That’s great, glad you agree.
The issue is that men cannot be excluded from women’s spaces when policies prohibit occupants from assessing someone as male and acting on this assessment. It is an inconvenient truth being swept under the rug in places like this board and elsewhere. And it is what women are talking about on boards less hostile to this topic.
For the avoidance of doubt, in your second sentence here, does the term “men” exclude trans women? A plain reading of your first sentence implies that, but (sorry if this is so exhausting) with you I do feel the need to clarify that.
Do you intend in future to use the unqualified term “men” to unambiguously include both cis and trans men, and the unqualified term “women” to unambiguously include both cis and trans women?
What policies are you talking about?
So even cis women aren’t safe from being ‘othered’.
I will not be engaging in any more crazy-making parsing of words about who counts as a man.
Policies that allow people to choose which spaces they want to use, regardless of how those spaces are marked.
Are you asking this in good faith?
There’s something crazy-making here, but it’s not your being asked to define your terms clearly.
And this is sort of the place to comment on board rules is it not? She clearly stated that she doesn’t like the levels of linguistic contortions necessary to conform to a fiat. Other than trying for a gotcha, I’m not sure what this interrogation is intended.
I think this sums it up:
That’s always been the policy, AFAICT, at every public restroom in my lifetime. Nowhere were IDs checked, or chromosomes, or genitals, etc. If someone thought someone else didn’t belong they might go to the authorities (just like the target did in the bathroom assault story you linked to, which occurred last month), as they still are able.
Where are these policies written and how are they being enforced?
Are you saying the board has a rule prohibiting people from using definitions of “men” and “women” that accord with what has been used traditionally?
If this is true, I actually didn’t know this.
She’s asking whether a particular type of discussion is allowed, but she’s not willing to explain what the discussion would be about, and is prevaricating about what she means by a specific word when what she means by that word is central to whether the type of discussion is allowed.
I didn’t see it as an ask. More as a ‘this is a policy I am unhappy with because it requires me to communicate in a method I feel is dishonest and that’s why I post less here and post more elsewhere where my perceptions of reality aren’t being subjugated for a politically correct version of reality.’ That’s my reading of her writings. Maybe I’m wrong.
And here’s why that actually is a problem,
This is such a dishonest sort of question. No, I’m not saying that, because those aren’t my words. That’s all just a way to avoid explaining what you mean.
But it’s not really a successful avoidance, is it? It’s pretty clear that you want to use the words in “accord with what has been used traditionally,” and that by that, you mean to exclude transwomen from the definition of women and to include transmen in the definition of women. If that’s not what you meant, you’d give the definition.
There’s zero sign that you’re willing to abide by your topic ban. You should be gone.
If her truth is transphobia, then she should go away, just as surely as if her truth were racism.
You do realize that the linguistic shift you are comfortable making is not universally shared and isn’t necessarily rooted in fear of trans-folk?
No fooling, really? Tell me more!
Maybe you should take that up with the guy that wrote the rule . . . or are you suddenly not wanting every rule Ed writes to be treated as if they were written by a god?
You should probably learn what -phobia actually means.