FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > What is a women?
What is a women?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" Always right  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“You can lie to yourself all you want, but you cannot drag me into it. And so it goes for pronouns. If I intentionally call a man “she,” I have lied. I have conveyed something that isn’t true. Despite my polite intentions, all I’ve done is contribute to the confusion, dishonesty, and intellectual chaos rampant in our culture.” Matt Walsh " I mute those ads when they show up then go do something else. I have no love for Google, but less money in the pockets of hatemongers suits me just fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? Always right "Correct answer! X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" It's a plural of woman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very true. Flip what is a man " What has he got ? If not himself then he has naught. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? It's a plural of woman." Too many people don't understand this.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A man with a womb "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A woman is a person born as a female who lives their life as a female and is happy, content and secure in her own identity." And recognises gross inaccuracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A woman is a person born as a female who lives their life as a female and is happy, content and secure in her own identity. And recognises gross inaccuracy " 143   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“It’s a boy, it’s a boy!” And somebody said “but it hasn’t got a winkle!” And then I said “A boy without a winkle? God be praised, it is a miracle. A boy without a winkle!”... " ....and then Sir Thomas Moore pointed out that a boy without a winkle is a girl and everyone was disppointed ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“It’s a boy, it’s a boy!” And somebody said “but it hasn’t got a winkle!” And then I said “A boy without a winkle? God be praised, it is a miracle. A boy without a winkle!”... ....and then Sir Thomas Moore pointed out that a boy without a winkle is a girl and everyone was disppointed !" Yes, he was a very perceptive man, Sir Thomas More. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
People who find this offensive: the world is changing so quickly and Im sorry if that feels scary to you. I agree that there are lots of discussions that need to be had, and I wish that it were easier for everyone to discuss it together. I think so many people just need to have their fears listened to.
I hope you can find people who will talk to you about your fears and your struggles, and that you find your peace with the world as it changes to become more inclusive of trans people.
Smiles, with a hint of melancholy,
Fay x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*sigh* Im not gonna give a young persons definition of the term "woman" or discuss gender here because Im sure I would just get shouted down. Whats the point? However I do wanna say - Trans women: I see you, and recognise you as the women you are. Rock on girls!
People who find this offensive: the world is changing so quickly and Im sorry if that feels scary to you. I agree that there are lots of discussions that need to be had, and I wish that it were easier for everyone to discuss it together. I think so many people just need to have their fears listened to.
I hope you can find people who will talk to you about your fears and your struggles, and that you find your peace with the world as it changes to become more inclusive of trans people.
Smiles, with a hint of melancholy,
Fay x "Well said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*sigh* Im not gonna give a young persons definition of the term "woman" or discuss gender here because Im sure I would just get shouted down. Whats the point? However I do wanna say - Trans women: I see you, and recognise you as the women you are. Rock on girls!
People who find this offensive: the world is changing so quickly and Im sorry if that feels scary to you. I agree that there are lots of discussions that need to be had, and I wish that it were easier for everyone to discuss it together. I think so many people just need to have their fears listened to.
I hope you can find people who will talk to you about your fears and your struggles, and that you find your peace with the world as it changes to become more inclusive of trans people.
Smiles, with a hint of melancholy,
Fay x " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. " I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*sigh* Im not gonna give a young persons definition of the term "woman" or discuss gender here because Im sure I would just get shouted down. Whats the point? However I do wanna say - Trans women: I see you, and recognise you as the women you are. Rock on girls!
People who find this offensive: the world is changing so quickly and Im sorry if that feels scary to you. I agree that there are lots of discussions that need to be had, and I wish that it were easier for everyone to discuss it together. I think so many people just need to have their fears listened to.
I hope you can find people who will talk to you about your fears and your struggles, and that you find your peace with the world as it changes to become more inclusive of trans people.
Smiles, with a hint of melancholy,
Fay x "We can be more inclusive of trans people without marginalising women who where born as women. Its not about being scared, it's about being able to refer to ourselves as we choose and is this not what this whole argument is about? So some people can have their preferred pronouns but others can't. I am not a person with a cervix I am a woman with a cervix. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah, the daily trans bashing thread on fab "One of them yeah | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah, the daily trans bashing thread on fab "Is it trans bashing or is it just people having a discussion? Saying that you don't agree that everybody should be referred to in a gender not make someone a Tras basher. This is a major issue that people cannot raise concerns or see things differently without being called transphobic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*sigh* Im not gonna give a young persons definition of the term "woman" or discuss gender here because Im sure I would just get shouted down. Whats the point? However I do wanna say - Trans women: I see you, and recognise you as the women you are. Rock on girls!
People who find this offensive: the world is changing so quickly and Im sorry if that feels scary to you. I agree that there are lots of discussions that need to be had, and I wish that it were easier for everyone to discuss it together. I think so many people just need to have their fears listened to.
I hope you can find people who will talk to you about your fears and your struggles, and that you find your peace with the world as it changes to become more inclusive of trans people.
Smiles, with a hint of melancholy,
Fay x "
This. So much this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. " How do you think it should be written down in the abstract, when not referencing you, or another person who may wish other language? I ask because the NHS guidance is to use the language the patient wants used. The argument that is brought up in the press is about when talking in general terms. Although certain folx choose to misrepresent that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own " Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*sigh* Im not gonna give a young persons definition of the term "woman" or discuss gender here because Im sure I would just get shouted down. Whats the point? However I do wanna say - Trans women: I see you, and recognise you as the women you are. Rock on girls!
People who find this offensive: the world is changing so quickly and Im sorry if that feels scary to you. I agree that there are lots of discussions that need to be had, and I wish that it were easier for everyone to discuss it together. I think so many people just need to have their fears listened to.
I hope you can find people who will talk to you about your fears and your struggles, and that you find your peace with the world as it changes to become more inclusive of trans people.
Smiles, with a hint of melancholy,
Fay x "Thank you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. How do you think it should be written down in the abstract, when not referencing you, or another person who may wish other language? I ask because the NHS guidance is to use the language the patient wants used. The argument that is brought up in the press is about when talking in general terms. Although certain folx choose to misrepresent that." We simply cannot pretend that women who were born women exist. This is a women's issue because it is not on the whole men who are having basically their identity as men taken away from them. As I said above we should absolutely treat people who are trans or non binary with respect but by respecting their right to have preferred pronouns or non gender specific language used we are taking away the rights of those who do want to be called a man or woman away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir. "Always happy when half the population aren't allowed to contribute | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 25/07/22 13:18:33]" I did see what you wrote and I am the relative of somebody who is trans so I absolutely accept there is difficulties and major struggles. However I do not accept that anybody who is struggling with how things are going now is somehow a dinosaur of the past, Or someone that shouldn't be listened to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" I love how everyone is going ballistic over the trans right discussion, quoting the human equivalent of a verruca that is Matt Walsh, talking about terfs and everything in between. Yet still, missing the real issue at hand. What is a woman? What are women? Ffs guys, can we focus on the real issue here of grammatically correct plurality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. How do you think it should be written down in the abstract, when not referencing you, or another person who may wish other language? I ask because the NHS guidance is to use the language the patient wants used. The argument that is brought up in the press is about when talking in general terms. Although certain folx choose to misrepresent that. We simply cannot pretend that women who were born women exist. This is a women's issue because it is not on the whole men who are having basically their identity as men taken away from them. As I said above we should absolutely treat people who are trans or non binary with respect but by respecting their right to have preferred pronouns or non gender specific language used we are taking away the rights of those who do want to be called a man or woman away. " Who is pretending Cis Women do not exist? Using inclusive language does not erase them, it still includes them, that's a part of it being inclusive. Like I said NHS guidance is when dealing with the individual patient to use the terminology they wish used. So you will be called by the terms you want. What is wrong with the generic language that applies to everyone language being generic and applying to everyone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? I love how everyone is going ballistic over the trans right discussion, quoting the human equivalent of a verruca that is Matt Walsh, talking about terfs and everything in between. Yet still, missing the real issue at hand. What is a woman? What are women? Ffs guys, can we focus on the real issue here of grammatically correct plurality. " Absolutely. Lets refocus the discussion! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. How do you think it should be written down in the abstract, when not referencing you, or another person who may wish other language? I ask because the NHS guidance is to use the language the patient wants used. The argument that is brought up in the press is about when talking in general terms. Although certain folx choose to misrepresent that. We simply cannot pretend that women who were born women exist. This is a women's issue because it is not on the whole men who are having basically their identity as men taken away from them. As I said above we should absolutely treat people who are trans or non binary with respect but by respecting their right to have preferred pronouns or non gender specific language used we are taking away the rights of those who do want to be called a man or woman away. Who is pretending Cis Women do not exist? Using inclusive language does not erase them, it still includes them, that's a part of it being inclusive. Like I said NHS guidance is when dealing with the individual patient to use the terminology they wish used. So you will be called by the terms you want. What is wrong with the generic language that applies to everyone language being generic and applying to everyone?" It's not inclusive language though that's the whole point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir. "Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir.
Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me.
"You're not included mate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. " Nobody is saying that you can't be referred to as a woman. That's literally not a thing that is happening. Where are you getting your information from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. " We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. Nobody is saying that you can't be referred to as a woman. That's literally not a thing that is happening. Where are you getting your information from?" It flaming well is happening! Have you had a leaflet recently about cervical screening? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir.
Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me.
"What's inflammatory about it? No aspect of men's rights is impacted in the same way that women's rights are in this whole area. Despite my somewhat "terfy" views, I do genuinely care about my daughter's friends who have came out as a trans. They're kids after all. So having concerns about women and their rights going forward does not mean that I give zero fucks about anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself" It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir.
Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me.
What's inflammatory about it?
No aspect of men's rights is impacted in the same way that women's rights are in this whole area.
Despite my somewhat "terfy" views, I do genuinely care about my daughter's friends who have came out as a trans. They're kids after all.
So having concerns about women and their rights going forward does not mean that I give zero fucks about anyone else."Exactly and brilliantly put. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it something religious? Related to a men." I see what you did there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. " You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. " I think it seems (I know my opinion is low value here) for you and other men / women who feel the same way, to be included you must change what you refer to yourself as.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. How do you think it should be written down in the abstract, when not referencing you, or another person who may wish other language? I ask because the NHS guidance is to use the language the patient wants used. The argument that is brought up in the press is about when talking in general terms. Although certain folx choose to misrepresent that. We simply cannot pretend that women who were born women exist. This is a women's issue because it is not on the whole men who are having basically their identity as men taken away from them. As I said above we should absolutely treat people who are trans or non binary with respect but by respecting their right to have preferred pronouns or non gender specific language used we are taking away the rights of those who do want to be called a man or woman away. Who is pretending Cis Women do not exist? Using inclusive language does not erase them, it still includes them, that's a part of it being inclusive. Like I said NHS guidance is when dealing with the individual patient to use the terminology they wish used. So you will be called by the terms you want. What is wrong with the generic language that applies to everyone language being generic and applying to everyone?" Because, as I'm sure you know, many Cis women find it dehumanising to be referred to "birthing people" or "cervix-havers" or "menstruators". Particularly when the same is not happening to males. Often that language obscures the health issues eg cervical cancer - for those with little knowledge of their own bodies or poor English. Women, transmen and non-binary people IS inclusive to all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. "
Slightly off tangent but a woman posted in the Lounge a while back looking for new prospective partners to chat to. She specifically asked for straight men.
Someone commented that it wasn't very inclusive.
Fucking unreal... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir.
Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me.
What's inflammatory about it?
No aspect of men's rights is impacted in the same way that women's rights are in this whole area.
Despite my somewhat "terfy" views, I do genuinely care about my daughter's friends who have came out as a trans. They're kids after all.
So having concerns about women and their rights going forward does not mean that I give zero fucks about anyone else."Inflammatory in that you assume out of the gate that I'm mansplaining and my views on this are without merit Again, I'm asking how extending rights to one of the most marginalised groups in society takes rights away from women? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I is a woman. Or I was the last time I checked "Happy to pop round if you need a second opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want." You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding.
Slightly off tangent but a woman posted in the Lounge a while back looking for new prospective partners to chat to. She specifically asked for straight men.
Someone commented that it wasn't very inclusive.
Fucking unreal..."And the one about if you are a lesbian are you transphobic if you won't meet a TV/TS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. " But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, I'm asking how extending rights to one of the most marginalised groups in society takes rights away from women? " It literally doesn't. But also refusing to support such a marginalised group, well to me that's not okay is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women." not at all, when you use Cis you are specifically talking about people whose gender matches their assigned sex at birth. If you don't use any of the prefixes you are including both Cis and Trans people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir.
Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me.
What's inflammatory about it?
No aspect of men's rights is impacted in the same way that women's rights are in this whole area.
Despite my somewhat "terfy" views, I do genuinely care about my daughter's friends who have came out as a trans. They're kids after all.
So having concerns about women and their rights going forward does not mean that I give zero fucks about anyone else.
Inflammatory in that you assume out of the gate that I'm mansplaining and my views on this are without merit
Again, I'm asking how extending rights to one of the most marginalised groups in society takes rights away from women?
"The right to have a female-bodied person as a healthcare practitioner The right to single sex spaces Are often cited. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. " Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature?" On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature?" I suggested that "women, trans men and non-binary people" was inclusive of all. Would you oppose that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix?" So if a woman wants to be referred to as a mother she shouldn't be because it might offend some people? This is about rights for some but not many. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women." Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women. Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs" No it really isn't! This is why I detest this whole argument because anybody who has concerns or thinks things should be done differently is somehow against transpeople. I can't see anybody who has referred to anyone who is trans or non binary as weird on this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix? So if a woman wants to be referred to as a mother she shouldn't be because it might offend some people? This is about rights for some but not many." Again (3rd or 4th time) on an individual level the NHS guidance is to always use the terminology the patient wants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women. Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs" Should we also not refer to people as disabled because that's like saying they're not normal or weirdos? This is ridiculous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. Nobody is saying that you can't be referred to as a woman. That's literally not a thing that is happening. Where are you getting your information from? It flaming well is happening! Have you had a leaflet recently about cervical screening? " Huh, im curious (not trying to make a point or argue, Im genuinely interested!): What terms would you be happy for the leaflet to use? If I give you some options, maybe you can say which ones you like/dont like and why? Anyone chip in or add terms that you would be happy/not happy with
People with a cervix.
Women and people with a cervix.
Cis-women and people with a cervix.
Women
Women and those who are biologically female.
Cis-women and some gender minorities.
Most women and other people who have cervixes.
Women (and those who have cervixes)
(Anyone who doesnt know what cis- means: it means not trans. I.e. a cis-woman is someone who was born female and is still female )
There, Ive tried to give a good range. Let me know! Im curious, and probably not gonna answer... Just interested.
Fay x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women. Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs Should we also not refer to people as disabled because that's like saying they're not normal or weirdos? This is ridiculous. " False equivalency The equivalency you are looking for is if someone said you didn't need to ever use the word abled to describe people who do not have impairment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix? So if a woman wants to be referred to as a mother she shouldn't be because it might offend some people? This is about rights for some but not many." No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure where anyone has seriously suggested that people can't self identify. You go to a service for birthing people, excited to become a mother, with everyone around you celebrating your impending motherhood. And it also accommodates a trans man who is looking forward to giving birth, and will hopefully be celebrated in his impending parenthood. Everyone wins, except people who want to kick off culture wars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. Nobody is saying that you can't be referred to as a woman. That's literally not a thing that is happening. Where are you getting your information from? It flaming well is happening! Have you had a leaflet recently about cervical screening? Huh, im curious (not trying to make a point or argue, Im genuinely interested!): What terms would you be happy for the leaflet to use? If I give you some options, maybe you can say which ones you like/dont like and why? Anyone chip in or add terms that you would be happy/not happy with
People with a cervix.
Women and people with a cervix.
Cis-women and people with a cervix.
Women
Women and those who are biologically female.
Cis-women and some gender minorities.
Most women and other people who have cervixes.
Women (and those who have cervixes)
(Anyone who doesnt know what cis- means: it means not trans. I.e. a cis-woman is someone who was born female and is still female )
There, Ive tried to give a good range. Let me know! Im curious, and probably not gonna answer... Just interested.
Fay x "There is absolutely nothing wrong with how they have always been worded. Nobody had an issue with this, People understood there were people that didn't come under these categories and need to be treated sensitively and differently and it worked fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. " I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir.
Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me.
What's inflammatory about it?
No aspect of men's rights is impacted in the same way that women's rights are in this whole area.
Despite my somewhat "terfy" views, I do genuinely care about my daughter's friends who have came out as a trans. They're kids after all.
So having concerns about women and their rights going forward does not mean that I give zero fucks about anyone else.
Inflammatory in that you assume out of the gate that I'm mansplaining and my views on this are without merit
Again, I'm asking how extending rights to one of the most marginalised groups in society takes rights away from women?
The right to have a female-bodied person as a healthcare practitioner
The right to single sex spaces
Are often cited. "You absolutely have the right to ask for a female doctor, but the NHS are not obliged to provide one. Obviously they try to accommodate as best they can. I suppose you would happily share a public bathroom with a big, bearded trans man, since that is the logical conclusion of maintaining single sex spaces based on birth assignment of gender? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix? So if a woman wants to be referred to as a mother she shouldn't be because it might offend some people? This is about rights for some but not many. No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure where anyone has seriously suggested that people can't self identify. You go to a service for birthing people, excited to become a mother, with everyone around you celebrating your impending motherhood. And it also accommodates a trans man who is looking forward to giving birth, and will hopefully be celebrated in his impending parenthood. Everyone wins, except people who want to kick off culture wars. " No not everybody wins. Are you deliberately trying to pretend there are no concerns or issues? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women. Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs No it really isn't! This is why I detest this whole argument because anybody who has concerns or thinks things should be done differently is somehow against transpeople. I can't see anybody who has referred to anyone who is trans or non binary as weird on this thread. " It's more like autistic and normal. Cis and trans is like neurodivergent and neurotypical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix? So if a woman wants to be referred to as a mother she shouldn't be because it might offend some people? This is about rights for some but not many. No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure where anyone has seriously suggested that people can't self identify. You go to a service for birthing people, excited to become a mother, with everyone around you celebrating your impending motherhood. And it also accommodates a trans man who is looking forward to giving birth, and will hopefully be celebrated in his impending parenthood. Everyone wins, except people who want to kick off culture wars. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix? So if a woman wants to be referred to as a mother she shouldn't be because it might offend some people? This is about rights for some but not many. No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure where anyone has seriously suggested that people can't self identify. You go to a service for birthing people, excited to become a mother, with everyone around you celebrating your impending motherhood. And it also accommodates a trans man who is looking forward to giving birth, and will hopefully be celebrated in his impending parenthood. Everyone wins, except people who want to kick off culture wars. No not everybody wins. Are you deliberately trying to pretend there are no concerns or issues? " Genuinely, what would be the issue in that scenario? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women. Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs No it really isn't! This is why I detest this whole argument because anybody who has concerns or thinks things should be done differently is somehow against transpeople. I can't see anybody who has referred to anyone who is trans or non binary as weird on this thread. It's more like autistic and normal. Cis and trans is like neurodivergent and neurotypical." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them" We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a woman. My sense of gender and identity is not threatened by anyone else defining themselves as they want to. It's especially not threatened by making language more inclusive in medicine (smears for people with a cervix - I have a cervix; services for birthing people - if I were to have a baby, I would be a birthing person), or giving people appropriate care for their psychosocial needs. I disagree with this because whilst I believe everybody should be treated with dignity, Sensitivity and care That does not mean that my right to call myself a woman and be referred to as a woman should be threatened. If somebody says to their health care providers they want to be referred to as a person rather than a man or a woman, or they want their breasts to be referred to as a chest for example then that should be respected. However if I want my my preference on how my body parts are referred to should also be respected. Why is it threatening? Women are a subset of people with a cervix (in fact there are women without them). Mothers are a subset of people who give birth. It detracts nothing, it just opens the door to others who are historically excluded. Would you really not get your smear because it's offered to people with a cervix? So if a woman wants to be referred to as a mother she shouldn't be because it might offend some people? This is about rights for some but not many. No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure where anyone has seriously suggested that people can't self identify. You go to a service for birthing people, excited to become a mother, with everyone around you celebrating your impending motherhood. And it also accommodates a trans man who is looking forward to giving birth, and will hopefully be celebrated in his impending parenthood. Everyone wins, except people who want to kick off culture wars. No not everybody wins. Are you deliberately trying to pretend there are no concerns or issues? " So if you go to a service and everyone calls you a mother, you're accepted as a mother, etc, but the leaflets contain language saying "birthing person", you have a problem? What is being taken from you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups. "And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people..."Where did I say that? Stop twisting what I'm saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" What is a woman? What are women? Adult human females. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning? "A woman is an adult who identifies as a woman. There. You're welcome. Very straightforward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning? "But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women. Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs No it really isn't! This is why I detest this whole argument because anybody who has concerns or thinks things should be done differently is somehow against transpeople. I can't see anybody who has referred to anyone who is trans or non binary as weird on this thread. It's more like autistic and normal. Cis and trans is like neurodivergent and neurotypical." Is neurodivergent and neurotypical the same as mad and sane but in longer words? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people...
Where did I say that? Stop twisting what I'm saying. "Inclusive language for trans people is the equivalent of a wheelchair ramp. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using the term "cis" for men or women is a bit like saying "egg omelette". There are men, there are women, there are trans men and there are trans women. Nope. Saying "men and trans men" is like saying "us normal people and you weirdos". There's no need. It's the 21st century ffs No it really isn't! This is why I detest this whole argument because anybody who has concerns or thinks things should be done differently is somehow against transpeople. I can't see anybody who has referred to anyone who is trans or non binary as weird on this thread. It's more like autistic and normal. Cis and trans is like neurodivergent and neurotypical. Is neurodivergent and neurotypical the same as mad and sane but in longer words?" yikes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people...
Where did I say that? Stop twisting what I'm saying.
Inclusive language for trans people is the equivalent of a wheelchair ramp. "No it's not. Normally we have a wheelchair ramp and stairs we do not take one away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups. "So a third of underground stations abd half of overland stations have disabled access and that is treating you fairly and equally? But you want provisions for disabilities and to be treated fairly and equally, but don't believe provisions should be made for trand people and that they should be treated equally? Or did I get thst wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people...
Where did I say that? Stop twisting what I'm saying.
Inclusive language for trans people is the equivalent of a wheelchair ramp.
No it's not. Normally we have a wheelchair ramp and stairs we do not take one away. "What is being taken from you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
So a third of underground stations abd half of overland stations have disabled access and that is treating you fairly and equally?
But you want provisions for disabilities and to be treated fairly and equally, but don't believe provisions should be made for trand people and that they should be treated equally? Or did I get thst wrong"You did get it wrong because I have said nowhere that provisions shouldn't be made. I have made it very clear that individuals should be treated as such and accommodations should be made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people...
Where did I say that? Stop twisting what I'm saying.
Inclusive language for trans people is the equivalent of a wheelchair ramp.
No it's not. Normally we have a wheelchair ramp and stairs we do not take one away.
What is being taken from you?"Iv already told you so have others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
So a third of underground stations abd half of overland stations have disabled access and that is treating you fairly and equally?
But you want provisions for disabilities and to be treated fairly and equally, but don't believe provisions should be made for trand people and that they should be treated equally? Or did I get thst wrong"I think it's something like, if trans men are included in healthcare they require with the organs they were born with, the sacred concept of motherhood and any identity as a woman will crack under the pressure, because it's so delicate. I'm secure in my identity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question. "It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now. I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business. I'm female... I was born as one... I will remain one.. I have a vagina... And I am classed as a Woman! If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody is taking anything away from cis women Giving other people rights doesn't take away your own Always happy when a man pops up to explain this to us. Thank you Sir.
Somewhat inflammatory response. Mansplaining was not my intent. I have a trans teen at home and this matters a great deal to me.
What's inflammatory about it?
No aspect of men's rights is impacted in the same way that women's rights are in this whole area.
Despite my somewhat "terfy" views, I do genuinely care about my daughter's friends who have came out as a trans. They're kids after all.
So having concerns about women and their rights going forward does not mean that I give zero fucks about anyone else.
Inflammatory in that you assume out of the gate that I'm mansplaining and my views on this are without merit
Again, I'm asking how extending rights to one of the most marginalised groups in society takes rights away from women?
The right to have a female-bodied person as a healthcare practitioner
The right to single sex spaces
Are often cited.
You absolutely have the right to ask for a female doctor, but the NHS are not obliged to provide one. Obviously they try to accommodate as best they can.
I suppose you would happily share a public bathroom with a big, bearded trans man, since that is the logical conclusion of maintaining single sex spaces based on birth assignment of gender?
"I answered your question. You seem a little combative? Asking for a female-bodied person has in some organisations meant that the asker is accused of transphobia. If someone has suffered SA or r@pe, or a non-verbal person or elderly person - why should they be seen as a trans phobe? Cis women are entitled to privacy, dignity and respect just as trans people are. There is a balance to be had. If the discussion always turns toxic - the balance will never be struck. I said it was what was cited. Yes I would share a bathroom with a trans man and a trans woman also. I recognise that some cis women find that very challenging for a multitude of reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people...
Where did I say that? Stop twisting what I'm saying.
Inclusive language for trans people is the equivalent of a wheelchair ramp.
No it's not. Normally we have a wheelchair ramp and stairs we do not take one away.
What is being taken from you?
Iv already told you so have others. "All I see is cis fragility, I'm afraid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" Whatever she wishes to be! K x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question.
It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now.
I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business.
I'm female...
I was born as one...
I will remain one..
I have a vagina...
And I am classed as a Woman!
If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves.
"I'm also a cis woman, and my identity is secure enough that I can include trans people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can a man request a female doctor? " You actually can yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can a man request a female doctor? You actually can yes " That’s hot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question.
It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now.
I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business.
I'm female...
I was born as one...
I will remain one..
I have a vagina...
And I am classed as a Woman!
If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves.
I'm also a cis woman, and my identity is secure enough that I can include trans people."I never excluded them, I said I don't care what anyone identifies as ..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question.
It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now.
I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business.
I'm female...
I was born as one...
I will remain one..
I have a vagina...
And I am classed as a Woman!
If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves.
I'm also a cis woman, and my identity is secure enough that I can include trans people."Here you go again suggesting that anybody that doesn't put cis in front of their gender is somehow insecure on their identity. I do not put cis in front of my gender but I can also include trans people! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question.
It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now.
I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business.
I'm female...
I was born as one...
I will remain one..
I have a vagina...
And I am classed as a Woman!
If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves.
I'm also a cis woman, and my identity is secure enough that I can include trans people.
Here you go again suggesting that anybody that doesn't put cis in front of their gender is somehow insecure on their identity. I do not put cis in front of my gender but I can also include trans people! "Exactly that.... utter nonsense again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question.
It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now.
I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business.
I'm female...
I was born as one...
I will remain one..
I have a vagina...
And I am classed as a Woman!
If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves.
I'm also a cis woman, and my identity is secure enough that I can include trans people.
Here you go again suggesting that anybody that doesn't put cis in front of their gender is somehow insecure on their identity. I do not put cis in front of my gender but I can also include trans people! "I'm sorry if you read my comment that way. It wasn't intended as such, I'm just using the most inclusive language in the context. As is my right. If you're ok with including trans people, why are you not ok with inclusive language in general literature and their medical care, when your medical care would continue to use the pronouns and identity you choose? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A device for inserting my penis into ""Hide the sausage" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
So a third of underground stations abd half of overland stations have disabled access and that is treating you fairly and equally?
But you want provisions for disabilities and to be treated fairly and equally, but don't believe provisions should be made for trand people and that they should be treated equally? Or did I get thst wrong
You did get it wrong because I have said nowhere that provisions shouldn't be made. I have made it very clear that individuals should be treated as such and accommodations should be made. "But if they can't put a ramp in to make those accommodations, just leave the steps for the able bodied people? Because taking the steps out and putting a ramp in somehow disadvantages able bodied people? And to be clear a transport network in London where over 50% of stations aren't accessible is treating disabled people fairly and equally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question.
It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now.
I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business.
I'm female...
I was born as one...
I will remain one..
I have a vagina...
And I am classed as a Woman!
If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves.
I'm also a cis woman, and my identity is secure enough that I can include trans people.
Here you go again suggesting that anybody that doesn't put cis in front of their gender is somehow insecure on their identity. I do not put cis in front of my gender but I can also include trans people!
I'm sorry if you read my comment that way. It wasn't intended as such, I'm just using the most inclusive language in the context. As is my right.
If you're ok with including trans people, why are you not ok with inclusive language in general literature and their medical care, when your medical care would continue to use the pronouns and identity you choose?"We do not need to change everything to include people that is what you are not getting. We don't have to get angry with people that struggle to understand a very complex and difficult subject, We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. What we have to do is treat individuals with care, dignity and sensitively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
And yet you don't feel the need to extend that inclusion to trans people...
Where did I say that? Stop twisting what I'm saying.
Inclusive language for trans people is the equivalent of a wheelchair ramp.
No it's not. Normally we have a wheelchair ramp and stairs we do not take one away.
What is being taken from you?
Iv already told you so have others. "This is the thing, though... Nobody is taking away traditional pronouns and being able to identify as a woman or a man or a mother or anything like that. If that's how you want to be referred to nobody will say "No, you must be x" Inclusive language is just inclusive so that people who don't fit neatly into the two largest groups aren't excluded | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not everything has to be inclusive. We do not always have to include everybody in everything and we don't and there are usually very valid reasons for this. Everybody should have equal rights and taking away the right of a woman to be referred to as a woman in medical literature is not equal. It is what a lot of people are not understanding. We are not talking about including everyone, we are talking about including the people it affects. You say we should all have equal rights, but you also say that trans men and non-binary people don't get to have the same treatment as Cis women to have language which includes them. Your own argument contradicts itself It doesn't contradict itself at all you are just deliberately choosing to see it that way. You say in one paragraph everyone should have equal right and then only cis women get to be called by the language they want. You are obviously misunderstanding what having equal rights means. Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else. In a community, if everyone is treated equally then everyone should be able to work together, solve problems, feel safe and cared for. That also includes women who want to be referred to in a medical sense as women. As with everything including disability rights treating people equally sometimes meaning treating them differently. But not Trans Men and Non-Binary people that do not want to be referred to that way, because that is literally the outcome of your insistence of keeping women in the literature? On an individual level if they choose to be referred to with different pronouns or different language then they should be. However the word woman and man should not be taken out of anything just to accommodate some people. In the same way we do not take out stairs in buildings So that disabled people don't feel offended or marginalised. What we do instead is make sure that suitable adjustments and provision is made so they can use the service/building as easily as possible and in a way as to not discriminate or exclude them. I think given the constant struggles disabled people have with regards to accessibility (try catching the tube in a wheelchair) that analogy isn't making the point you think it is. The reality is disabled people are often left feeling like second class people in a society that often does nothing more than the bare minimum to attempt to include them We regularly try and use the tube as disabled people thank you.
We don't feel like 2nd class citizens when provision is made for us, We do not feel marginalised when provision is made for us. We do not however expect the rest of society do not have buildings with stairs, All for them to completely change how they live their lives to accommodate us. What we want is to be treated fairly and equally When that happens we do not feel like 2nd class citizens at all and the same applies to any minority or marginalised groups.
So a third of underground stations abd half of overland stations have disabled access and that is treating you fairly and equally?
But you want provisions for disabilities and to be treated fairly and equally, but don't believe provisions should be made for trand people and that they should be treated equally? Or did I get thst wrong
You did get it wrong because I have said nowhere that provisions shouldn't be made. I have made it very clear that individuals should be treated as such and accommodations should be made.
But if they can't put a ramp in to make those accommodations, just leave the steps for the able bodied people?
Because taking the steps out and putting a ramp in somehow disadvantages able bodied people?
And to be clear a transport network in London where over 50% of stations aren't accessible is treating disabled people fairly and equally?"It's not over 50% of stations to start with, I'm not getting into this because you will clearly twist everything I say anyway. But yes in all honesty if a ramp cannot be fitted or put in then why should we remove the stairs because then no one can use it. As long as alternative arrangements can be made for people that cannot use that station then that isn't an issue. In an ideal world everywhere would be fully inclusive to everybody but we don't live in an idea world. We don't live in a world where we should be expected to change everything simply to accommodate a small group of people. That small group of people should be treated in an equal way such as treating them differently to make sure they can access the same service as everybody else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*sigh* Im not gonna give a young persons definition of the term "woman" or discuss gender here because Im sure I would just get shouted down. Whats the point? However I do wanna say - Trans women: I see you, and recognise you as the women you are. Rock on girls!
People who find this offensive: the world is changing so quickly and Im sorry if that feels scary to you. I agree that there are lots of discussions that need to be had, and I wish that it were easier for everyone to discuss it together. I think so many people just need to have their fears listened to.
I hope you can find people who will talk to you about your fears and your struggles, and that you find your peace with the world as it changes to become more inclusive of trans people.
Smiles, with a hint of melancholy,
Fay x "Brilliant..all anyone ever wants is not just to be seen, but seen as the person they are. Trans peeps who have undoubtedly had to fight and endure to become that person. I don't feel they deserve the right to be recognised as who they are so much, but have the right the same as everyone else. They shouldn't need to deserve anything as it should be there already. They shouldn't need to be accepted, we should already accept everyone. I'm probably not much sense lop | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A device for inserting my penis into
"Hide the sausage" "I'm eating one right now . An actual Sausage obviously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the thread actually going to go back to the question the OP actually asked at the beginning?
But it can't go back to that because if anybody says that they believe a woman is a woman because she was born as such they will get jumped on. Or a woman is a woman if she has a vagina Then somehow we are transphobic or bashing trans people. It was a very loaded question.
It's always the same people who constantly change these threads into a fight, nothing else is ever expected now.
I don't care how or what people identify as, that's their business.
I'm female...
I was born as one...
I will remain one..
I have a vagina...
And I am classed as a Woman!
If someone else has an issue with that then that's their issue and they can go fuck themselves.
I'm also a cis woman, and my identity is secure enough that I can include trans people.
Here you go again suggesting that anybody that doesn't put cis in front of their gender is somehow insecure on their identity. I do not put cis in front of my gender but I can also include trans people!
I'm sorry if you read my comment that way. It wasn't intended as such, I'm just using the most inclusive language in the context. As is my right.
If you're ok with including trans people, why are you not ok with inclusive language in general literature and their medical care, when your medical care would continue to use the pronouns and identity you choose?
We do not need to change everything to include people that is what you are not getting. We don't have to get angry with people that struggle to understand a very complex and difficult subject, We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. What we have to do is treat individuals with care, dignity and sensitively. "Which in this instance might include changing some literature. Almost nothing would change for you. But a trans man with cervical cancer brewing might not have to battle dysphoria to get his smear, and it might save his life. It is the same as a ramp or other disability accommodations. Except maybe even less intrusive than other accommodations. Imagine how many more stairs could be put in if ramps weren't necessary. The same trade off can't be said for tiny tweaks in literature and maybe a box or two more to tick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. " A "legitimate concern" needs to be backed up with logic and evidence that it is indeed a problem. Where is the evidence that trans inclusive languages causes problems? "I don't like this" is not a "legitimate concern" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A device for inserting my penis into
"Hide the sausage"
I'm eating one right now .
An actual Sausage obviously "You're letting the side down... need more penis clearly .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. A "legitimate concern" needs to be backed up with logic and evidence that it is indeed a problem. Where is the evidence that trans inclusive languages causes problems? "I don't like this" is not a "legitimate concern" " No it doesn't! people do not have to give evidence on how something makes them feel. If somebody is concerned they have every right to feel that way and don't have to back it up. I thought we lived in a society where people were allowed to express their feelings and in fact that was encouraged but obviously only some expression of feelings are allowed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A device for inserting my penis into
"Hide the sausage"
I'm eating one right now .
An actual Sausage obviously
You're letting the side down... need more penis clearly ...."I have to be in the mood for one of those and it's Monday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. A "legitimate concern" needs to be backed up with logic and evidence that it is indeed a problem. Where is the evidence that trans inclusive languages causes problems? "I don't like this" is not a "legitimate concern" " I've seen no evidence that anyone would lose anything other than "birthing person - that's a bit jarring. Oh. Yeah, I guess that's me" and then they go off and everything is the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. A "legitimate concern" needs to be backed up with logic and evidence that it is indeed a problem. Where is the evidence that trans inclusive languages causes problems? "I don't like this" is not a "legitimate concern" No it doesn't! people do not have to give evidence on how something makes them feel. If somebody is concerned they have every right to feel that way and don't have to back it up. I thought we lived in a society where people were allowed to express their feelings and in fact that was encouraged but obviously only some expression of feelings are allowed. " I've asked what you lose. You said you feel marginalised. Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue "What's that got to do with anything?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. A "legitimate concern" needs to be backed up with logic and evidence that it is indeed a problem. Where is the evidence that trans inclusive languages causes problems? "I don't like this" is not a "legitimate concern" No it doesn't! people do not have to give evidence on how something makes them feel. If somebody is concerned they have every right to feel that way and don't have to back it up. I thought we lived in a society where people were allowed to express their feelings and in fact that was encouraged but obviously only some expression of feelings are allowed. " You can feel how you like. You can't use those feelings alone to justify excluding people. When people said they had "legitimate concerns" about gay marriage, and that it "devalued marriage" should we have listened to them and not gone ahead with it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This conversation is so far from the original question " OP knew exactly how it would end when he posted it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We don't have to accuse people of being transphobic or trans bashing because they have legitimate concerns. A "legitimate concern" needs to be backed up with logic and evidence that it is indeed a problem. Where is the evidence that trans inclusive languages causes problems? "I don't like this" is not a "legitimate concern" No it doesn't! people do not have to give evidence on how something makes them feel. If somebody is concerned they have every right to feel that way and don't have to back it up. I thought we lived in a society where people were allowed to express their feelings and in fact that was encouraged but obviously only some expression of feelings are allowed. " Of course you have every right to feel the way you feel, but equally if those feelings are because you're understanding of an issue is based on incorrect assumptions then people should be able to point that out. I used to feel that mushrooms were horrible, until someone pointed out that my parents cooked them to death. That doesn't mean my feelings were wrong, but feelings are just feelings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This conversation is so far from the original question OP knew exactly how it would end when he posted it. " I believe so, but then it's really predictable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue
What's that got to do with anything??"It's something the right wing media whips up despite a lack of data indicating any harm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" Two womans  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" A gift from God. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women?" The person who does the hoovering up  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue "Why is that? Because they don't agree with you? It is after all the UK best selling newspaper at just shy of 900k readers. Can they all be wrong.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue
What's that got to do with anything??
It's something the right wing media whips up despite a lack of data indicating any harm
"It doesn't have anything to do with it though because I've never read the daily mail in my life. It is also strongly suggesting anybody who has concerns about this subject is somehow right wing. I am not a cis woman I am just a woman. I am however also not right wing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? The person who does the hoovering up "Then Ash is a woman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? The person who does the hoovering up
Then Ash is a woman. "This changes everything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue
What's that got to do with anything??
It's something the right wing media whips up despite a lack of data indicating any harm
It doesn't have anything to do with it though because I've never read the daily mail in my life. It is also strongly suggesting anybody who has concerns about this subject is somehow right wing. I am not a cis woman I am just a woman. I am however also not right wing! "I have no horse in this race but I agree with this last point. I’m not a cis man I’m just a man. I feel the same way about being called BAME as I do cis. It’s just throwing me in another box with another label. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue
What's that got to do with anything??
It's something the right wing media whips up despite a lack of data indicating any harm
"163 articles in May (over 5 a day) Just in the Daily Mail 501 Across all mainstream papers (not including LGBT Media) or over 16 articles a day The media has a lot to do with it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? The person who does the hoovering up "How brave are you ha ha Thats only because you can't be trusted to not stick your knob in the hoover nozzle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? A gift from God." Your latest pictures put up a good argument for that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue
What's that got to do with anything??
It's something the right wing media whips up despite a lack of data indicating any harm
163 articles in May (over 5 a day) Just in the Daily Mail
501 Across all mainstream papers (not including LGBT Media) or over 16 articles a day
The media has a lot to do with it"Informing their readership is a bad thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? The person who does the hoovering up
How brave are you ha ha
Thats only because you can't be trusted to not stick your knob in the hoover nozzle "You’ve missed that cobweb in the corner love | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a women? The person who does the hoovering up
How brave are you ha ha
Thats only because you can't be trusted to not stick your knob in the hoover nozzle "Ohh So that is why Ash likes to do the Hoovering!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue
What's that got to do with anything??
It's something the right wing media whips up despite a lack of data indicating any harm
163 articles in May (over 5 a day) Just in the Daily Mail
501 Across all mainstream papers (not including LGBT Media) or over 16 articles a day
The media has a lot to do with it"Articles about what ... And no I don't read it but my boss does and I've flicked through it on occasion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone should just stop reading the Daily Mail and then maybe we could get some sense on this issue
What's that got to do with anything??
It's something the right wing media whips up despite a lack of data indicating any harm
It doesn't have anything to do with it though because I've never read the daily mail in my life. It is also strongly suggesting anybody who has concerns about this subject is somehow right wing. I am not a cis woman I am just a woman. I am however also not right wing! "If you're not cis then you're trans. They're mutually exclusive and all encompassing categories, whether you like the terminology or not. I'm sorry that facts upset you. I also didn't say you were right wing. I said the right wing media whips it up. I don't think you're media either, if that helps | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
