A Woman's Place is Speaking Up in Wales

[Athos]

No. you wrote "some of women's unease" i.e.: some of the unease felt by women. Not the unease felt by some women.

People would respect you more if you acknowledge that you have an agenda which (as it does with everyone) occasionally clouds your accuracy and objectivity.

Instead of barefaced lying about what you wrote.

Fair enough, you're right, I did misquote myself. But " some of women's unease" doesn't imply that all women share that unease; it can mean (and, it was obvious from the context that I meant) 'some of some women's unease.' You're making a bit of a semantic non-point. It's certainly not something there'd be any reason or advantage to me to lie about.

Of course I have an agenda; but it's not the one some find it convenient to attribute to me - it's that there should be an open and honest discussion, where women can discuss changes that might be imposed upon then (accepting of course, that many are happy with then, and wouldn't consider it any imposition) without fear of abuse.

 

[shygirl]

What term do you tolerate, when needing to clearly specify that you are only talking about people who were assigned female at birth and who are also not now trans men.

Because names are necessary. I sometimes have to refer to myself in broader terms than just "human" or "woman"... and some of those are not entirely accurate ("white" being one example). However it's the best fit because (a) I'm not black or brown, and (b) to label every person to the precise shade of their skin combined with the nuances of their heritage is a level of specificity that is - in almost every context - going to be actively unhelpful.

Trans-men (i.e. women who identify as men).

 

[shygirl]

Sorry, I've mis-read your question, give me a mo.

 

[shygirl]

Women.

 

[spanglechick]

Trans-men (i.e. women who identify as men).

While we wait. Do you never find it confusing to use "trans men" to mean the precise opposite of medical, legal, media and general anglophone common usage?

 

[shygirl]

That's a bit verbose. It confuses a lot of people, many think that transwoman is a woman who identifies as trans, and same for trans man.

 

[spanglechick]

Women.

You never need to specify that you're not talking about trans women and trans men? I don't believe you.

Q: Who should have access to women's spaces?
A: women
Q: including trans women?
A: you mean trans-men? No. I mean women raised as girls. Without penises.
Q: so can trans men access those spaces?
A: you mean trans-women?
Q: I'm really confused now. I mean like my mate Tom, who was born as Jennifer but now has a big bushy beard - can he access women's spaces like refuges?
A: no. He might frighten the women.
Q: so it's only people assigned female at birth and still living with that gender identity?
A: yes.
Q: So not all the people a person might think of when you say "women" at all, then?
A: it doesn't matter what you think. I know what I mean, and I'm happier having this conversation than I am calling myself anything other than "woman".

 

[shygirl]

I just use woman, man, or trans woman or trans man.

 

[spanglechick]

That's a bit verbose. It confuses a lot of people, many think that transwoman is a woman who identifies as trans, and same for trans man.

Do they?

Have you ever seen your preferred usage in the media, or the dictionary?


Why is it verbose, btw? I made a list of three types of usage.

 

[spanglechick]

I just use woman, man, or trans woman or trans man.

And if people think you're including trans people when you say "woman", there's no problem for you? Or for them?


Do you do the same with ethnicity? Person; black person; Asian person...

 

[shygirl]

And if people think you're including trans people when you say "woman", there's no problem for you? Or for them?


Do you do the same with ethnicity? Person; black person; Asian person...

I have to be honest and say that you've lost me here.

 

[spanglechick]

I have to be honest hear and say that you've lost me here.

I'm trying to get past what I can only imagine is disingenuousness- but...


-You are someone who is interested in talking about women's only spaces.

-You only use the word "woman", without any prefixes such as "cis" or "natal" or "afab", to refer to women who were born and raised as girls and who still identify as women.

-Lots of women think trans women are a subset of the concept "woman".

Therefore, when talking to people who don't exclude trans women from the category "woman", wouldn't it be less confusing to have a more specific way of referring to the type of women you mean?

 

[shygirl]

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone is as bright as you, and that perhaps my mind is muddled by your questions? I mean, isn't it okay to be a bit, er, slow, for want of a better word. I don't generally disingenous, fwiw.

 

[shygirl]

I sometimes say natal women, but even that is annoying. Cos in my view, woman is woman. Trans woman is trans woman.

 

[Pickman's model]

Theresa May, with her introduction of her eponymous syllogism, has a lot to answer for

 

[shygirl]

Theresa May, with her introduction of her eponymous syllogism, has a lot to answer for

What does this mean in clear English?

 

[Pickman's model]

What does this mean in clear English?

You employ the mayism 'woman is woman'. Theresa May through her introduction of the mayism - "Brexit means Brexit" and phrases in similar form - into political discourse has encouraged the spread of vapid dross like 'trans woman is trans woman'. Woman is woman - has that any actual meaning? Does it explain or clarify? Does it serve any purpose whatsoever? For me the answers are no, no and again no.

 

[shygirl]

Thanks for explaining what you meant.

 

[shygirl]

I can only answer one of the three, that is, the definition of woman is an adult female. Of course, you'd have to then look at what makes a person a woman, for which you'd get an explanation based on biology (not a feeling). As for transwoman is a woman, that makes no sense whatsoever. I think I've missed your point but hey, what the heck.

 

[Sea Star]

You seem determined to make every communication with me adversarial. I am not interested in talking to you any further.

is this an attitude you carry across the whole of Urban 75 when people disagree with you? Grab all your toys and storm off? I thought we were just discussing things. But it's your right to sulk if you want to.

 

[Sea Star]

That’s definitely a point worth making, but it’s also true that once public attention focuses on something, the potential for people identifying that thing as a target for misuse increases exponentially. The exposure shift makes historic data analysis less credible as a guide to future experience.

so you're saying that because transphobes have made a big fuss about a basic and simple change to the law to improve thousands of people's lives, and strongly suggested that abusive men would be able to use it as a loophole (unsubstantiated i hasten to add) then now those thousands of people should now just accept 2nd class citizenship. I'm damned sure nobody else on this forum sits back and accepts that, so why should trans people?

eta - and please note that your post quoted here seems to imply you'd like trans rights to be rolled back to almost before living memory.

What nobody is talking about here is how, practically, you enforce a roll back of rights. How are you going to identify trans women in order to ensure they don't access the same rights as cis women? Will it be checking genitals? Mandatory birth certificate checks? Remember this will affect all women, unless maybe you target the more masculine women, which I'm sure feminists everywhere will love.

 

[Athos]

so you're saying that because transphobes have made a big fuss about a basic and simple change to the law to improve thousands of people's lives, and strongly suggested that abusive men would be able to use it as a loophole (unsubstantiated i hasten to add) then now those thousands of people should now just accept 2nd class citizenship. I'm damned sure nobody else on this forum sits back and accepts that, so why should trans people?

eta - and please note that your post quoted here seems to imply you'd like trans rights to be rolled back to almost before living memory.

What nobody is talking about here is how, practically, you enforce a roll back of rights. How are you going to identify trans women in order to ensure they don't access the same rights as cis women? Will it be checking genitals? Mandatory birth certificate checks? Remember this will affect all women, unless maybe you target the more masculine women, which I'm sure feminists everywhere will love.

This is alarmist hyperbole. Not enacting the proposed changes to the GRA wouldn't entail any roll-back of rights; literally, it wouldn't be any change from the status quo - nobody would be checking genitalia.

 

[Athos]

... those thousands of people should now just accept 2nd class citizenship. I'm damned sure nobody else on this forum sits back and accepts that, so why should trans people?

Should tens of millions of women in this country just accept the gradual erosion of their hard-won protections, such as the sex-based exceptions to the Equality Act, which seems to be a goal of much of the trans lobby (albeit that you've repeatedly refused to give a full and frank answer about where you stand on that point)?

 

[spanglechick]

I can only answer one of the three, that is, the definition of woman is an adult female. Of course, you'd have to then look at what makes a person a woman, for which you'd get an explanation based on biology (not a feeling). As for transwoman is a woman, that makes no sense whatsoever. I think I've missed your point but hey, what the heck.

The word "woman" is a classification of gender, not sex. The word for female biology is "female".


Transwomen cannot be fully female, but gender is not the same thing as sex.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The word "woman" is a classification of gender, not sex. The word for female biology is "female".

Woman is the classification of a female human, as opposed to a female dog or cat.

 

[Athos]

The word "woman" is a classification of gender, not sex. The word for female biology is "female".


Transwomen cannot be fully female, but gender is not the same thing as sex.

Both of those statements are disputed by many.

 

[Athos]

Woman is the classification of a female human, as opposed to a female dog or cat.

An adult, female human, more precisely.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

An adult, female human, more precisely.

Good point.

 

[weepiper]

Transwomen cannot be fully female, but gender is not the same thing as sex.

That sentence is enough to put you in the bigot box with me.

 

[Eeepet]

-You only use the word "woman", without any prefixes such as "cis" or "natal" or "afab", to refer to women who were born and raised as girls and who still identify as women.

Therefore, when talking to people who don't exclude trans women from the category "woman", wouldn't it be less confusing to have a more specific way of referring to the type of women you mean?[/QUOTE]


I get the principle Spanglechick but there's a problem of imposed categories/labels on people which goes for both sides of the debate. I'm a woman. To be told that I can't use that term but must refer to myself as a cis-woman or natal-woman feels extraordinarily disempowering - distressingly so. And it's particularly hard when the pressure to change appears to be coming from those who were not born female. I understand that how I feel isn't the same as how it is of course. But language has long been a battle-ground for the women's movement and this certainly feels like a backwards step.