Tell me how this is right?

I don't care if people question whether or not I'm empathetic. However I do object to being likened to Boris Johnson and his lies. I'm sure that calling or even suggesting that a fellow Gransnetter is a liar is against the site rules. Even if it's not, some of you have resorted to personal insults and, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, this debate is over.

I am not really aiming it at you VQ, I dont really know what else to do with it, if people were insisting that the earth was flat I would feel the same. The man pictured above is a man. I dont know what to do with those who insist he is not. In the same way if they said he was a fish I would say that's a lie.

If I said Paris is the capital of Germany it would be perfectly reasonable for people to say that's not true.

In ovotesticular disorder (sometimes also called true hermaphroditism), an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue. The ovarian and testicular tissue may be separate, or the two may be combined in what is called an ovotestis. Affected individuals have sex chromosomes showing male-female mosaicism (where one individual possesses both the male XY and female XX chromosome pairs) - I would say that is intersex

Let's put it like this, many of you on these threads object to the term cis-woman and would not use it, some of us find it a useful way to define and identify those who are born women. But I would not insist or deny anyone the use of the term. I have no idea what the prizewinner chooses to define female as, I can see that many of you are offended by her use of the term, but if you expect respect to be given to your preferences for terms you have to allow and respect other people's.

I would strongly object to any definition of female which related to reproductive purposes, there are many natal women who will never fulfill that role.

Personally I'm adjusting, which I think is a good thing. I can see that there may be a medical need to define the differences between trans women and natal women, but I really can't see that in every day life anyone can or should sort women into separate groups and it really cannot be done without imposing a set of standards which can only damage all women.

As far as the woman with a beard is concerned , she has polycystic ovaries a condition which affects 1 in 10 women, so she isn't quite the rarity some seem to think.

Most women with polycystic ovaries spend a lot of time trying to get rid of excess hair, and it can cause a lot of distress. Why am I bothering?

Wheniwasyourage

Most women with polycystic ovaries spend a lot of time trying to get rid of excess hair, and it can cause a lot of distress. Why am I bothering?

Of course they do. That is the whole point. Women are defined by social standards which have no relation to their actual physical characteristics, so they try desperately to fit in with those standards. One of which has been expressed on this thread namely "Women do not have beards. " Well sorry but some do. This vividly illustrates the point that trying to separate or divide women into natal and transwomen is virtually impossible to do without causing harm to any woman. who simply chooses not to conform to some preset standard.

IYO G&T. IYO.

Re objecting to cis women. At least we’re consistent. We know woman is an adult human female so we don’t need a qualifier, whether to confirm that we’re female or to let people know that we aren’t.

I’m glad you’re adapting. I remember many of your statements that you can’t tell the difference. Whether others think they can, or not, the problem still comes back to the actions and demands of TRA, and the males (TW) who claim to be female for nefarious purposes. How does anyone adapt to that?

The two women I know personally with polycystic ovaries (obviously female because they have ovaries) work really hard to keep their faces hair free. They don’t pretend to be something they aren’t and it’s unkind to imply that they do.

I’m glad you object to definitions that relate to the reproductive system. If it wasn’t for the actions and demands of some TW that would never have happened.

It isnt impossible, if you struggle with it I am sorry. Here we go again
Corbyn is a man
Thatcher was a woman
Julian Clary is a man
Mary Beard is a woman.

Glorianny I would strongly object to any definition of female which related to reproductive purposes, there are many natal women who will never fulfill that role. all females are of the design that is meant to supply the large gamete in reproduction. If they are not able to supply that gamete that doesn't stop them being female it just means something went wrong with that development. Nobody is suggesting that if a woman doesn't reproduce she is less of a woman. Just as humans are designed to be binocular and bipedal, being born with the absence of an eye or leg does not invalidate them as human, or invalidate the fact, it just indicates that something has gone wrong.
It is the fact of the two gametes, large immotile and small motile, that means we have two sexes, female and male. It's the same for every organism that reproduces by sexual reproduction. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this.

I can see that there may be a medical need to define the differences between trans women and natal women but that definition will be the one based on the gametes they are designed to produce regardless of whether or not they actually do, it is the only way to do it.

Expressing these kind of gender versus biological sex contents was what got JK Rowling cancelled.

It’sa hot topic, and can get very polarised

I’m glad that biological male but female gendered swimmer has been banned from women’s sports.

We need to see more biological female sports follow suit like cycling.

Self id gender assignations are understandable for those in that position, but make bad laws for half the population.

Women only, and men only spaces need to be preserved.

Trans gendered facilities / sports need to be provided separately to support those that need them.

Expressing these kind of gender versus biological sex comments was what got JK Rowling cancelled.

Mollygo

IYO G&T. IYO.

Re objecting to cis women. At least we’re consistent. We know woman is an adult human female so we don’t need a qualifier, whether to confirm that we’re female or to let people know that we aren’t.

I’m glad you’re adapting. I remember many of your statements that you can’t tell the difference. Whether others think they can, or not, the problem still comes back to the actions and demands of TRA, and the males (TW) who claim to be female for nefarious purposes. How does anyone adapt to that?

The two women I know personally with polycystic ovaries (obviously female because they have ovaries) work really hard to keep their faces hair free. They don’t pretend to be something they aren’t and it’s unkind to imply that they do.

I’m glad you object to definitions that relate to the reproductive system. If it wasn’t for the actions and demands of some TW that would never have happened.

Sorry I have not implied that any woman is pretending to be something they are not. I was told "Women don't have beards" Well they do and many of them work hard to get rid of them. Which means the unkind (I'd say insulting) statement is not mine because the logical outcome of "Women don't have beards" is therefore anyone who has a beard is not a woman. So presumably if all methods of hair removal disappeared we'd have to reclassify all those polycystic women.

Galaxy

It isnt impossible, if you struggle with it I am sorry. Here we go again
Corbyn is a man
Thatcher was a woman
Julian Clary is a man
Mary Beard is a woman.

So the world is now composed of 4 people????

Alex Drummond is a man whether he shaves or not.
I actually have battled with unwanted hair all my life ( I could describe how a doctor suggested I had POS but that would be another subject - unacceptable treatment of patients) anyway.
Whether I remove my hair or not I remain a different sex to Alex. If you classify me as the same sex as Mr Drummond you have re classified me anyway.

Sorry I have not implied that any woman is pretending to be something they are not. I was told "Women don't have beards" Well they do and many of them work hard to get rid of them. Which means the unkind (I'd say insulting) statement is not mine because the logical outcome of "Women don't have beards" is therefore anyone who has a beard is not a woman. So presumably if all methods of hair removal disappeared we'd have to reclassify all those polycystic women.
The woman you linked to upthread has a full and luxurious beard, which is unusual. Most women with POS have facial hair, yes - but not a full beard. Anyway that is not the point, and I don't believe you think it is.

'Gender' is a term that encompasses social norms ascribed to sexes, and the norm is for women to be hairless. As I keep saying, one of the reasons why I don't believe that people can 'know/think they are in the wrong gender' is that these norms change over time and place. Conventions such as shaving armpits or the 'bikini area' are a case in point. It has not always been commonplace to remove hair in these areas, and in many parts of the world it still isn't. Currently, facial hair on women is not the norm, so women removing it are not doing so to declare their womanhood, but to conform to beauty norms - it is very different.

A man saying he is a woman but one who wants to 'redefine the bandwidth' by keeping his beard is not buying into the gender norms he professes to espouse. It's deliberately provocative, as is the very idea of a man telling women what our 'bandwidth' is, and that he is going to extend that to suit himself.

'Some people' have been saying all along that gender norms should be flexible, and that we should move towards a situation where people can pick and mix the norms to which they want to subscribe. I remember saying that in one of my very first posts on here, and being told in no uncertain terms how wrong I was, and that I should 'educate myself'. I did, and became aware of how invasive the trans ideology actually is. Women are being told to redefine our boundaries, to refer to ourselves as 'birth givers' or 'vagina havers', to give away the safe spaces we fought to obtain, to have men on the board of the Women's Institute making policies, to lose all-women shortlists, to give up on strength-based sport. Fundamentalist religious women are told to remain on the 'urinary leash' that confined our forebears (ie not being able to travel far because there are no female-only loos), stay away from public leisure facilities where there are no female-only changing rooms or other spaces, worry about who is treating them in an intimate capacity and so on. It's not about 'tolerance' - it's about capitulation.

It doesn't help the debate if you pretend to misunderstand analogies or examples - did you really believe that Galaxy's list was meant to suggest that it represents the entire world population, or were you just trying to score points?

Galaxy

Alex Drummond is a man whether he shaves or not.

You, and those I know personally are female, whether you/they shave or not.

The difference is whether you lie about your sex or not and whether people condone the lying as some do, whilst in other areas would not see lying as acceptable.

Excellent points Doodledog.
Especially A man saying he is a woman but one who wants to 'redefine the bandwidth' by keeping his beard is not buying into the gender norms he professes to espouse. It's deliberately provocative, as is the very idea of a man telling women what our 'bandwidth' is, and that he is going to extend that to suit himself.
In life we know that oppressors think they should make the rules, Alex Drummond totally exhibits his oppressor credentials by his self-satisfied assertions. He is a psychotherapist, I fear for his clients.

Apologies to Doodlebug & Rosie

(51 Fri 29-Sep-23 14:07:39
Doodledog
Who is where? grin
Exactly*Doodledog*!

Vintagenonna
Enigmatic posts don't tend to add to the conversation. Any chance you could enlighten us a bit more?)

There are topics on which common ground is unlikely to emerge and feelings on both sides can be badly hurt. Not to say we shouldn't discuss and discuss and discuss but - sometimes - it helps to accept that A is over on one side of the debate and B is over on the other.

And apologies for the delay in responding - I took myself off for double vaccination and the last day or so has been a bit of a blur.

Thanks for coming back to elucidate

Oh dear*Doodledog*how many times does it have to be explained some transmen choose to give birth and don't want to be called women and most of the language used is to accommodate their needs and nothing actually to do with transwomen, or natal women. You may call yourself what you will. I do wish someone would post me an instance of any woman who has been forced to be called one of these imaginary terms.

There have always been transwomen in women's toilets. The fact that we now know about them and the constant harping on about women being attacked in toilets is what is tightening the "urinary leash" for women. Toilets are no more restricted, no more dangerous and do not contravene religious doctrine anymore than they have always done.

'Oh dear'? Rather patronising, don't you think?

You can explain all you like, but I don't have to agree - I can understand what you are saying, but I don't have to agree. You can tell me what I 'may' do, but that doesn't mean anything either. When women are referred to in these derogatory terms it doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves - the point is made. By all means refer to transmen as anything they like - but using 'gender-neutral' language to refer to all mothers is once again treading on our sense of self. this is behind a paywall, so I've cut and pasted:

___________________________

Gender neutral terms such as ‘birth-givers’ may put women’s health at risk, researchers warn
Research finds that gender inclusive words, such as ‘chestfeeding’, may be ‘sexist’ and cause more ‘insidious discrimination against women’
By
Hayley Dixon,
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
The Telegraph 30 January 2022
Introducing terms such as “birth-givers” is “rapid and extreme” in the UK and risks dehumanising women, leading medical researchers have warned.

Women’s health researchers from across the world have said in a paper to be published this week that changing language in order to be inclusive of transgender people can have “unintended consequences that have serious implications”.

It comes as NHS Trusts, health charities, academics and government departments have all faced criticism for introducing gender neutral terms like “birth-givers” and “chestfeeding” alongside traditional descriptions such as “mothers” and “breastfeeding”

The authors of the paper, due to be published in the journal Frontiers in Global Women’s Health, warn that the move could harm decades of work attempting to improve gender bias in medicine which research has found is putting women’s health at risk.

The paper states: “Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and beneficial, kind and inclusive.

“Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children.”

The leading women’s health researchers, from institutions including King’s College and Harvard, say that the consequences could include “decreasing overall inclusivity” and “dehumanising” women.

Referring to pregnant women as “‘gestational carrier’ or ‘birther’ marginalises their humanity” and harks back to “sexist” ideas of women as failed men, they note.

It also “works against the plain language principle of health communication and risks reducing inclusivity for vulnerable groups by making communications more difficult to understand”.

They note that the terminology can also be confusing, adding: “What does the phrase ‘women and birthing people’ actually mean? This construction could be interpreted in a literal way as meaning that ‘women’ are not people.”

Professor Jenny Gamble, one of ten authors on the paper, said that gender identity should not be confused with biological sex as it could lead to “health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women”.

The midwifery professor at the Centre for Care Excellence at Coventry University told the Sydney Morning Herald that the trend to erase the word women had started to sweep the world and “the way the UK has moved to erase the use of sexed language has been rapid and extreme”.

Activists have long called for the removal of gendered language from public life in order to be inclusive of transgender people.

But the paper says that whilst “the individual’s preferred terminology for themselves and their body parts should be used wherever possible”, pregnant women and new mothers “have unique vulnerabilities and also require protection”.

The authors note that “desexing language in relation to males occurs less frequently”.

Whilst focusing on childbirth and motherhood, the authors note that the issues are “relevant to other situations where sex is central, including: domestic violence, sexual assault, sex-selective abortion and infanticide, female genital mutilation, and reproductive cancers and other sex-specific conditions”.

‘Women’ disappear into ‘people’
It comes after an investigation by The Telegraph found that Stonewall had been advising employers that they must remove all gendered language from their policies and to replace terms such as mother with “parent who has given birth”.

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals (BSUH) NHS Trust last year became the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department – now known as “perinatal services”.

A list of alternative terms to use when addressing trans women patients – including “mothers or birthing parents”, “breast/chestfeeding”,“maternal and parental” and “human milk” – were circulated to all staff.

The authors of the article conclude that: “In the midst of the current move to desex language, we argue that if women and mothers are not named, it makes it more difficult to effectively advocate for them; ‘women’ disappear into ‘people’ and ‘mothers’ disappear into ‘parents.’ This inevitably changes the focus.”

Glorianny

There have always been transwomen in women's toilets. The fact that we now know about them and the constant harping on about women being attacked in toilets is what is tightening the "urinary leash" for women. Toilets are no more restricted, no more dangerous and do not contravene religious doctrine anymore than they have always done.

Of course they are more dangerous when male bodied people have a right to be in there unchallenged. Transwomen may have been in there in the past, but not in large numbers, and they would be at least trying to blend in - now anyone can go - beard or not - and can't be challenged, as it's all about 'idenification'. 'Constant harping' (talk about sexist language!) or 'speaking out' (as it would be called if men were doing it) is only necessary when those doing it are dismissed and overruled.

Mixed sex facilities do prevent women from some religions from using them. You may not approve of that, but it is the case, and in a multicultural society it should be illegal to prevent women of all religions from trying on clothes, swimming etc.

Thanks for all that detail Doodledog.

Another increase in the danger to women is the actions of those misogynistic women actually supporting the infiltration of trans women into female places, roles, vocabulary on the grounds that ^they’re not all like that^

I know they’re not all like that, and as Glorianny endlessly says, you can’t always tell the difference.
But who is responsible for the need to have all these precautions for female safety in place?
Some TW and TRA of course!
As a way forward,
How about all TW taking responsibility for themselves instead of trying to misappropriate things that aren’t rightfully theirs?

How about all trans women trying to stop the damaging actions of some of their ilk which has caused problems in the first place instead of twining about the outcome of those actions?

How about TW doing something about what they need without encroaching on female rights and needs instead of moaning that they’re being excluded from female places (when they aren’t females).
Not going to happen of course because it’s much easier for TW, TRA and their supporters to attack females.