Assigned female at birth

'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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

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.

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?

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?