[Vanessa]

Urgh, I can't stand that woman. She's truly vile!

[Ant.]

Originally Posted by Withano

How is that possible, theres only 5k people in the world

I have 2 Twitters so maybe some people with multiple accounts are liking?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Lilbro

I have 2 Twitters so maybe some people with multiple accounts are liking?

Oh yeah probably good point.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Nothing against India personally but I can think of women I'd rather have seen in a show promoting itself as celebrating women as I posted on a thread yesterday. Apparently thinking that maybe women shouldn't have to step aside for someone who wasn't born a woman is bigotry. Why is it women who must always be expected to step aside? Is it only sexism when it fits the populist shoe?

And I can't stand Katie Hopkins.

Women haven't been asked to step aside. There are 7 cis women in the house and 1 trans woman. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be any women who were born women, however you are saying there should be no trans women. I understand your view is that trans women shouldn't be included as part of the female cast (although I disagree with that), but it's not the case that people who are supportive of India's right to be in there are trying to take rights away from other people, it's about wanting both to be included.

[Jase.]

Chuff do you agree with her tweet? Legit curious.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Nothing against India personally but I can think of women I'd rather have seen in a show promoting itself as celebrating women as I posted on a thread yesterday. Apparently thinking that maybe women shouldn't have to step aside for someone who wasn't born a woman is bigotry. Why is it women who must always be expected to step aside? Is it only sexism when it fits the populist shoe?

And I can't stand Katie Hopkins.

Basically this.

Though India is clearly a genuine transsexual, and is extremely critical of the ridiculous transactivists who reckon penises are female and lesbians are transphobic for not shagging male people. I don't mind calling her a woman (given the definition of woman appears to have changed to include male people, though noone can actually give a definition of woman that does not refer to biology or stereotypes, or is not circular) or using she for her. But she is NOT female. Female is a biological thing. This should have been billed as an 'all woman' launch or something.

India is very stereotypical and seems to think all female people should follow stereotypes too. India reckons its vile for female people to not shave their legs and such. Because of these opinions, India is a douchebag anyway. I genuinely hope she can change my mind though.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Women haven't been asked to step aside. There are 7 cis women in the house and 1 trans woman. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be any women who were born women, however you are saying there should be no trans women. I understand your view is that trans women shouldn't be included as part of the female cast (although I disagree with that), but it's not the case that people who are supportive of India's right to be in there are trying to take rights away from other people, it's about wanting both to be included.

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?

[Denver]

Great housemate vile human being

[Black Dagger]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Great housemate vile human being

She was a one note tired hag in the house.

[Cal.]

Remember when she wanted to build on being a gay icon after her stint in CBB15 lol

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?

Thanks Jaxie. Basically I disagree with the idea of needing to have specific experiences to be considered a woman. People have vastly different experiences in life across all sorts of factors such as race, culture, social status and gender identity too. Yes there are certain biological differences that a trans woman will never experience (and there are things about being a trans woman that cis women will never experience), but I think it's still ok to have those different experiences and for both to be considered women... just different women with different experiences.
The way I think of it is like woman being more of an umbrella term that can include both cis and trans women, rather than saying that cis and trans women are the same, their differences can still be acknowledged whilst at the same time both be considered women in a broader sense, if that makes sense. I think there's a common misconception that when someone says "transwomen are women too" they're saying that "transwomen and women born female are the same" and it therefore diminishes the experiences of cis women, or lumps cis women into a category where they're the same as males, or takes something away from women or is a redefinition, but that isn't the case, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

So yes the house could have been all cis women but if it's meant to explore what it is to be a woman in 2018 then I think it makes sense to be inclusive of India as a lot of people would consider her a woman, and you say yourself that you support her to live as a woman so is it not contradictory to say she shouldn't take part in something that explores what it is like to live as a woman?

You're last paragraph I think I sort of explain in the above, in that I think trans women are part of a wider categorisation of women, and so still fit with this theme, whereas I don't think you'd fit in with a trans or gay theme (I don't know you that well I'm just assuming based on you asking the question ) However as an example, one of my friends is a trans man (born female) who is also bi-sexual, and if he was part of either of those scenarios I'd be in favour of it and would think he'd make a great addition, for example if he was part of a gay male cast he'd able to bring a different experience and perspective of what it is to be those things than most people could (he's bisexual but is married to a man so in many respects has a lot of the same social experiences that gay men have), so even though he isn't technically biologically male or gay, he's often treated as both by society, and bb after all is meant (supposedly) to be a social experiment.

[bots]

I'm afraid i'm very skeptical about the inclusion of India. I think it was a cynical ploy by the producers to create a bit of controversy for the shows launch. Did they need to generate that controversy, not sure, but, I think to a degree India is being exploited for it, which to me goes against the theme they wish to promote, and by that, I refer to the exploitation of women

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?

Totally agree

[Kazanne]

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

I agree, she can never be a fully fledged woman she's a wannabe

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Thanks Jaxie. Basically I disagree with the idea of needing to have specific experiences to be considered a woman. People have vastly different experiences in life across all sorts of factors such as race, culture, social status and gender identity too. Yes there are certain biological differences that a trans woman will never experience (and there are things about being a trans woman that cis women will never experience), but I think it's still ok to have those different experiences and for both to be considered women... just different women with different experiences.
The way I think of it is like woman being more of an umbrella term that can include both cis and trans women, rather than saying that cis and trans women are the same, their differences can still be acknowledged whilst at the same time both be considered women in a broader sense, if that makes sense. I think there's a common misconception that when someone says "transwomen are women too" they're saying that "transwomen and women born female are the same" and it therefore diminishes the experiences of cis women, or lumps cis women into a category where they're the same as males, or takes something away from women or is a redefinition, but that isn't the case, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

So yes the house could have been all cis women but if it's meant to explore what it is to be a woman in 2018 then I think it makes sense to be inclusive of India as a lot of people would consider her a woman, and you say yourself that you support her to live as a woman so is it not contradictory to say she shouldn't take part in something that explores what it is like to live as a woman?

You're last paragraph I think I sort of explain in the above, in that I think trans women are part of a wider categorisation of women, and so still fit with this theme, whereas I don't think you'd fit in with a trans or gay theme (I don't know you that well I'm just assuming based on you asking the question ) However as an example, one of my friends is a trans man (born female) who is also bi-sexual, and if he was part of either of those scenarios I'd be in favour of it and would think he'd make a great addition, for example if he was part of a gay male cast he'd able to bring a different experience and perspective of what it is to be those things than most people could (he's bisexual but is married to a man so in many respects has a lot of the same social experiences that gay men have), so even though he isn't technically biologically male or gay, he's often treated as both by society, and bb after all is meant (supposedly) to be a social experiment.

I don't think we are going to agree but you express yourself well and have a positive point of view. You identify me as a cis woman and I am not. I am a woman, a female, that's my gender. By calling me a cis woman you are literally robbing me of my gender. I respect India's right to live as a woman and I hope it makes her happy but that's just the thing, she can live as a woman but she can never be a woman, a female. It's not possible, even with surgery.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I don't think we are going to agree but you express yourself well and have a positive point of view. You identify me as a cis woman and I am not. I am a woman, a female, that's my gender. By calling me a cis woman you are literally robbing me of my gender. I respect India's right to live as a woman and I hope it makes her happy but that's just the thing, she can live as a woman but she can never be a woman, a female. It's not possible, even with surgery.

"Cis woman" is purely meant as a way of differentiating from "trans woman", its not a further categorisation or a means of taking anyhing away, it's just to make the conversation easier to understand - I'd only use it in a conversation about trans people and it's only used so as to identify who is being referred to, there's nothing else intended and it's certainly not to be taken offensively. It's the same as if it were a conversation about race and the terms "black woman" or "white woman" were used to discuss differences, compared to "cis woman" or "trans woman". Yes I don't think we'll agree but I felt that should be clarified as the use of that word often gets misinterpreted.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?

Well put together...and well said.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

...and they are the facts...with no offence meant

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

So, by your definition, is a woman that has a hysterectomy no longer a woman?
Are women that can't give birth for whatever women not a woman in your eyes?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

"Cis woman" is purely meant as a way of differentiating from "trans woman", its not a further categorisation or a means of taking anyhing away, it's just to make the conversation easier to understand - I'd only use it in a conversation about trans people and it's only used so as to identify who is being referred to, there's nothing else intended and it's certainly not to be taken offensively. It's the same as if it were a conversation about race and the terms "black woman" or "white woman" were used to discuss differences, compared to "cis woman" or "trans woman". Yes I don't think we'll agree but I felt that should be clarified as the use of that word often gets misinterpreted.

I shouldn't need further categorisation. I'm a woman, India is a trans woman. Can I ask do you call non trans men cis men?

[Gusto Brunt]

But she answered her own statement...

She has no penis...

So not a man.

[Cal.]

Chuff if you're so proud of your own opinion (you clearly do agree with her) why were you trying to hide the fact you agreed with her by saying you were just posting what she had said?

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I shouldn't need further categorisation. I'm a woman, India is a trans woman. Can I ask do you call non trans men cis men?

I said it's not meant as further categorisation, it's just used to make what's being discussed easier to understand so you know who's being referred to. This is all just semantics it's not about labelling so there really isn't any need for offense to be taken. I would refer to a non trans man as a cis man if the conversation was about trans people, as I said in my previous post. It's no different to you saying "non trans men" in your post. You used those words to identify a man who was born male, that's exactly the same as saying "cis man"

[Greg!]

Legend Denise DRAGGED the vile specimen.