Assigned female at birth

If you read what I said, rather than what you are telling me I think

At no point 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.

Sorry Doodledog, your logical and well considered comments are wasted on posters who are only interested as you put it , in ‘point scoring’ rather than women’s (AHF) safety and biological truths.

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.
Yes, it is a shame. If Stonewall and similar pressure groups hadn't made it so difficult for refuges to have a blanket 'female only' policy, maybe the numbers of women deterred from going into refuges would have been smaller.

Mollygo

*If you read what I said, rather than what you are telling me I think*

At no point 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.

Sorry Doodledog, your logical and well considered comments are wasted on posters who are only interested as you put it , in ‘point scoring’ rather than women’s (AHF) safety and biological truths.

Sorry Mollygo I tend to lose all repect when a poster tries to pick holes in my language and my fast finger faults. Mascuine may not be in your dictionary but I'm sure masculine is. Still what was that about point scoring?

trisher I think there is less than 300 women's refuges in the UK. That would equate to, less than 3 trans refuges then being available. That would involve travelling far distances and leaving behind any support systems that are in place.

What seems more sensible to me is that refuges like the one I attented which had separate secure floors and separate living spaces on each floor could accommodate trans people.

Those who were there with me were not all victims of domestic violence from partners (there is also domestic violence in same sex reltionships). There were women who were pregnant and homeless, women who had been abused by parents and thrown out, women who had recently left the Foster care system and women who had left a religion that was constraining or trying to force arranged marriage on them.

So I think that could open things up more and choosing the right spaces to have and operate refuges may help

If Stonewall and similar pressure groups hadn't made it so difficult for refuges to have a blanket 'female only' policy, maybe the numbers of women deterred from going into refuges would have been smaller.

And maybe those women wouldn't have to be "re educated" before they receive their support. The ignorance and arrogance of transactivists and their allies is having a particularly devastating effect on womens services in Scotland.

This thread is about whether women AHF have the right to be called women and given the sex at birth as female, rather than having other titles thrust on them because it suits transwomen and others like you. I’ve never denied those who wish to be called bleeders or cervix-havers the right to ask to be called that.
trisher I’m not flattered that you ever repected me so I won’t miss it.
If I ever had respect for you, reading your point scoring, which involves allowing men to cheat in competitions, denying AHF the right to safe spaces by producing increasingly bizarre scenarios, even when I have said what I would do, also saying that women as AHF are not entitled to use women as their preferred title because men and patriarchal feminists don’t like it means I could no longer could respect you and I’m not interested whether that bothers you or whether * or* presses the delete button again.

VS there are small numbers of men who experience domestic violence or sexual assaults.
Help is available for those men and it doesn't include being housed in women's refuges.
Likewise, help for transwomen (men) can be given which doesn't include being housed in women's refuges.

Staff of women's refuges should never be transwomen.

Another solution is to stop calling these places 'women's refuges' and make clear that they are now all-sex refuges.
Then women would be under no illusions about what they might expect there.

Doodledog

*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.*
Yes, it is a shame. If Stonewall and similar pressure groups hadn't made it so difficult for refuges to have a blanket 'female only' policy, maybe the numbers of women deterred from going into refuges would have been smaller.

So my transman needing a place in this "female only" refuge Doodledog where would he go?

Mollygo

This thread is about whether women AHF have the right to be called women and given the sex at birth as female, rather than having other titles thrust on them because it suits transwomen and others like you. I’ve never denied those who wish to be called bleeders or cervix-havers the right to ask to be called that.
trisher I’m not flattered that you ever repected me so I won’t miss it.
If I ever had respect for you, reading your point scoring, which involves allowing men to cheat in competitions, denying AHF the right to safe spaces by producing increasingly bizarre scenarios, even when I have said what I would do, also saying that women as AHF are not entitled to use women as their preferred title because men and patriarchal feminists don’t like it means I could no longer could respect you and I’m not interested whether that bothers you or whether * or* presses the delete button again.

This thread is about a notice sent out from an NHS trust in an attempt to reach as many people as possible who might suffer from cervical cancer and need a smear test. This has been criticised because it used the word assigned rather than observed and because it doesn't specifically use the term woman. This in spite of the fact that more and more young people designated/observed /assigned (or any other word you care to use) female at birth choose to identify either as non-binary or as transmen as they grow older. 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.

'Your' transman who is female bodied would go to a refuge for women, I guess. The point is, though, that a female-bodied transman is not likely to cause a problem. It is male-bodied people who are much more likely to pose a risk to other clients, and be the cause of distress to women fleeing male violence.

Having said that, these places are charities, funded and founded by women, and IMO it is not appropriate to impose rules on them.

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.

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.

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!

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).

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!