The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

Rosie51 I particularly liked the reference to the influence that Mumsnet has had on bringing this whole debacle into mainstream media and public discussion; thank God that there are so many intelligent, strong and robust women who question everything and accept nothing being given as a fait accompli.

Doodledog 're your post at 14.52; there is an easy and straightforward remedy to this: if someone finds that being called out on their passive aggressive, manipulative and vaguely threatening posting style is upsetting them; maybe they could consider altering that behavior pattern and then the rebukes and challenges would stop. Everyone happy.

It certainly keeps this matter in my mind, zthough I doubt it’s what VS has in mind.

It’s just hearing again and again how much harm has been done by some trans and TRA to both AHF and other trans. Keep posting.

Rosie51

Chewbacca thanks for the link, that's an excellent article by Janice Turner. With the rising tide of women's voices, the political clout we hold and the ever widening realisation of what this madness is doing, there is hope on the horizon.

If this forum, MN, and other media are representative, then I think biological women are waking up to what biological men, identifying as women, are doing, aided and abetted by their supporters.

And, the majority are not happy, and so, the pushback has started.?

I have seen another new word used for women "cishet" which I don't understand and looks even more made up than "cis".

Chewbacca thanks for the link, that's an excellent article by Janice Turner. With the rising tide of women's voices, the political clout we hold and the ever widening realisation of what this madness is doing, there is hope on the horizon.

Chewbacca

I doubt that trans want a term specifically for themselves Diamond; I think that the appropriation of the word woman is more to do with male power, and the subjugation of women, than it is to find a descriptor for themselves. The aggression, name calling, attacks and vilification that women have faced, just by trying to reclaim the word "woman" has been clearly demonstrated on this thread alone, let alone in the TRA community.

As Janice Turner says in her article today, no one asked women how they felt about having their name taken away from them and having a sub term added; no one asked women how they felt about having the word woman removed from medical, biological and commercial terminology so as not offend a tiny minority of men. But it's our own fault: as it says in the article : we were looking the other way and we were so certain that, as we were being kind and inclusive to all, that no one would shaft us over. We were wrong. We were manipulated. And I find the continued pro trans manipulative behaviour on this thread unpalatable.

Yes, I hold my hands up to "looking the other way" - not for any reason, just I suppose life takes over, and there's been so many "hashtag causes" that I thought this latest one would run itself down a bit.
My only thought was that the young actors made famous by JKR should be grateful to her, not cancelling her.?

My son and family live in America, and I knew more about the struggles with all this over there, than over here.

But, thanks to this forum, and other sources, I have finally wised up to what is actually going on here, and I don't want to be shoved aside by men - which is what this is.?

And, I don't want my daughter or granddaughter undermined either.

Shame though - I used to think Stonewall were very good, with their "gay" campaigning, and I used to like a lot of what Owen Jones had to say about politics.

Still, you live and learn.?

VioletSky

doodledog

I'm not going to argue about what I meant because I am a 100% knowledgeable expert on what I mean. So I have saved you the trouble and reported my own comment for consideration by gransnet.

It's not right for you to tell me what I meant and use that to insult me unfairly

That's 1 comment, 1 thread and 1 of my comments.

Let's hope it stays that way

Oh, for heaven's sake! How many times?

You are not saving me any trouble - as I said, I had no intention of reporting the post. For one thing, that is not my style, and for another I would prefer it to stand so that others can make their own judgement.

All you are doing by continuing to bring it up is keep the matter in people's minds, but I assume that was your intention?

When Romans refered to "CisAlpine Gaul" it had a touch of "the Gaul you reach first on this side of the Alps when you travel out of Rome "

Using "cis" as a descriptor of women who have no intention of travelling the road of transition doesn't follow this shade of meaning. They are staying where they are and as they always have been - just women . It is those who have travelled out of their own gender who need a way to define themselves.

There have always been those who are not comfortable in their own sex, and wish to live otherwise. However, in the past that was almost universally an informal arrangement, undertaken by people whose aim was to "pass" (unless of course they were very rich and/or famous, and took up an ostentatiously Bohemian lifestyle)

The legal position was that they remained the same sex or gender as they had started out. Now they have been given always the right to legally take on the sex/gender they would like (subject to some formalities, which are likely to be removed soon) This would be fine, except that it complicates the rights of people who are sticking with the same sex they have always had.

It also complicates data and statistics when trans people are included in them indistinguishably from the people who have always had the same sex/gender. You can't assess demographic needs if the demographics are mixed up. If, for instance, you record violent crimes by trans women (who used to be men before they transitioned) as crimes by women, you skew the figures. This is particularly the case when those trans women have taken no steps at all to change their physiology or their endocrinology, and are to all intents and purposes still men. This is not a good outcome for anyone, man or woman, male or female. Flawed data leads to flawed decisions.

The website fairplayforwomen.com/ (The original post in this thread is to their excellent explanation of the Equality Act of 2015) has an article on violence in men and women at fairplayforwomen.com/female-sex-offenders-and-women-committing-sex-crimes-why-cant-the-media-get-it-right/

I agree it's to do with power Chewbacca and just for the hell of it because they can.

IMO we were so certain that, as we were being kind and inclusive to all, that no one would shaft us over sums it up perfectly. As I posted earlier, we thought it would be a two way street, not one way with a dead end at the bottom of it.

A year ago, even 6 months ago, I'd have agreed with you Diamond, but in the past few months there has been a huge change in attitude, especially in the reportage of the damage that Stonewall has done to women, gay and lesbians. A year ago the BBC would never have dared to interview the likes of Veronica Ivy/Rachael McKinnon/Rhys McKinnon and given him the grilling that Nick Robinson did and there have been others too that have challenged the trans fairy tale. The press are more proactive in pointing out where sexual predators are hiding behind their "gender confusion" as a means to avoid facing the consequences of their actions. And when we see thatnthe likes of Owen Jones, arch bully, manipulator and misogynist getting his card marked - I know we're reclaiming some ground!

And I find the continued pro trans manipulative behaviour on this thread unpalatable.
So do I, except worryingly I also see it as anti-female and the thought that there are more like those pro trans on here makes me feel ill.

I doubt that trans want a term specifically for themselves Diamond; I think that the appropriation of the word woman is more to do with male power, and the subjugation of women, than it is to find a descriptor for themselves. The aggression, name calling, attacks and vilification that women have faced, just by trying to reclaim the word "woman" has been clearly demonstrated on this thread alone, let alone in the TRA community.

As Janice Turner says in her article today, no one asked women how they felt about having their name taken away from them and having a sub term added; no one asked women how they felt about having the word woman removed from medical, biological and commercial terminology so as not offend a tiny minority of men. But it's our own fault: as it says in the article : we were looking the other way and we were so certain that, as we were being kind and inclusive to all, that no one would shaft us over. We were wrong. We were manipulated. And I find the continued pro trans manipulative behaviour on this thread unpalatable.

Chewbacca

Janice Turner has written an excellent article for the Times "Women Won’t Be Silent as Our Rights are Stolen".

.........Gradually women realised they’d been looking the other way while lobby groups, especially Stonewall, were secretly urging government bodies, charities or businesses to redefine womanhood and strip our rights. They were easy to persuade: the default expectation is we must consider others’ feelings even at our own cost. Women were astonished that, for example, Girl Guides allowed male teenagers to self-identify into female overnight accommodation. Who signed that off? Yet women had nowhere to debate these extraordinary changes.......

The url has a share token so you can read it in full and it will make you smile!
go.skimresources.com/?id=470X756&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mumsnet.com%2FTalk%2Fwomens_rights%2F4530864-Women-won-t-be-silent-as-our-rights-are-stolen-Janice-Turner-in-the-Times&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Farticle%2F6f623338-bcef-11ec-94e5-2197dead5942%3FshareToken%3D0cfe030d7779bd004d25b840fdbed8b7&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=7876e14e921460d6407655d372519c8b&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B-1%5D

I also think that threats of "cancelling" and abuse, from TW and their cheerleaders, have a part to play in the way this is gradually encroaching on biological women and their long-standing position and rights.

Celebrities are frightened to object to all this, when they see what happened to JKR, and others like her. Ok, she's rich and famous enough to bat it off - others aren't.

Some politicians are frightened of causing offence, or upsetting the ones that shout loudest, and losing votes.

And others just leap on any bandwagon to stay in with the current "cause", whatever it might be..

VS
Or keep accusing me of abusive behaviours even though it must be blatantly obvious I would find that upsetting.

And you evidently don’t care that you are upsetting others? Oh dear.

You aren’t setting a good example of your inter or whateversectional feminism, or . . . Maybe they’re all like that. Certainly those who claim to be prefixed-feminists on here all seem to show the same disregard for AHF feelings.

doodledog

I'm not going to argue about what I meant because I am a 100% knowledgeable expert on what I mean. So I have saved you the trouble and reported my own comment for consideration by gransnet.

It's not right for you to tell me what I meant and use that to insult me unfairly

That's 1 comment, 1 thread and 1 of my comments.

Let's hope it stays that way

This is what's so disconcerting. "we must consider others' feelings"; sensitivity, inclusivity, respect and kindness should be a two way street, but all too often we find ourselves on a one way street with a dead end at the bottom of it.

We are insulted and mocked for accepting the biological truth that a man cannot be a woman and a woman cannot be a man.

Stating that "transwomen are women" creates the problem trisher and does nothing to solve it.

Perhaps TW and TM could "invent" themselves a descriptor, which is unique to them.

TW are not biological women, TM are not biological men, and a unique title would avoid any confusion or arguments, and save biological women from feeling they are being shoved aside by people who are, actually, biological men.

The new title could added to hospital records, police, prison records etc., so that treatments/monitoring could be adjusted accordingly.

Janice Turner has written an excellent article for the Times "Women Won’t Be Silent as Our Rights are Stolen".

.........Gradually women realised they’d been looking the other way while lobby groups, especially Stonewall, were secretly urging government bodies, charities or businesses to redefine womanhood and strip our rights. They were easy to persuade: the default expectation is we must consider others’ feelings even at our own cost. Women were astonished that, for example, Girl Guides allowed male teenagers to self-identify into female overnight accommodation. Who signed that off? Yet women had nowhere to debate these extraordinary changes.......

The url has a share token so you can read it in full and it will make you smile!
go.skimresources.com/?id=470X756&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mumsnet.com%2FTalk%2Fwomens_rights%2F4530864-Women-won-t-be-silent-as-our-rights-are-stolen-Janice-Turner-in-the-Times&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Farticle%2F6f623338-bcef-11ec-94e5-2197dead5942%3FshareToken%3D0cfe030d7779bd004d25b840fdbed8b7&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=7876e14e921460d6407655d372519c8b&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B-1%5D

VioletSky

doodledog just report me, I've explained what I meant, you can absolutely see it was a reply to what was being asked about one trans individuals behaviour.

It's also very general because it says crappy people exist everywhere, even in the group I feel most comfortable in because no one's perfect. So report me.

Or keep accusing me of abusive behaviours even though it must be blatantly obvious I would find that upsetting

You are wrong.

No. As I said, I will leave your comments there so that others can decide for themselves what they think you meant.

If you don't understand it is the context those words were used in and the history behind them that makes them offensive then you need look at black history and gay history. And actually both words are used by the people who belong to the communities involved and are not seen in that context as offensive. Cis has very little history. It was coined as a way of distiguishing between transwomen and natal women. If some women find it offensive that's fine they can ask for it not to be used. But not all women think that. Some of us just find it an easier term to use if we need to distinguish. I'm a cis-woman. Easy!
Not accurate, though, trisher . The history goes back to Roman times, not gay or racial history. 'Cis' and 'trans' are Latin prefixes, meaning 'near' and 'far' - or more accurately 'on the Roman side' or 'on the other side'. So Transylvania means 'on the other side of the forest', and Cisalpine meant on the Roman side of the Alps, etc. The terms were not 'coined as a way of distinguishing between trans and natal women'. If you are going to lecture us on etymology, at least get it right?

I find it interesting that those who adamantly refuse to stop using the term cis when describing a woman - even when they've been repeatedly informed that it's an offensive, unacceptable and upsetting term; complain that being called out on their rude and disrespectful behaviour is blatantly obvious something that they find upsetting and won't be engaging with and demand an apology! I completely agree with Doodledog's post @ 05.35 because it's articulated my thoughts precisely, but no doubt I will be challenged on that too.

Like Galaxy I also don't use "she" to describe anyone of the male sex; I will not collude with the delusion that human beings can change their sex.

If anyone finds this offensive, I would suggest that they ruminate on how women are feeling about having their very identity removed from them and shoved into a sub group called cis. We don't need to have a new word to simply differentiate what a woman is; it's males who want to be something they can never be who need to find new terminology to ascribe to themselves. The word WOMAN belongs to me.

Thanks
Doodledog
Cis' is a dog whistle. A signifier that the user subscribes to patriarchal trans ideology, so it is useful in that sense, I suppose.
It mis-sexes people, as there are only two sexes, and the term implies that there are more. Insisting on its use is akin to bullying or coercing people into using the bully's preferred terminology - in fact, IMO it's worse, as not recognising someone's sex is far more fundamental than not recognising the set of socially constructed norms to which they choose to adhere.

trisher

Mollygo Transwomen are women. Women are not the patriarchy.

No
Trans Women Are Transwomen.

trisher

Nannee49

And what is this trans supporters' obssession with labels? As if labelling something changes anything? It's just pure semantics.

No need for labels at all. Women are women. Transwomen are women. Problem solved!

There's a typo there. Women are women. Transwomen are transwomen .

'Cis' is a dog whistle. A signifier that the user subscribes to patriarchal trans ideology, so it is useful in that sense, I suppose. It mis-sexes people, as there are only two sexes, and the term implies that there are more. Insisting on its use is akin to bullying or coercing people into using the bully's preferred terminology - in fact, IMO it's worse, as not recognising someone's sex is far more fundamental than not recognising the set of socially constructed norms to which they choose to adhere.

The thing I find most offensive is when someone asks for it not to be used, but a TRA carries on regardless. It's a bit like me refusing to refer to a trans (or non-binary) person as whatever they like. In neither case is the reality changed, but I respect their wishes out of 'kindness' (or as I think of it, as basic respect), and wish people would do the same regarding 'cis'.

I can understand someone who has fooled themselves into thinking that clothing, powder and paint has made them look like the woman they wish to be being hurt to be called by the pronoun for their actual sex. It must take time to get ready, and deliberately pointing out that the look hasn't been achieved seems to me insensitive at best. It's a bit like pointing out to an older woman that a bit of hair dye and botox doesn't make anyone think she is young, or calling a man in a toupee 'rughead'.

Referring to me as a 'cis woman' OTOH, and worse, pecking my head if I don't do likewise, is different. As with 'gender pronouns', it doesn't change the material reality, but the very term is ideological, and its use drags the conversation into a belief system that is at odds with science and biological reality.

So no more mention of Cis Women then?

Just Women.

Great. Concensus at last.

Nannee49

And what is this trans supporters' obssession with labels? As if labelling something changes anything? It's just pure semantics.

No need for labels at all. Women are women. Transwomen are women. Problem solved!