Vagina Museum

Check out who has a prostate prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer
Covers all people.

Men.
It helps produce semen.

Covers all people.

This is ridiculous! If the prostate covers all people why do all the health warnings given by prostatecanceruk.org specifically say MEN! They haven't amended their information to say "Prostate havers, come and have a check up regular basis". Unlike the invitation to "cervix havers, come and have check up on a regular basis". Only the female of the human species have a cervix, womb and uterus but the trans rights activists have insisted that the word WOMAN be eradicated from any public health warnings and literature. Really trisher have a word with yourself!

trisher

Check out who has a prostate prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer
Covers all people.

If it covers all people have you had yours checked, trisher?
When would you recommend is the time/age for everyone to get their prostate gland checked?
I know they can enlarge with age.
Should we all be asking our GPs for a PSA test?

Across the UK

I’ve looked at your link, Trisher. It mentions that men and a range of other people may have a prostate. Luckily, anyone with a prostate who isn’t a man won’t be affected by cancer, because the page goes on to say this, which mentions only men. It’s great that we can now identify out of sex-based illnesses!

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men.
More than 47,500 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year – that's 129 men every day.
Every 45 minutes one man dies from prostate cancer – that's more than 11,500 men every year.
1 in 8 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime.
Around 400,000 men are living with and after prostate cancer.

trisher

Check out who has a prostate prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer
Covers all people.

Not quite the 'people with a prostate' you claimed then, but nice try, 3/10 for effort.

trisher

Check out who has a prostate prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer
Covers all people.

Covers all people? I don't think so. I checked out who has a prostate as requested. This is from your link:

Who has a prostate?
men
trans women
non-binary people who were assigned male at birth
some intersex people.

So, 'all people' in your world does not include women? Funny that.

Here's a link about the 'female prostate' - which isn't really a prostate at all, but Skene's Glands, which are named after the male gland for some reason.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202203/medium-649581-1647045118384.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202203/medium-616798-1647045401764.jpg

For those who are still struggling with basic O level biology, these little diagrams may help them to distinguish between the prostate havers and the none prostate havers.

Thanks Chewbacca it becomes clear. If I have a droopy trio hanging down at the front then I likely have a prostate. If I have neat, mostly internal 'bits' then the probability is heavily in favour of I don't.
That is really useful, so much easier than using terms like male or female, man or woman.

It becomes clear, right enough.

Women are not included in ‘all people’. Feminism is no longer about females.
The word ‘woman’ includes men.
The word ‘female’ includes males.
Mothers are ‘people who give birth’.
Safe spaces for women and girls are open to men and boys.
All-women shortlists are open to men.
Women’s sport is open to men.
Biology is disregarded in favour of ‘presentation’ or ‘identification.

Can anyone point to anything about any of this that is not detrimental to women and girls?

People are gaslighted into calling this ‘inclusion’, or ‘intersectional’, and those who stand up to that are strongarmed or blackmailed into doublespeak (eg that it is ‘not right’ or ‘factually inaccurate’ to say that only women have cervixes.)

How have we come to this?

I don’t know how we came to this Doodledog.
I see that Keir Starmer is in support of maintaining safe spaces for women and girls. He adds the law says anyone can self ID as a woman. Confused ?

Iam64

I don’t know how we came to this Doodledog.
I see that Keir Starmer is in support of maintaining safe spaces for women and girls. He adds the law says anyone can self ID as a woman. Confused ?

Iam64
It’s beyond belief but either
he hasn’t realised the stupidity of what he is saying
or
he thinks that all those who self ID as women will respect the rights of females and not attempt to use the safe spaces,
or
he’s like all the other politicians who are afraid in case they get called bigoted or phobic for speaking the biological truth.

Iam64

I don’t know how we came to this Doodledog.
I see that Keir Starmer is in support of maintaining safe spaces for women and girls. He adds the law says anyone can self ID as a woman. Confused ?

Yes, the desperate desire to placate TRAs is producing increasingly contradictory thinking.

I wish someone would have the courage to wind back and say something like ‘We have no wish to discriminate against anyone. Transpeople are fully entitled to the same rights as anyone else, and may, of course, ‘live as’ members of either sex. Nevertheless they cannot escape biology, and will remain legally in the sex-group in which they were born. Let’s stop pretending they can do otherwise’.

When the TRAs had stopped jumping up and down, and the screams of ‘Transphobe’ had subsided, I bet a lot of people would agree with them and be supportive.

Kier Starmer said yesterday that ‘trans women (sic) are women’.

It is reported in The Times.
You are not allowed to comment on the article.

Exactly Doodledog
Instead of completely remodeling society to pretend that people can change sex, we need to remodel it so that trans people are accommodated fairly without creating new dangers for women & girls.

You are not allowed to comment on the article.

It's becoming a theme isn't it? If I had a suspicious mind, I'd be thinking that women are being forcibly railroaded into losing everything they've fought for for the past 100 years and having any voice of dissent silenced.

Does anyone think that all these politicians genuinely believe the TWAW mantra? It seems unlikely, given the disparity in their views on most things, the backlash against Stonewall ‘on the ground’, and given that they are educated intelligent people.

I wonder if it will just take one of them to break away and say that the Emperor has no clothes for the others to follow suit?

I am so sick of inaccurate press reports about cross dressing men.
The defending lawyer called this person 'female'.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/drinker-kicked-out-pub-paraded-26441912

I don't think there are many that do believe the mantra. What I do think is they feel safe enough for them and theirs from the consequences of letting this train run out of control. They don't imagine any females close to them being imprisoned, needing a women's refuge, having to share a hospital ward with a male etc so they can close their minds to the risks.

There is so much public confusion about transpeople especially which word applies to which transition. There are people who think a transwoman is a woman who has transitioned, not a man. For those that understand it's a man living as a woman the belief still seems to be that they surgically transition which we know is an absolute fallacy. The TRAs used to claim that didn't happen because of the expense, long waiting lists blah blah, but of course we know it's because they have no intention of parting with their penis, which is why we have the 'women can have penises too'

Sarah Ditum (standing in for Janice Turner) has written an opinion piece on Labour’s stance.

She mentions that David Lammy (who I have never had much time for) said on LBC that transwomen can have cervixes ;‘following hormone treatment, procedures and the rest of it’.

The comments are turned off for that article too.

But resourceful readers are discussing the TWAW debate in the comments section of other articles.
Mostly naughty, unkind women.

FarNorth it's sickening isn't it, and you were nearly at the end of the article before they mentioned the 'privates' was a penis.

FarNorth

I am so sick of inaccurate press reports about cross dressing men.
The defending lawyer called this person 'female'.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/drinker-kicked-out-pub-paraded-26441912

‘She exposed her genitals’, which we later read is a penis

Cross post with Rosie (both very cross posts)

FannyCornforth I saw that interview. David Lammy prefaced the cervix comment with he thought they didn't have ovaries but could have cervices. He knows as well as the rest of them the utter stupidity of that remark but like the rest he's running scared and needs to grow a backbone. I do live in hope Doodledog that once the pushback starts it will escalate like an avalanche, then we can formulate sensible policies that are fair to all.

How many men know much about female anatomy anyway?