Greetings and thank you for inviting me to into your chapter.
I have joined IWN to support real women and defend their right to separate spaces. I wanted to communicate my notion of what the specifics of that goal should be so that as a network, we are aligned on fighting for the right goal.
In my view there are 2 requirements for being a real woman:
1. Having no Y chromosome. 2. Not having undergone physical woman to man gender transformation, particularly with respect to both facial hair and genital mutilation.
Note that this is a slightly different definition than simply biological sex based classification although it includes that. I believe rule 2 is also important because, as an example I use, real women shouldn't have to endure people like Buck Angel in their spaces either.
To put it another way, mens spaces should be the default option, and women's spaces should be the privileged option reserved only for people who meet the above conditions. We currently tend to see the reverse which is horrible. Real women deserve safety and privacy and it is their feelings that should matter most.
Thank you.
5
Laura Brigada
Looking to elaborate rather than disagree. A similar line of thought to what you have said has been expresed by Amy Sousa. I believe she has said women are on a female development path and men are on a male development path. Like yours, it's good.The Federal government's view, long as it is, I think is the best out there. It's important to have recourse to it because some people are willing to tie themselves in knots when this issue comes to their door.I'll give a reason I've experienced relating to mosaics. People can use partial information to try to browbeat women. I've been bullied to accept a man pretending to be a woman with the mere insinuation that he might be XXY, no evidence, just implying it could be. This man is a father of multiple children! XXY is infertile, sad for those men but that is just how it is. At minimum, this man could have been a mosaic of XXY and XY. He's still a man, but the average person in a fog of multiple sets of bad reasoning can be defanged by the federal version if they are still at least partially interested in the truth.Having used the federal definition for months, I was finally offered to "accept but not agree" with this man, through a third party, which meant I would let him have everything. He would be in the women's room at our gatherings and he would come dressed as a woman despite MY children attending. He suggested that I would simply keep my own internal disagreement and this was a middle ground. Absolutely not, I said. There is a madness to this issue which requires playing hardball with people who are very possibly willfully insane. He never had the guts to talk to me directly despite the fact that I am afraid of him. Like the pied piper, he walked away with some people I loved. He regularly crossdresses in front of children, and I can't do a thing about it except to say, not me or mine.
Michael Drew
Thank you for sharing your experience. It's my understanding that the presence of any Y chromosome no matter in what other combination ought to classify the person as a man. I believe my definition above correctly handles such cases. That said, it sounds like the person you're dealing with doesn't even care about honestly representing his situation and just likes appropriating women's appearance. One really important thing is to reaffirm the truth that he is not now nor will ever be a woman.
Bronwyn Sims
Glad we are havign such wonderful discussions here. Maybe we can plan a zoom call with all members to have a meet and greet via zoom. I will think about when this might be feasible and send out emails or post here on this platform. Thank you all. Bronwyn
Michael Drew
I've been busy with celebrating the 4th but maybe sometime next weekend we can video chat.
I'm eager to support efforts to protect real women and hope to meet soon.
Michael Drew
Greetings and thank you for inviting me to into your chapter.
I have joined IWN to support real women and defend their right to separate spaces. I wanted to communicate my notion of what the specifics of that goal should be so that as a network, we are aligned on fighting for the right goal.
In my view there are 2 requirements for being a real woman:
1. Having no Y chromosome.
2. Not having undergone physical woman to man gender transformation, particularly with respect to both facial hair and genital mutilation.
Note that this is a slightly different definition than simply biological sex based classification although it includes that. I believe rule 2 is also important because, as an example I use, real women shouldn't have to endure people like Buck Angel in their spaces either.
To put it another way, mens spaces should be the default option, and women's spaces should be the privileged option reserved only for people who meet the above conditions. We currently tend to see the reverse which is horrible. Real women deserve safety and privacy and it is their feelings that should matter most.
Thank you.
Laura Brigada
Looking to elaborate rather than disagree. A similar line of thought to what you have said has been expresed by Amy Sousa. I believe she has said women are on a female development path and men are on a male development path. Like yours, it's good.The Federal government's view, long as it is, I think is the best out there. It's important to have recourse to it because some people are willing to tie themselves in knots when this issue comes to their door.I'll give a reason I've experienced relating to mosaics. People can use partial information to try to browbeat women. I've been bullied to accept a man pretending to be a woman with the mere insinuation that he might be XXY, no evidence, just implying it could be. This man is a father of multiple children! XXY is infertile, sad for those men but that is just how it is. At minimum, this man could have been a mosaic of XXY and XY. He's still a man, but the average person in a fog of multiple sets of bad reasoning can be defanged by the federal version if they are still at least partially interested in the truth.Having used the federal definition for months, I was finally offered to "accept but not agree" with this man, through a third party, which meant I would let him have everything. He would be in the women's room at our gatherings and he would come dressed as a woman despite MY children attending. He suggested that I would simply keep my own internal disagreement and this was a middle ground. Absolutely not, I said. There is a madness to this issue which requires playing hardball with people who are very possibly willfully insane. He never had the guts to talk to me directly despite the fact that I am afraid of him. Like the pied piper, he walked away with some people I loved. He regularly crossdresses in front of children, and I can't do a thing about it except to say, not me or mine.
Michael Drew
Thank you for sharing your experience. It's my understanding that the presence of any Y chromosome no matter in what other combination ought to classify the person as a man. I believe my definition above correctly handles such cases. That said, it sounds like the person you're dealing with doesn't even care about honestly representing his situation and just likes appropriating women's appearance. One really important thing is to reaffirm the truth that he is not now nor will ever be a woman.
Bronwyn Sims
Glad we are havign such wonderful discussions here. Maybe we can plan a zoom call with all members to have a meet and greet via zoom. I will think about when this might be feasible and send out emails or post here on this platform. Thank you all. Bronwyn
Michael Drew
I've been busy with celebrating the 4th but maybe sometime next weekend we can video chat.
I'm eager to support efforts to protect real women and hope to meet soon.
Michael Drew
Can we organize something for this weekend?