Tell me how this is right?

Next time I dip into this thread I think I'll take the batteries out of my hearing aids...

Glorianny

Sorry but who is "wriggling" now?
Perhaps you could post a link to the actual research and any peer reviews for it. Judging by a newspaper article isn't really objective is it?

I can't link to the research or the peer reviews . Well, I possibly could, but I have no intention of doing so. It is a newspaper article, and I made that clear - I was not passing it off as research - if we want to play this game I could point out that you referred to it as 'the research [I] posted', but what on earth is the point? As the article makes clear, it is based on a paper in Frontiers in Global Women's Health - feel free to look it up if you want to know more, or to take issue with it. There is enough information in the article for me

I'm not wriggling - but nor am I getting involved in tit for tat, or getting further diverted into irrelevancies, so can we just discuss the article? I picked out some interesting bits in my post of 10:23 this morning, which you might like to comment on, or you could pick out bits of your own if you like.

Glorianny. Today 11:22

I'm off this thread.
🤣🤣🤣

Sorry but who is "wriggling" now?
Perhaps you could post a link to the actual research and any peer reviews for it. Judging by a newspaper article isn't really objective is it?

Ah, I see. Nothing to do with the terms in hospitals, but Alex Drummond claiming to be 'reframing the bandwidth of what it is to be a woman'. Not unlike rape survivors being told (yes, told) to reframe their trauma. Or do you mean when you (or possibly GagaJo) told me to 'educate myself' years ago rather than discuss the possibility of having less defined 'gender' norms? Or women being told that men will be in our facilities whether we like it or not, and if that means staying in their homes, so what?

Yes, I used the word in that post, several times in one paragraph, but not to suggest that women were told to call themselves 'chestfeeders' or 'birth givers', which is what we were talking about when you brought it up.

Now that is cleared up, would it be possible to engage with the points made in the article instead of semantics?

Doodledog

*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?

Women are being told !
Just popped back to see how you were. Here's the quote
4th paragraph half way through to save you time.

I believe the cis offender didn't realise it was offensive. Many of us don't mind it.

Yes, I have asked you to point to where the word 'told' (irrelevant though it is) was said, but you couldn't. I even gave you the get out of telling you that it is actually in the newspaper article I quoted. I also pointed out that as it is not important to my point (which I reiterated to save you 'trawling back') you could just engage with the article instead of the pointless reiteration that I said something I didn't.

I have tried to be reasonable and not to get dragged into the scoring of points, but that wasn't enough.

Retreat from the thread by all means - that is of course your prerogative. But it is increasingly the tactic of those supporting the trans cause. Whenever you can't or won't answer a question, or are backed into a corner with your illogical answers, you disappear, leaving the rest of us to talk to ourselves and the thread dwindles and dies. Usually after either patronising or making snide comments about posting style or length of posts, but not engaging with the points we are making.

Next time the subject comes up you will claim that we are repeating ourselves, but not owning up to the reason for that - that you don't play fair at all. You refuse to engage with the points we make, instead picking on semantics, mistakes or slight inaccuracies in the hope of scoring points.

As for not having seen a single case of women being addressed by a term they find offensive - on this very thread the term 'cis' has been used. Also, my point (which I have repeated several times) is that it is the fact that women in general are being called offensive terms, (such as birth giver) that matters, not that transmen are called by them - that's up to them, as far as I am concerned. There are so few transmen giving birth that it is highly unlikely that many women will come across one unless they are a midwife or otherwise professionally involved in the process of childbirth. It hardly matters - or wouldn't if that tiny minority weren't dictating terms to everyone else.

People don't have to be called racial insults directly, or be 'told' to use them - they are still offensive because they are racist, just as misogynist terms are offensive because they are misoynist. I repeat - I have no objection to transpeople calling themselves (or asking to be called) whatever they like - my complaint is that the terms are being used in leaflets, policies and so on to refer to all women. I have said several times that it is this that I find offensive.

But you go on about who used the word 'told', by all means, and strop off when you realise that you are wrong.

Glorianny

I'm off this thread. Deny words you have used then try to say I'm making it about a word.
I'm not wriggling.
My stance is and always has been introducing terms some people may find more acceptable is not telling anyone they have to be addressed by them. It is allowing people a choice. Not permitting choice is simply dictatorial.
I have yet to see a single instance where any woman has been addressed by terms she found offensive.

When you can’t prove what you say, retreat. It’s a good tactic. Bye G&T

G&T
So presumably if all methods of hair removal disappeared we'd have to reclassify all those polycystic women.
Another cute little diversion tactic. And men would never allow all methods of hair removal to disappear because it wouldn’t suit them. So your presumably situation With which you’re trying to back up your feeble argument, won’t arise.

Glorianny
There have always been transwomen in women's toilets.
And your evidence for that? I know you love people to provide evidence. I don’t suppose you would like to define always with evidence to back that up
As I have already pointed out, that might be true, but the actions of TW, TRA, stupid people like EI and their supporters are what have caused issues for females and girls, whether their reasons are religious, trauma based, or simply a desire for privacy away from males demonstrating that they are male, and nowadays, filming themselves doing that.

I'm off this thread. Deny words you have used then try to say I'm making it about a word.
I'm not wriggling.
My stance is and always has been introducing terms some people may find more acceptable is not telling anyone they have to be addressed by them. It is allowing people a choice. Not permitting choice is simply dictatorial.
I have yet to see a single instance where any woman has been addressed by terms she found offensive.

No!

I am not denying saying anything. You have made this about the use of the word 'told'. You have ignored a (to my mind) interesting article and tried to divert the conversation with a 'Gotcha'.

My point made days ago is also being ignored - that it is not important whether anyone is 'forced' to call themselves anything. The point is that when they are referred to as such their status is conferred, and that is what I am saying, which is backed up by the research cited in the article.

Calling transmen 'birth givers' is fine by me, but referring to all mothers as such is not. Referring to 'cervix havers' in all literature about smear tests is not ok, and nor is referring to chestfeeding and so on.

I am not asking you to say it is true - you are fully entitled to your own opinion. I am asking you to stop picking on the use of the word 'told' (which I did not use in this part of this discussion) to divert the argument from areas that it appears you don't want to discuss.

I think most readers will see very clearly that this is what you are doing, however much you wriggle. All the 'Honestly Doodledog' and 'Oh dear Doodledog' condescension in the world won't disguise it - people are not as stupid as you seem to think.

You are also asking me to say what you have alleged all along is true simply because you've found an article discussing the use of words. As I've always said people should be addressed in the way they are most comfortable with, and introducing the possibility of terms is not forcing anything on anyone, that isn't possible. There is no evidence anywhere that anyone has been made to use the language you insist they have. Introducing terms is simply acknowledging that some people may need to be addressed differently.

Doodledog

*if you can be bothered. . . *

Says it all, doesn't it? If you see this topic as suitable for one-liners or soundbites, what can I say, except that I don't.

I'm not the one denying I ever said something so it isn't really a one liner or a soundbite is it. It's a comment about how you make long statements which apparently you then forget completely.

Can you show me where I have said (preferable on this thread, as I am sure that at some point in the years I have been posting I will have used the word 'told' and I really want to resist another diversion into semantics and defending myself over some triviality or other)?

You are avoiding the important points in favour of 'but you said. . .'. It's not adding to your argument at all. Do you not care that the things many of us on here have been saying for ages are backed up by independent research? Argue with the research by all means, but not with what I have said (or not said) when introducing it. I think you saw the word 'told' in the article, and attributed it to me, but never mind.

if you can be bothered. . .

Says it all, doesn't it? If you see this topic as suitable for one-liners or soundbites, what can I say, except that I don't.

But if we are not to draw any parallels between race and trans issues then isn't her tweet quite irrelevant?

You are always drawing parallels between what you see as transphobia and racism or 70s homophobia though. it makes perfect sense to use your own reference points to explain things to you, so please stop wriggling?

Apart from trying to trip me up over technicalities in my post, do you have comments on things in the article such as

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.

or the consequences could include “decreasing overall inclusivity” and “dehumanising” women.

or gender identity should not be confused with biological sex as it could lead to “health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women”.

Does The authors note that “desexing language in relation to males occurs less frequently” not concern you at all? Or the fact 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”?

Or is it more important to argue over whether transmen or transwomen are behind the changes (not that it matters to the actual women who are suffering) and something about my use of the word 'told' (that I couldn't find in my posts anyway)? This is the sort of thing that suggests you are arguing for arguing's sake - not engaging with what people say, but looking for Gotcha's instead.

Doodledog

*You are doing it again accusing transwomen of asking for terminology which is actually there because transmen do not want to be called certain things.*
Ok, a small minority of female-born people (but I very much doubt that it is transmen pushing the trans agenda).

I used "told" as you did.
Where have I used ‘told’?

It is obvious from the research you posted that the use of any terms is still under review so no one is being "told" anything.
I posted a newspaper article. Honestly, I know you love a ‘Gotcha’, but can you see nothing in that article that concerns you? You can try to pick holes in semantics but why not engage with the points being made?

Well if you can be bothered to read your own long posts Doodledog on Sunday around 15.22 you insist that women are being "told" lots of things. You apparently also blame transpeople for the religious restrictions put on women by some religions, which is a bit of a stretch,
But honestly what is the point of discussing anything with anyone who simply doesn't know what they have said?

I'm not picking holes in semantics I'm saying nothing you say is true and all language is up for discussion. It would be nice if we could at least allow people to choose how they are addressed and accommodate their needs. One of the things I found annoying after having children was the way some professionals referred to me as "mother" rather than using my name. So it isn't a new idea that the way we address someone matters and should be something they find acceptable.

Mollygo

Trans women are transwomen. They are not women, a whatever they do or do not want to be called because they cannot change sex.
You can have an opinion about whether you see them as women, but it won’t change the fact that they can’t change sex.

Exactly 👏👏👏

Mollygo

Rosie51

I thought this was an interesting tweet from a black woman. It says it all from a slightly different perspective. Lots of TRAs dispute the notion of 'transracial' which to me is stupid because race truly is a spectrum, given inter-racial couplings. My own extended family is a true mixing of the races, excepting east Asian, something we need to address

She makes a really good point, especially where people are conflating race with transgender.
Sadly, the sense of what she says will fall on stony ground.

But if we are not to draw any parallels between race and trans issues then isn't her tweet quite irrelevant?

Rosie51

I thought this was an interesting tweet from a black woman. It says it all from a slightly different perspective. Lots of TRAs dispute the notion of 'transracial' which to me is stupid because race truly is a spectrum, given inter-racial couplings. My own extended family is a true mixing of the races, excepting east Asian, something we need to address

She makes a really good point, especially where people are conflating race with transgender.
Sadly, the sense of what she says will fall on stony ground.

I thought this was an interesting tweet from a black woman. It says it all from a slightly different perspective. Lots of TRAs dispute the notion of 'transracial' which to me is stupid because race truly is a spectrum, given inter-racial couplings. My own extended family is a true mixing of the races, excepting east Asian, something we need to address

You are doing it again accusing transwomen of asking for terminology which is actually there because transmen do not want to be called certain things.
Ok, a small minority of female-born people (but I very much doubt that it is transmen pushing the trans agenda).

I used "told" as you did.
Where have I used ‘told’?

It is obvious from the research you posted that the use of any terms is still under review so no one is being "told" anything.
I posted a newspaper article. Honestly, I know you love a ‘Gotcha’, but can you see nothing in that article that concerns you? You can try to pick holes in semantics but why not engage with the points being made?

Trans women are transwomen. They are not women, a whatever they do or do not want to be called because they cannot change sex.
You can have an opinion about whether you see them as women, but it won’t change the fact that they can’t change sex.

Doodledog

Of course nobody is being ‘forced’. You introduced that word and are now arguing against it . As I said above - whether women use it ourselves is not the point. This is word twisting in its purest form.

As you are so keen to draw parallels with homophobia and racism, choose a term used against gay people or those of colour and think about who used it against whom - some may have been ‘reclaimed’ but only to neutralise the offensiveness. It is a case of those in charge (men, in the case of a patriarchal society) ‘othering’ people they want to dominate.

Women make up something like 51% of the population - why should a small minority of male-born people decide what we should be called? Why should we not be asked before these words become policy?

If women not being ‘forced’ to use those words (when nobody said we were) is the best you can do to argue against that article, I think it can rest its case.

You are doing it again accusing transwomen of asking for terminology which is actually there because transmen do not want to be called certain things.
I used "told" as you did. It is obvious from the research you posted that the use of any terms is still under review so no one is being "told" anything.

Of course nobody is being ‘forced’. You introduced that word and are now arguing against it . As I said above - whether women use it ourselves is not the point. This is word twisting in its purest form.

As you are so keen to draw parallels with homophobia and racism, choose a term used against gay people or those of colour and think about who used it against whom - some may have been ‘reclaimed’ but only to neutralise the offensiveness. It is a case of those in charge (men, in the case of a patriarchal society) ‘othering’ people they want to dominate.

Women make up something like 51% of the population - why should a small minority of male-born people decide what we should be called? Why should we not be asked before these words become policy?

If women not being ‘forced’ to use those words (when nobody said we were) is the best you can do to argue against that article, I think it can rest its case.