Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from this thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532352-the-liminality-of-sex-perception-sex-based-spaces-and-bodily-autonomy?page=39

For argument sake, I understand Blaire White to be a woman. This is independent of the knowledge she chose to only undergo cosmetic facial surgeries and breast augmentation, while retaining everything else.
I think I remember reading that she politically aligns 'right' and is politically vocal about being a male, living as a trans woman. I'm not 100% sure, though. It's not a way that I could understand living, but it is financially lucrative in her case.

There is a person who declares themselves to be male.

That person chooses to live presenting as a female.

In spite of their self declaration as a male, complete with male genitals, you understand that they are a woman.

And you ascribe their understanding of themselves being male, at least partly, to financial motives.

This is either monumentally arrogant or monumentally stupid thinking, or possibly both. Or perhaps you just like playing with a largely female forum and seeing how many feathers you can ruffle.

One thing is for sure, and that is that I don't think anything you write on this subject from now on is going to be of any value to read.

This sounds more like consent than the context discussed here. If a person object to the presence of another, then object to the specific person in a specific place.

I agree, and it's why I'm confused by users talking about consent.

Employers and service providers just need to comply with the law.

Did you miss the bit where the law was clarified, not changed, but re stated, that transwomen are male for the purpose of single sex spaces. So whether some women believe tw to be women is irrelevant in the context of toilets.

We segregate those spaces by sex, not by belief.

Ah, that works by the silly logic of young TRAs who think they are clever when they take Feminist statements that are based on material reality, history and facts, change the words to make them say the opposite of the original statement and believe it is somehow a killer counterargument with the same weight and authority as the first version just because they have their words saying it instead.

Kind of like Trans Women are Women really.

HTH.

Then the law in California is not merely an ass, but an ass that is long overdue for the slaughterhouse.

There is no right for a service user to exclude somebody from a service.

A lot of Britons still don't consent to being in facilities with same sex attracted people.

I can't think of exceptions in the equality act that would allow this.

On the other hand the Equality Act lists the criteria that must be met for single sex provision to be legal and in some situations it is mandatory.

I feel this context is very similar to that context

No really. One thing is often legal. The other isn't.

As I said, though, its mince.

Yes, thats why Darren Merager, convicted sex offender, could hang out in the women's spaces naked with a semi erect penis, and nobody could do anything about it.

Other than, as suggested by Laurie Penny, 'look away'.

Without wishing to side with PPW, I think I see where he is coming from on this point.

Consent isn't applicable when it comes to who else enters a public space you're in, even a loo, even when it's single sex and it's a man.

So yes he is technically right that he doesn't need consent to go in a public women's loo, because no-one needs anyone's consent to do that.

None of the above means I would agree with him being in the women's loo, but it's not an issue of consent.

"A lot of Britons still don't consent...". As a 64 year old lesbian who hasn't conformed to gender since she was 15 I'm here to tell you this is absolute rubbish. I've looked at the very least androgynous and sometimes pretty butch for all of those nearly 50 years, and the only time a woman has taken issue with my perfectly legal presence in the ladies' toilets was an awfully long time ago when I still had narrow hips as well as short hair and jeans, and she took issue with what she thought was a male in a female space. As soon as two reassuringly soprano words had fallen out of my mouth she apologised profusely, mortified, I think, by her "rudeness". I told her then (40 years ago..OMG!) what I'd tell her now, that I'd rather she asked than let me make her uncomfortable.

There is nothing I can say on FWR that isn't immediately recontextualised and attacked as antithetical to gender critical beliefs. My literal presence is antithetical to gender critical beliefs. That isn't feminism, it is ideology.

The thing is, they don't define 'trans woman' either. It all just comes down to what you put on your driving license.

This is how Darren Agee Merager, of Wi Spa fame and a registered sex offender, described himself.

"I’m very neutral, like non-binary, although I don’t like that word. I’m legally female. But I have facial hair. I have a penis. I have no breasts. I don’t have a feminine voice. I don’t wear makeup or dress up like a female. So imagine you’re a grocery store [clerk] and you’re bagging my groceries and you say, “Excuse me, sir . . . ” I mean, am I supposed to be offended? That’d be ridiculous. How would this person know? But technically, for legal terms, I am she/her. I put “female” on my driver’s license. But I’ve had to struggle my whole life fitting into traditional society."

Look no further than California to understand why women in the UK insist that the law must clearly define sex.

Seriously? Read the post I replied to. My reply isn't an attack on you and does not deserve that accusatory rant.

That aside, no, your "literal presence" is not "antithetical to gender critical beliefs", it's your sexist statements and actions that we take exception to.

Oh, and BTW, Feminism itself is an ideology. It's the belief that men and women are of equal value and capability, and that the only fair way for society to be organised is one that allows female bodied people to have equal status, value, agency and authority to male. And one I happen to agree with.

Gender Critical Feminism isn't separate to that, it's just the part of Feminism that critiques and challenges the ways that beliefs that purely social constructs of gender are actually innate qualities of men or women disadvantage women.

This entire thread is here because my words are twisted in bad faith and presented back at me as something I have not said.

No, it's because you are incredibly sexist. If we are misinterpreting your words as such, you'll have to write more clearly.

As currently I could stand on the moon without my specs and see them as sexist.

Objectively, I am a woman. I live life every day as I have for decades.

Subjectively, in this space, you call me a man. This is because you have taken ownership of the word woman under gender critical beliefs and define it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs and removes trans women, specifically. Gender critical people take ownership of other words as well, such as 'consent.'

There is no situation in gender critical space where I or my words will be understood in any other way but 'sexist.' You are presenting the option of 'clarity' in bad faith. I have no agency here.

I didn't call you anything in that post. I said what you say is sexist. And it is. Not one thing about your identity, so your response isn't relevant nor does it address what I said at all.

You could try clarity and see how we do....

Of course consent requires law enforcement. That’s why there are laws against rape, for one.

You seem very confused about the law PPW, can I suggest you read up on it, and the difference between legal obligations, legal rights, and personal wishes.

I have no idea of the sex of any anonymous poster, but from what you say, you are only a woman if you change the meaning of 'woman' to mean something that excludes many people who are human and female.

I suppose it doesn't really matter what word we use for humans who are female, but we do need a word.

Why shouldn't we keep 'woman'?

Why can't you find a new word?

This is because you have taken ownership of the word woman under gender critical beliefs and define it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs and removes trans women, specifically. Gender critical people take ownership of other words as well, such as 'consent.'

< Snorts >

Dude, they have been in the dictionaries for decades with the same meaning we use. Even Shakespeare used them as we do. You are the odd one out mate.

This is your belief. Many others do not share it.

Your belief that you are a woman does not constitute a meaningful reality for anyone else.

And - I want this to be very clear - should you agitate to be recognised as a woman in society and in law you would, have no doubt about this, be actively agitating to have your beliefs override the beliefs, self knowledge and legal and social identity of many many women.

Subjectively, in this space, you call me a man. This is because you have taken ownership of the word woman under gender critical beliefs and define it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs and removes trans women, specifically. Gender critical people take ownership of other words as well, such as 'consent.'

In the previous thread, I defined 'woman' based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Equality Act. It's not my personal definition; it's the law here. I also suggested that you relocate back to Canada, as they appear to define woman to include transwomen. However, you said your husband couldn't move right now and that you weren't considering it for the future

Other women here have also applied the definition under UK equality law. If you're in Britain, that's the proper definition. You're the one who uses a different, and as far as I can see, idiosyncratic and either poorly defined or poorly explained, definition of woman. I don't understand your definition of consent either.