Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I joined this forum almost 20 years ago because I was interested in arguing about homoeopathy. I simply could not understand why authorities like the BMA and the GMC and the BVA and the RCVS were prepared to tolerate and endorse such quackery practised by their supposedly professional membership.

I got fed up with it after a while and moved on. But I see the chickens seem to be coming home to roost on that one. We could be looking at the beginning of the end.

I always say, it takes longer than you think. Maybe it takes 20 years to get a really well-entrenched pile of woo dislodged from its place at the public table. But on the other hand homoeopathy has been around for over 200 years and Queen Victoria had a lot to do with it becoming so entrenched. Its roots were deep. This trans nonsense is relatively recent and is so mad that it could be a flash in the pan. I'm seeing some big cracks appearing already in ways I wasn't seeing with homoeopathy 20 years ago.

We'll see.

You could be right. The growing animosity between many gays and transgender people will be a massive fault line and I expect future Pride celebrations will be fraught.

[marting]

Originally Posted by lionking

You could be right. The growing animosity between many gays and transgender people will be a massive fault line and I expect future Pride celebrations will be fraught.

I've noticed that with Andrew Sullivan, a gay that was one of the primary movers of acceptance of gay marrage.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/

[lionking]

Originally Posted by marting

I've noticed that with Andrew Sullivan, a gay that was one of the primary movers of acceptance of gay marrage.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/

Paywalled unfortunately.

[Rolfe]

NM

[marting]

Originally Posted by lionking

Paywalled unfortunately.

There's a "Let me read it first" at the bottom.

[Rolfe]

That was my NM. I thought that too, but unlike most of these articles, clicking on it doesn't get you the text.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That was my NM. I thought that too, but unlike most of these articles, clicking on it doesn't get you the text.

Odd. Works for me though it limits how much reading you do w/o subscribing. May be a regional thing. I'm in the US.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by marting

There's a "Let me read it first" at the bottom.

Thank you. I just got to the email address box and stopped. Anyway interesting articles.

[The Atheist]

Some facts about men v women in sport: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mor...ex/ar-AA12p7PP

Quote:

A study by Mike Joyner and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic found the same trend when analyzing the top 100 freestyle-swimming times of boys and girls from ages 5 to 18. Before the age of 10, both sexes are remarkably similar in performance, with the best young girls actually tending to swim faster than the best boys. But after 10, the boys get ahead. By 17, the average difference is 8.4 percent. Researchers found the same trend when evaluating more than 400,000 ordinary kids in the P.E.-class shuttle run: similar speeds early on, but an ever-widening gap starting at about age 10.

It's almost like something happens to boys but not girls starting in the tween years.

[theprestige]

It's almost like there's some monstrous program to stop girls from developing, and telling them that means they can be boys, and to stop boys from developing, and telling them that means they can be girls.

If gender is a social construct, then why does transgender affirmation always come back to biological subversion and mutilation?

[marting]

Women may have an advantage in shooting and running really long distances.

https://www.espn.com/shooting/story/...men-outgun-men

Quote:

Of all the events in all the disciplines in the Summer Olympics, the air rifle event is one of only two (dressage in equestrian being the other) where female athletes post consistently better numbers in events where they either compete against or follow the same parameters as men.
...
Shooting wasn't always split by gender. In the 1976 Olympics, the American Margaret Murdock won a silver medal in the free shooting event... after that the men decided to split shooting up into men and women because they didn't like to be overtaken by the girls," he laughs.

And running really long distances.

https://thedailyguardian.com/why-wom...-in-long-runs/

Quote:

It found that females are typically faster than males over “extreme” distances of 300 kilometres or more. The longer the distance, the shorter the gender pace gap,” said the researchers. In 5 kilometres, men run 17.9 per cent faster than women, at marathon distance the difference is just 11.1 per cent, 100-mile races see the difference shrink to just 0.25 per cent, and above 195 miles, women are actually 0.6 per cent faster than men. Though the difference is small, but it’s still relevant, a 0.6% difference in time is substantial, over a 195-mile race.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by marting

Women may have an advantage in shooting and running really long distances.

https://www.espn.com/shooting/story/...men-outgun-men




And running really long distances.

https://thedailyguardian.com/why-wom...-in-long-runs/

Bringing it back around to the topic of the thread, women are more likely to endure the oppression of men over the long term than men are. So if we let men into women's spaces, they're bound to tire themselves out eventually. After that, women should be able to get some rest.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by marting

Women may have an advantage in shooting and running really long distances.

https://www.espn.com/shooting/story/...men-outgun-men

And running really long distances.

https://thedailyguardian.com/why-wom...-in-long-runs/

I am not so sure about that, having read around the subject. I'm not sure that the shooting claim really stands up, and I read an article by a specialist sports journalist who had analysed the ultra long distance running thing who said there are such small numbers involved that one outlier woman who is extremely good can skew the data. He thinks once you really drill down to it men are still ahead even over the very long distances.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I am not so sure about that, having read around the subject. I'm not sure that the shooting claim really stands up, and I read an article by a specialist sports journalist who had analysed the ultra long distance running thing who said there are such small numbers involved that one outlier woman who is extremely good can skew the data. He thinks once you really drill down to it men are still ahead even over the very long distances.

I’m inclined to think this is true. I can think of a lot of evolutionary reasons for men to run faster and longer, but not childbearing and nurturing women.

[Rolfe]

I did think it was true at one point, which is why I read the articles. (Remember, my PhD was in long distance exercise.) It could have been a coincidental side-effect of female body shape and metabolism, with men losing in their trade-off for explosive speed and strength, and women winning with lighter bodies and bones and some selection for endurance on the back of being less expendable when the chips are really down. But it doesn't seem to stand up.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If gender is a social construct, then why does transgender affirmation always come back to biological subversion and mutilation?

I find it ironic that FGM is a vile sin, while cutting a penis off is liberation.

Originally Posted by marting

And running really long distances.

Sorry mate, but that's just Guardian nonsense. I've seen this argument made, and there are more holes in it than your average colander.

As noted, the numbers involved don't allow you to make any conclusions, and I'm quite sure that if women had an advantage at ultra-distance, it would show up in marathons and 100 km events.

Marathon: The men's world record is 13 minutes faster, 10% difference.

100 km: The men's world record is 24 minutes faster, a 10% difference.

If longer distances suited women more, they'd show at least some improvement on the marathon time gap by more than doubling the distance.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I find it ironic that FGM is a vile sin, while cutting a penis off is liberation.

It has recently come to light that the Metropolitan Police have an information page about breast ironing, which is a practice carried out mainly by female relatives of pubescent girls in countries and societies where men are often openly predatory on young girls with little come-back, and where child marriage is common. The idea is to retain the girls' pre-pubescent shape and so reduce the likelihood of male attention, so that they can continue to attend school. This is classed as child abuse, and teachers are advised how to look out for it in girls in their classes and how to report it. (Of course, the practice called "breast ironing" is one associated with BAME groups.)

It turns out that on that page, where the procedures used to accomplish the goal of stopping breast growth are detailed, one of the things said is that it's not only "ironing" by pummelling the breasts with stones, or whatever, some people use tight wrappings or tape to achieve the effect. This is lumped in with the rest as a form of child abuse, because as they so rightly say, it's harmful. It causes difficulty breathing, broken ribs, damage to breast tissue and pain.

The page also points out that the people who do this to girls are not monsters, they are motivated by good intentions, that is reducing the chance of the girls being sexually abused. But despite the good intentions, it's still child abuse. It also points out that some of the girls affected will have requested the procedure themselves, because they believe it will indeed protect them from sexual abuse. But it's still child abuse, even if the child wants it to be done.

It has finally been pointed out to the police that "binders" as touted to white western girls as a means of compressing their breasts and stopping breast growth, are exactly the same thing. (And it is quite likely that the underyling motivation for the girls wanting these things is the same as the breast ironing - to prevent male interest in the developing breast tissue.) And that it's already been established that good intentions on the part of the person enabling the child, or consent or even desire on the part of the child to have it done, are not defences against child abuse.

Someone actually seems to have taken note of this, and it seems to be related to the inquiry that's being started into the practices of Mermaids, the charity for trans children, which is known to provide binders to girls as young as 13 or 14 behind parents' backs and against parents' wishes.

Mermaids' practices quite openly encourage and groom confused children into deciding that they're trans. They've had stalls at Pride events where they say, we have puppies, we have sweets, come and visit our stall. I mean it's like something out of the Brothers Grimm. There is text from one of their chat-rooms showing a moderator congratulating a girl who had just announced that she was trans and wanted all the hormones and all the surgeries.

What is being done is utterly horrific, and the only thing that distinguishes the genital surgery from FGM-type practices is that anaesthetic is used. One day sane people are going to wake up to this and wonder what the hell is going on and how it got that way. This thread indicates that it's likely to take some time, and why.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It has recently come to light that the Metropolitan Police have an information page about breast ironing, which is a practice carried out mainly by female relatives of pubescent girls in countries and societies where men are often openly predatory on young girls with little come-back, and where child marriage is common. The idea is to retain the girls' pre-pubescent shape and so reduce the likelihood of male attention, so that they can continue to attend school. This is classed as child abuse, and teachers are advised how to look out for it in girls in their classes and how to report it. (Of course, the practice called "breast ironing" is one associated with BAME groups.)

It turns out that on that page, where the procedures used to accomplish the goal of stopping breast growth are detailed, one of the things said is that it's not only "ironing" by pummelling the breasts with stones, or whatever, some people use tight wrappings or tape to achieve the effect. This is lumped in with the rest as a form of child abuse, because as they so rightly say, it's harmful. It causes difficulty breathing, broken ribs, damage to breast tissue and pain.

The page also points out that the people who do this to girls are not monsters, they are motivated by good intentions, that is reducing the chance of the girls being sexually abused. But despite the good intentions, it's still child abuse. It also points out that some of the girls affected will have requested the procedure themselves, because they believe it will indeed protect them from sexual abuse. But it's still child abuse, even if the child wants it to be done.

It has finally been pointed out to the police that "binders" as touted to white western girls as a means of compressing their breasts and stopping breast growth, are exactly the same thing. (And it is quite likely that the underyling motivation for the girls wanting these things is the same as the breast ironing - to prevent male interest in the developing breast tissue.) And that it's already been established that good intentions on the part of the person enabling the child, or consent or even desire on the part of the child to have it done, are not defences against child abuse.

Someone actually seems to have taken note of this, and it seems to be related to the inquiry that's being started into the practices of Mermaids, the charity for trans children, which is known to provide binders to girls as young as 13 or 14 behind parents' backs and against parents' wishes.

Mermaids' practices quite openly encourage and groom confused children into deciding that they're trans. They've had stalls at Pride events where they say, we have puppies, we have sweets, come and visit our stall. I mean it's like something out of the Brothers Grimm. There is text from one of their chat-rooms showing a moderator congratulating a girl who had just announced that she was trans and wanted all the hormones and all the surgeries.

What is being done is utterly horrific, and the only thing that distinguishes the genital surgery from FGM-type practices is that anaesthetic is used. One day sane people are going to wake up to this and wonder what the hell is going on and how it got that way. This thread indicates that it's likely to take some time, and why.

Just digesting this and hoping we return to a world where humans behave as animals.
Lucy Cooke is a fine anthropologist and I will again post her interview.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I did think it was true at one point, which is why I read the articles. (Remember, my PhD was in long distance exercise.) It could have been a coincidental side-effect of female body shape and metabolism, with men losing in their trade-off for explosive speed and strength, and women winning with lighter bodies and bones and some selection for endurance on the back of being less expendable when the chips are really down. But it doesn't seem to stand up.

I think part of this impression actually comes from the world of strength training. So everyone's got some maximum load they can lift one time, call it a 1 repetition max (1RM). If you try to lift something less than that, you can lift it more times. So let's suppose a typical man can lift 80% of his 1RM five times (specific numbers are made up, not the point). A woman can lift 80% of his 1RM more times than that, maybe 8 times. Some people conclude from this that although women are not as strong (their 1RM is lower than a man's), they have more endurance because they can lift 80% of 1RM more times than a man can lift 80% of 1RM.

But that's really not the case. The difference isn't that men have less endurance. The difference is that women have less neuromuscular efficiency, basically a measure of how many of their muscle fibers they can simultaneously contract within a muscle. It's never quite 100%, but it's closer to 100% for men than for women (in general). So in addition to generally having less muscle fibers, they also cannot simultaneously contract as many muscle fibers. So men don't have lower endurance, rather, their higher neuromuscular efficiency means that they're able to tire themselves out more quickly under heavy load. Women can't tire themselves out as quickly under heavy load because of that reduced efficiency.

But if you move away from a scenario of relative exertion to absolute exertion (like while running), then the ability to tire yourself out more quickly doesn't translate to actually tiring yourself out more quickly. Neuromuscular efficiency isn't an important factor when you're always operating at a low relative exertion rate, which long distance running is (no one step is ever close to maximum exertion). Other factors we know matter still favor men, such as larger lung capacity and increased heart stroke volume.

[Rolfe]

That makes a great deal of sense and thank you for explaining it so clearly.

I'm reminded of an evening where someone arranged for our entire staff to go to a sports centre and play silly games for several hours. Most of us were under 40 at the time and there were quite a few young lads in their prime. At the beginning the lads were running rings round the ladies, but we stayed standing when they folded. And I mean folded, they were knackered, while we went on chucking balls around and chasing skittles or whatever. We didn't half wind them up about it. No stamina, and similar jibes.

This fits perfectly with your thesis.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Samson

Just digesting this and hoping we return to a world where humans behave as animals.
Lucy Cooke is a fine anthropologist and I will again post her interview.

I was thinking about a photo someone shared earlier of a bunch of butch-looking transmen flexing their muscles and showing off their pecs and their six-packs. What people often don't realise about that appearance is that it takes many hours of absolute slavish dedication in the gym to achieve it - just as it does for men, but it's even harder if you don't have a male body to start with. Fine if bodybuilding is your obsession, but not so much if you think a mastectomy and some testosterone is going to achieve that effect.

I think about the thousands of girls who are having their breasts chopped off by these ghoulish, money-grubbing surgeons, and wonder how they're all doing. I've seen far more photos of obvious girls posing topless with nasty scars across their flat (and often nipple-less) chests, skinny arms, feminine waists and expressions on their faces that look as if they're smiling through tears. I've also seen photos of similar girls where it's obvious they've had some sort of implants put in to simulate abdominal and calf muscles (the skinny arms reveal that it's all artificial).

It's so common for teenage girls to hate their bodies, and in particular to hate their breasts. They're being sold this as a one-stop instant fix - just have your breasts cut off and dress in masculine clothes and all your troubles will be over. But that seems to be the case so seldom. Most of the post-op transman photos I see make me want to cry. These poor girls. Where will they be in ten or twenty years time? Up at the golf club socialising happily with all their male friends who totally accept them as one of the lads? I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. They've been denied the growth and development needed to come to terms with maturity and the body they were dealt and promised instant manhood. It will work out for some, but for the majority?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Most of the post-op transman photos I see make me want to cry. These poor girls. Where will they be in ten or twenty years time? Up at the golf club socialising happily with all their male friends who totally accept them as one of the lads? I'd like to think so, but I doubt it.

I'm reminded again of that book, Self Made Man, where the author (a lesbian) posed as a man and hung around with a bunch of men to see what their lives were like. You may be familiar with it, it's come up in the thread before, but lurkers here might not be.

And it worked, sort of. The men accepted her as a man, and much more easily and willingly than she expected. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that she wasn't happy living as a man. Being a man isn't a walk in the park. It was difficult in ways she didn't anticipate. So I don't think these poor girls are going to be rejected by their male friends. But it's still not going to make them happy, or solve their problems. Why would it?

The fantasy that life is simply better as a man also reminds me of the old SNL Eddie Murphy skit:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm reminded again of that book, Self Made Man, where the author (a lesbian) posed as a man and hung around with a bunch of men to see what their lives were like. You may be familiar with it, it's come up in the thread before, but lurkers here might not be.

And it worked, sort of. The men accepted her as a man, and much more easily and willingly than she expected. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that she wasn't happy living as a man. Being a man isn't a walk in the park. It was difficult in ways she didn't anticipate. So I don't think these poor girls are going to be rejected by their male friends. But it's still not going to make them happy, or solve their problems. Why would it?

The fantasy that life is simply better as a man also reminds me of the old SNL Eddie Murphy skit:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I've never looked into it enough, but I have always been suspicious of this. Did they really not suspect that this short, soft skinned, feminine featured man might not be one of the boys in the same way the rest of them were? I mean, I can buy that they just individually choose not to mention it... I haven't seen any decent photos of her as a man that doesn't make her look like a lesbian in a suit with some fake stubble.

[Rolfe]

Well, people thought that "James" Barrie was odd. Short in height, no apparent beard, high voice. Nobody can claim there weren't suspicions. But she got away with it, largely by having or assuming a hair-trigger temper.

I think Barrie's contemporaries were more likely to suspect some sort of DSD, cases of which would scarcely be unknown, than that this was an actual woman masquerading as a man successfully enough to get through medical school. It may be that that is the unspoken assumption when a "man" doesn't look or sound especially manly.

[Rolfe]

I'm reminded of a science fiction book, "Moult Brother", which involved an alien aquatic species which was egg-laying. The society was organised around a formal pair-bond of two people living together, almost always the same sex (but not invariably), a relationship which was entirely non-sexual. Sexual relationships were temporary, and children that made it out of the birthing pool went to the parent of the same sex as the child - but were then mainly brought up by the parent's life-partner.

The general lack of comprehension of how it was to live as the opposite sex by these people wasn't much less than it is among human beings!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I've never looked into it enough, but I have always been suspicious of this. Did they really not suspect that this short, soft skinned, feminine featured man might not be one of the boys in the same way the rest of them were? I mean, I can buy that they just individually choose not to mention it... I haven't seen any decent photos of her as a man that doesn't make her look like a lesbian in a suit with some fake stubble.

I've seen interviews with some of the guys she befriended, and they say they were fooled. If it's a hoax, it's a pretty elaborate one to include other people in it, and that doesn't really fit the profile of other authorial hoaxes we've seen.

[Elaedith]

Alan Sokal has written a piece for Areo on the bad-faith and deceptive changing of word meanings to win debates.

Quote:

Charles Dodgson (better known by his pseudonym Lewis Carroll) was a distinguished mathematician as well as a novelist. Humpty Dumpty’s dictum that “a word means just what I choose it to mean”—often viewed as satirical—is in reality nothing more than standard mathematical practice.

So no mathematician would object were an article to begin:

In this article the word “transphobic” means “a view on sex and gender that disagrees with gender-identity ideology.

Or perhaps more simply:

In this article the word “transphobic” means “a view on sex and gender that disagrees with mine.”

This redefinition of a well-known word might be considered bizarre or idiosyncratic, but at least it would be up-front; no reader would be misled.

One of the first things I noticed about this issue was people framing criticism of ideas as bigotry in order to suppress criticism of ideas. It reminded me of scientologists framing criticism of scientology as religious bigotry to suppress criticism of scientology.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

It reminded me of scientologists framing criticism of scientology as religious bigotry to suppress criticism of scientology.

Pretty sure the scientologists just borrowed this tactic from nearly every other faith on offer where they grew up; the idea of blasphemy was coined just to protect the idea of gods.

[Rolfe]

That's a good article. Maybe Steersman needs to read it if he ever comes back.

It's really back to "if I define you as a bigot then I am entitled to call you a bigot because you are one", which we already explored.

He explains why it's important to write "transwoman" and not "trans woman". Too many people with some authority, including here, simply assert either that one usage is "correct" or that the other is in some way "disrespectful" or "offensive", and then change everything to fit in with their agenda. Many people don't understand that when they change "transwoman" to "trans woman" they are conceding victory to one side of the debate. I think the title of this thread was originally interfered with in exactly that way at the request of a trans ally.

Define your terms, people. And if one side can designate a term as offensive and have that upheld, then so can the other. Don't call me cis.

[theprestige]

I gotta say, it's masterful to insist you're not allowed to discuss your ideological differences until you concede all the ideological terminology.

On the other hand, if you tell me which jargon offends you, then I have a good idea of which jargon signals my ideological opposition.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And if one side can designate a term as offensive and have that upheld, then so can the other. Don't call me cis.

Do you really think this actually the case, or am I being obtuse?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I gotta say, it's masterful to insist you're not allowed to discuss your ideological differences until you concede all the ideological terminology.

That's what has been tried in this thread since day one. With a great deal of success, I have to say.

[theprestige]

But what I came here to say is this:

If gender is a social construct, and it's all about your internal mental understanding of your self-identity...

... Then why is gender-affirming medical treatment even a thing?

We've been at great pains to distinguish gender identity from biological reality. This effort has been pretty successful at clarifying the public policy issues, and putting TRAs on the spot about what they're really asking for.

But another consequence, that I had not intended or expected, was to highlight just how tightly coupled gender identity and sexual promorphia actually are.

A month ago I still believed some things were purely about gender. Now I'm realizing it's all about sex. It always has been. Even the trans folks and the TRAs who think the two are separate, what they really believe (even if they don't realize it) is that it's all about sex.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Do you really think this actually the case, or am I being obtuse?

Absolutely it is grossly offensive. It carries the implication that women are a subset of women. That the word "woman" does not include everyone who is a woman, and that the ones it doesn't include are also women. We often hear justifications such as "well you don't mind someone saying black women, or lesbian women". Quite. Because there are women who are not black, and who are not lesbian. There are no women who are not women.

Also, on a personal level, using the term "cis" or allowing it to be used of you, signifies that you "identify with the gender you were assigned at birth". No I bloody well do not identify with a set of regressive sexist stereotypes, which is what that means. I don't "identify" as a woman for the simple reason that I don't have to. I reject any attempt to impose "gender" on me.

[porch]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Don't call me cis.

Word. Word up. This is increasingly how I feel. I am an adult human male who has already reckoned with the multitude of expectations others may have of me, versus what I want for myself. Yeah, the kids these days are too self absorbed -- but do they really think they can be more self absorbed than me? Ha! And no, I am not "agender". I opt out of the whole thing. Gender is a superficial mojo that I can choose to use or not.

Here is an article from a feminist, gender critical perspective, about non-binariness. Really coalesced a lot of thoughts for me. https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that...-gender-prison

Quote:

If gender is a spectrum, that means it’s a continuum between two extremes, and everyone is located somewhere along that continuum. I assume the two ends of the spectrum are masculinity and femininity. Is there anything else that they could possibly be? Once we realise this, it becomes clear that everybody is non-binary, because absolutely nobody is pure masculinity or pure femininity. Of course, some people will be closer to one end of the spectrum, while others will be more ambiguous and float around the centre. But even the most conventionally feminine person will demonstrate some characteristics that we associate with masculinity, and vice versa.
I would be happy with this implication, because despite possessing female biology and calling myself a woman, I do not consider myself a two-dimensional gender stereotype. I am not an ideal manifestation of the essence of womanhood, and so I am non-binary. Just like everybody else. However, those who describe themselves as non-binary are unlikely to be satisfied with this conclusion, as their identity as ‘non-binary person’ depends upon the existence of a much larger group of so-called binary ‘cisgender’ people, people who are incapable of being outside the arbitrary masculine/feminine genders dictated by society.

[Rolfe]

Exactly.

[porch]

This one is just for fun, Ute Lemper sings songs from the Weimar era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z59hf42Vb80

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

No I bloody well do not identify with a set of regressive sexist stereotypes, which is what that means.

That is what "gender" means in gendercrit circles, but that's certainly not what the term means amongst the woke.

[Rolfe]

Yeah. Word salad.

I'm inclined to stick with "gender" meaning whether I put "le" or "la" in front of the noun.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Absolutely it is grossly offensive. It carries the implication that women are a subset of women. That the word "woman" does not include everyone who is a woman, and that the ones it doesn't include are also women. We often hear justifications such as "well you don't mind someone saying black women, or lesbian women". Quite. Because there are women who are not black, and who are not lesbian. There are no women who are not women.

Also, on a personal level, using the term "cis" or allowing it to be used of you, signifies that you "identify with the gender you were assigned at birth". No I bloody well do not identify with a set of regressive sexist stereotypes, which is what that means. I don't "identify" as a woman for the simple reason that I don't have to. I reject any attempt to impose "gender" on me.

Talking of word salad, that reads pretty incoherent. Basically, the word "woman" encompasses everyone who is biologically female (excluding or including girls depending on the context - our legislation defines the word as "a female of any age"). Inventing the term "cis-woman" to apply to people who are biologically female implies that there are women who are not biologically female.

There aren't. (Let's not go down the CAIS rabbit-hole here, I'm prepared to argue that they're biologically female too and they are certainly "assigned female at birth". They ain't trans.)

If men who want to be women want to use the word "transwoman" (all one word, like seahorse) then they can. It's clear enough. Transwomen are, however, transwomen. They are a subset of men, not of women. It is grossly offensive to force women to carry an unwanted prefix that implies that there exists a subset of women who are not female.