the law as it stands on sex

doodledog

I haven't read all the comments since yesterday but I just want to say this to you.

I am not telling you you aren't kind or accepting.

This is another running theme in your comments to me, like "allies won't answer my questions" when I try my best.

I am just telling you what I believe and care about.. I'm not telling you what to believe or care about

So this idea that you aren't "kind" isn't coming from me, it's coming from you...

Maybe it would help you to think about how you could be more kind, or where this feeling is coming from.

Not everyone cares about being kind, especially if they are angry but it obviously does matter to you. Or at least, it appears that way.

Yes trisher dear, and when some people spot someone in Disneyland dressed as Mickey Mouse, they think that person really is Mickey.
And in special contexts some TW think it Ok to lie.
Elegran I can’t better your words.
No, Trisher, the word "woman" has been the generally understood term in this country for an adult HUMAN woman for over a millenium

If it had been as you said, there would have been no need for a man to demand the change in 2004.

A female adult human is a woman, a male adult human is a man.

Get over it

trisher, you are very fond of dictionary definitions to 'back up' your posts. Can you find one that defines 'woman' with reference to 'gender'?

The OED uses 'adult human female' or (as a generic term) 'the female human being; the female part of the human race, the female sex'.

The idea that 'female' and 'woman' have always meant different things is only in your head.

What does 'presenting as' a woman mean to you? I don't understand what this means, as I reject the idea that gender stereotypes are a useful way of differentiating the sexes.

trisher anyone born with a penis and testicles is a man always has been and always will be.

Women do not have a penis to use your phrase get over it

A female adult human is a woman, a male adult human is a man. Get over it.

Trisher "So what you are effectively asking Smiless2012 is that two words. woman and female which have always been known separately, one as a term for gender, and one a term for sex become the virtually the same word. But I thought that was one of the things the gender critical objected, to the changing of language and the loss of terms."

No, Trisher, the word "woman" has been the generally understood term in this country for an adult HUMAN woman for over a millenium. "Female" is the word for almost ANY creature which reproduces by sexual reproduction between two versions of the species, and is one of that half of the population which has evolved to supply female eggs with an X chromosome. "Male" is the equivalent half of the population of almost any creature which supplies sperm to fuse with the female egg to form a new individual. (Some creatures reproduce sexually with a different system, but the vast majority have two different and complementary sexes. The effects of the sexual differences show up in many differences in bodily differences, but the evolutionary purpose is to produce new individuals and continue the species.)

A female adult human is a woman, a male adult human is a man.

Well woman has always meant in practice the people who present as women and that has always encompassed some women who were not female. Unfortunately dictionary definitions don't always work in real life.
The same statement applies however you want to challenge it. The woman standing next to you may or may not be female. You simply don't know.
Now if you want to change the word and make it mean only females you have a hard road ahead of you because there is no way you can test everyone.
Women encompasses transwomen it always has. Get over it.

Rosie51

trisher So what you are effectively asking Smiless2012 is that two words. woman and female which have always been known separately, one as a term for gender, and one a term for sex become the virtually the same word. But I thought that was one of the things the gender critical objected, to the changing of language and the loss of terms. Now that is a total lie! Have you ever looked at a dictionary, you know those places where you look up a word if you're unsure of its meaning or spelling? Woman: adult human female. Never seen a definition that said, someone who likes to present like a stereotypical female.
Do you think that repeating this often enough will make it true?

Evidently trisher does think so.
The training comes from a prominent cheating TW who has said publicly that
'in some special contexts, we can lie'

Veronica Ivy (a TW) has advocated that 'in some special contexts, we can lie'.

That explains all the avowed ‘truths’ from TW and supporters we hear about on GN.

Or what Smileless said above .

This is what comes of posting at 4.00am. I need sleep.

That should be 'to describe the attributes of a woman, which is a noun'.

Pressed 'send' too soon.

No I will not accept it trisher when it's a matter of requesting a female/woman to carry out personal care. The word female denotes the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

A TW is not a woman and is not female.

Accept it. Move on.

Female is an adjective, to describe 'woman', a noun.

Bugger all to do with 'gender'.

trisher So what you are effectively asking Smiless2012 is that two words. woman and female which have always been known separately, one as a term for gender, and one a term for sex become the virtually the same word. But I thought that was one of the things the gender critical objected, to the changing of language and the loss of terms. Now that is a total lie! Have you ever looked at a dictionary, you know those places where you look up a word if you're unsure of its meaning or spelling? Woman: adult human female. Never seen a definition that said, someone who likes to present like a stereotypical female.
Do you think that repeating this often enough will make it true?

Interesting article in the DM today, by Dominic Lawson, commenting how biological women, objecting to their spaces being hijacked, get much more abuse and aggravation than the biological men who agree with them.

The para about the woman, dying of a brain tumour, is pretty jaw dropping.?

"And when Magdalen Berns — founder of For Women Scotland — was dying, at 36, of a brain tumour, Ivy lectured this feminist critic of the transgender lobby: 'Don't be the sort of person who people you've harmed are happy you're dying of brain cancer.'" Jeez..?

I know it's the DM, and sorry for that lol, but it is an interesting article.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10706037/DOMINIC-LAWSON-women-attacked-trans-lobby-men-far-abuse.html

Smileless2012

The issue of a TW being regarded by some as a woman when it comes to them being in medical facilities is for me, why the definition of 'what is a woman' should never be open for debate.

If common sense is applied and TW are not regarded as women, then the possibility of a female patient requesting she is seen/examined only by another female, would never be faced with a TW.

Would never have to object. Would never have to feel awkward and uncomfortable and would never be in a position of making the TW who comes to attend to her, feel awkward and uncomfortable either.

TW are not women and if a patient requests they are seen/examined only by another woman, the situation would never arise.

It's been said time and time again during these discussions about the importance of language. It is language that enables us to define difference, and when we play around with it, when we apply the word woman to anyone other than a woman,it makes a mockery of everything that women have fought so long and hard for, and continue to fight for.

So what you are effectively asking Smiless2012 is that two words. woman and female which have always been known separately, one as a term for gender, and one a term for sex become the virtually the same word. But I thought that was one of the things the gender critical objected, to the changing of language and the loss of terms.
You have never known if the woman standing beside you is female or not. You will never know. Accept it. Move on.

The issue of a TW being regarded by some as a woman when it comes to them being in medical facilities is for me, why the definition of 'what is a woman' should never be open for debate.

If common sense is applied and TW are not regarded as women, then the possibility of a female patient requesting she is seen/examined only by another female, would never be faced with a TW.

Would never have to object. Would never have to feel awkward and uncomfortable and would never be in a position of making the TW who comes to attend to her, feel awkward and uncomfortable either.

TW are not women and if a patient requests they are seen/examined only by another woman, the situation would never arise.

It's been said time and time again during these discussions about the importance of language. It is language that enables us to define difference, and when we play around with it, when we apply the word woman to anyone other than a woman,it makes a mockery of everything that women have fought so long and hard for, and continue to fight for.

Thank you once again Doodledog.
And Madgran77 and Rosie51 and Smileless2012 and DiamondLily. I reread lots of this thread this morning and I could quote so many of them because they reflect the truth of what is happening to AHF women because of a minority of ill-intentioned -TW and those who refuse to see that where the behaviour of that small group harms AHF women it is wrong.

I don’t accuse anyone in particular of doing things that support those who harm AHF (and by support I mean for example, if you excuse it or drag in other non related examples or post scenarios that ONLY work if you believe that women doesn’t simply mean AHF ).
So when I get the most irritated responses, I wonder if the reader realised that what I wrote reflected what they think, or say or do.

As you say, Madgran, the problem arises if the doctor 'identifies' as a woman, but is actually male.

A male who identifies as such would often have a chaperone on hand, but a female-identifying one wouldn't. As has been discussed on here there is no law to say that a male identifying as female would have to declare it, so the patient has no say in the matter of who examines her intimately.

Like you, DL, I have been examined by male doctors, and I have no issue with that - it is the deception that is the issue. That, and the issue of informed consent.

I would hope that the patient's interests and wishes came first. They should have a right to refuse, but I don't think anyone should be put in that awkward position. Illness or tests makes you feel vulnerable to begin with, no one needs more stress.

I've got a routine mammogram booked for next week. They are held in one of those trailers, which is parked in the car park of our local clinic.

The receptionists are female, and the radiographers are female.

Male partners and husbands are not allowed within this trailer - to preserve the privacy, dignity and safety of the women attending. Quite right. The husbands just wait outside or in their cars.

Therefore, I would not be happy if I attended this appointment, and one of radiographers rocked up presenting as an obvious biological man, and telling me "she" was a woman.?

I've seen a legion of male doctors and consultants over the years - no problem at all. The best Gynaecologist I ever had was a man.

But, they were what they appeared to be - not one biological sex pretending to be another.?

It is possible to request who you want to examine you as in a male/man or a female/woman doctor. The potential problem on that is clearly demonstrated by the discussions and different views on this thread

...as in if someone says they are a woman they are accepted as a woman.

...So if a male doctor says they are a woman and is accepted as a woman by their workplace colleagues then presumably they "fit the request" by a patient to be seen by a woman doctor?

That is a question ...I am interested to know what others think should happen in that scenario. Is it the patient's preference/viewpoint that takes priority or is it the Doctor's self identification that takes priority?

Also, discussion isn’t about winners and losers. Wars are about winners and losers. Discussions should involve listening to what others are saying, whether or not you agree with all (or none) if it.

VioletSky

Also safe spaces still exist and you can still request who you want for examination... No one has taken that from you

Oh?

How are you defining ‘safe spaces’? If you mean places where women can go to be away from men when they have been abused, or places where they know that a male doctor won’t put his hands inside their recently-violated bodies, or places where thirteen year olds can change away from a male gaze, then no - these spaces no longer exist.

If you mean that asking for a female doctor will mean that you get a woman - in the sense that you, as the patient, defines the word, and not a definition imposed on you by those who think they are kinder and know better, then no - that no longer happens.

Those things have been taken away from women, along with the right to be imprisoned without fear of being raped, the right to feel safe in hospital, the right to a career in sport and more. Saying that those things are not happening won’t make it so - the inaccuracy of your statement just weakens your argument.

Why can't you stop?

There are no winners in discussion.
Exactly!

Chewbacca

^It's weird because your beliefs don't invalidate mine...^

Right back at you with that one!

Absolutely!

I (and I’m sure that this applies to others too) am utterly sick of saying that I am not transphobic - that it is not ‘genuine’ transpeople who are the problem - but not being listened to, and instead being told to ‘be kind’, that transpeople just want to live their best lives, that people like VS ‘understand’ and ‘take people at face value’ (implying that I, and those who share my views do not) and being generally misrepresented on these threads. It’s even more galling to be told that it is we who have been doing the misrepresentation, when in fact the reverse is true.

When it turns out that ‘all the transpeople I’ve known’ actually means two or three people, and ‘I’ve listened to people talking’ means ‘I’ve watched training videos’ I want to scream, as this shows, incontrovertibly, that the much-heralded experience of the ‘allies’ on these threads is anecdotal, and slotted into a narrative driven by Stonewall and applauded in much of the media.

Yes, there are a lot of confused kids out there. Yes, there are also some older people who have lived difficult and miserable lives that they feel would be better lived ‘as’ the opposite sex, but they are rare.

Who knows what has caused the sudden rash of people with ‘gender dysmorphia’. Whether it is fashion, some sort of mass hysteria or something more sinister will probably not be understood for years. But regardless of that (and this is not to be dismissive of the trauma these people suffer) the fact remains that others are hijacking their cause to push a misogynistic agenda which gives power to men and takes it from women.

Women are being forced out of sport. We are losing safe spaces. We are losing the ability to talk meaningfully about our bodies and sexual/biological/gynaecological issues. We are being pushed out of sex-based research findings because anyone can ‘identify’ as a woman, meaning that statistics about things that affect us (from gender pay gaps to the way seatbelts are fitted in cars) are meaningless, and we are being told that being a woman means conforming to a set of norms and values that are male-driven, fit a sexist agenda and are socially constructed.

All of those things are happening, and it is not ‘unkind’ to point it out, and it doesn’t mean that we aren’t ’listening’ to others.

None of that validates or invalidates anyone else. It is not about anything or anyone else. It is just the way I (and others) see things.

It is not a personal attack on any posters on Gransnet. It is not twisting their words. It is not misrepresenting anyone, or putting words in anyone’s mouth.

It is exhausting, frustrating and exasperating to have to say it over and over again, though, particularly when one minute it is supposedly ‘invalidating’ others, and the next it is ‘weird’ because it does not.