Assigned female at birth

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

You know perfectly well that saying 'it is a statement of fact' is goading, trisher.

As to which women are negatively impacted - a statement like that negatively impacts those who are aware that sex differences are there at conception, and are not 'assigned'. Many people won't care, but many others are offended at the idea that someone else 'assigns' them a 'gender'.

As you know.

Given the small number of transmen compared to the number women in the population, it makes no logical sense to default to the language that suits the transmen. If women are not negatively impacted by language, why do you see transmen as being negatively impacted?

Which do you see as 'the wrong type of women' in this scenario?

Ilovecheese

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

So it's the semantics we are arguing over. Well although the sex may be observed it is perhaps the medical record that records the child's sex and that medical record assigns a sex to the child. Interestingly some countries now permit designations other than just male or female on birth certificates. In Australia
A March 2018 discussion paper produced by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia recommended doing this on the basis that:
it is preferable to avoid conflating information about a person’s biological sex (recorded at birth) with information about a person’s gender identity (which cannot be known at birth and only becomes apparent at a later time when the child is able to form and articulate their own gender identity)
Medical records still record the person's sex.

Doodledog

You know perfectly well that saying 'it is a statement of fact' is goading, trisher.

As to which women are negatively impacted - a statement like that negatively impacts those who are aware that sex differences are there at conception, and are not 'assigned'. Many people won't care, but many others are offended at the idea that someone else 'assigns' them a 'gender'.

As you know.

Given the small number of transmen compared to the number women in the population, it makes no logical sense to default to the language that suits the transmen. If women are not negatively impacted by language, why do you see transmen as being negatively impacted?

Which do you see as 'the wrong type of women' in this scenario?

Well I think transwomen are women and transmen are men Doodledog So I'm clear that everyone who identifies as a woman should be treated the same.
But some people believe transwomen are men and therefore that transmen are women, but women whose requests for inclusive language are ignored by other women so the wrong sort of women.
I've also posted earlier in this thread how terms of abuse such a mysogynistic and hating women have been used to myself and other intersectional feminists, so we are the wrong sort of women as well.
Oh and transwomen are the wrong sort of women as well.
I just wonder how many groups of women can be ruled out .

I just wonder how many groups of women can be ruled out .

The only thing that can mark what the right type is are a bodies genomes trisher. Nothing can alter them; nothing can change them, no chemical intervention or external presentation - they are what they are. And that's been said over and over again. They are immutable. Period.

Chewbacca

^I just wonder how many groups of women can be ruled out .^

The only thing that can mark what the right type is are a bodies genomes trisher. Nothing can alter them; nothing can change them, no chemical intervention or external presentation - they are what they are. And that's been said over and over again. They are immutable. Period.

But no one has checked mine as far as I know. I have given birth but I don't think they checked my genomes. Does that mean I don't qualify as a woman again? Do I have to have them checked to make sure? I'm apparently a bad woman because I'm an intersectional feminist am I now a bad woman because my genomes haven't been checked?

You haven't answered the question, though.

If there is a group of people which comprises two subsets, and one of those subsets comprises 99% of the total number and the other makes up 1%, and if language is deemed to 'negatively impact' one or other of these subsets, which would you choose to impact?

Or put another way, would you put the rights of transmen over those of women in this circumstance, and if so, why?

I know there are a few "pseudo" trans women.. using that identity to to behave inappropriately towards women. But as trans figures are tiny compared to the total population that must be an even tinier number. Live & let live I was born with female sexual organs & have lived my life as a woman& identify strongly as a woman. Does that give me any rights to deny other people a different experience?

No.

But nobody is saying that you should have that right, are they?

Doodledog

You haven't answered the question, though.

If there is a group of people which comprises two subsets, and one of those subsets comprises 99% of the total number and the other makes up 1%, and if language is deemed to 'negatively impact' one or other of these subsets, which would you choose to impact?

Or put another way, would you put the rights of transmen over those of women in this circumstance, and if so, why?

I think language should be inclusive (I do remember when any reference to a person in general in any document always used "he") and therefore I would use language which encompassed both so if some wanted "woman" and some"assigned at birth" I'd use them both.
One person's rights do not need to take precedence over another's. That's the patriarchal conditioning kicking in.

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.

Does that give me any rights to deny other people a different experience?

Not at all. But then other people's experiences shouldn't impact negatively on the rest of society, particularly those members of society who have vulnerabilities i.e. women who need the safety and sanctuary of safe places such as refuges, hospitals and prisons. Nor should those experiences impact in such a way that the word "woman" is removed from health advisory literature, feminine products etc. Nor should those experiences impact on competitive sports where women are being told that their competitors are biologically bigger, stronger and more muscular. Nor should it impact on crime reportage so that the stats are skewed to demonstrate that men are committing fewer sexually motivated crimes whilst "women" are committing more.

Other than that, I agree, live as you like.

Just asking, is goading one of the things some posters will get you banned for?

It seems to depend on the interpretation of goading

Well put Chewbacca.

@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.