Assigned female at birth

Mollygo

trisher@9:53 The wrong sort of women

VioletSky@9:59
There is only the right sort of woman and the wrong sort of women now.
Trisher and VS now classify women as the right sort and the wrong sort.

Should we be worried? Is this personal denigration of those who recognise women as adult human females?

*trisher@9:53 transwomen are not women.
In which case transmen cannot be men*

Hurray something I can agree on.
But I am preempting the transphobia accusation by reiterating that I have no issue with people being or declaring they are men or women as long the ill-intentioned among them do not use that claim to cheat in sport, gain access to women’s (AHF) safe spaces or lie by omission to obtain something which is not rightfully theirs.

So if a transman is a woman Mollygo why can't they ask to be called chest feeder or addressed as assigned female at birth why can't they be called a birth person? If you support women why would you censor the language they choose?
If a transman tried to access a woman's space because they had been abused. They were very tall and quite heavily built and quite masuline in appearance would you let them in?

trisher

Oh wow! so much hedging and refusing todiscuss gender but insisting on introducing sex. OK here's my perception of it.
There have been many posts on these threads stating categorically that transwomen are not women.
In which case transmen cannot be men. Which for the gender critical means they must remain women. But just not women who count. The wrong sort of women!

I wasn't hedging. I just don't understand what you are asking. I pointed this out, so you could have simply explained more clearly instead of accusing me of hedging.

You keep using the phrase 'wrong sort of women', but it is meaningless to me. Women are adult human females, and there is no right or wrong sort. It's like saying 'wrong sort of panda' or 'wrong sort of giraffe'. Are you referencing the LP 'wrong sort of Jew' trope that was so over-used a while ago? I'm struggling to make a link with anything helpful, but at least I'm trying, and not 'wowing' or accusing you of hedging.

Hi VeS
Your implications are a way round accusing people of lying and you deliberately use an offensive word-nice behaviour for someone who says they work with children.
1. No one on GN has said trans-women do not need safe spaces. Only that they should not be in women’s (AHF) safe spaces where their presence could cause added trauma to women who have gone there for safety.

2 . Acceptance of being trans makes things easier and that’s good but doesn’t change their biological sex. I hope you’re not suggesting that they should be given damaging and potentially irreversible chemical or physical alterations to their bodies to support their chosen gender.
Forcing others to accept or be punished for e.g. for not using ‘correct’ pronouns as shehes are doing at a local school is discrimination by trans agains non trans.

3. Actually, in accusing others of saying gender doesn’t matter, (please cite quote where that has been said on GN), what you are really saying is that sex doesn’t matter. If you think that’s true and sex doesn’t matter, why are they so anxious to change?
Your final post about this is so waffly it doesn’t benefit your point.

But if you deny women the right to use the language they choose Doodledog and there are numerous posts objectng to people with a cervix etc. and you think they are women, aren't you discriminating against them? Aren't you saying they don't deserve to be listened to? Aren't you making them the wrong sort of woman?
And as for the insults posted about intersectional feminists are you saying they aren't there?

Some of the insults were there and had to be taken down as they violated guidelines.

If people can't keep within guidelines that are very basic rules for honest and polite discussion then that's worrying when it comes to whether every woman can feel safe having their voice heard.

Women shouldn't have to moderate who they speak to, simply to prevent being misrepresented and insulted unfairly.

Women should feel safe in discussion in a forum primarily used by women, with guidelines laying out what makes it a safe space for women to be heard

Love this one trisher. You must be getting desperate.
So if a transman is a woman, why can't they ask to be called chest feeder or addressed as assigned female at birth why can't they be called a birth person? If you support women why would you censor the language they choose?

The tm can ask to be called what they want- chest-feeder, bleeder or whatever. It can be written on their records in CAPITALS . or typed in bold print when they go to have the treatment they need because they are female, but does that give them the right to insist that every other adult human female is labelled the same? Are you saying you really think they have that right?
Back to your hoary old chestnut.
If a transman tried to access a woman's space because they had been abused. They were very tall and quite heavily built and quite masuline in appearance would you let them in?
You mean like your tall, heavily built, muscular, deep voiced friend that you often bring into your posts?
If a transman arrived at a woman’s refuge appearing as you say, she would know her appearance might be questioned. You may think that’s wrong, but it’s true and if you want that changing, do something about it.
She would undoubtedly make it quite clear without being asked that she was female, so yes I’d allow her in.
If she’s adamant that she’s a man, regardless of her appearance, am I to accuse her of lying? I would point out that this is a woman’s refuge (clarifying it if she, like you, didn’t understand that a woman is an AHF).
If she remained adamant that she is a man, then no I would not let her in.

Mollygo if they insisted they were a man, then the correct and kind thing to do would be to give them information on the nearest male refuge.

In fairness I do not think that a trans woman should be allowed into an all female refuge either.

Maybe it’s time for the trans community to get together and find trans refuges?

After all women have fought hard and find raised for years for our safe places.

Oops not find fund

trisher

But if you deny women the right to use the language they choose Doodledog and there are numerous posts objectng to people with a cervix etc. and you think they are women, aren't you discriminating against them? Aren't you saying they don't deserve to be listened to? Aren't you making them the wrong sort of woman?
And as for the insults posted about intersectional feminists are you saying they aren't there?

I am not denying anyone anything. I am asking that the terminology that has been used for hundreds of years (eg 'woman', 'female') should not be expanded to make it meaningless. I do not ask this to discriminate, but to keep the right to discuss things that concern women in terms that are understood by all. Referring to transpeople as such will not alter that, and would only be discriminatory if the subject matter were such - the terminology itself is not.

How does any of the above suggest that I don't think that anyone shouldn't be listened to?

How does any of the above suggest that I think that there is such a thing as the 'wrong sort of woman'? I don't even know what that means.

Re 'intersectional feminists', I have often posted that IMO a theoretical discussion of waves of feminism is simply a useful way of describing broad schools of thought, and not a set of rules for belonging to such a school. I see it as akin to terms such as 'functionalist sociologists', or Marxist historians'. People don't get together and decide what the thinking should be, or how one tenet of belief fits with others - the terms are retrospectively applied to very general philosophies, and within these groupings people can have very different points of view. I have seen the term 'intersectional feminism' used on here as though it is the latest fashion, that has swept away all that came before, which is clearly nonsense - as I say, it is just a way of describing relatively disparate points of view. What I do take issue with, is the idea that feminism is not about female rights, and is actually about the fight against injustice across the board. Clearly, injustice should be fought against, but not in the name of feminism - or not unless the injustice is against women, and happens because of their sex.

A good example of this would be the current situation in competitive sport, where Lia Thomas is not only stealing medals from women, but also making them uncomfortable by flaunting male sex organs in the changing rooms, as though to reinforce the sex differences that have deprived the female swimmers of their rights.

Support for this situation is not feminism, however it is dressed up, and I will not be gaslighted into believing that it is. Saying this is not, IMO, insulting, and if you disagree I am sorry, but I cannot in conscience take it back.

trisher

But if you deny women the right to use the language they choose . . .
Aren’t you trying to do exactly the same thing trisher?

Mollygo

Love this one trisher. You must be getting desperate.
So if a transman is a woman, why can't they ask to be called chest feeder or addressed as assigned female at birth why can't they be called a birth person? If you support women why would you censor the language they choose?

The tm can ask to be called what they want- chest-feeder, bleeder or whatever. It can be written on their records in CAPITALS . or typed in bold print when they go to have the treatment they need because they are female, but does that give them the right to insist that every other adult human female is labelled the same? Are you saying you really think they have that right?
Back to your hoary old chestnut.
If a transman tried to access a woman's space because they had been abused. They were very tall and quite heavily built and quite masuline in appearance would you let them in?
You mean like your tall, heavily built, muscular, deep voiced friend that you often bring into your posts?
If a transman arrived at a woman’s refuge appearing as you say, she would know her appearance might be questioned. You may think that’s wrong, but it’s true and if you want that changing, do something about it.
She would undoubtedly make it quite clear without being asked that she was female, so yes I’d allow her in.
If she’s adamant that she’s a man, regardless of her appearance, am I to accuse her of lying? I would point out that this is a woman’s refuge (clarifying it if she, like you, didn’t understand that a woman is an AHF).
If she remained adamant that she is a man, then no I would not let her in.

I just wondered Mollygo if a transwoman is banned from a refuge because her male appearance might terrify traumatised women how those women would react to a transman who looked quite mascuine and if they would still be terrified.
Or does their terror only matter if it is caused by a transwoman?

Exactly, Molly.

Referring to transpeople as such will not alter that, and would only be discriminatory if the subject matter were such - the terminology itself is not.
When I said the above, I meant 'referring to transpeople as transpeople' - just for clarification in case it was confusing.

*I just wondered Mollygo if a transwoman is banned from a refuge because her male appearance might terrify traumatised women how those women would react to a transman who looked quite mascuine and if they would still be terrified.
Or does their terror only matter if it is caused by a transwoman?*
This sort of theorising and hair-splitting is not being done in the name of feminism, is it - or not the sort of feminism that cares what happens to women. You are using the 'terror' of traumatised women in an attempt to score points, and are showing zero concern for their feelings.

FWIW, my take on this is that if women are made aware that male-bodied people will not be allowed on the premises their terror is likely to subside immediately, and I believe that this should be the rule as a matter of course. If a woman wants to meet her son, or a male friend whilst she is staying in a refuge she should arrange to do so off the premises, and decent men would understand and respect this.

So the only answer to my question is that it "isn't done in the name of feminism^ Does that mean feminism has to be illogical and unreasonable? Because it is actually nothing to do with feminism. It's quite a simple question and any allegations about feminism are only brought into the subject because it is one gender critical feminists can't answer and it is at the root of why their belief is so wrong.
I can answer it.
However I leave it open in case there is a gender critical feminist who could do so without trying to cast aspersions on other's feminism.

pinkprincess

One of my granddaughters, who is in her early twenties has just had a letter rom the NHS inviting her to go for a cervical smear test ''because she was assigned female at birth''
AIBU to suggest this is PC going too far?

It does kinda get around the problem of cervix-less "women".

Though actually, no-one is assigned a sex at birth. The sex of a baby is observed, not assigned.

trisher, You just wondered if a transwoman is banned from a refuge because her male appearance might terrify traumatised women how those women would react to a transman who looked quite mascuine and if they would still be terrified.

Naughty trisher! You know how you like to accuse people of twisting posts and saying it’s wrong.
I made it quite clear what I’d do, rather than skirt round the issue as is your wont.

Incidentally I can’t find mascuine in my dictionary and you keep using it. Is it newspeak for TW who retain their male looks and persona whilst averring that they are women?
Your Question
Or does their terror only matter if it is caused by a transwoman
Is that what you think trisher? I have never made any such assertion but if that’s what you think it’s an even greater reason for not allowing tw into women’s (AHF) safe spaces.

trisher

So the only answer to my question is that it "isn't done in the name of feminism^ Does that mean feminism has to be illogical and unreasonable? Because it is actually nothing to do with feminism. It's quite a simple question and any allegations about feminism are only brought into the subject because it is one gender critical feminists can't answer and it is at the root of why their belief is so wrong.
I can answer it.
However I leave it open in case there is a gender critical feminist who could do so without trying to cast aspersions on other's feminism.

trisher

Maybe I am having a senior moment, but I am really struggling to understand what you are getting at here.

You have asked me what I think a transman is, and I have answered. You have asked me if I think that they shouldn't be listened to, and I have answered. You have asked if I think they are the 'wrong sort of woman', and I have done my best to answer that, too.

You brought feminism into it, but again, I have explained my take on that, but you say It's quite a simple question and any allegations about feminism are only brought into the subject because it is one gender critical feminists can't answer and it is at the root of why their belief is so wrong. and that you won't answer the simple question. I don't know what the question is, but I do know that I didn't 'bring feminism into it' - you did, and I repeat, I am trying to answer you as clearly as I can, but I am not sure what I am being asked.

So the first post on this thread says
but 'assigned female at birth' it is such a ludicrous phrase that if I got such a letter I would write to the head of my NHS trust and ask for it to be stopped.
Women need smear tests, because they are members of the female sex. Sex is not assigned, it is endemic. It is determined at conception, not at birth.
Today's post says
I am not denying anyone anything.
Isn't that a complete contradiction Doodledog?
At the very least you are denying the NHS trust the right to use the language they prefer.

This shows you the biologicaland physiological differences between men and women trisher. Can you dispute it?

FWIW, my take on this is that if women are made aware that male-bodied people will not be allowed on the premises their terror is likely to subside immediately, and I believe that this should be the rule as a matter of course
So you actually believe that traumatised women can have their very real trauma assuaged by a simple assurance, isn't that a bit like negating their experiences and thinking they just need to pull themselves together?
Do you not think that even if they knew no male bodied people were permitted on the premises the sight of someone looking like a man might trigger their trauma?

Trisher why do you persist in this? You've had ample explanations regarding our opinions on this matter. I just don't understand you.

trisher

So the first post on this thread says
but 'assigned female at birth' it is such a ludicrous phrase that if I got such a letter I would write to the head of my NHS trust and ask for it to be stopped.
Women need smear tests, because they are members of the female sex. Sex is not assigned, it is endemic. It is determined at conception, not at birth.
Today's post says
I am not denying anyone anything.
Isn't that a complete contradiction Doodledog?
At the very least you are denying the NHS trust the right to use the language they prefer.

No, I am not denying anyone the right to do anything. I reserve the right to be referred to in English, as the first language of the NHS, and as the language of the UK, which has, for hundreds of years, used 'woman' as the way to refer to an adult female.

The OP's granddaughter is, I assume from the context of the post, an adult female, and as such is also a woman. Expecting our choice of language to be respected is not denying anyone anything. Transmen, who have cervixes and who are biologically female, are not being denied their right to a smear test, which is what this thread is about.

What has intersectional feminism or my definitions of transmen (not to mention the 'wrong sort of women') got to do with it?

As for your attempt to use semantics to pick apart my post of 12.00, words fail me. At no pint have you shown any concern for the women who use refuges - you seem only interested in scoring points for 'proving' that men should be allowed in there.

If you read what I said, rather than what you are telling me I think, you would see that my point is that if women (who are, on the whole, using the facility because of male violence) know that no male-bodied people are allowed in they will be reassured (or if you prefer they will be as reassured as they can be in the circumstances) and less likely to be afraid if they see a transman, who may otherwise be a cause for alarm.

So, you know, not 'the wrong sort of woman', but another woman in need of refuge. But I think you know that.

GrannyGravy13

In fairness I do not think that a trans woman should be allowed into an all female refuge either.

Maybe it’s time for the trans community to get together and find trans refuges?

After all women have fought hard and find raised for years for our safe places.

GG13 I would agree that in theory this sounds like a solution but while over 50% of the population is female less than 1% is trans. We had the numbers to fundraise and create safe spaces it would be much harder with such small numbers.

Doodledog

trisher

So the first post on this thread says
but 'assigned female at birth' it is such a ludicrous phrase that if I got such a letter I would write to the head of my NHS trust and ask for it to be stopped.
Women need smear tests, because they are members of the female sex. Sex is not assigned, it is endemic. It is determined at conception, not at birth.
Today's post says
I am not denying anyone anything.
Isn't that a complete contradiction Doodledog?
At the very least you are denying the NHS trust the right to use the language they prefer.

No, I am not denying anyone the right to do anything. I reserve the right to be referred to in English, as the first language of the NHS, and as the language of the UK, which has, for hundreds of years, used 'woman' as the way to refer to an adult female.

The OP's granddaughter is, I assume from the context of the post, an adult female, and as such is also a woman. Expecting our choice of language to be respected is not denying anyone anything. Transmen, who have cervixes and who are biologically female, are not being denied their right to a smear test, which is what this thread is about.

What has intersectional feminism or my definitions of transmen (not to mention the 'wrong sort of women') got to do with it?

As for your attempt to use semantics to pick apart my post of 12.00, words fail me. At no pint have you shown any concern for the women who use refuges - you seem only interested in scoring points for 'proving' that men should be allowed in there.

If you read what I said, rather than what you are telling me I think, you would see that my point is that if women (who are, on the whole, using the facility because of male violence) know that no male-bodied people are allowed in they will be reassured (or if you prefer they will be as reassured as they can be in the circumstances) and less likely to be afraid if they see a transman, who may otherwise be a cause for alarm.

So, you know, not 'the wrong sort of woman', but another woman in need of refuge. But I think you know that.

My concern for women in refuges and for them continuing to use and feel safe in those places has always been expressed in the same way Doodledog. That I trust the staff who run them to carefully and acurately risk assess and monitor anyone seeking access to a refuge. And to bar from that refuge anyone who presents a threat to its residents.
One of the pities of this whole debate has been the constant undermining of the trust women need to have in refuge staff. No matter what the evidence given by the women running them to parliamentary enquiries or other bodies, it has constantly been posted that they admit dangerous transwomen. How many women have believed this and stayed in situations where they are being abused is unknown But it certainly won't have helped them.