can we discuss feminism please

Ok, if you have addressed it to your own satisfaction, and you are defining the terms of the 'discussion', there isn't much point in continuing, as it seems you are 'ok thanks' with your own opinion and don't want it challenged.

And I am the one who isnt dealing in facts.

Galaxy

Non trans womens rights

Speaking as a non-transwoman, I despair.

I'm sorry Galaxy the words I should have used were natal women and/or cis gender. I had a stroke few years back and sometimes my word recall isn't brill, but I generally get there in the end. So slightly disabled yes, mentally unstable no but my phrasing can sometime make me look like a berk.

I am glad you're finding this entertaining though - it passes the time eh? I'm currently trapped in one room waiting for an electrician to finish work, so it's helped me not to pace the floors in my current isolation!

Anyway, and this one is for Doodledog too because I'm more than happy to have my opinions challenged with coherent argument rather than red herrings and ad hominem pointlessness (see I have no trouble recalling the big words! haha).

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244020927029

Where were the red herrings? Or ad hominem pointlessness, for that matter?

It is not a red herring to ask for a definition of what you mean by 'woman' and 'transwoman' so that we can answer your accusations of fallacious logic - it is impossible to do so otherwise.

Nobody is attacking your argument because of your choice of words, but frankly, 'non-transwoman' (intentionally or not) is a perfect example of the sort of daftness that is creeping into the vocabulary, and ends up becoming the only acceptable term.

'Natal women' is in many ways just as bad, but there now needs to be some word to define people who used to be known simply as 'women', as we no longer exist as a sex in the way that we used to.

Which is where we came in . . . .

doodledog one thing I wonder does the existence of transmen threaten the rights of those born as men? Or the definition of the word "man". After all if we are to have true equality we have to define both words don't we?

Doodledog

Where were the red herrings? Or ad hominem pointlessness, for that matter?

It is not a red herring to ask for a definition of what you mean by 'woman' and 'transwoman' so that we can answer your accusations of fallacious logic - it is impossible to do so otherwise.

Nobody is attacking your argument because of your choice of words, but frankly, 'non-transwoman' (intentionally or not) is a perfect example of the sort of daftness that is creeping into the vocabulary, and ends up becoming the only acceptable term.

'Natal women' is in many ways just as bad, but there now needs to be some word to define people who used to be known simply as 'women', as we no longer exist as a sex in the way that we used to.

Which is where we came in . . . .

It is where we came in...

I'm willing to look at any definition of "woman" or "man" anyone cares to post.
Until someone comes up with something else woman for me encompasses all who define themselves as such be they natal or trans.
And of course the same for "man"

Simone De Beauvoir said "One is not born, rather becomes, a woman"

Doodledog Yes, it is where we came in and all I can do is restate what I've already said many times before - a woman ( trans/natal, whichever) is a woman, and she exists in exactly the same way as she always has - by her own definition and in law.

The red herrings are the ones you placed in asking me to support your argument by failing in my own. The ad hominem pointlessness is in laughing at word choices in order to derail the discussion and make me look foolish (tends to bounce back to where it came from to be honest. It's not a good look).

So, you appear to be attacking my argument because you don't feel the word woman applies you anymore and this belief has caused you some intrinsic harm? How has the adoption of the word woman by other people prevented you from using it to describe yourself? It hasn't at all. Is it that you are uncomfortable with trans people and that you are hiding that phobia behind a wall of illogical argument that has no basis in fact other than in your beliefs and opinions? You were happy to attack mine, but I honestly think you ought to build your own on better foundations. Where's your evidence that you are right?

Equally you have a poor case if you need to argue with me over word choice by countering with your own word choice without looking like you don't have much to go on - ie using the word 'woman' to fit your own narrow definition because it makes you more comfortable. At least the people who have added in natal etc have made some effort to encompass everyone whereas your efforts seem to point to maintaining division and promoting 'othering'. Answering my assertion of fallacious logic with more fallacious logic (ie asking me to prove your point for you so you don't have to do the heavy lifting) looks like posturing. You have taken zero effort to prove to me that I am wrong by presenting me with evidence. All you've done is waffle to be honest. It's been fun, but it hasn't advanced the argument at all. Just because you believe your opinion to be superior doesn't mean it is. Meaning evolves, language grows, society progresses. Is your argument that trans people adopting the word woman to describe themselves has robbed you of something? You say 'we' no longer exist as a sex in the way we used to - I do, what happened to you to make you feel differently? Did things drop off, or something grow? I'd like to know why you feel so threatened by this. And it can't be that you think men claiming to be women will go on the attack in single sex spaces - they don't need a GRC or a frock to do that. It's a deductive fallacy, as discussed in two of the papers I've linked to.

I have repeatedly given support for my views, as requested. I can go all day with research, articles, laws, statutes, books etc. I literally have nothing better to do right now. Quid pro quo.

trisher

MBHP1 as regards a man entering a ladies public toilet t presenthe would not be charged with a breach of the peace unless any of the following could be proved

A breach of the peace may occur in both public and private places. The following is an accepted legal definition of a breach of the peace:
♦ harm is actually done or is likely to be done, whether by the person against whom the breach is alleged or by someone else who provokes it, or
♦ harm is actually done, or is likely to be done, to a person’s property in their presence, or
♦ a person is genuinely in fear of harm to themselves or their property in their presence, as a result of assault, affray, riot or other disturbance.
In other words if he'd just nipped in for pee he wouldn't be charged.

To be clear, I have known a man to be arrested for placing a woman and child in a state of fear and alarm by his presence in a protected space and he was found guilty of breach of the peace which was the lesser charge.

At present if a man knowingly enters a protected space he must prove that he did not do so with sinister intent.
If we lose protected spaces the evidence presented will have to prove that he had sinister intent demonstrated by behaviour etc because he has a right to be there, as it is no longer a protected space.

Women and children have often used protected spaces to escape, hide, take time out, seek help from other women when they are under threat from a man/men.

Giving men the right to be in what was women and children’s protected space undermines all that feminists have fought for. There are men who support the feminist cause however there are also men who try to prevent or remove any equality and equity gains for women and, in my view, you are helping them.

Do not think my lack of future reply about this matter is in any way an indicator of agreement with those who believe that protected spaces are unnecessary because they exclude a man who feels he is a woman.

No you you havent given support to your views. You posted details of maya forstater s case which had absolutely nothing to do with the issues that I mentioned. Then you posted a link to an article criticising the gender critical perspective. As you yourself pointed out just because a number of people hold a perspective doesnt make it true.
We are questioning the language used because most of us have seen that language used many many times before and see it as intrinsically misogynistic.
Would you use language like that to describe other groups, would you call gay people for example non straight people.

NellG

Doodledog Yes, it is where we came in and all I can do is restate what I've already said many times before - a woman ( trans/natal, whichever) is a woman, and she exists in exactly the same way as she always has - by her own definition and in law.

The red herrings are the ones you placed in asking me to support your argument by failing in my own. The ad hominem pointlessness is in laughing at word choices in order to derail the discussion and make me look foolish (tends to bounce back to where it came from to be honest. It's not a good look).

So, you appear to be attacking my argument because you don't feel the word woman applies you anymore and this belief has caused you some intrinsic harm? How has the adoption of the word woman by other people prevented you from using it to describe yourself? It hasn't at all. Is it that you are uncomfortable with trans people and that you are hiding that phobia behind a wall of illogical argument that has no basis in fact other than in your beliefs and opinions? You were happy to attack mine, but I honestly think you ought to build your own on better foundations. Where's your evidence that you are right?

Equally you have a poor case if you need to argue with me over word choice by countering with your own word choice without looking like you don't have much to go on - ie using the word 'woman' to fit your own narrow definition because it makes you more comfortable. At least the people who have added in natal etc have made some effort to encompass everyone whereas your efforts seem to point to maintaining division and promoting 'othering'. Answering my assertion of fallacious logic with more fallacious logic (ie asking me to prove your point for you so you don't have to do the heavy lifting) looks like posturing. You have taken zero effort to prove to me that I am wrong by presenting me with evidence. All you've done is waffle to be honest. It's been fun, but it hasn't advanced the argument at all. Just because you believe your opinion to be superior doesn't mean it is. Meaning evolves, language grows, society progresses. Is your argument that trans people adopting the word woman to describe themselves has robbed you of something? You say 'we' no longer exist as a sex in the way we used to - I do, what happened to you to make you feel differently? Did things drop off, or something grow? I'd like to know why you feel so threatened by this. And it can't be that you think men claiming to be women will go on the attack in single sex spaces - they don't need a GRC or a frock to do that. It's a deductive fallacy, as discussed in two of the papers I've linked to.

I have repeatedly given support for my views, as requested. I can go all day with research, articles, laws, statutes, books etc. I literally have nothing better to do right now. Quid pro quo.

NellG. - you are attempting to gas light us.

Do not think my lack of future reply about this matter is in any way an indicator of agreement with those who believe that men who feel they are women are women in the same was as biological women.
You can’t change your sex, that is science.

Galaxy If I was fumbling about for the right word I probably would.

The way in which people support arguments is by citing the opinions and findings of others - that's what I've done. if you disagree you are free to do the same. However as it stands you haven't. I was asked to evidence my opinion, not research yours.

Again, how does this use of language take anything from you? In what way is it misogynistic? I don't see how anything I've said demonstrates a hatred or contempt for women.

MBHPI As for gaslighting - no, I am neither trying to question or challenge anyone's sanity or alter their perception for personal gain. Asking people to question their biases is not gaslighting.

Telling a woman she is not a woman is gaslighting. Telling any human that who they think they are is not who they are is gaslighting.

This is the first time I have felt offended in this debate - you have accused me of psychological abuse. I have not stated at any point that any man or woman is not who/what they say they are. I think that was a low blow on your part - not only a weak argument, but an insult.

Again you are wrong. I very clearly told you why Mayas case was nothing to do with the point I was making. Do you think we arent aware of these cases, havent been involved in the 2018 consultation?

You cant actually believe that though. Telling any human being that who they think they are is not who they are is gas lighting. Alec Baldwins wife is Spanish because she says she is. A 18 year old is 3 because he says he is. Trump is the greatest president in the world because he says he us. Sorry but that's just not coherent.

Do you have a problem with context Galaxy?

If you believe your own words I think you might. Equally you might be aware and have been involved - but it clearly didn't give you any greater understanding of your own bias. I'm sorry you don't like the evidence, I'm equally sorry you aren't able to produce any that support your own viewpoint and must resort to posturing and pouting to make your point.

Doodledog Yes, it is where we came in and all I can do is restate what I've already said many times before - a woman ( trans/natal, whichever) is a woman, and she exists in exactly the same way as she always has - by her own definition and in law.
You can state that a woman is in the same legal state as before, but (a) you stating something doesn't make it true, and (b) the whole point of this discussion is the way in which women no longer means what it did, which is an adult female. In fact, in Scotland, the very term 'adult human female' may soon be considered hate speech.

The red herrings are the ones you placed in asking me to support your argument by failing in my own. Again, can you give an example of this please?

The ad hominem pointlessness is in laughing at word choices in order to derail the discussion and make me look foolish (tends to bounce back to where it came from to be honest. It's not a good look). I was laughing (resignedly) at the term 'non transwoman' as it is indicative of the thinking of many people in this debate. It is similar to 'people with cervixes', 'chest feeding' and so on - obliteration of women as women in order to make space for men. They are welcome to become women, but not to change what being a woman is and insist that we go along with that.

So, you appear to be attacking my argument because you don't feel the word woman applies you anymore and this belief has caused you some intrinsic harm? How has the adoption of the word woman by other people prevented you from using it to describe yourself?
I wasn't saying that the word woman no longer applies to me. I was saying that the word is being expanded from its original meaning (see answer above). Also, I was not attacking your argument by saying this - I was asking you to clarify your terms.

It hasn't at all. Oh - You have already put words into my mouth, as well as defining the terms of the argument you are answering your own questions .

Is it that you are uncomfortable with trans people and that you are hiding that phobia behind a wall of illogical argument that has no basis in fact other than in your beliefs and opinions?
I am not uncomfortable with trans people. I am uncomfortable with the idea that men can self-define as women and that there is no scope for anyone to question that, or the motives of individuals who are doing so, without hysterical accusations of transphobia.

You were happy to attack mine, but I honestly think you ought to build your own on better foundations. Where's your evidence that you are right? This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you explain what you mean, I will try to answer.

Equally you have a poor case if you need to argue with me over word choice by countering with your own word choice without looking like you don't have much to go on - ie using the word 'woman' to fit your own narrow definition because it makes you more comfortable. At least the people who have added in natal etc have made some effort to encompass everyone whereas your efforts seem to point to maintaining division and promoting 'othering'.
I have not argued against your word choice. I asked you to define your understanding of 'woman' and 'transwoman' so that we could discuss your accusations of fallacious logic. Without a clear definition I can't know how your logic is working. You simply made a statement, which you have said you are happy with, but you are not the arbiter of what language means - where there is a difference of viewpoint the terms need to be clarified and/or negotiated, or we are wasting our time arguing over who is or who is not logical.

Answering my assertion of fallacious logic with more fallacious logic (ie asking me to prove your point for you so you don't have to do the heavy lifting) looks like posturing. You have taken zero effort to prove to me that I am wrong by presenting me with evidence. All you've done is waffle to be honest. I have made zero effort? All you did was make a statement that the logic of those who disagree with you is fallacious. You refused to define your terms, so there is nowhere to go with the discussion. I wasn't asking you to prove my point for me - I hadn't made a point! I couldn't do so on the basis of your bald statement that you seem to think is the last word on the matter because your have said it - does stating something as fact count as 'heavy lifting' to you?. What evidence am I supposed to provide? There was no question asked.

It's been fun, but it hasn't advanced the argument at all. Just because you believe your opinion to be superior doesn't mean it is. Hollow laugh.

Meaning evolves, language grows, society progresses. Is your argument that trans people adopting the word woman to describe themselves has robbed you of something? It has robbed the language of a word that describes women, who now have to add a qualifier - CIS, natal, whatever.

You say 'we' no longer exist as a sex in the way we used to - I do, what happened to you to make you feel differently? Did things drop off, or something grow? I'd like to know why you feel so threatened by this. Have you bothered to read the thread?? The reasons that I (and others) feel threat4end have been outlined over and over again! I feel threatened by the fact that men can now include themselves in the definition of women, as this means that the things that women have fought for for decades will no longer apply. I am not going to outline all the ways that this could impact on me (or more likely my daughter and grand-daughters) as I have already done so to the point of tedium.

And it can't be that you think men claiming to be women will go on the attack in single sex spaces - they don't need a GRC or a frock to do that. It's a deductive fallacy, as discussed in two of the papers I've linked to. Here we go again - you are asking me a question then qualifying how I can answer. I know they don't need a GRC. If they did, I would feel less concerned. As I have said, I don't care whether they wear frocks or not, they can wear whatever they like, and live however they like. My concerns are not about that, as I am not a transphobe, and I do not object to people living their lives as they wish.

I have repeatedly given support for my views, as requested. I can go all day with research, articles, laws, statutes, books etc. I literally have nothing better to do right now. Quid pro quo.

No you haven't. You have made maybe three posts on this thread, so have not repeated yourself nearly as often as those of us who have had to go over and over our points only to be asked to repeat them yet again. I do have other things to do, FWIW, not that that adds or subtracts anything from what I am saying, but I include the information for completeness.

Frankly, I think that to accuse others of posturing and pouting is ridiculous. You are twisting our words and putting your words into our mouths.

It's always interesting to watch the lack of coherence, but I suspect an utter waste of time as well.

The lack of coherence on the part of those insisting trans people cannot be accepted and must remain the gender they were allotted at birth, ether as an absolute or unless they access transitional surgery is actually ludicrous.
Under your proposals
Transwomen must use men's facilities unless they have had surgery
Transmen must use women's facilities
Thus we will have people looking like men entering women's facilites and will be unable to challenge them. Is that really safe? If transmen can enter surely real men will be able to as well.

Having sex segregated facilities is not being 'not accepted'. About a hundred years ago I suggested how to solve the endless toilet debate.

Your failure to understand does not make anyone else's argument incoherent, it's just yet another attempt to deflect attention from the lack of evidence that expanding the use of the word woman has any negative effect on anything tangible - it simply appears to offend your sensibilities.

There is also a flavour of misandry about the repetition that men are intrinsically predatory that's pretty questionable too.

Once again, where the evidence that any of this affects your ability to live as, define yourself and call yourself a woman? Where is the evidence that women are under a greater threat by a change in legislation?

Or is it just how you feel about it that bothers you?

In the absence of the evidence I have repeatedly asked for (and yes, I've read the whole thread) I will rest my case.

Your failure to understand does not make anyone else's argument incoherent, it's just yet another attempt to deflect attention from the lack of evidence that expanding the use of the word woman has any negative effect on anything tangible - it simply appears to offend your sensibilities.

Are you deliberately ignoring people who continue to point out that expanding the word 'woman' means the end of women-only shortlists, safe spaces for women, the end of places where women whose religion precludes mixing with men who are not family members can go, and so on. It is not about offended sensibilities - that is another of your extrapolations - it is about a genuine concern that these things are under threat.

There cannot be evidence that a change in legislation will affect women, as the legislation hasn't happened yet. We can't provide evidence for something in the future, but are expressing concern and asking that these things are considered and debated properly, without cries of TERF or a sweeping aside of these concerns as born of prejudice or phobia.

Is this such a big ask?

Anyway, I have had enough of saying the same thing over and over, and trying to argue with people who are ignoring the points that I am making, and telling me why I think as I do instead of listening to what I am saying. I'm out.

OK let's finish this single sex services are protected providing a reasonable case can be presented for denying someone access

Exceptions allowing services to be provided only to women (or only to men)

The first two relevant exceptions (Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26 and 27) allow service providers to provide separate services for men and women, or to provide services to only men or only women in certain circumstances. The symmetrical nature of the ban on sex discrimination means without these exceptions it would be illegal, for example, to hold women-only sessions at a leisure centre or a new fathers’ support group at a nursery.177

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment

The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So the case is now being misrepresented.

If you want to read it yourself
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

No one is ignoring anyone's points, just disagreeing with them. It's a coherent difference.

There have been similar legislation changes in other countries and studies/observations/articles of the consequences and effects. Plenty to cite.

I have never used the term TERF to describe anyone.