Assigned female at birth

Cross-posted, Iam.

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...

@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).

Thanks for the summary of the Marr interview.

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'.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Sorry fast finger should be believe and don't!

Your understanding of gender critical and transmen is wrong though trisher as I have pointed out about a thousand times.

Galaxy

Your understanding of gender critical and transmen is wrong though trisher as I have pointed out about a thousand times.
???

If one group of women can be rendered unable to discuss their interests, and have their rights to safely, privacy and dignity eroded, another lot can be as well. It's one of the reasons I so distrust TRAs, particularly the handmaidens of the patriarchy.

There’s no need to take such a sneary, unpleasant tone trisher.

Your disdain for gender critical feminists is clear. You’re understanding gender critical is wrong, or IMO it’s wrong. I M istrust transactivists . Aggressive, abusive men in a frock who threaten women with verbal threats, like the ‘you’ll be raped to death’. I struggle to understand why some of their supporters don’t see they’re contributing to the silencing, the pushing of women and girls to the margins.
Handmaidens of the patriarchy (thanks for that Doodledog)

I would say it is transmen who have become my main area of concern because of what it happening with detransitioners and the links with autism and trauma in women and girls. I have spent 30 years working with children with autism I cant tell you how many times the systems let them down.

Iam64

There’s no need to take such a sneary, unpleasant tone trisher. Well said, but you may well be cancelled. Oops, sorry, deleted.

I do hope not Mollygo.

trisher trans men see themselves as men so it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks as long as there are those who are willing to allow them to be their authentic selves while still making sure they receive the right medical care.

Best to have regular health checks which or whatever ‘ bits ‘ we have or have assigned , reassigned .
And Instead of using medical/ clinical terms perhaps use a preferred nickname .
I believe ‘ little John Thomas ‘ used to be popular back in the day .

Bridgeit making people laugh would probably be half the battle won lol

??

t @12:18
Of course Starmer was saying transmen have a cervix.
The thing is he didn’t, and if he didn’t, why didn’t he?
Lack of biological knowledge?
Fear of attack of the sort that JKR, Mya Forstater and Kathleen Stock suffered for telling the truth?
Why leave such an easy answer unused, leaving him open to ridicule and his party open to criticism?

Sorry, [email protected].

If you don’t recognise yourself as a “cervix haver” you are unlikely to attend your smear test. Cervix is an uncommon word describing a hidden body part so unless “woman” is used to invite women to screening those with learning disabilities, dyslexia, English as a second language or lower education attainment are excluded. Some of them might then die of cervical cancer. I don’t think that is ok.

thecritic.co.uk/women-wont-wheesht/