Gender? Sex? Help me out please.

MOnica, like you I rarely agree with Dominic Lawson but on this article I do.
No doubt someone will be along to tell us this confirms we are right wingers, members of the patriarchy and maybe even evangelical Christian’s of the American variety, you know those who tote guns

Just another label to add to terf, transphobe, radical feminist, bigot, "unkind"...... I can cope Iam64!

Still really funny (or not) that the ones who are doing the most damage to the trans cause are the ill-intentioned trans and their fans.
If, as I’ve been told on GN, there are thousands of trans and we only hear of the ones who cause damage and those who claim it’s not damage, it’s their right, it’s obvious who is making life difficult for trans and it’s not me!

I've just spotted this over on GN and thought that it raised some very obvious, but thought provoking questions that could lead to some interesting answers; particularly from trans allies but everyone who might have an opinion:

- Why are the new euphemisms for 'female'—’bleeder,’ ‘uterus-haver,’ ‘menstruator’—so degrading to women?
- Why are trans demands so lopsided, with much demanded of women and very little demanded of men?
- Why do ideologically-noncompliant women take so much more heat from trans activists than violent men?
- Why are we deferring to the gender identity claims of male rapists and serial killers?
- Why are women’s movements being co-opted?
- Does anyone abuse self-id policies?
- What’s the difference between a ‘transwoman’ and a man who says he’s a woman?
- How is it fair for someone like Lia Thomas to demolish women’s swimming records?
- What's the difference between Rachel Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner?
- What’s the difference between a ‘transwoman’ and a man who says he’s a woman?
- How is it fair for someone like Lia Thomas to demolish women’s swimming records?
- What's the difference between Rachel Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner?
- What was wrong with what JK Rowling said?

Chewbacca, you didn’t add
Why aren’t men known as ejectors, sperm-producers, erection havers, penis or scrotum-havers. prostrate-problem havers, dangly-bit havers, stand up-p***ers, potential-rapists?
Probably because they think that doesn’t encompass their whole meaning, as the word ‘men’ does.
They don’t want to be named for their bodily parts, or functions or sexual organ issues.
So why think women should be?

I don't know, but having needed a full hysterectomy at 30 (lumps on ovaries), I would be a bit miffed at being classed as a bleeder, uterus haver, or menstruator.....none of those things actually apply to me.?

I'm just a female, born that way.

But, for me, the good news is that Kings Health Authority (London) are obviously not buying in to all this "correct jargon".

I got a letter today addressed to MRS "DiamondLily", inviting me for my yearly mammogram, as one is due.

They used my proper title, no one suggested using anything else, and that's fine.?

Nothing about being a bleeder/assigned as female, or that people with chests can take part.

DiamondLily
But, for me, the good news is that Kings Health Authority (London) are obviously not buying in to all this "correct jargon".

I got a letter today addressed to MRS "DiamondLily", inviting me for my yearly mammogram, as one is due.

They used my proper title, no one suggested using anything else, and that's fine. ?

Nothing about being a bleeder/assigned as female, or that people with chests can take part.
Thank heavens for some common sense in evidence. Hope your mammogram turns out OK.

If I demonstrate I'm a demonstrator. If I menstruate I'm a menstruator as for bleeder reminds me of the song Only Women Bleed which I've just listened to and the words are about as non-pc as you can get. Surely somebody should have banned it (He slaps her once or twice) Etta James version www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQvC8ZgWcJA

As I say, I'm not a bleeder, menstruator, or cervix person, so I'm just a female, born that way.

All good.

Mollygo

DiamondLily
But, for me, the good news is that Kings Health Authority (London) are obviously not buying in to all this "correct jargon".

I got a letter today addressed to MRS "DiamondLily", inviting me for my yearly mammogram, as one is due.

They used my proper title, no one suggested using anything else, and that's fine. ?

Nothing about being a bleeder/assigned as female, or that people with chests can take part.
Thank heavens for some common sense in evidence. Hope your mammogram turns out OK.

Hope so.. I hate those things...draping myself over that machine is a pain, as my health/mobility problems make it a real issue.

Hey, ho, though, on we press.

Well I'm not a menstruator any more. Nor are a lot of women. I'm all for using words which break the taboos and restrictions which have been attatched to the functions of a woman's body for far too long. There's nothing wrong with menstruating and it is bleeding.

There's nothing wrong with menstruating and it is bleeding says trisher. Thank you for allowing me to do so without doing anything wrong.
No.
And if you want to announce it to the whole world on a piece of paper then you have the right to do so. You just don’t have the right to compel anybody else to, Even though you seem to want to be appointed the ruler of what is allowed to be said and what isn’t.

Of course there is nothing special about being a menstruator or bleeder, but do you want to be defined by one small part of your body and something that may happen for only half of your life?

I am a women, in every part of my body and have been so since birth, I am not an airfix kit to be taken apart and stuck together with the constructor deciding which bits to include and leave out.

M0nica

Of course there is nothing special about being a menstruator or bleeder, but do you want to be defined by one small part of your body and something that may happen for only half of your life?

I am a women, in every part of my body and have been so since birth, I am not an airfix kit to be taken apart and stuck together with the constructor deciding which bits to include and leave out.

I don't really mind I've been defined as a lot of different things in my life most of the definitions didn't cover all of me, just the part that happened to apply at that time. When I had my first child I was an elderly primigravida. Didn't feel at all old and didn't really feel pregnant at first.
If someone wants to sell me shoes they tend to look at my feet and discuss them. If someone wants to sell me sanitary products they may refer to me bleeding What's the difference?

Trisher, you can call yourself what you want, nobody’s denying you that right.
You could be equally generous and allow those who don’t want your definitions to use ‘women’ preferably without having to add AHF so people don’t pop up with ‘women can cover lots of different humans’ .
You could be, but I guess you won’t.
After all, what would you talk about if you didn’t keep repeating the same thing, or adding a twist or deviation to make it seem different?

Mollygo

*Trisher, you can call yourself what you want, nobody’s denying you that right*.
You could be equally generous and allow those who don’t want your definitions to use ‘women’ preferably without having to add AHF so people don’t pop up with ‘women can cover lots of different humans’ .
You could be, but I guess you won’t.
After all, what would you talk about if you didn’t keep repeating the same thing, or adding a twist or deviation to make it seem different?

You have my absolute support to be referred to as "Woman" whenever you wish Mollygo but transmen and non-binary people may bleed and bleeder will cover them so use woman and bleeder if you wish.

Everyone bleeds, if cut, but I assumed this meant bleeding as in menstruating?

If not calling someone a "bleeder" means everyone.

The only people that bleed, with menstruation, are women, born as female..

*That’s nice trisher*???
You have my absolute support to be referred to as "Woman" whenever you wish. I knew you couldn’t be generous enough to say all those who wish to be called women without adding another word.
As I said, *That’s nice trisher!*???

what would you talk about if you didn’t keep repeating the same thing, or adding a twist or deviation to make it seem different?

Oh the irony! This is what the gender critical do on these threads ad infinitum. To the point where even those of us who actively support trans rights give up on contributing because of the repetition.

Well said DiamondLily.

Hi GagaJo. Nice to see you adding your posts. Perhaps you like to answer some of the points raised by Chewbacca earlier today, or even answer my question.
If women are required to be known by body parts or bodily functions because some people don’t understand the meaning of ‘woman’, then, why aren’t you campaigning for men to be known as ejaculators, sperm-producers, erection havers, penis or scrotum-havers. prostrate-problem havers, dangly-bit havers, stand up-p***ers, potential-rapists?
Look forward to hearing from you or trisher on this matter. After all, many men don’t know they have a prostate.

GagaJo

*what would you talk about if you didn’t keep repeating the same thing, or adding a twist or deviation to make it seem different?*

Oh the irony! This is what the gender critical do on these threads ad infinitum. To the point where even those of us who actively support trans rights give up on contributing because of the repetition.

It's like Groundhog day without the funny bits

GagaJo

*what would you talk about if you didn’t keep repeating the same thing, or adding a twist or deviation to make it seem different?*

Oh the irony! This is what the gender critical do on these threads ad infinitum. To the point where even those of us who actively support trans rights give up on contributing because of the repetition.

What I see is those of use who actively support feminism having to repeat ourselves because our posts are twisted, or because we are asked the same questions over and over again, however often we answer them. Our questions (eg 'what is a woman') are ignored, so again, we end up repeating them in the hope of an answer.

It's really not a complicated issue - people are either male or female. There are male and female gametes, and everyone has one type or the other. Gender is a social construct, made up of norms which shift over time, culture and place, but are largely based on sex differences. People can choose to conform to whichever set of these they prefer, or can mix and match - nobody cares. Most people do mix and match, and 'conform' to different gender norms at different times.

Nobody cares, on the whole, unless those who have chosen to conform to norms that they think don't match their sex, and conclude that this means they need to change sex, rather than just cock a snook at the norms. Again, nobody cares much, unless they then start to insist that everyone else should be defined by gender and not by sex, and that traditional sex-based categories (eg for sport, access to safe spaces, in statistical data etc) should be ignored, and the language changed to accommodate their so-called 'gender preferences'. When this happens, feminists, who have often spent decades fighting for the right of women to have safe spaces, single-sex categories of various types and who understand the importance of statistical data in setting social policy, get annoyed, and start fighting back.

That's it, really. It's pretty simple, so there are only so many ways it can be said, however much the situation is twisted and mangled to make it seem more complicated.

Doodledog???

That's it, really. It's pretty simple, so there are only so many ways it can be said, however much the situation is twisted and mangled to make it seem more complicated.
I think you've tried every way there is Doodledog, and never yet had a straight answer to any question.