Latest from Mridul Wadhwa

trisher

Because that's not how equality works.

???????

Because that's not how equality works.

Woman IS a term for a sex do you not possess a dictionary?
Would you rather we drop the terms woman and man and just stick to male or female which encompasses every person on the planet?

Of course transmen are female, that's why they're transmen! Do try to keep up, or stop being deliberately obtuse.

You can be called anything you want. Just because the possibility of being called a birthing person is written into a policy it doesn't mean you have to be called it. Just that those who wish to be so, can be if it is on the poster or the heading of a document then it doesn't describe me. Why can't we stay with the terms mother, pregnant woman etc and those that wish to be referred to by another term can request that?

If you wanted to use the terms Doodledog you would still need to add woman or man to trans . But in any case there is already a term for people who do not want to be known as man or woman it is non-binary. And woman is not a term for a sex it is a term for gender.
It isn't that long ago that feminists were arguing we should get rid of the word woman. I remember those discussions.

But Rosie51 I thought you believed transmen are female?

You can be called anything you want. Just because the possibility of being called a birthing person is written into a policy it doesn't mean you have to be called it. Just that those who wish to be so, can be
.
There seems to me to be a lot of protest about people being forced to do things, when the liberal minded amongst us simply want the possibility of inclusive language to be available, and the people who really want to restrict freedom of choice are those crying out that their freedoms are being threatened. It isn't restricting your rights to ask that others have theirs respected.

I'll quote Doodledog here Another straight question - what is wrong with calling adult human females ‘women’, adult human males ‘men’, and those who identify outside of their sex ‘trans’? No detriment intended to anyone - just a use of unambiguous terminology. May we have an answer trisher this would seem sensible. So for cervical screening it would be worded 'women and transmen' for prostate services 'men and transwomen' Nobody is reduced to being defined purely by a body part, and feeling demeaned.

trisher

Buck Angel is entitled to use whatever language he wishes. Why aren't other transmen?

Oh I get it now, transmen and transwomen get to use whatever language they want, it's only female women that have to shut up and put up!

trisher

Why is it that people born female can't choose to identify as the gender they choose, because they feel their body is wrong, and why won't other women listen to their requests for inclusive language and sympathetic policies?

Inclusive language appears to mean dehumanising people of the female sex and reducing them to body parts, the sex organs that differ from the other sex. Perhaps you can link to the inclusive language used for men to include those born female? I refer you to SueDonim's post of 00.37 and the contrast in the Lancet's use of words. I can't recall any use of the terms bodies/people with testicles, scrotums, penises, prostates. Are you not concerned about inclusive language when using the term men?

Buck Angel is entitled to use whatever language he wishes. Why aren't other transmen?

Mollygo if I had to repost all the negative comments about the language which transmen want used it would fill pages. There is a consistent complaint about not being birthing people and many other expressions. As I have said before it isn't all about men some of it is about women but apparently the wrong sort of women. Why not let them change the language and leave them alone?

They can choose to believe anything they like, they cant force other people to share that belief. And that's quite a broad sweeping statement anyway. From what I understand there is currently a group of transmen who are campaigning against the changes to womens spaces and who are campaigning about the importance of biological sex. Buck Angel certainly comes across as gender critical.

People can now choose the gender -they just can’t change sex.
I have a sense of déjà vu.

Why is it that people born female can't choose to identify as the gender they choose, because they feel their body is wrong, and why won't other women listen to their requests for inclusive language and sympathetic policies?

You're right Doodledog will it ever change? Women fought long and hard for rights which are being eroded because some people decided to opt in and claim them for themselves. Women fight and struggle, men demand and seize.

Why is it that people born male get to redefine our word without any consultation with females?
Because they are male? Because many people, including some women, are conditioned to think that males can do what they like, and women will move over and let them? Because historically men tell women, as opposed to asking them?

Rosie You talk such a lot of sense.

Woman is not a gender it is a sex class! Why is it that people born male get to redefine our word without any consultation with females? Can I redefine the name of any other group of people to what suits me, and just inform them of the new meaning? Why will you not respect the women who for a multitude of reasons, social, religious, modesty or safety do not want to share certain spaces with male bodies no matter how much those male bodies might wish to? Male bodies, the ones with prostates, penises and scrotums.
Get rid of gender, it's artificial, outdated and restricting. Stop adhering to stereotypes.

Plus, the danger is far less from attacks by transwomen than from the erosion of the status and rights of women posed by people who don’t even recognise that we exist as a sex
No because they believe the way you are treated most of the time is dependant on your gender, not on your sex. And as they identify as the same gender, that is they are women I fail to see how they can erode or in any other way damage our status or our rights, because they are also their rights and their status.

I agree that incels are a threat (who wouldn’t?), but not that this means that we shouldn’t be concerned about other things. We don’t stop warning our children about the dangers of drowning in rivers because they are more likely to be killed by a car. Plus, the danger is far less from attacks by transwomen than from the erosion of the status and rights of women posed by people who don’t even recognise that we exist as a sex.

It isn’t transpeople who are the problem on the whole - it is their blinkered supporters who never knowingly put the rights of women ahead of the rights of a minority who identify as such.

I do understand why women feel that men who still have male sexual organs are in a different category from women who have female organs. I do not feel that strongly either way.

However, I would point out that the vast number of women who are murdered and raped are not killed or attacked by men who self identify as women.

I think we should be far more concerned about the "incel" movement where women-hating white men believe in the oppression of women and think that it is their undeniable human right to have sex with a woman.

Having said that, I think Mridul Wadhwa, is in the wrong job. A woman seeking support at a rape crisis centre should be offered sensitive and unconditional support and not judged for, or interrogated about, her views on sexuality.

trisher

When I go out into society and see real people I do not stop them and ask "Are you an adult human female?" I don't look at someone and think "Adult human female". I look and think "woman" or "man' or sometimes "I can't tell" . Medically they may be AHFs or not- that's between them and their doctor and has absolutely nothing to do with me. Anymore than what I am has to do with them.

If ‘ medically they may be AHF’s or not’, then you accept that such a thing exists?

The rest is flannel. How you react to people is irrelevant to the question. As is whether their sex has anything to do with you. The point is that we all know what it means, so why is it now considered transphobic to use the term? Also, outside of obvious parameters, we really can’t tell who has a cervix and who doesn’t, and many ‘ALF’s don’t, so using that term to describe people formerly known as women seems perverse.

Another straight question - what is wrong with calling adult human females ‘women’, adult human males ‘men’, and those who identify outside of their sex ‘trans’? No detriment intended to anyone - just a use of unambiguous terminology.

Candyfloss again trisher Words have meanings and definitions, we do not inhabit Humpty Dumpty world where When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Up until recently nobody would question that a woman is an adult human female, in contrast to a mare which is an adult female horse. Like all mammals we are a dimorphic species. Two sexes necessary for reproduction, which is precisely why we only have two sexes. You might not like science but it can't be altered on a whim. Your perception of what sex someone is doesn't matter until we come to single sex places. Then if everyone could be trusted to use the facility that matched their biological sex there wouldn't be a problem.

When I go out into society and see real people I do not stop them and ask "Are you an adult human female?" I don't look at someone and think "Adult human female". I look and think "woman" or "man' or sometimes "I can't tell" . Medically they may be AHFs or not- that's between them and their doctor and has absolutely nothing to do with me. Anymore than what I am has to do with them.

And I am not transphobic trisher, but this doesnt get us anywhere.