Woman

Doodledog I am sure there are men who would seek to take advantage of any law or provision to futher their own interests. Such people are not trans in anyway. Using transwomen to describe them is wrong. So why is trans being associated with them? I can't see that it is any benefit to trans people to associate themselves with anyone who means women harm. I can't see that any transwoman would benefit in anyway from "diluting" what it means to be a woman, or that there will ever be enough transwomen to control us from within. There are over 34 million women in the UK and an estimated 200,000-500,000 trans people. Even if every trans person is a woman they still constitute a tiny portion, and some are transmen.
I can see that the patriarchy and its greatest ally corporate business are busy eroding women's rights whilst we quarrel .

Gsm Even if I emphasise with your feelings that does not mean I have to find your statements acceptable. I understand perfectly why you can't reply to my question about old people. I'm sorry you don't want to listen to me. My feminism remains as it always has been an integral part of my life. It means that although I may feel sorry for you and sympathise with you I cannot allow such statements to pass without criticism, anymore than I would permit racist or sexist remarks to pass.

trisher my statement was of my experience and my feelings but despite calling yourself a feminist you ‘cannot allow [it] to pass without criticism’. How very superior and judgmental and once again you liken it to a racist statement. You ‘may’ feel sorry for me and sympathise with me. Of course you don’t, nor do I ask you to. I have asked only for the respect you talk about, not the abuse and dictatorial attitude which fills your posts.

trisher

Doodledog I am sure there are men who would seek to take advantage of any law or provision to futher their own interests. Such people are not trans in anyway. Using transwomen to describe them is wrong. So why is trans being associated with them? I can't see that it is any benefit to trans people to associate themselves with anyone who means women harm. I can't see that any transwoman would benefit in anyway from "diluting" what it means to be a woman, or that there will ever be enough transwomen to control us from within. There are over 34 million women in the UK and an estimated 200,000-500,000 trans people. Even if every trans person is a woman they still constitute a tiny portion, and some are transmen.
I can see that the patriarchy and its greatest ally corporate business are busy eroding women's rights whilst we quarrel .

Trisher, come on. You said that it is possible that the infamous bloke in the changing room may or may not have been trans. You can't now say that he is 'not trans in any way' and question why he is associated with the concerns held by many on this thread. He was in a female changing room wearing a women's swimming costume until he took it off.

Are you seriously saying that if he was a real transwoman (as defined by his assertion that he is a woman) that this is ok, but if he has not declared himself to be female it is different? It's masterless to the women in the room, as all they see is a bloke in a swimsuit, and as you say, there is no way of knowing who he is or why he is there.

Also, I am not saying that transwomen are attempting to dilute what it means to be a woman. You keep suggesting that 'the patriarchy' has persuaded gender critical feminists to oppose self-id and the ability of men to 'become' women at will in order to oppose trans rights. I would argue that women (gender critical or otherwise) can think for ourselves, and that if anything it is in the interests of the patriarchy to have a system in which women have, effectively ceased to exist.

If we become 'natal women', cis women', 'cishet women' 'people who menstruate' or whatever, we are no longer a class of people in ourselves, a bit like the women in A Handmaid's Tale who woke up to find themselves Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Unwomen, Econowives and so on, except that some of us are men.

As such, (see posts passim) we no longer have spaces of our own, we no longer have meaningful figures about female health, the crime figures don't show the extent to which women are victims of crime (or aggressors, before you try that diversion), we may as well give up on competitive sport and so on, and Newspeak means that we can't even talk of ourselves as women. It's a misogynists wet dream.

Genuine transwomen are pawns in this game, and as has been said over and over, they also suffer by the 'no debate' and the TWAW lobbies, as public perception does not differentiate between their needs and the demands of the vocal fringes.

matterless, not masterless ?

I’ve been out so missed out on all your posts t, but really, your reference to ‘old people’ is your saddest attempt at diversion yet.

I wonder if all your references -Nazis, old people, the need to wear badges, women’s rights etc are actually things you are phobic about and that’s why you post about them so often in response to others genuine concerns.

Your constant insinuations of ‘if you say this you must mean that’ show a lack of understanding I have seldom experienced in anyone who claims to have done as much as you do.
Interestingly, on here, because your posts are mainly attacking other posters views and feelings, whereas they continue to debate their concerns, you have everyone’s full attention-and the need for everyone’s attention attention is an excellent example of narcissistic behaviour. Not that I’m accusing you of being a narcissist obviously, merely pointing out a behavioural trait.
Your feminism is your feminism based on what you believe. Others may share your views or have a different view of what a feminist is from what they have learnt, experienced or feel the need to do.
That doesn’t mean any of them are wrong, just different and you would obviously support the right to be different.

Mollygo I do wish you would stop identifying my examples as attempts to divert the argument, should I wish to do that I could do so. I was simply explaining why posting such things as "horror" about a man in make up is not acceptable and I used an analogy which is closer to some people experiences. And that is all it is an analogy.
And there it is again use an analogy and I'm accused of being phobic. Could I ask how making such accusations in any way adds to the discussion?
Ah now I'm a narcissist.
Can I ask how these accusations build any sort of an argument to support your beliefs, or show in any way any sort of feminist viewpoint?
It would be nice to see something relating to trans issues rather than a personal attack.

Doodledog I'm saying it's one person who may or may not be a genuine transwoman in one changing room. You don't know. Because you don't know you can't equate it with trans people.
Here's another suggestion to add to the no stripping. Only people with children allowed in that area.

I think all our thinking is influenced by reports and news we see. So why was self ID wrongly presented? Why isn't the equalities act being properly implemented? Why is such a small body of activists being allowed to influence so much? Who has the power to do these things?
How do transwomen benefit from the dilution of women? They believe they are women.

I don't think that transwomen do benefit as I said in my last post. Do you read what people say? That is a genuine question, as it gets very frustrating having to say the same things over and over again. If you aren't reading the posts it might also explain why so few of our questions are answered, and there appear to be so many diversions into other areas.

As I have just said, I think that Genuine transwomen are pawns in this game, and as has been said over and over, they also suffer by the 'no debate' and the TWAW lobbies, as public perception does not differentiate between their needs and the demands of the vocal fringes.

It is not genuine transwomen who believe that they are women who are the issue. It is the fact that men are able to insist on female status just because they say they are female that is the issue. How often do I have to say it?

Someone who believes they are a woman is highly unlikely to make their maleness clear. The people who insist on being allowed into DV refuges, or use communal female changing rooms (wearing female costume) or ask beauticians to wax their testicles are absolutely making their maleness clear. Sticking two fingers up at feminism.

Unfortunately for the 'real' transwomen, as you have pointed out, there is no real way of knowing which is which until it is too late, and the beautician is staring at hairy balls instead of the female bikini line she thought she was going to wax, the mother in the changing room is concerned about someone exposing himself to her child, or the woman in the refuge leaves to spend a night on the streets because there is a man in the next room.

A 'people with children only' rule would not be ideal, as those who don't want to see the opposite sex naked are highly unlikely to care whether they are parents or not. I for one would not be keen to undress in front of men, fathers or not, but I am not bothered about doing so (discreetly) amongst other women. I can't speak for others, but I doubt that's particularly unusual.

My answer to the questions in your last paragraph have also been answered more than once. IMO, it is the loud and aggressive voices of Stonewall and other TRAs that have stopped debate (in line with their declared intent) and people are afraid of falling foul of them and having their accreditation as 'equal opps' employers withdrawn. They did a lot of good work for gay rights and I was a loyal supporter for years, but since gay rights have become mainstream they are looking for a cause to keep the funding coming in, and have settled on the trans cause as a way of staying 'relevant'.

But trisher, that’s how I see some of your posts.
You have tried to divert a conversation about whether transwomen’s rights should take precedence over the rights of natal women into a discussion about black women, Nazis, old people, all of which are present day problems, but a digression from the topic, and usually used by you to avoid answering questions.
I have read your opinion about who are the ‘correct’ feminists and while my view of what a feminist is doesn’t match yours, I haven’t said you can’t be one of your sort of feminist.

I haven’t pointed out how much I wish you wouldn’t try diversions so I think your accusation is unfair.

I never said you were a narcissist. In fact I went out of my way to say I wasn’t saying you were a narcissist.

I have posted many times that I do not see all transwomen as a threat and I have posted my concerns about the issues that do arise, which are caused by transwomen not behaving as the women they claim to be.
I have read your ‘women should stand up for themselves, alongside reports of domestic abuse, cancelling and online and physical threats towards those who do ‘stand up’.
Did they invite that treatment by standing up for themselves? Where do you think they went wrong and how would you suggest they go about ‘standing up for themselves’ in safety?

Mollygo I didn't divert or change the subject under discussion as I said before they are analogies. If you don't understand the use of analogy in discussion that isn't my fault. plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/ might help.

I believe there are certain circumtances where women could stand up for themselves and I know women who have and do. Of course not all women will be able to. Of course it isn't their fault if they are a victim, but not all women are victims. To ignore or dismiss women who advocate action and not being a victim, because they don't fit your narrow view of what women are, is insulting to women who have acted and stood up for themselves and other women.
I have stated my view of a feminist but I have yet to see yours.

But Doodledog what I really don't understand is why if it is men you believe responsible you are posting about trans people. Why not just say men? Why even mention transwomen?

I don't believe Stonewall are stifling discussion, some (but not all) Trans activists might.be.

I've just been looking at Stonewall and their policies. One of their key points is tolerance and respect. How does that fit with shutting down debate?

Of course I understand analogies, but unfortunately that’s not how you present your diversions and if you don’t recognise that, then perhaps you need to reread some of your posts and the link you sent.
Your feel your own narrow view of women overrides anyone else’s.
Admiring women who have successfully stood up for themselves should not be a reason for dismissing those women who have not managed to do that and have been attacked for trying, though that seems to be what you feel. and you’re right, that attitude is insulting.

I have posted frequently that I don’t feel all transwomen are a threat. (See 16:55 for my latest confirmation of that fact.
There is one thing that all transwomen, whether threatening or not, have in common. In order to be a transwoman, you have to have been born a man.

But Doodledog what I really don't understand is why if it is men you believe responsible you are posting about trans people. Why not just say men? Why even mention transwomen?
I'm not sure that I fully understand what this question is getting at, but if you are referring to the examples in my last post, I am mentioning transwomen because that is how these people are presenting. For the millionth time, transwomen who do not impose their maleness, or want to be in places where women feel the need to be private are not the issue!

The reason that I, and others, mention transwomen is because many of the people who do this (go to beauticians for testicle waxes, etc etc) claim to be transwomen, and as long as it is considered transphobic or otherwise unacceptable to question their right to be there, women will be concerned about it. this will, of course, mean that genuine transwomen will suffer, but I and others have acknowledged this all along. The TRA lobby does far more to damage the cause of transpeople as gender critical feminists, who (in my experience) just want to be sure that women's rights to privacy, safety and dignity are not compromised.

I have lost count of how often I have said this.

Can I go back to basics? Gender is a social construct. Sex is biology.

We should by now accept that people can wear and do whatever they wish, even though what they choose was previously consider to effectively be exclusive to a different sex. Would Tom Daley, or any other male athlete have brought out their knitting so openly at an Olympic Games 12 years ago?

This means a man can dress as a woman, or anyone else he wishes to be, he can dress in a toga or in fancy dress, he doesn't need a special name or category, but if he is still fully male, he will be expected to use the mens toilets and not the womens, be sent to a male prison if he offends, and expected to use male facilities in situations where biology is pre-eminent.

Similarly, only biological women have babies and menstruate and therefore should be described as women not 'persons'. If they want to dress as men, or anything else, if their body functions as a women, they use facilities labelled for women.

With men and women who are moving from one gender to another, and having surgery and taking hormones the situation is more complex. If they have had the full surgery and men no longer have a penis and testicles and women have also been provided with that apparatus, then they should be able to use the facilities associated with the sex they identify with.

The problem is those in transition, and here a separate category may need to be recognised, but again it should be governed by whether the person concerned still has the external appendages of the sex they were born into.

At the end of the day, there are 65 million people in this country and, perhaps, 1% wish to change their sex and be identified as being of the opposite sex, I mean people choosing surgery, rather than simply wearing clothing associated with the opposite sex. Most of what they want: recognition and acceptance, freedom and a lack of prejudice against them in any sphere, is entirely possible within the current loaws and regulation.

However when that small minority demand special rights, wants to change our language when it is biologically correct at the moment, demand special rights and recognition and expect most of the 65 million to change their lives to meet their demands, then a line must be struck.

None of us is entirely free to do everything we want all the time. We learn how to trim and adapt to fit in with other people. You may love playing the trumpet, you may be a night time person, but you do not start practicing your trumpet at 3.00am, if you live in a block of flats and if you do, you can expect to be told to stop and not repeat the offence. There has to be give and take.

Agreed, M0nica.

I would also like to add that there should be no need for anyone, male or female to 'act and stand up for themselves' in a civilised society. I am deeply uncomfortable at the idea of being policed by 'hen party' types - it sounds too much like vigilantism for me. The law should mean that people can go about their business without having to take things into their own hands.

That does not make me a victim - I am far from being a shrinking violet, funnily enough - but that should not be a prerequisite to living a peaceful life.

Woke rubbish again!

What is woke rubbish again grannyrebel7?

I wondered that, then thought it must be a response to the OP without the poster having reading the rest of the thread.

The whole point about minorities is that they are minorities. Patriachy works by saying minorities don't matter and provision does not need to be made for them. That in the past meant black people, women, gay people, people with disabilities and trans people. We are well on the road to granting other groups their rights and in fact trans people are being emancipated. Why anyone would want to take us back into some sort of regulations and restrictions which prevented them acheiving this I don't understand? How this is at all feminist I don't know. Why I should insist a transman giving birth has to be called 'mother' I don't know. Why anyone giving birth can't be called a pregnant person if they so wish I don't know. You can use any term you wish for yourself, you just can't demand that the same term be used by anyone who rejects it. And actually if I was pregnant now I would probably insist on being called a pregnant person to stand in solidarity with others. I realise this isn't a popular option but I was never one to tread the easy path.

Doodledog A society regulated by hen parties might be interesting. Free Prosecco, mandatory skimpy clothing, and maybe all men in uniform would need to be kept in secure places.

How this is at all feminist I don't know. Why I should insist a transman giving birth has to be called 'mother' I don't know. Why anyone giving birth can't be called a pregnant person if they so wish I don't know.

Exactly. Great post trisher. I don't think feminism gains from acting like patriarchy.

Why I should insist a transman giving birth has to be called 'mother' I don't know.

I don't think anyone is insisting, if a transman wishes to be referred to as a person or anything else that's fine. However the vast, vast majority of women prefer to be called mother, but now officially they are "people" to appease a minority. Where I do agree with the compulsion for the use of mother is on the child's birth certificate. That document belongs to the child, it is not a vanity confirmation paper for the female sex person who gave birth.

And since when have women been a minority? Women constitute 51% of the population, although that figure is in danger by selective abortion of female foetuses in some countries and cultures. I wonder how they know which ones to abort given (according to some very vocal groups) sex is "assigned" at birth rather than being decided at conception? Women have been oppressed by men and some other women throughout history, that is correct.

GagaJo I haven’t read any posts which say anyone who gives birth can’t be called a pregnant person if they so desire, only that they don’t have to use that nomenclature if they prefer mother, or that a transman can’t call herself mother. It’s a biological fact that a man can’t give birth. But why would a woman, presenting as a man wish to be called ‘mother’? To draw attention to their natal sex.
As for standing in solidarity with others?
I’m a woman. When I was pregnant I was a pregnant woman. When I gave birth I became a mother. I don’t feel the need to stand in solidarity. I just am a woman.

And since when have women been a minority? Women constitute 51% of the population
So they do Rosie51 you might then expect them to at least be 50% of the Hof C. But men in parliament outnumber women 2 to 1. Which is why this was set up 5050parliament.co.uk
And why we remain a minority. Along with lots of other things like the judiciary, corporate directorships, etc.

And the introduction of transwomen taking potential natal women’s places would help that?

Doodledog A society regulated by hen parties might be interesting. Free Prosecco, mandatory skimpy clothing, and maybe all men in uniform would need to be kept in secure places.

? The trouble would be that by 6.00pm the 'authorities' would all be falling off their heels and walking three abreast to keep one another upright, if city centres I have known are anything to go by.

Regarding the rest of your post, how can we convince you that nobody wants to 'take us back' and prevent transpeople from living their lives as they wish? What we want to do is to ensure that the hard-won rights of women are not put at risk, and that we can continue to live our lives as we wish, which for many women means the wish to continue having privacy and dignity when we undress, and to be safe in situations where we feel vulnerable.

You can use any term you wish for yourself, you just can't demand that the same term be used by anyone who rejects it.
Well yes! I don't think that anyone is saying that transmen who are giving birth shouldn't be able to call themselves parents, or whatever they like. What people object to is when the words that for so long have described women are marginalised, and, for example, 'mother' or 'breastfeeding' stop being used in maternity wards.

It is important to remember that 'the patriarchy' is not a sinister cabal of misogynist blokes plotting the downfall of women, any more than 'feminism' is a similarly personalised collective of women. The term 'patriarchal society' simply describes a societal arrangement in which males are privileged by the structures and norms that underpin it. Nobody is 'saying' that minorities don't matter, and nobody is somehow working behind the scenes to disadvantage transpeople.

It is not just 'the patriarchy' that sets groups apart. That strategy is used by governments, employers and in all manner of other situations where 'divide and conquer' is the aim. As I have said before, I don't see a patriarchal system as benefiting from the eradication of transpeople anyway. It is in the interests of a patriarchal system to have men included in female institutions and statistics, as it renders women less visible, which links to Molly's point above. You have never given your views on this, and I would be interested to hear them.