Women 'risk health over trans NHS worker fear' article in tomorrow's Times Scotland edition

I like the phrase "person of the same sex".

And I agree with Floral: it's about power and domination. If we accepted being called "cis" - and it will be a cold day in Hell before I do that - then "cis" will be deemed offensive and we will be forced to use another term that TRAs and their allies deem appropriate. Then, there will be another term. And another one.

Nope. TRAs and their allies have pushed me too far. I am not compromising on my rights. Now or ever. And that if makes me a bigot or a transphobe, so be it.

Precisely, Floral. Freedom of belief is already enshrined in law in many countries. Therefore, genderists have the right to believe in the existence of a female penis, and everyone else has a right to firmly reject that belief. Neither the law nor organizations should be changed to accomodate genderist beliefs.

I consider using cisgender the same as if I wouldn't let you in a church unless you genuflected to the Tabernacle. I do it because I believe God is there. Forcing others to do it would just be a power trip.

And lo, that is the purpose of the Genderist jargon. Submission is the goal. Once that's done, the hull of the ship is split and water will swamp the boat in pretty short order.

it does demonstrate that there's no linguistic way out of this other than refusing to give any ground at all.

Yes. I'm convinced of that now, and very happy to consign "cisgender" to the linguistic rubbish heap it belongs on. Would still like to see the form letter thing happen though it would definitely need a lawyer to draft one!

How about:

A member of the group in society that you are not allowed to say no to?

The TRA's can't be disagreeing with that can they? And we ALL know who that group is.

Those few it may happen to though are too many. Particularly since the women likely to be distressed by this are vulnerable and likely to be the least able to stand up for themselves in the heat of the moment. The options are a woman enduring trauma in the name of 'inclusion' for others that excludes them, or being unable to accept care. Other vulnerable women will just quietly avoid care in the first place.

Yes, those of us who are more robust need to be insisting on HCPs who are women for all intimate procedures so that the point is made.

I think stipulating that we require a same sex practitioner is the way to word it.

The intentional aim is to confuse and obfusticate language and create social anxiety around it in order to prevent women being able to have the words to express what they mean or to refuse the validation this is all about.

Which is partly why here where possible women tend to use the right terms and not buy into it. As a pp says, the real world knows exactly what the words mean and don't know about this online jargon, it's nonsense to most. witness on women's hour, the effort to try and get TRAs to explain what 'cis' meant (and they couldn't, essentially.)

It's been very interesting watching the Scots census discussion and seeing people realise for themselves, sex and gender have to be separated. You can be any gender you want, great, but sex is a fact and needs to be considered separately. That's the only way forward. Plus, as I keep saying, reminding the authorities over and over again, however supportive you wish to be of people who hold unusual and different beliefs, women may not hold these beliefs. It is reasonable to believe a TW is male. Women holding this belief will not be amenable or even able to tolerate a TW doing anything they would not be ready to agree to any other male doing.

That's very difficult in law and policy to ignore.

I wish I was joking, but nope. I mean, it's their term anyway so in that sense fill your boots mate, but it does demonstrate that there's no linguistic way out of this other than refusing to give any ground at all.

A person who was born with a penis

But... that's just an extra large clitoris!!

A person who was born with a penis.

Yes and also bio female. Complete with shenis.

I've seen at least one TRA saying that they're now a cisgender female

oh my god, seriously?????? I bet a lawyer would be able to come up with some waterproof terminology though.

I don't think there's any terminology that could be used that TRAs wouldn't argue with. I've seen at least one TRA saying that they're now a cisgender female since they've been transitioning for a while, and I've also seen claims of being biologically female because sex in humans is a spectrum and blah blah insert complete nonsense here. So at this point "not a transwoman" is probably the only phrasing that would be clear enough, and of course they will scream bloody murder about that.

Fair enough, I'm not even sure I'm right about "cisgendered" and there wouldn't be any point if it would put people off signing something like that.

Tbf Home I understand the point that you are making but it will be a cold day in hell before I start using terms like 'cisgender'. I am more than happy to be labelled a bigot for such an offence - I am called a bigot so often on twitter that it has ceased to mean anything to me in any case.

Not a male bodied person I think everyone would understand. And surely they can't dispute that language can they. CAN THEY??

Oh they can and do. See e.g. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

In the US, there is also growing mainstream recognition that phrases such as “male-bodied” ... are outdated and offensive.

I understand the point. But using cisgender concedes the whole fundamental point.

And no one in the real world has a clue what it means. In the real world EVERYONE knows what the word female means. EVERYONE.

Not a male bodied person I think everyone would understand. And surely they can't dispute that language can they. CAN THEY??

So even if you were to write a letter saying that you only want a biological female to do your smear test, the NHS still can’t guarantee you one because it would be a criminal offence for them to exclude a transwoman with a GRC from doing your smear.

I don't think that is the only issue, although it's certainly a significant one. Not all transwomen have a GRC and a letter like this would be protective in those cases. And the point I was making is that if enough people make a fuss about this then the NHS will have to come up with a reasonable policy about it. It might be a criminal offence to ask about a GRC, but it's at least an ethical breach to provide care that a patient has explicitly not consented to.

Re "cisgendered" I don't really know! In some ways I feel like we need to do the reverse of what they did - get people used to GC thinking in baby steps.

Before I peaktransed I didn't see the issue with "cisgendered" and I felt like making a point of objecting to it was silly. But I would certainly have seen the objection to a trans HCP being provided when a female HCP was suggested. And I'd probably have signed a form letter of the kind I was suggesting, especially if I understood it as a way of protecting women who might be too vulnerable/traumatised/impaired to be able to articulate an objection themselves.

Using "cisgendered" is a way of signalling "not transphobic" and that might protect you from being seen as a bigot for having this request on your records. And it might reassure some people on the fence about signing it. Plus given how TRAs claim to be "female" and even "biologically female" I don't know what other wording would be safe. But also maybe you're totally right and it's an unnecessary concession!

It's unfortunately clear that just "female" won't do. This thread wouldn't be here if that was the case.

I don’t know if you’ve quite understood the issue.

Female does fine. The NHS knows what female means.

The issue is that they have no legal way to exclude males whose birth certificates say female (because they have a GRC).

So even if you were to write a letter saying that you only want a biological female to do your smear test, the NHS still can’t guarantee you one because it would be a criminal offence for them to exclude a transwoman with a GRC from doing your smear.

Home is it not a dangerous step to adopt their ridiculous terminology though? If we accept that cisgendered is a 'thing' then how do we argue against the genderist religion itself?

most would probably think there's very little chance of that happening.

Those few it may happen to though are too many. Particularly since the women likely to be distressed by this are vulnerable and likely to be the least able to stand up for themselves in the heat of the moment. The options are a woman enduring trauma in the name of 'inclusion' for others that excludes them, or being unable to accept care. Other vulnerable women will just quietly avoid care in the first place.

I'd very much appreciate a standard letter, maybe FPFW would help out here? It's so important that women who do feel able to stand up and say it is important that women have access a biologically female hcp if they choose to: they have the voice that more vulnerable women don't. And they need to be pointing out, very loudly, this oh so 'vulnerable' minority demanding inclusion and kindness and intersectionality are trampling the needs of other vulnerable people without giving one flying fuck for those values themselves, or for the diverse needs of the very group they insist they belong to.

^ should say fetishists not fetishes obviously.

I mean FFS !

Sorry x post and my post was in reply to Home