Assigned female at birth

But it's not a fact though. Sex is observed at birth or even before, not "assigned"

Iam64

Of course the term PC is pejorative. That doesn’t mean that challenging the impact on women of the negative impact of some aspects aimed at making life easier for trans people

So which women are negatively impacted by the term "Assigned female at birth" on a cervical screening letter. It's just a clear statement of fact and inclusive.

Of course the term PC is pejorative. That doesn’t mean that challenging the impact on women of the negative impact of some aspects aimed at making life easier for trans people

Well I think probably you are being a bit unreasonable. The term PC is a pejorative term in my eyes. Used when people want to denigrate others efforts at breaking down barriers or inequalities & trying to make, often, minority groups feel less "other". The opposite of PC would be PI. I.e. it's OK to say or do things that might distress, upset or harm someone.

I don't see any harm in phrasing the letter that way. I know two young people, identified as female at birth but who live as young men. They have not had any surgery yet. I was identified as female at birth & still identify as female. It does not bother me.

Exactly Mollygo

What is so difficult to understand?

There are two sexes in the human world, it is impossible to change one’s chromosomes, our sex is in every cell in our body, like our DNA this cannot be changed.

The majority of the trans community know and accept this, it is an extremely small percentage of violent, vociferous trouble makers that are causing no end of problems and some politicians and political parties are falling over themselves to accommodate them.

Gender is a social construct as you well know trisher. Sex is immutable. It’s not so difficult even if you didn’t do GCSE biology, unless you are secretly a politician?

Mollygo

Love your point scoring attempt, but it failed so quit the flamdoodle.
I didn’t say they had to I said they could. They are women. So they don’t need to tick anything.
It not discriminatory to say a woman (AHF) is a woman (AHF), but it is discriminatory, judgemental, uncaring and non-feminist to say they aren’t.

Where exactly have I said anyone is or isn't female Mollygo as I understand it this discussion is about gender. The fact is that gender identification and designation isn't as simple as some people like to pretend so when things get difficult they resort to sex differences.

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. There is no need to explain that this is because the patients are female, or to refer to how they 'choose to identify'. It is the insistence on lumping women in with the gender nonsense that I find offensive - I do not have a 'gender' - I am female - a woman.

If a transman wants to be referred to as male, that's fair enough, but there is no need to refer to either sex on a smear invitation, any more than there is such a need on an invitation to come for a mammogram. It feels like doing so is simply making some sort of point.

Is there a problem with that, trisher?

Love your point scoring attempt, but it failed so quit the flamdoodle.
I didn’t say they had to I said they could. They are women. So they don’t need to tick anything.
It not discriminatory to say a woman (AHF) is a woman (AHF), but it is discriminatory, judgemental, uncaring and non-feminist to say they aren’t.

So the only transmen who could access or be called for cervical screening would be those capable and willing to tick a box Mollygo If that was reversed and it was women who had to tick a box would that be OK?
Of couse it wouldn't. It would be discriminatory just as asking transmen to do it is.

t says, “if you want to explain to me how ignoring or banning terms which would encourage transmen to get tested for cervical cancer isn't judgemental or discriminatory I'd love to hear”

Now trisher, even whilst you are being discriminatory and judgemental (I’ve already explained how) it looks as if you are also implying that transmen are not very bright as well. Not very nice, or caring or repectful.
Where did I ignore or ban terms?
Indeed I said that I’d vote for trans or any other like minded women (AHF) to call themselves bleeders, chest-feeders or cervix-havers as long as they re*s*pected the rights of those women who don’t want to be known by their body parts or functions, but simply as women (AHF).
Presumably, transmen have to register with a health provider to get any sort of messages. Unless they have registered as males, which is surely illegal, they will be registered as female, so why not give them a box to tick to say call me a bleeder or a cervix-haver or simply a transman.
You can even put up posters that say women, transmen, bleeders, chest feeders, cervix havers, and whatever else they come up with, will be called for cervical screening. That would cover the 99% of women who wish to retain their right to be called women and not exclude the other 1%, many of whom probably do not wish to be called by any of those body parts or functions. Unless you wish to deny women that right and it appears that you do!
Discriminatory and judgemental in the extreme!

Mollygo

Trisher, you say. “That isn't caring or feminist, or anything else other than judgemental and discriminatory’” but that’s exactly how what you post comes across. your words make it seem that trans are:
Uncaring because they don’t care if females are upset by the patriarchy, which includes all males.
Judgemental that women dare to say they deserve safe treatment which might mean away from males and administered by females.
Discriminatory because it makes it look as if they think women should not be allowed what you want to allow transwomen.
I think you do most transpeople a disservice in making them appear that way. The few I know are appalled by the actions of the ill-intentioned trans and how it reflects on them.
Not feminist -oh dear. I’m a feminist who doesn’t require your additional title to justify my feminism. I support women’s rights to safe spaces, freedom from having to compete with cheats for jobs or in sport.

I’m happy to support any trans except those who by their ill-intentioned actions attempt to override women’s rights.

I’d vote for safe spaces for transmen or transwomen, but they may need to work to get them, just as women have done for years.

I’ve explained my views of abused transmen, even your favourite tall, burly, muscular, deep voiced transmen arriving at women’s refuges and said that, unless they persisted in saying they’re a man, I’d allow them in.

I’d vote for trans or any other like minded women (AHF) to call themselves bleeders, chest-feeders or cervix-havers as long as they re*s*pected the rights if those women who don’t want to be known by their body parts, but simply as women (AHF).

Mollygo what I actually said was
So effectively those complaining and calling for these terms to be banned/not used/whatever are saying a whole section of people can be left at risk simply because they don't like the language. That isn't caring or feminist, or anything else other than judgemental and discriminatory.
Now if you want to explain to me how ignoring or banning terms which would encourage transmen to get tested for cervical cancer isn't judgemental or discriminatory I'd love to hear.
I'm not speaking for trans people by the way (how could I) simply as someone who believes equality and fair treatment for everyone regardless of status is one of the keystones of feminism.

GrannyGravy13

Females should not have to change their language and medical terminology ti accommodate less than 1% trisher

How about the 1% just accepting medical/biological terminology?

Thank you, GG13.

I strongly suspect that I am being led a dance here, so if you don't mind, I will echo your answer.

Females should not have to change their language and medical terminology ti accommodate less than 1% trisher

How about the 1% just accepting medical/biological terminology?

Doodledog
I struggle to understand your stance on this
Those who 'choosing to identify' as something else do not lose their linguistic abilities, and will still have as much understanding of whether or not they have a cervix as they did before the identification started. If they have 'chosen to identify' out of their sex class at an early age, they will pick it up as they mature. They are not going to be 'left at risk' because the rest of the world doesn't adapt its language to fit around their identification choices.
then
My point is that transpeople should be on the same playing field as women. The information given to women to invite them for smear tests is applicable to transmen every bit as much as to women. Both have cervixes or they wouldn't have been invited.

But they manifestly are not "on the same playing field" if you refuse to use language which recognises their status.

Sorry I typed "use" by mistake. I do hope my post is still understandable.

GrannyGravy13

trisher you posted earlier that less than 1% of the population is trans yet you are vociferously advocating for 99% of the population to change to accommodate the trans community ?

I'm not asking you to change anything just use that the language used will accommodate everybody. If you wish to have the word woman included next to assigned female at birth that would be fine.

*So lets get this straight there may be people who need very clear information and advice, because of language difficulties, learning disabilities, cultural differences or some other specific circumstance but none of these people will be transmen because transmen don't lose their linguistic abilities (what if they were low to begin with?) and will pick it up as they mature (what if the cancer is by then untreatable?).
Isn't this the very essence of discrimination? We are aware you exist but we refuse to change anything to accommodate your needs. As I said previously not someone to be accounted for- the wrong sort of woman!*
Nice try, but again, you are responding to what you think I think, but not what I posted (which is what I actually think).

You are moving the goalposts all the time - we started with transpeople being invited for smears, then moved to transmen needing refuges, and now we are considering transmen with learning difficulties who don't speak English well.

I didn't say that none of the people who are of low educational ability, have English as a SOL, or are already mature would be trans. Why do you think I did?

My point is that transpeople should be on the same playing field as women. The information given to women to invite them for smear tests is applicable to transmen every bit as much as to women. Both have cervixes or they wouldn't have been invited. If the information is not clear, it should be clarified for both groups, but not to the extent that it is no longer applicable to women, who make up the vast majority of the people who will attend. AFAIK, the NHS send out information in different languages, and anyone with special educational needs would have things explained to them. I assume that this applies regardless of how people 'choose to identify'? If not, then it should be.

You really are looking to pick up on something tiny in my posts to pounce and shout 'discrimination!!' You'll struggle, as I am not remotely discriminatory about this.

For avoidance of doubt, I believe that transmen should be invited for smears, and that any and all accommodations for communication difficulties should apply to them as well as to women. I do not, however, feel that women should be assumed to have been assigned a gender at birth, as this does not happen - sex is observed at birth, or earlier if the expectant mother has an ultrasound scan in pregnancy.

trisher you posted earlier that less than 1% of the population is trans yet you are vociferously advocating for 99% of the population to change to accommodate the trans community ?

So effectively those complaining and calling for these terms to be banned/not used/whatever are saying a whole section of people can be left at risk simply because they don't like the language.

It's not the language itself - it's what that language represents. And what it represents is that women are being phased out.

Not to mention the women who come from religions and cultures that forbid them from sharing a space with a man who is not a relative. Maybe our trans allies could suggest what should happen to them?

Trisher, you say. “That isn't caring or feminist, or anything else other than judgemental and discriminatory’” but that’s exactly how what you post comes across. your words make it seem that trans are:
Uncaring because they don’t care if females are upset by the patriarchy, which includes all males.
Judgemental that women dare to say they deserve safe treatment which might mean away from males and administered by females.
Discriminatory because it makes it look as if they think women should not be allowed what you want to allow transwomen.
I think you do most transpeople a disservice in making them appear that way. The few I know are appalled by the actions of the ill-intentioned trans and how it reflects on them.
Not feminist -oh dear. I’m a feminist who doesn’t require your additional title to justify my feminism. I support women’s rights to safe spaces, freedom from having to compete with cheats for jobs or in sport.

I’m happy to support any trans except those who by their ill-intentioned actions attempt to override women’s rights.

I’d vote for safe spaces for transmen or transwomen, but they may need to work to get them, just as women have done for years.

I’ve explained my views of abused transmen, even your favourite tall, burly, muscular, deep voiced transmen arriving at women’s refuges and said that, unless they persisted in saying they’re a man, I’d allow them in.

I’d vote for trans or any other like minded women (AHF) to call themselves bleeders, chest-feeders or cervix-havers as long as they re*s*pected the rights if those women who don’t want to be known by their body parts, but simply as women (AHF).

Doodledog

*So effectively those complaining and calling for these terms to be banned/not used/whatever are saying a whole section of people can be left at risk simply because they don't like the language. That isn't caring or feminist, or anything else other than judgemental and discriminatory.*
This is at best disingenuous.

Those who 'choosing to identify' as something else do not lose their linguistic abilities, and will still have as much understanding of whether or not they have a cervix as they did before the identification started. If they have 'chosen to identify' out of their sex class at an early age, they will pick it up as they mature. They are not going to be 'left at risk' because the rest of the world doesn't adapt its language to fit around their identification choices.

So lets get this straight there may be people who need very clear information and advice, because of language difficulties, learning disabilities, cultural differences or some other specific circumstance but none of these people will be transmen because transmen don't lose their linguistic abilities (what if they were low to begin with?) and will pick it up as they mature (what if the cancer is by then untreatable?).
Isn't this the very essence of discrimination? We are aware you exist but we refuse to change anything to accommodate your needs. As I said previously not someone to be accounted for- the wrong sort of woman!

Those of us were involved in fundraising in the 70’s, then continued involvement in one way or another are very clear about the varied groups of women and children seeking refuge.
The vast majority are fleeing horrific domestic abuse, most of it perpetrated by men.
Why should these spaces be lost to the women and children who need them? Yes some are terrified and traumatised, in need of a space they know men are not included.

So effectively those complaining and calling for these terms to be banned/not used/whatever are saying a whole section of people can be left at risk simply because they don't like the language. That isn't caring or feminist, or anything else other than judgemental and discriminatory.
This is at best disingenuous.

Those who 'choosing to identify' as something else do not lose their linguistic abilities, and will still have as much understanding of whether or not they have a cervix as they did before the identification started. If they have 'chosen to identify' out of their sex class at an early age, they will pick it up as they mature. They are not going to be 'left at risk' because the rest of the world doesn't adapt its language to fit around their identification choices.