Staying on topic- threads in general

VioletSky

Ah, that old chestnut lol

You seem determined to take offence. As far as I can see, nobody has said you are a hater of women. When I point that out you 'lol'.

Do you want to be considered as such? You seem to be saying that you don't, and that anyone doing so would be being unfair, but you seem offended that nobody was doing anything of the kind.

There's no pleasing some people. Lol.

Just trying to reason with you

But nobody was being unreasonable with you, VS ?. You seem to have a persecution complex.

No but what I said wasn't really about me but how any trans ally might feel reading things not directly said to them.

I just can only speak for myself and so I did

Are people being reasonable towards me now for simply saying how I feel reading these threads?

I wonder how women might feel hearing that Male rapists are in female prisons, I wonder how women must feel when they are at risk of loosing their jobs for stating biological reality, I wonder how women must feel when men compete in sports against them. We all have those feelings violet because it's a clash of rights.

There are 3 points there

I've never thought it's OK to have people who rape women in female prisons.

I think using people's pronouns is just polite. Probably not an offence to make mistakes, deliberately doing it is wrong.

I do think the issue around sports is a problem

So what now?

VioletSky

No but what I said wasn't really about me but how any trans ally might feel reading things not directly said to them.

I just can only speak for myself and so I did

Are you speaking for yourself or any trans ally?

Actually, it doesn't matter. Nobody was having a go at you., or at any trans ally. Trisher posted a rant, and I replied to her. Other people have backed up my post. Nobody has called you a hater or anything else. Chill.

VioletSky

There are 3 points there

I've never thought it's OK to have people who rape women in female prisons.

I think using people's pronouns is just polite. Probably not an offence to make mistakes, deliberately doing it is wrong.

I do think the issue around sports is a problem

So what now?

Galaxy's second point was women losing their jobs for stating biological reality ie you can't change sex. That has nothing to do with pronoun usage. Do you think people can actually change their biological sex?
The issue around sports is that males shouldn't be entering female categories.

Ah OK, so nobody ever referenced mysogyny or hating women, everyone else agrees with you and I shall just chill.

I am already a pretty laid back person, I'm not sure I have a higher level of chill

If what you've said isn't really about you, why are you yet again making posts that seem to be more about you than the discussion in hand VS?

And I wasnt really expecting an answer on those points I was pointing out that in these discussions everyone feels under attack, unless like me you have developed a very thick skin and couldnt give a monkeys

Doodledog

*Could you try stopping saying this. I realise anything which contradicts your trans-bad. women -always good attitude is too complicated for you to understand.*
There is no need to be rude, I understand English perfectly, thanks. What I don't understand is comments such as 'they can claim' to have a cervix/penis because they think they have.' You could help me out with that if you want to be helpful, and I'm sure that others would be pleased to hear an explanation too.

It is absolutely nothing to do with women I would have exactly the same complaint about a man who chose to call himself a transwidower.
The point that people are making is that you want women to adapt the language to suit transpeople, but object when they adapt it to suit themselves, even when they are the 'wronged' parties. That is when you come across as biased against women.

Try addressing the language problem
? I have been trying to do this for days, but unless we are given your definitions it is extremely difficult.

Trans is an accepted term for transitioning-changing gender. Trans therefore is used in transwomen and in transman. How can someone then be a transwidow unless they are perhaps someone who is transitioning?
Because it is the fact that their husbands have transitioned that has caused them to cease to exist as men, which means that the women have, in effect, lost their husbands, as widows do.

I've been berated for supporting the term "person with a cervix" because it enables health information to be addressed to transmen. Apparently they are not worth considering (is it because the word 'man' appears in their ID?)
If it enables info to be given to transmen, you are assuming that they wouldn't realise that the more usual term, 'women', would apply in their case, even though in your view, they are women because they claim to be. That being the case, why can't you accept that changing the language will potentially prevent the information being given to some women. This is the crux of the issue - it is ok for women to be overlooked, even though there are far more women with cervices than transwomen, but you 'support' the change because it includes men.

Told information about prostate cancer isn't addressed to transwomen- which it actually is as a little research revealed.
I can't help you there.

So try stop judging things with prejudice and open your mind. I realise it isn't simple and it requires thought and it is much easier to cry "woman hater" when someone challenges your preconceptions but perhaps a little thought might reveal there is slightly more to it.
Backacha, as the young ones say. I have never come across so much prejudice as on these threads, but you only see it as prejudice when anyone dares to say anything that questions the right of transpeople to ride roughshod over women. When you pre-judge posters who tell you they aren't transphobic, when you pre-judge that a trans family, simply by dint of being trans, are 'wonderful, loving, and similar, you don't see it as prejudice at all. Closed-mindedness is an understatement. If we arrive at the conclusion that you are a misogynist, we give evidence (see above). You shout 'transphobe', but refuse to define your terms or explain your more peculiar statements, such as the one mentioned above, where transmen can claim to have a penis because they believe they do, and transwomen can claim to have a cervix because they claim that. All we know about your definition of 'woman' is that it is someone who 'presents' as such, and who shares your politics. How can we understand how anyone can think themselves into being something that is not defined.

My mind is reasonably open, but unless you explain what things like that mean, I am going to struggle, as to me it seems, erm, impossible.

I'm not going to repost each point but here goes.
1. If you allow women who are not widows to claim they are because they "feel" like one then unless you are setting different rules you should allow a transwoman to feel she has a cervix and a transman to feel he has a penis. It's called equality.
Personally I don't think either is applicable but there you go.
2. I simply want language to remain what it is an understandable and with proper prefixes, suffixes etc. Trans means transitioning. Actually that covers 3&4 as well
5 I have posted many times that anyone registered as a woman in the NHS will automatically be called for cervical cancer screening. Transmen because they may be registered as men were missing out. It was therefore decided to advertise to ensure they got the information and the term "person with a cervix" was used. This nothing to do with transwomen. It isn't a barrier for immigrants or women speaking other languages because all women will be called for screening. It simply addresses a need.
It has been stated before that prostate cancer information isn't aimed at transwomen. Well it is.
AS I said before I haven't prejudged a trans family unlike many who condemned it.
I've already covered the if I say I'm a widow I am and the penis and vagina issues. I'm not the one trying to have it both ways.
I don't think anyone can call themselves a transwidow because they feel like it. So I don't have to think transwomen have vaginas and transmen have penises just because they say so. You however are allowing women to say they are something they're not but won't allow transpeople the same consideration.

If I discovered after 41 years of marriage that my husband was without my knowledge identifying as and presenting himself, in my absence as a woman, therefore resulting in the end of our marriage, I would identify as a transwidow and would uphold my right to do so.

I said one thing lol

I didn't snowball it into something else

Galaxy

And I wasnt really expecting an answer on those points I was pointing out that in these discussions everyone feels under attack, unless like me you have developed a very thick skin and couldnt give a monkeys

<gets into bed with galaxy>

One of the first transexuals to tell their story in the UK was writer Jan Morris who, as James Morris, had been married to Elizabeth, fathered five children, been in the army and became known as the man who reported the conquest of Everest in 1953.

After changing sex, which involved various medical and surgical procedures he became Jan.

Elizabeth and Jan continued to live together although they had divorced, but were able to remarry as a same sex couple when that became legal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Morris

Golf widows aren’t strictly widows!

In that case everyone being equal you won't mind transwomen saying they are women will you? Anything else would be discrimination .

varian

One of the first transexuals to tell their story in the UK was writer Jan Morris who, as James Morris, had been married to Elizabeth, fathered five children, been in the army and became known as the man who reported the conquest of Everest in 1953.

After changing sex, which involved various medical and surgical procedures he became Jan.

Elizabeth and Jan continued to live together although they had divorced, but were able to remarry as a same sex couple when that became legal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Morris

Jan Morris was a remarkable women.

I don't think anyone minds anyone saying anything but people are concerned about changes to law and changes to language that affects born female minority groups

There is a point at which being inclusive becomes narrow minded

I agree JaneJudge perhaps some people need to determine what inclusive actually means.

'Not excluding any of the parties or groups involved in something'.

JaneJudge

I don't think anyone minds anyone saying anything but people are concerned about changes to law and changes to language that affects born female minority groups

There is a point at which being inclusive becomes narrow minded

I mind people calling themselves transwomen and asking for it to be taken seriously

I think the point about "golf widow" is it is always used ironically. No one expects to be taken seriously about it. It's also two seperate words. Transwidow uses the trans prefix..

Smileless2012

I agree JaneJudge perhaps some people need to determine what inclusive actually means.

'Not excluding any of the parties or groups involved in something'.

Exactly so transwidows can believe they are widows and be called such
Transwomen can say they have vaginas/cervixes.
Transmen can claim they have a penis.

After all if you feel like it you are it.

trisher

JaneJudge

I don't think anyone minds anyone saying anything but people are concerned about changes to law and changes to language that affects born female minority groups

There is a point at which being inclusive becomes narrow minded

I mind people calling themselves transwomen and asking for it to be taken seriously

I think the point about "golf widow" is it is always used ironically. No one expects to be taken seriously about it. It's also two seperate words. Transwidow uses the trans prefix..

Sorry fast finger syndrome it should be transwidows asking to be taken seriously.

Logically speaking a transwidow shoud be a transwomen whose husband has died.