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.

While I think of it are digital assistants, Siri, Alexa etc female names and agentic AI, Claude etc, male?

It is absurdly untrue that concern for single sex spaces is recent in origin, @polypostwonder , or that it is just some kind of "anti-trans" fad.
One obvious example:
Prisons here in the UK in the 18th and early 19th century were not segregated by sex. This led to widespread sexual abuse of imprisoned women. People like John Howard and Elizabeth Fry, who investigated prison conditions, were appalled by what they found, and campaigned for prison reform. This led to an Act of Parliament in 1823, which among other things instituted separate imprisonment of men and women. It was sorely needed.

When posters like polypost are set on denying material reality, and factual science, making up bullshit about history isn't really much of a stretch.

Welcome to the world in which ordinary women have lived for the past umpteen years, women who mostly would not call themselves gender-critical or any other label of that sort.

Their lived experience of finding themselves in a women's space with somebody they can see perfectly well is male, has been denied. They have been told that "there are no men here", that he is a woman, and that daring even to see what they have seen in that way, let alone speak of it, is hatred, bigotry and phobia.

Nurses have lost their jobs over this. A woman raped on an NHS ward was gaslit, and the police were lied to, until CCTV footage forced the NHS to admit that one of the "women" on the ward was a man who identified as a woman, and that he was the culprit.

So perhaps coming on here has given you an inkling of what it is like to have your reality denied like that. The difference of course being that on an internet board there are no real world consequences for you.

I definitely have a feeling that certain drugs are involved. It is rather rambling and Lewis Carroll-esque. I might stretch that feeling to a belief even if that belief isn't based in reality.

‘Agency’ does not equal ‘having others treat my belief in a subjective reality as being universal material reality.’

Objectively, there has been no change to your sex category, you are male. You could say ‘a male person who has undergone extreme body modifications’.

Objectively, you cannot change the English language and expect any other people to accept that demanded change. Some may. But no one has to.

Unfortunately, if enough people want to do it you can indeed change the English language as it is conventionally spoken; which is why constant pressure to oppose such changes is necessary.

But the majority of people don’t want the changes, it is only a small % of people making the demand. Even though some people like to falsely claim that the majority of people are fully supporting the language change, this is untrue.

I doubt that many people would agree with a change where there was no longer defined and reliable category boundaries around the words to define female and male people. What population would make such important words utterly meaningless by having two words that effectively grouped the same people instead of into meaningful opposite categories.

In the last few decades UK language has become much more Americanised (swim club???), presumably due to media influence. Some people's language is much more influential than others'.

I hear you. But I don’t consider that example to be anywhere near the same as the monumental change as to making a word that is used constantly and is so important and rendering it effectively meaningless compared to the original purpose.

Do you think the population using left / right as a description of dichotomous relational position would accept changes that meant that left also meant right and vice versa on a full language change and a permanent one because one group decided that their freedom of belief had to be supported over others? How about if all north and south, east and west meanings included the opposite direction of travel as well because some group demanded their belief be the dominant one.

It's verbs and adjectives and adverbs that change meaning, not usually nouns.

And especially not nouns with a biological/scientific basis.

So for example "female" has shifted to include some behaviour by men that it would never have been used for when I was young. But woman still means genetically female.

So we say "he's in touch with his female side". but I think if we used female as a noun instead of an adjective "he's a female", we would by that still mean that person is a woman, but living as a trans man.

There is no reason that women should accept having to describe themselves with additional words to indicate that they were born female. It's for the minority group to add words to describe their situation, not the pre-existing majority to change.

I absolutely refuse to accept the description of myself as a CIS woman.

No we don’t deny their status as an identifiable group. I fact, we are keen to be allowed to draw a line between trans women and women when our needs require this.

It is trans identified males who are desperate to prevent biological women from being allowed to identify ourselves as a group separate to trans women.

So if 'woman' has a new meaning, what is it and how is this new meaning relevant to law and policy? What word are we using to describe adult human females?

Well sure, I agree with you. I'm just saying you can't rely on the immutability of language, you have to keep insisting on the point.

OK, PPW, let's look at your conception of what a woman is.

You're pretty clear here and elsewhere that your "trans-inclusive" definition stands - it's "objective" and ours is "subjective". You're also consistently clear that this is the basis on which you understand yourself to be a woman - you're seen as one by everyone else. Woman is, to paraphrase you elsewhere, socially/culturally constructed.

Well...

Your "objective" feels like a weak point in the argument. Acknowledging fallibility - anticipating counter-arguments - often strengthens an argument (proverbs about willows bending in the wind or whatever). Certainty in the context of a claim about a word's meaning globally and throughout human history (and which has just been clarified in UK law and is the subject of heated national debate) does make the claim look a bit suspect.

But that aside,

Do you really believe that, in a majority of countries and contexts now, and throughout human history, a woman dressed as a man and subsequently discovered to be female would be met with the reassuring cry of, "Oh, yes, he's definitely a man - he's wearing trousers, after all!" Take what example you will - the apocryphal Pope Joan, the girls who've disguised themselves as boys in wartime to protect themselves from rape only to be "uncovered"... Are you honestly saying that, for the entirety of human history and, indeed, across the world now, the discovery of what was beneath their clothes would be met with an immediate and ringing endorsement of their initial outward appearance and behaviour - of the first impression they created before the truth was revealed? "Oops, sorry, my lad. Off you go now!" or "What a man that pope was!"

How does your (emphatically objective) definition hold up in this thought experiment, based on everything we know of human history?

"Woman" as being how we are received, socially, by a majority doesn't really seem to fit with the experience and understanding of 99.9% of humanity, if it's based exclusively on outward impression with no real substance behind that. (I mean, it doesn't even correspond with those oft-cited third genders in other cultures).

The only way I can see to reconcile your definition with this reality would be to say that the 99.9% who'd revise their understanding of "woman" to one of "man" the very second sex became apparent had (or have) inferior ethics or understanding to us. To 21st century western European society.

No, OK, edited to add... The other way is to say the word's evolved - but this faces the same issue again - geographical limits on that evolution, and the implicit assumption of the cultural superiority of those places and peoples enabling it (even given our shared recognition of "evolved"'s metaphorical use here, of language as social construct etc., it does begin to feel somewhat problematic in this context - confidence in the "objective" rightness of an "evolved understanding" can be used to justify a litany of wrongs...)

You're pretty clear here and elsewhere that your "trans-inclusive" definition stands - it's "objective" and ours is "subjective". You're also consistently clear that this is the basis on which you understand yourself to be a woman - you're seen as one by everyone else. Woman is, to paraphrase you elsewhere, socially/culturally constructed.

My use of 'objective' and 'subjective' above was in reference to my life as a woman, discussed on this website. It wasn't meant to be a 'trans-inclusive' definition.

I base my understanding about myself on my experiences, my socialisation, the way I am limited, the obstacles I've had to overcome, the way I am included. This is amongst knowing how I feel about my experiences and how my feelings and my experiences are shared with friends, relatives, colleagues—everyone I share a relationship with. This is consistent across every culture I've been in, in many countries. My experience and existence doesn't change at borders. That would be really weird.

Your "objective" feels like a weak point in the argument. Acknowledging fallibility - anticipating counter-arguments - often strengthens an argument (proverbs about willows bending in the wind or whatever). Certainty in the context of a claim about a word's meaning globally and throughout human history (and which has just been clarified in UK law and is the subject of heated national debate) does make the claim look a bit suspect.

I stated on the first page of this thread, I believe 'woman' can include trans women, but is not all-encompassing. I believe there is a very large social aspect to this, but it isn't just showing up. It isn't 'passing' or the clothing destination, which these discussions always return.

I don't believe my beliefs should be enforced any more than any others. I don't even think I can represent any specific boundaries around it, because I don't think about it. It might be a visceral reaction? It may be a rationalisation? It would definitely be case-by-case rather than a rule. It's definitely not a measurable quantity of 'something.'

I've also said that I believe defining sex by biology cannot work because 'woman' and 'man' have very social and cultural meanings that may not be the first definition, are understood to be relationship-based, social-role based, and identify-based. Denying the other uses serves to shut down discussion. For example, I've met more than a few trans men who told me how they struggled with men actually treating them like men. I'm assuming men aren't thinking about gametes here.

Do you really believe that, in a majority of countries and contexts now, and throughout human history, a woman dressed as a man and subsequently discovered to be female would be met with the reassuring cry of, "Oh, yes, he's definitely a man - he's wearing trousers, after all!" Take what example you will - the apocryphal Pope Joan, the girls who've disguised themselves as boys in wartime to protect themselves from rape only to be "uncovered"...

No.

Are you honestly saying that, for the entirety of human history and, indeed, across the world now, the discovery of what was beneath their clothes would be met with an immediate and ringing endorsement of their initial outward appearance and behaviour - of the first impression they created before the truth was revealed? "Oops, sorry, my lad. Off you go now!" or "What a man that pope was!"

No.

How does your (emphatically objective) definition hold up in this thought experiment, based on everything we know of human history?

Again, I wasn't using 'objective' and 'subjective' this way, but let's go with this...

Until modern medicine, the biology of sex was only 100% accurate when babies were born. Everything else was an assumption based on the beliefs and assumptions of who a woman or man looked like.

Today, cultures socially group men and women separately. This is largely biology-based, but not completely aligned with gender critical genetic beliefs.

So yes, there is some 'objective' and some 'subjective' in there, according to gender critical uses of sex-based definitions across human history to today.

To summarise: My 'objective' is actually my 'subjective'. Sorry for any confusion.

No, OK, edited to add... The other way is to say the word's evolved - but this faces the same issue again - geographical limits on that evolution, and the implicit assumption of the cultural superiority of those places and peoples enabling it (even given our shared recognition of "evolved"'s metaphorical use here, of language as social construct etc., it does begin to feel somewhat problematic in this context - confidence in the "objective" rightness of an "evolved understanding" can be used to justify a litany of wrongs...)

I don't believe it is a stretch to assume most people, anywhere, understand multiple meanings of the words 'woman' and 'man' (in whatever language) in discussion. It doesn't require a huge monumental context switch between meanings to occur, either. No one stops to consider the gametes.

The FWR definition eliminates the social definition of woman that allows my life any descriptive sense. On top of this, many FWR posters insist on replacing my very real experience with the social definition of man, which is deceptive and has no real meaning outside of this website.

No, the biological definition of man. Which you are.

If your self perception as a woman depends on people seeing you as a woman, I don't see you as one. Therefore according to your own logic, you aren't one.

I believe defining sex by biology cannot work

This is absurd.

Sorry. I missed adding 'solely' between the words 'believe' and 'defining.'

Discussion of my life requires context, not self-perception.

In English, not Butler speak, please.

The FWR definition eliminates the social definition of woman that allows my life any descriptive sense.

Leaving aside the fact that despite your implication "the FWR" definition of women is a niche usage by a small group rarher than what "woman" or its equivalent in other languages has unproblematically meant in all cultures and throughout history.....

Your definition of woman does not allow my life and the lives of millions, billions, of other female humans any descriptive sense.

Some might say that your belief your need is greater than ours is somewhat presumptuous.

However, I won't even do that.

All I will do is point out that the incredibly easy solution to all this is to recognise the thing you name womanhood and the thing I name womanhood are clearly two different things so it doesn't make sense to try and use the same word for both of them.

And I'm sorry because I do appreciate you have an emotional attraction to the word "woman", but we have a practical need for it.

Our history is written under it. Our rights are written under it. Our understanding of what it is to be female is written under it

And we cannot stretch it to include transwomen's sense of self, or even their "social experiences", without utterly breaking its meaning to us.

So I'm sorry, I really am, but your need is not greater than ours and you don't get to redefine half of humanity as a "social context" just to soothe your own soul.

You are you. You don't need to stop being you. You just need to stop doing it under someone else's name.

Your beliefs are strongly held and I recognise this.

I acknowledge the weight and relevance of biology you place into your belief in your definition of 'woman' and I assume 'man.'

I don't name 'woman' in the sense that you are suggesting, it is used upon me. I have no other culturally relevant word available to me that most accurately represents the cultural place I exist. The word has been used upon me since I transitioned decades ago. I see how the world also uses the word upon others and I recognise its use upon us. My access and place in the world is determined by the word as it has been since I was a teen. My life makes sense through the word. I don't control anyone's use of the word. I am not provided the opportunity to force anyone to use any other word. I am unable to find any example of how the use of the word upon me alters the use of the word upon you. Its use upon me does not prevent anyone else from using the word for you or any other woman. I have no control over their use of the word.

Expanding to my personal belief that 'woman' can also include some trans women. I acknowledge that this is also different than your belief, but I doubt my belief affects you personally or has an impact on the billions of other women in the world. I understand my belief is similar to that of other trans accepting women.