Assigned female at birth

argymargy

trisher

argymargy

@Doodledog I no longer know which side I'm on here and which posters are pro or anti, however I disagree with this:

There is no need for anyone to say or do anything. As I said upthread, all that needs to happen is that everyone is invited to come in for a smear test.

As I think we previously agreed, the language included in this invitation is both unnecessarily confusing and potentially offputting. Cervical screening only reaches around 75% of eligible women/persons and the NHS should be making every effort to entice the 25% who don't take it up. Using uncommon (for many) phrases like "assigned female at birth" is not helpful, so for that reason someone DOES need to do something.

Do you have any evidence about the people who are not taking up the test argymargy is it possible that a large proportion of them are transmen or non-binary and that in fact is why we need assigned female atbirth to ensure they are reached.

Are you having a laugh? A large proportion of the 1 in 4 eligible women not accessing cervical screening are trans men? The reasons for not taking it up are explored here: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/screening/cervical-screening#cervical_increase2
Transgender is mentioned but the tiny number of people involved in no way justifies using this jargon phrase in the invitation, which could put off other reluctant women.

I'm sorry you feel asking if there is any evidence is "Having a laugh" Thank you for the link I looked at it.
It says

Some groups with lower participation include (3):

those aged 25–29 and those above 50
those living in areas of high deprivation
those with a learning or physical disability
ethnic minority communities – note disparity varies by ethnic minority group
lesbian and people who are bisexual (1)
the transgender community
It doesn't give any figures for the numbers from each category but I don't see why including a phrase which would certainly encourage one of those categories to use the service would in fact put off other women.

trisher

argymargy

@Doodledog I no longer know which side I'm on here and which posters are pro or anti, however I disagree with this:

There is no need for anyone to say or do anything. As I said upthread, all that needs to happen is that everyone is invited to come in for a smear test.

As I think we previously agreed, the language included in this invitation is both unnecessarily confusing and potentially offputting. Cervical screening only reaches around 75% of eligible women/persons and the NHS should be making every effort to entice the 25% who don't take it up. Using uncommon (for many) phrases like "assigned female at birth" is not helpful, so for that reason someone DOES need to do something.

Do you have any evidence about the people who are not taking up the test argymargy is it possible that a large proportion of them are transmen or non-binary and that in fact is why we need assigned female atbirth to ensure they are reached.

Are you having a laugh? A large proportion of the 1 in 4 eligible women not accessing cervical screening are trans men? The reasons for not taking it up are explored here: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/screening/cervical-screening#cervical_increase2
Transgender is mentioned but the tiny number of people involved in no way justifies using this jargon phrase in the invitation, which could put off other reluctant women.

Well, bringing men down to the sum of their body parts and bodily functions, which seems to be the character indicator for identifying women; men are penis people. They have an Adam's apple which I've always thought is similar to a cockerel's wattle. Usually more hirsute than women, even on their hands, nose and ears. And they have balls. Which should have been given to the women really, because it's women who have the balls to keep on fighting their corner and just WILL NOT give up, move over, make space, be quiet or that passive aggressive golden oldie be kind.

I think that men come in all shapes and sizes, and all personality types. They can be gentle or fierce, camp or macho, kind or cruel, loud or quiet, gay or straight, and all points in between any of those things. I love some of them with all my heart, and find others deeply unloveable.

What they all have in common, and what makes them all men is their male gametes. It may be that nothing else links them but that one immutable thing; but that always will, whichever gender norms they choose to take on board or which ones they reject.

What is a man?
If he’s like my DH, then he’s clean, well presented, caring, hardworking, a risk taker (get off that ladder!) and willing to walk the dog in the pouring rain! He’s also strong, muscular, and deep voiced, which would qualify him to be mistaken for a tw by some people.
If I describe him like trisher et al like to describe women, he’s an ejaculator, a penis-haver, a scrotum-haver and a prostate haver.

Most importantly he’s male, which entitles him to be called a man.
Your version of a man?

? Good idea, who’s going to start..?

As there appears to be such difficulty in clarifying what a woman is, perhaps it might be easier if they could determine what a man is? And what differentiates them from women? Would that be a starting point? At least that way, 50% of the population could be accounted for.

Well I suppose it would be possible to state that a child is born which fits the profile of what was once described as male or female, but will choose / or not to change at any given time in the future,But eventually it will go in circles… it’s just words we use that all can under stand , even if they dislike said words…..

I remember you asking before doodledog for a definition of a man or a woman and you were met by silence. I wonder why some of folks are reluctant to give a straightforward answer. ?

Yes, we might as well.

The whole point of language, which is, arguably, what sets us apart from the animals, is that words are a shared code for concepts. If we use words interchangeably, they cease to have meaning, so communication is impossible.

I have asked on another thread for a definition of 'woman' and 'man' (and not for the first time), but as usual, was met with a refusal to do so, along with a gaslighting 'reason' for why the refusal was my fault.

Without knowing what TRAs mean by the basic concepts in the 'gender' arguments, we will go round in circles. We (those who question the possibility of changing sex) are told that we are transphobic because we don't accept that people can 'just know that they are a woman (or a man)', but are never told what a 'woman' or a 'man' actually is, beyond something vague about 'presentation' and/or politics. It is clear what the terms mean biologically - there is no ambiguity there, but as soon as it gets tricky the TRAs back off and refuse to engage. It is frustrating.

Well we might as well re name everything, let’s call the Sun ,the Moon, & the stars could become planets , earth could be a super nova …..

Some countries encourage the Gods to bestow health and success by smashing coconuts on the heads of those who ask for blessing.

Well it makes as much sense as insisting that a person can change their biological sex.

Trisher, I would have thought all those who question gender identities would like this.
Yes you probably would have thought this.
That’s nice!??

Some countries encourage the Gods to bestow health and success by smashing coconuts on the heads of those who ask for blessing.

That doesn't mean that I am confused about the sense of doing so.

Rosie51

gender, sex ....still used interchangeably in order to confuse. Is gender recorded any where, isn't it sex on your birth certificate and medical records? Who gives a toss what gender, if any, you claim to have?

The only people confusing sex and gender seem to be yourself and Doodledog.
The proposal some countries are considering is qute clear on both. A child would be entered as male or female in their medical records. Their birth certificate would have a space for their gender but this wouldn't be entered at birth. At some point when that person is happy and secure enough their chosen gender will be entered on their birth certificate. The information about their sex remains in medical records.
I would have thought all those who question gender identities would like this.

Smileless2012

Quite right Doodledog. I mean for goodness sake, what ever someone decides when they're older they know whether they were male or female when they were born, so whether or not for example they have a cervix.

IMO the current conflict has nothing to do with patriarchy, but everything to do with a small vocal minority of the trans community seeking to usurp the hard fought for rights of women.

Exactly my point of view, Smileless. Thanks for confirming that I am not losing the plot.

trisher

But if people don't understand (and you apparently don't) that one of the tools of patriarchy is creating conflict by denying some people rights and pretending that some people are more entitled than others why would you stop me talking about it? Feminism tried establishing equal rights under a patriarchal system. They've been at it for ages and it hasn't worked, Smash the patriarchy establish a system where all people matter. Don't just buy into the system.

It's not that I don't understand, trisher. It's just that I don't agree.

Smileless2012
IMO the current conflict has nothing to do with patriarchy, but everything to do with a small vocal minority of the trans community seeking to usurp the hard fought for rights of women.
Not just that small group unfortunately, but some vociferous females who support the small vocal minority of the trans community.

Quite right Doodledog. I mean for goodness sake, what ever someone decides when they're older they know whether they were male or female when they were born, so whether or not for example they have a cervix.

IMO the current conflict has nothing to do with patriarchy, but everything to do with a small vocal minority of the trans community seeking to usurp the hard fought for rights of women.

I’m not just buying into the system.

But if people don't understand (and you apparently don't) that one of the tools of patriarchy is creating conflict by denying some people rights and pretending that some people are more entitled than others why would you stop me talking about it? Feminism tried establishing equal rights under a patriarchal system. They've been at it for ages and it hasn't worked, Smash the patriarchy establish a system where all people matter. Don't just buy into the system.

Stop shoehorning patriarchy into every post, trisher. It's obvious that it's just a dig. Nobody is asking anyone to replace male privilege with female. It's not a 'privilege' to be allowed to discuss your concerns and commonalities with others of the same sex, but that right will be removed if we go down the road of 'gender' being 'assigned', rather than sex being observed.

Rosie51

gender, sex ....still used interchangeably in order to confuse. Is gender recorded any where, isn't it sex on your birth certificate and medical records? Who gives a toss what gender, if any, you claim to have?

Well someone must or these threads would just die away.

Agreed trisher

Doodledog

Indeed it is. Which is why so many feminists oppose having the language mangled.

I know it seems trivial to a lot of people, but I really feel that words matter, and that it is worth making a fuss about this sort of thing. Saying that 'gender is assigned at birth' is buying into a dangerous agenda, and I will not have it applied to me.

But feminism doesn't have to accept the patriarchal conditioning that says one set of people's rights outclass another's. It's simple to say use language which includes everyone. Replacing male privilege with female privilege really isn't the aim anymore. Change the system. Create equality.