Honestly. I thank you for your candour, and I can totally see your point. This is why I’m only sharing opinions here that I’ve honestly never shared and am unlikely to share anywhere else. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to them.

There are a couple edge cases that I’m still struggling with. Firstly, I think there should be women’s-only spaces. A long time ago I did a couple of summer’s work for a ground’s maintenance company. One of the jobs was at a women’s refuge. I presume the people (women and children) there were mostly fleeing domestic abuse. I’ll never forget the look of fear in their collective eyes through the windows and doors as I worked with the two other men trimming hedges and mowing lawns on the property. Clearly their mistrust of men was such that they would be unlikely to accept a trans woman, and I would say asking people like that to make concessions for others would be a step too far. Maybe when they’re stronger, and happier? But not there, in that place.

You’ve outlined very well why there isn’t a reductionist, measurable unit of ‘womanhood’. Either in cells, chromosomes or in some other aspect of our biochemical makeup. I agree with you! I’ve made the case that a better measure of ‘womanhood’ can be found in a more holistic view of the life experiences associated with cis women. I pointed to female reproduction and reproductive health as a specific example. There is another example that I struggle with…

Trans women athletes competing as women in sports. The statistics show that regardless of the instantaneous measures of womanhood through measures of blood testosterone, trans women athletes clearly have a physical advantage over cis women for having a musculature and biomechanical development that likely took place during a period of elevated testosterone. To me this again shows how life history plays a significant part in the nature of the woman (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9331831/ ).

What you’ve outlined is a view that accepts a trans woman as a woman. What, from the moment she decides to take that path? Even before she’s applied the first hormone patch? What about the men who were abusive rapists and who decide to transition right before sentencing? Should they be put in an all-women’s prison? I don’t want people to suffer, regardless of sex, gender or orientation, but frankly, the complexities around issues like these make me see that classifications based on life histories are far simpler for other people with sensitivies and needs.

It almost feels like you’re saying the term trans wo/man is an insult. I’ve never considered that before. Is there no room for a trans wo/man to own that phrase and the full reality of their situation? Why are trans people not proud of who they are, what they’ve been through, and where they are, up to an including the things that medical science cannot give them?

Another life history experience that I didn’t know about or include on the list.

You assume I would spout these opinions in a place of work? Well yeah, I wouldn’t want to be around someone who did that. To me there’s a clear line between having an opinion and sharing an opinion that runs the risk of hurting someone else. I’m sharing here only because that’s the point of this discussion.

But you’re saying that you think I’m out of line for pointing out an objective difference between women and trans women? A difference that you say trans women wish doesn’t exist but which does? A wish that you say I should respect by pretending that difference doesn’t exist?

Let me make clear. I would never air these thoughts in the company of someone who I had the faintest suspicion would get upset. If you don’t care for this discussion, feel free to tell me to “fuck off”. I’m genuinely confused by what’s going on and would like to discover if there’s a learning opportunity here.

And so you should! If I knew someone would want to be known as a “man” or “woman”, then I would use those terms. However, responding appropriately to that wish might not mean that I’d be blind to the fact the subject is a trans wo/man. There’s simply unlikely to be any reason to point that out.

Similarly, I’m happy with being a “man”. I don’t really care if others regard me as a “cis man”, but I might ask that term is dropped if it’s used directly about or to me. I don’t and never will recognise the term.

I’ll happily use the appropriate pronouns, etc, but as mentioned before, I cannot regard trans women as belonging to the same category as what I am calling here “biological women” because they haven’t grown up and lived as women. I mentioned before about female reproduction and reproductive health. It cannot be understated how huge this can be for many women. Periods, period products, period pains, impacts on histamine sensitivies, getting pregnant, ecotopic prenancies, miscarriages, endometriosis, an “incompetant” cervix, still birth, premature birth, full term birth, breast feeding… The list goes on. For sure, these things don’t wholly define what it is to be a woman, but it sure as hell helps shape the bodies and minds of the only group of people who make all of us. To forget or ignore that is disrespectful to women, in my opinion.

It doesn’t matter how much a trans woman claims to want to be a part of this group, or how upset she gets at the likes of me for saying otherwise, but she will never be a part of that group. I would never say that the particular journey or struggles of a trans woman are less significant, but they are fundamentally different and for that reason it puts them in a similar, but different group.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your efforts to share your perspective. However, from my perspective you’ve reinforced my point. These definitions look at the situation as an instantaneous snapshot, i.e. as the person is now, and not where they were or their life history. A person’s life history is, I believe, a much greater indicator of the kind of person they are than a reductionist breakdown of their biochemical makeup.

Also, I reject the term “cis” on the basis that the words “woman” and “man” have already been defined. These are pefectly valid and were for centuries. The invocation of the modifier “cis” today is a passive acknowledgement of logical fallacy of the phrase that 'a trans wo/man is a wo/man". A woman is a woman and a trans woman is a trans woman. Any other perspective is either disrespectful or overreach.

There are a lot of good points here, but one that I feel often gets overlooked at times like this is in the history of a person’s experience.

Completely sidestepping the debate, let’s assume a trans woman is a woman. What we’re acknowledging here is that this person lived some of her life as a boy or man. This would include the various biases of that.

A (biological) woman would have lived with a single set of biases and challenges. In addition to the huge experiences around child birth, female reproductive health is seriously under provided for. I’ve met many women with ongoing health issues related to it that appear to be sidelined or completely ignored by medical science.

Trans women clearly have their own challenges, but their societal biases would be different as would their possible health issues.

This leads to me believe that we might view a person outwardly as being a woman, but being a biological woman or a trans woman leads to different sets of life experiences that would likely have significant influences on a person’s worldview, modes of communication, hobbies, interests etc.

I’d say that a trans woman is a “woman” now, but in not having lived as a girl or young woman that she is a trans woman. In the same way that a (biological) woman is not and never will be a trans woman.