I am pretty sure no one here said this, or even implied it.
When I was young, most of the ladies. Now, none of them.
The problem is that, in this broader sense, I'm not aware of anyone--"trans activist" or otherwise--ever claiming that cis women "ought to be considered indistinguishable" from trans women (or "trans men", as James would have it). It's just a strawman until someone can demonstrate otherwise. IOW saying trans women are women is NOT the same as saying trans women are indistinguishable from cis women.
In much of the fashion world, "glamorous" women tend to have a number of attributes that we commonly perceive as "masculine": very tall, chiseled features, and not much in the way of boobs, hips and butts. I've always found it amusing that a lot of males, particularly the Joe Rogan sorts, regard fashion models as the epitome of female beauty; yet they are clearly considering only a particular type of model. A significant percentage, if not a majority, of models generally would be considered quite unattractive by their curious set of criteria.
Её рост 198 см.? А на каблуках 210 см.? Такая женщина просто незаменима в домашнем хозяйстве, она может менять лампочки в лампах без стремянки. Зачем вы это написали, теперь я со своими 167 см. начинаю чувствовать себя неполноценной...Again, you are talking about superficially and fully clothed. I don't think that's what James meant when he said "for all intents and purposes". They're kind of opposite end of the spectrum.
It's not about bizarre.
But, as I said, there are a thousand ways trans women are distinct from biological women. Superficial looks is merely scratching the surface.
(One of my closest and dearest friends is trans. (Am I virtue-signaling?) She's a hottie. It doesn't hurt that shes 6 foot 6 inches tall. Did great for her modeling career and her Wonderwoman costuming. Most people don't know, or at least don't know for sure. )
While the phrase does cover a lot of ground, I would suggest it also be subjective.
It's a long thread.
Totally. And that's my point.
If you're talking about the recent supreme court decision then no mate they said that if the Gender Recognition Act actually meant that people could change sex legally by getting a Gender Recognition Certificate then the Equality Act never made sense so the Equality Act must mean sex when it says sex. Since that's the supremes talking it means that any court asked to decide if the word woman in a law actually means women and men who have a certificate is probably gonna come down on the side of not including men.
If you say some men are allowed into women's single sex spaces then you let any man in because literally anybody can say they are trans and there is no objective standard for defining it. I really wanna know why somebody saying they believe they're the opposite sex and no you can't have any evidence for that doesn't set off your bullshit detectors but somebody saying they definitely have an immortal soul and no you can't have any evidence for that does.
This makes sense if you think 100% of men who identify as women pass as women but come on mate just google a trans rights protest. Or it makes sense if you think that only people who pass as the opposite sex should use opposite sex spaces but who gets to decide who passes and isn't it transphobic to police people's gender identities?
And what are the options? There's biology or there's appearance and behaviour which is just gross sexism or there's some internal feeling which can't be verified and if that isn't setting off your bullshit meter you need to think about why not. Is there anything else the word could mean?
Families want that too, so a father can bring his 2 year old daughter into the bathroom without causing a stink.
Sure, but the purpose of language is, surely, to communicate. If I use a term (X) that, to me, means one thing, and someone uses that term while meaning something else to them, disagreements will arise. For me to counter the disagreement by words to the effect of "well, I did say X" as if that other person should know what I meant by X, is not helpful, and simply asserting primacy of my meaning of the term, without actually explaining what I mean. The other person will still read the phrase and apply their own meaning to it. So restating the phrase as its own explanation adds nothing.
It's more a meta-issue than hair-splitting. It speaks to the cause of arguments where none need exist. It speaks to the need to be more accurate in language - you know, this whole "communicate" thing - and to actually explain misunderstandings/differences in understanding of phrases when they arise, rather than simply repeat the phrase as if that is its own answer.
Right. The context here is "what is a woman?"
Before I address that can I just check that you are implying that because we allow children so small they could literally fall down a toilet in to public toilets based on their carer's sex not their own then there cannot be any single sex spaces of any kind?
And what is your answer to that because that's what I really want to know.
?? No.
