Assigned female at birth

Iam64

Could KS have been suggesting trans men have a cervix?
Genuine question.
It’s ludicrous that politicians in the LP are finding it so difficult to give a simple, straight forward response. I watched Yvette Cooper avoiding answering, referring to going down the rabbit hole on the subject. I like YC and on reflection maybe she was right to avoid being headline news and subject to abuse if her answer didn’t suit the transactivists

Of course Starmer was saying transmen have a cervix and of course they do and of course they were assigned female at birth. Some people belive transmen are women. The strange thing is that they are women who do't matter, So their requests for inclusive language are ignored. It's one of the reasons I so distrust the gender critical. If one lot of women can be ignored because of their life choices what's to stop someone deciding another lot can be as well. Women who believe people are women should stand up for them not ignore or denigrate them because their lifestyle choices don't fit with their own.

Doesn’t actually surprise me.
You can put out a survey to produce the statistics you want.
It would be more interesting if it stated the number of people who had actually been affected by allowing what they were asking.
For comparison.
We put out a questionnaire asking parents how they thought we’d done during lockdown. Among the list of questions were
Were you a critical worker?
Does your child have SEND?
Did you have sufficient access to technology?
On the whole, we did well, but the most positive responses were where children had been allowed into school. The least positive were from those parents affected by lockdown who had limited access to technology and weren’t allowed into school. Comments indicated that they felt they had had been unfairly treated and their children disadvantaged because some children had been allowed to be in school and had thus got ahead.
Similarly, it’s easy to agree to something that hasn’t or is unlikely to affect you.
Ill-intentioned tw will probably not even be something you’d consider if you have:
Never been raped.
Never needed a safe haven from an abusive husband.
Never been faced with a fully equipped male in a place where you thought only women were allowed.
Never been attacked by a male that hospitals say didn’t exist despite CCTV and witnesses to the contrary.
Never had your efforts to win cancelled by allowing someone stronger not through training, but simply by their sex to compete.
The good point about that survey is that it implies dangerous males (inc. tw) are, as some posters aver, only a small minority.
The bad point is that using that implication as validity for allowing ill-intentioned males (inc tw) to have free rein, says that because there’s only a small number of victims it’s less important.
Sorry for the long post.

This is a recent YouGov poll taken on "Where does the British Public stand on transgender rights."
The responses in red are where the majority disagree. Responses in green are where the majority agree. The responses are very interesting.

argymargy

@Dickens that’s why I wrote “almost everyone” ? I was just trying to bring us back from the flamdoodle.

'flamdoodle'

... introduced to me just a few hours ago, and I love it! I've already used it against my partner, he's looking it up on the 'net but has only got as far as 'flapdoodle'...

... but understands its meaning already

@Dickens that’s why I wrote “almost everyone” ? I was just trying to bring us back from the flamdoodle.

argymargy

Almost everyone has missed the point here. The invitation needs to say WHY the person has been invited: to detect and prevent cancer. NHS bodies getting involved in gender politics by writing “assigned female at birth” on the invitation is DIRECTLY compromising that effort.

... erm, I did point out that the invite letter should state what a cervix is and why the test is necessary.

The whole point of the smear test is to detect changes in the cells which might indicate a propensity towards them becoming cancerous. And as it's very treatable at such an early stage, it's a crying shame that the letter of invitation should muddy the waters by, as you say, getting involved in gender politics.

ANY test / procedure that might prevent cancer has got to be clear and concise, and the NHS are usually quite good with their literature. This is definitely a 'fail'.

Thanks for the summary of the Marr interview.

@doodledog yes, potentially. Cervical screening is not taken up well in certain communities and demographics, so the message needs to be crystal clear as to why people should attend. This invitation failed to do this, and added a baffling sentence that frankly even I (with my further education and middle class privilege) might struggle to put into context.

So they have wasted the opportunity to persuade (someone who could be wondering whether to bother) and potentially deterred (someone who read that sentence and thought it doesn’t apply to them).

Chewbacca

Well it's a bit of a stretch Dickens but I can see that you like to give the benefit of the doubt! Personally, I think that Starmer is either academically challenged in the biology department or he's terrified that the trans activists/trans allies will scream "transphobe" at him and he'll end up as vilified by trans activists/trans allies as JK Rowling.

When Andrew Marr asked him to expand on his unique slant on human biology, the reply was Well, Andrew, we need to have a mature, respectful debate about trans rights and we need to, I think, bear in mind that the trans community are amongst the most marginalised and abused communities.

When Marr asked; "Is saying only a woman has a cervix transphobic? Starmer compounded his ignorance by adding Well, it is something that shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

Debbie Hayton wrote an article for The Spectator on that interview that included this paragraph:

Shouldn’t be said? It's the truth, for heaven's sake! Only women have a cervix. Just like only men have a prostate. These facts are fundamental to human biology, but the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition thinks we should keep quiet about it.

I might be trans but I am also a secondary school science teacher. If Starmer is genuinely clueless about human reproduction he needs to mug up before his next interview. BBC Bitesize ^for GCSE Biology has a good summary if he needs somewhere to start.^

... well, it was a bit 'tongue-in-cheek' rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't see the Marr interview, nor read the Spectator article - but his (Starmer) reply doesn't surprise me in the least.

I think, judging from some of his other 'appeasement' activities, he's definitely attempting to ingratiate himself with the trans community as well as deflect any criticism from them.

I do, often, give people the benefit of the doubt, but I have no doubt that Starmer is making the fundamental mistake of trying to to run with both hare and hounds, and inevitably getting himself in a pickle as he did here. Science is science and biology is biology, and no amount of shape-shifting is going to alter that.

Thanks for the synopsis of what followed his original, erm, 'observation'... I've rather lost interest in him as a serious 'contender' and have been focusing on Ukraine and not keeping up...

Cross-posted, Iam.

I agree, Galaxy. We are firmly in the world of Doublespeak, and of course I understand the reluctance of politicians to compromise their chances of success by refusing to play along with the ‘marginalised and abused minority’. I just wonder how the ‘allies’ feel about the situation.

argymargy (great username!) do you think it will stop people from accessing screening? I don’t think it would put me off going for tests I want to have, any more than I think that those ‘identifying’ as men suddenly forget they have a female body. It’s all a sop to the sensibilities of those who want what they can’t have, in my opinion. Who could seriously think that they could identify out of biological reality, unless they are so used to getting their own way that they think they control Nature?

Could KS have been suggesting trans men have a cervix?
Genuine question.
It’s ludicrous that politicians in the LP are finding it so difficult to give a simple, straight forward response. I watched Yvette Cooper avoiding answering, referring to going down the rabbit hole on the subject. I like YC and on reflection maybe she was right to avoid being headline news and subject to abuse if her answer didn’t suit the transactivists

Almost everyone has missed the point here. The invitation needs to say WHY the person has been invited: to detect and prevent cancer. NHS bodies getting involved in gender politics by writing “assigned female at birth” on the invitation is DIRECTLY compromising that effort.

Its quite hard to be brave doodle. I often havent been brave. If you look at the 'arc' of JKR s contributions to this subject she wasnt brave at first (or possibly wasnt yet sure of her thoughts and wanted time to look at the facts) now she is like a lion.
If I was leader of the labour party I wouldnt make ridiculous statements as Starmer has done, but I would avoid the subject if it all possible. And as you know its very imporyant to me.

The fact that these intelligent men, both at the top of their profession, feel that they have to make such craven fools of themselves rather than risk being treated like JKR shows just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.

How do the ‘trans allies’ on this thread feel about this? I’m not interested in whether you support Labour policies or in your opinion of either man on a personal level; but in how you feel about the fact that the trans lobby has the power (despite claiming to be ‘marginalised and abused’) to create a situation in which people are intimidated into making such risible statements.

Perhaps he was thinking of the neo-cervix?

The cells of which are different and don't need a smear test according to the available information.


Of course they don't because they are not a cervix at all, just some male flesh rearranged.

Chewbacca

Anything which furthers understanding is worth doing, Dickens. David Lammy - he who thinks a cervix can be created by ‘hormones and things’ - might benefit, too.

Well it's a bit of a stretch Dickens but I can see that you like to give the benefit of the doubt! Personally, I think that Starmer is either academically challenged in the biology department or he's terrified that the trans activists/trans allies will scream "transphobe" at him and he'll end up as vilified by trans activists/trans allies as JK Rowling.

When Andrew Marr asked him to expand on his unique slant on human biology, the reply was Well, Andrew, we need to have a mature, respectful debate about trans rights and we need to, I think, bear in mind that the trans community are amongst the most marginalised and abused communities.

When Marr asked; "Is saying only a woman has a cervix transphobic? Starmer compounded his ignorance by adding Well, it is something that shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

Debbie Hayton wrote an article for The Spectator on that interview that included this paragraph:

Shouldn’t be said? It's the truth, for heaven's sake! Only women have a cervix. Just like only men have a prostate. These facts are fundamental to human biology, but the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition thinks we should keep quiet about it.

I might be trans but I am also a secondary school science teacher. If Starmer is genuinely clueless about human reproduction he needs to mug up before his next interview. BBC Bitesize for GCSE Biology has a good summary if he needs somewhere to start.

Chewbacca

^But I've been informed that there are those who don't know what a cervix is, or whether they^ indeed have one. How true that is, or how many individuals don't actually know what it is must be minute, surely

Well Keir Starmer doesn't know for a start! When Rosie Duffield dared to state the bleeding obvious she not only was trolled online for being transphobic but Starmer said that she "was wrong to say that only women have a cervix."

... I'd forgotten that.

Perhaps he was thinking of the neo-cervix?

The cells of which are different and don't need a smear test according to the available information.

I doubt that you'll have long to wait SueDonim

A letter saying that women need this test would be the best start at communicating with the greatest number of female people.

Both of these are reasons to make information on health care easier and more understandable, not confuse things with obscure language

For those living in abject poverty here in the UK - and I know it exists, I've seen it - or unable to speak English, and no access to the 'net, terminology such as that mentioned by the OP, is unlikely to make anything clearer to them, I would have thought.
What would be more helpful is a simple diagram with a simple explanation to accompany it. Which the NHS actually do for some tests anyway in their accompanying leaflets for certain procedures. I have no language problems and obviously have 'net access - but I also find them very useful because they are simplified and clear.

Mollygo

Thank you so much Doodledog for responding so clearly and so effectively with all the flamdoodle that you quoted in your post at 21:52.

Dickens
An invitation for a cervical smear test is open to anyone who's got one, surely
Yes and for those who don’t know what one is, it’s a valid reason for asking Dr Google.

The term cervix may not be understood by someone who does not speak/understand much English. There are probably more people than we think in this position and especially women. An acquaintance’s mother speaks no English even after more than 40 years in the UK.

My dd, working as a doctor in Yorkshire, has seen many patients who live in abject poverty and for whom internet access would be as likely as flying to the moon. My dd has witnessed a lot of poverty in her life after growing up in developing world countries but was very shocked to see such conditions in our wealthy country.

Both of these are reasons to make information on health care easier and more understandable, not confuse things with obscure language.

Flamdoodle is an excellent word. I hope I have a chance to deploy it very soon!

Definition of flamdoodle
dialectal. : nonsense especially : pretentious nonsense

I can see that word being in constant use on these threads MollyGo. Shame we didn't know about it yesterday.

Mollygo

Thank you so much Doodledog for responding so clearly and so effectively with all the flamdoodle that you quoted in your post at 21:52.

Dickens
An invitation for a cervical smear test is open to anyone who's got one, surely
Yes and for those who don’t know what one is, it’s a valid reason for asking Dr Google.

Yes and for those who don’t know what one is, it’s a valid reason for asking Dr Google.

I've used Dr Google on many occasions when trying to interpret the terminology used on blood test request forms as GPs often don't have the time to explain what they are or why they are asking for a particular test. Either way, GP, Dr G, or the clinic sending the invite, can all be consulted. In fact the 'LGBT Foundation' has a page on this very subject and explains clearly what a cervix is, who's likely to have / not have one, and why, and also explains what a smear test is and why you need it.