can we discuss feminism please

I also agree with MBHP1 that asking for personal anecdotes to 'back up' viewpoints is unacceptable.

This is not a confessional, and in any case, men are rarely expected to base their views on personal opinion, yet women are asked to do this all the time, leaving their opinions open to trashing based on so-called inaccuracies in the detail of their examples, or accusations of partiality based on their experience and so on.

No you dont that is nothing to do with the facts I used. That's an employment case about protected beliefs and whether that belief is one of them. She is appealing the case but that's by the by. It has nothing to do with the fact that sex is a protected characteristic under the equality act. Are you saying sex is not a protected characteristic under the equality act because I dont really know how to proceed if you are saying that.

Women are women, trans women are women and vice versa for men, most of the other arguments are logical fallacies.

Whether other arguments are or are not logical fallacies depends entirely on whether your statement is based on logic, which I dispute.

To take it a step at a time - if we begin by accepting that women are women, we need to have a shared understanding and acceptance of what this means. Agreed?

What is your definition of a woman?

The next part of your statement is that transwomen are women. How do you define transwomen, and how does that definition fit with your first definition of women?

Whatever your conclusions, I agree that the same would apply in reverse, so there is probably no need to labour the point by defining men and transmen.

Only if we agree on these points can we approach the idea of logic or logical fallacy on an equitable basis - otherwise you are simply defining the terms to suit your point of view and there is no scope for agreement.

None of this, however, addresses the point that men (however they are defined) simply saying that they are women and being allowed to blah blah, is actually the crux of the objections to self-id that most people on this thread are expressing.

* Galaxy* I absolutely do understand what a fact is, in fact I found this for you to read.

www.fcsa.org.uk/should-belief-in-biological-sex-be-protected-under-law/

A question about our personal experiences has been asked as a challenge. I am tempted to explain my ‘tangible’ history however I am going to resist because I think it will get the same treatment that other women have received, in public, when explaining their history which helped inform them if their views in relation to this matter.

It is clear that regardless of what arguments have been posted it seems impossible for some to take the genuine concerns for women and children’s health and safety seriously. E.g. men can enter a Ladies toilet now. I agree, however at this present time if a man were found to be there he would be charged with breach of the peace and that acts as a deterrent. You want to change that.

Those who champion the rights of men who feel they are women to self identify, are obviously confident that ALL men, (it will be all men otherwise it will be discriminatory) can be trusted in women and children’s protected spaces. I don’t. This is a considered position based on personal history and a life time of working in the field of male violence against women and children.
You want to open that door for the men who identify as women and will not accept that in doing so you open the door to ALL men therefore the potential health and safety hazard that this presents. Tragedies will happen. It already has in Women’s prisons and you think that has nothing to do with you, well it does in my book, you campaigned to allow those male bodied people into Women’s prisons. It is not the penis that rapes, or the fist that sexually assaults, it is the person attached!

I wonder if those reading this thread but not taking part have learned anything, I hope so. The general public seem unaware that this matter is the ethical and moral question of our time. If laws are made that allow anyone to self identify their sex, as what ever sex they wish, there are consequences that some of us believe include the eradication of women’s rights, their health and safety and that of children.

If no one else is reading this thread apart from those taking part I think, for me, we have exhausted the arguments and recent contributions are moving in a direction that is patronising to me as a biological woman and feminist.

What this thread has done for me is spurred me to join others in the campaign to uphold women’s rights in the face of this threat. I will also be continuing with my interests including, having a government that supports left wing socialist policies, campaigning for world peace and my support for Greenpeace.

If the fact I have quoted is indeed a fact? Do you not know whether it is or not. I am not being funny but do you not know that it's a fact? Because am not sure how to proceed unless we both have some understanding of what is a fact and what isnt. Do you see what I mean?

trisher

Rosie51

How ironic that link features Rosie Duffield, she who got a torrent of abuse accusing her of being transphobic because she liked a tweet which said "individuals with a cervix" should be described as "women".

I don't see why this is "ironic" Rosie51 I have consistently posted that all abuse is wrong and unacceptable. The only reason it would be ironic would be if I supported such statements, which I don't. But it shows something about some people's views that they appear to be unable to accept my statement that I support free speech.
I do wonder though what the young woman I know who had her cervix and uterus removed when she was found to have cervical cancer would be called?

I wasn't using the ironic towards you but towards the campaign, but if you want to see slight where there is none, go ahead. And a woman is a woman whether or not she has a cervix, uterus, ovaries breasts or indeed any other part missing. My friend with the DSD was born without one of these elements, she still has female chromosomes and is a woman.
The use of such offensive ideas to progress your argument comes from your own head, I have never ever heard a feminist say a woman ceases to be a woman if she lacks reproductive organs.

I don't believe I've called anyone 'a name' - I have assigned language that represents the attitudes I've observed.

Neither do I need to feel better about my argument, I am quite happy with it as it stands.

Equally if the fact you quote is indeed a fact, what exactly is your argument? If sex is a protected characteristic, what's your beef?

I hope you're not too offended, I like good debate and I'm happy to take what I dish out.

Does your overt aggression and desire to call people names make you feel better about your argument.
The fact is human beings cant change sex and sex is a protected characteristic under the equality act.

Galaxy people have given numerous examples of prejudice, transphobia, supposition and ignorance. I've not read one argument about how this affects that has any depth or basis in anything other than the insecurities of the person presenting it. Just because a number of people believe the same thing, it doesn't increase that things credibility or veracity. Only facts do that.

Did your sarcasm make you feel better about your argument and strengthen your position in any way? I'd love to think that passive aggression actually had a purpose other than bolstering the ego of the person offering it.

Thanks NellG

Oh NellG, thank you for being the voice of sense, caring and reason.

Oh I see thank goodness you were here to explain that to me.
We have given numerous numerous examples of the effect this has on women.

Women are women, trans women are women and vice versa for men, most of the other arguments are logical fallacies.

Predatory men in the quest for power and control will neither decrease or increase in number if trans rights are supported. They can access female only spaces now - when was the last time you saw a changing room etc with a security guard? Most of the cases of women being assaulted in such spaces involves men, dressed as men, identifying as men. The very few cases that involve trans women are not because they are trans, it's because they are criminals with intrinsic mental ill health.

All this divisiveness is stupid, and speaks far more loudly about the discomfort of the people holding the divisive opinion. Rather than face their own limiting beliefs and prejudices they project their antipathy onto trans people. And ultimately, that's what we all are, just people. My genitalia and how I acquired it is none of anyone else's business, neither is how I identify.

All of the logical fallacies that people are using to support their position are at best semantics, at their worst poorly disguised transphobia.

Ask yourselves this, how does any of this directly affect you and your life in any tangibly difficult way? Unless you are trans it doesn't. Unless you have problems respecting other human beings, it doesn't.

Maybe the real problem here is you.

Doodledog Of course it's ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than expecting anyone to examine people to see if they still have a penis before they can change their gender. And according to the classification you choose transmen can never be men unless they have reconstructive surgery. It's not all about men defining as women you know. There are people who want to be men.

Trisher, if anyone could be arsed to go back through this thread and do a content analysis (unlikely), I would put money on their finding that there are far more examples of you refusing to accept statements from others that they are not anti-trans than there are from others refusing to take you at your word.

As for your friend - of course she is a woman. Saying that individuals with cervixes are women is not the same as saying that those who have lost them to cancer are not. The very fact that we are having this conversation is testament to the idiocy of this whole 'debate'.

Why should women need to define themselves like this? Why is there any need for a term that includes men into any definition of 'female'? Women are already here, and have been for millennia. Why should we be the ones to alter what that means because men want to join us?

Well, that would include me trisher. I have no female reproductive tissue. A husk?

Rosie51

How ironic that link features Rosie Duffield, she who got a torrent of abuse accusing her of being transphobic because she liked a tweet which said "individuals with a cervix" should be described as "women".

I don't see why this is "ironic" Rosie51 I have consistently posted that all abuse is wrong and unacceptable. The only reason it would be ironic would be if I supported such statements, which I don't. But it shows something about some people's views that they appear to be unable to accept my statement that I support free speech.
I do wonder though what the young woman I know who had her cervix and uterus removed when she was found to have cervical cancer would be called?

Iam64 you may not consider posts about peope having to have surgery in order live as their chosen gender anti-trans. I consider they are. I assume in the spirit of feminism I am entitled to my own opinion and don't have to conform to yours?

trisher

Doodledog

Funnily enough, Gaga, so did I.

trisher your comment about being st risk when using facilities is deeply ironic when you are prepared to have men in women’s facilities unchallenged. Frankly, your own lack of understanding of, or sympathy towards the concern of women on this thread concerns me. It reads like the views of someone who has internalised misogyny and is prepared to sweep aside the safety of women to appease a very number of men.

I would still like to know to which disabled facilities you referred upthread, please, if I haven’t missed an earlier response. .

It isn't ironic at all it is the logical outcome of saying people can't change sex. But I understand that it poses an unanswerable question for you.

I didn't mention disabled facilities you did. I said that if someone was unable to transition fully and have surgery because of a disability denying them access to the facilities of their chosen gender might be actionable under disability rights law. You then said they must use disabled facilities which isn't really an answer

As for internalised misogyny it amuses me that we' re not allowed to call the people posting on this thread anti-trans although they are imposing requirements and restrictions on trans people incompatible with human rights but you feel free to throw allegations of misogyny about simply because I'm willing to accept transwomen as women. Thanks sister.

I didn’t know how to only quote your final paragraph here, trisher. I quote it because it clarifies your view of ‘people listing on this thread’ as ‘anti-trans’.

I’ve seen no anti trans posts. Posters repeatedly express support for people to live as they choose. It seems expressing concern for girls being expected to compete in sport against boys who have the strength etc by virtue of their birth sex is ant trans.

The erosion of women as a biological sex is well underway. Starting with language. From the term pregnant people, to chest feeding, to people with a cervix, to cis women. Every day it seems that a once innocuous word is causing real pain to someone. Even the word woman is considered offensive. Something very odd is happening in our society. Its as though we have been gripped by mass hysteria.

On the one hand any reference to women or biology is hate speech to some , but on the other seemingly thousands of men want to join the gang. Women (and it usually is women) are hounded, and threatened and sacked for refusing to capitulate to the new way of thinking. The latest being Joanna Cherry for saying that“male-bodied individuals” should not have women’s rights”.Or JK Rowling for her fairly innocuous comments last year. What is going on?

Mumsnet, attracting a different demographic is grappling with these issues now.

Stonewall should not be involved with schools?

a sitting Labour MP should operate in line with their manifesto?

women should be able to request same-sex provision?

women should not be banned from social media for asking safeguarding questions?

I'm off to take a look and see what the younger generations say.

Rosie51 You might find this of interest.

www.indy100.com/sport/trans-athletes-lgbt-twitter-thread-brynn-tannehill-8808621?fbclid=IwAR0XLYcj0uAdVIKfA-oJcPFhp3HDQNT62fxQJqgFLAXiRsrRThztNAHX3q8

MBHP1 but I don't care about the difference. It matters little to me if someone is what you call a biological woman or a transwomen. Why should it? If someone who is trans wants to be something else well let them. Oppression has never been limited entirely to women and the history of women's oppression loses nothing by recognising transwomen. Minorities though gain much by standing together and refusing to accept the restrictions which patriachy has imposed on us.

I don’t accept that a man or woman who feels they are the opposite sex can change their sex. That is my belief and expect it to be respected.
I accept that there are those who believe it is possible to change sex. I respect that.
So how do we move forward with those two positions?

Those of us who are feminists, I trust we agree that we are all conditioned to accept patriarchy so write my contribution from that point.

I think the route of the disagreement is when we state that ‘biological’ and ‘trans’ are the same.

There is a long valid tradition of feminist thinking, that our personal and collective history holds fundamental evidence of our oppression.

So for those who champion the belief that changing sex is possible does that not also apply and if we state that ‘trans’ men and women are the same as biological men and women are we not in danger of losing their history?

Perhaps if we could agree that those who are ‘biological’ are not the same as ‘trans’ it would be a starting point. Can we keep in mind that some ‘trans’ people do not want to be viewed as the same.

trisher

Really Doodledog do you not understand that trans people suffer from a very real condition called Gender dysphoria? It is nothing to do with "men embroidering doilies"or "women fixing juggernauts" it is nothing to do with gender norms.

And the prize goes to trisher