to flood IA models with their own special take on "reality".

Pushing back on the bollocks, even when it's just the same stale old bollocks they've been dropping unevidenced since 201x, is more important than ever.⁷

Men cannot change sex so you can identify as anything you like, it makes no difference to reality.

YOU'RE A MAN - NOT A WOMAN.

Hopefully one day, you’ll finally grow up and come to accept this simple truth. 🤞

Please show us anywhere when anyone on this thread has said we want them to pack it in?

Nobody.

We want trans people to obey the law and use spaces and facilities that match their actual sexed body (modified or not)

was he wearing a dress? he used to do that, AFAIK, which makes him a "skirt go spinny genuine honest to god" woman. Right?

To be fair, I do want people, trans or otherwise, not to be sexist, and I'm not sure it's possible to be trans without being sexist. So there is that.

to be fair i have a social science degree (PPE no less) but i lost the will to live when all the Greens/Reform bilge came out so missed my chance to shine

Where are the attacks? you can report them and they will be deleted.

ETA:
For the avoidance of doubt here is the OED definition of attack

🗂️ OED Summary: attack (noun)
The OED groups the meanings of attack into several major sense families, especially those relating to military action, physical assault, illness, emotion, and criticism.
1. Military action / offensive operations

• Core meaning: an aggressive military action against an enemy, place, or target, involving weapons or armed forces.
• Includes specific types such as air attack, missile attack, surprise attack, etc.
• Historically also included an obsolete sense meaning a base or position from which an offensive is launched.

2. Physical assault

• An act of violence intended to injure or kill a person or animal.
• Can refer to a single incident or a series of assaults.

3. Illness or medical episode

• A sudden, often severe bout of illness, such as an asthma attack, heart attack, or attack of fever.

4. Emotional episode

• A sudden onset of a strong emotion, e.g., a panic attack, attack of nerves, or attack of the giggles.

5. Criticism

• A forceful or hostile verbal or written criticism of a person, idea, or institution.
• Can be figurative, e.g., “a personal attack.”

I am guessing that Hazel is not suggesting 1-4. So let's look at 5.

Nothing here (that hasn't been deleted by mods) meets that "forceful or hostile" unless your definition of either of those includes the words "men can't be women" and suchlike. Which, as statements of plain fact are not hostile. Or even forceful. (unless someone did it like this: MEN CAN'T BE WOMEN))

Just a quick thought before the thread closes.

If a transwoman is a woman because society treats them as one. That means our gender is what other people say it is, not what we think. So when my long haired son gets momentarily "misgendered" does he become a woman for a second or 2?

You'll need a bigger pitchfork than that, Maggers.

if we still have space, i have asked Copilot to put the OP in the style of Lady Whistledown.
(phew, made it)

ETA the text:

My dearest readers,
It has come to this author’s attention that certain corners of society — the dimly lit ones where reason goes to wilt — have taken to brandishing what they believe to be a most devastating inquiry. With all the subtlety of a drunken viscount, they demand:
“What is a woman?”
One might admire their confidence, were it not so tragically misplaced. These self‑appointed arbiters of biology puff themselves up like overfed peacocks, insisting that a pair of chromosomes — XX or XY — is the beginning and end of all knowledge. “It’s science,” they proclaim, in the tone of someone who has never opened a book without pictures.
But fear not, gentle reader. A certain confident trans woman has stepped forward, fan unfurled, eyebrow arched, and declared:
“Splendid question. Let us examine it properly.”
And so we shall.

On Dictionaries, Those Most Reliable of Chaperones
We begin with the Cambridge Dictionary, that stalwart guardian of linguistic propriety. It offers two definitions of woman:

1. An adult female human being.
2. An adult who lives and identifies as female, though they may have been assigned a different sex at birth.

How refreshing to see that, unlike some members of the ton, the dictionary has kept pace with modern understanding. One might even say it has a functioning moral compass — a quality not universally distributed.

On Genetics, Where Reality Outshines Gossip
Now, dear reader, prepare your smelling salts, for the next revelations may cause certain traditionalists to swoon.
Modern genetics tells us that many individuals with XY chromosomes are, in fact, women — and society recognises them as such.
Consider:

• Those with androgen insensitivity, whose bodies develop entirely as female.
• Those whose Y chromosome lacks the SRY gene, resulting in a female body and identity.
• Those with variations such as XXY or mosaic patterns like 46,XY/46,XX.

One wonders: shall we insist these women be treated as men simply to soothe the fragile sensibilities of those who cling to schoolroom slogans? Only the most determined bigot would answer yes.

On the Brain, That Most Elegant Organ
Recent studies of brain structure reveal that transgender women share striking similarities with cisgender women in the regions governing gender identity. Likewise, transgender men align more closely with cisgender men.
It appears, dear reader, that the brain — not the loudest voice in the room — has the final word.

A Summation Fit for the Queen
Modern science, that most rational of adjudicators, shows us that womanhood is not a single, narrow path but a richly varied landscape. Transgender women walk that landscape with the same legitimacy as any other.
This is not a matter of ancient texts, nor of playground chants masquerading as wisdom. It is a matter of evidence, empathy, and simple human decency.
To deny a woman her womanhood harms no one but the denier, who reveals themselves as both unkind and uninformed.

A Question for the Ton
And so, my esteemed readers, I leave you with this:
Shall our society treat transgender women as the women their neurobiology affirms them to be? If not, what possible justification remains?
One hopes the answer is as clear as a diamond of the first water.
Yours in truth and observation, Lady Whistledown

Much more readable, n'est-ce pas?