Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Are we going to have to start using people with vaginas

82 replies

itispersonal · 17/01/2021 14:31

As much as I hate this term, with the war on 'women' as it is with the sports, changing rooms, swimming pools, women's aid etc. The swimming pool in Sydney being the latest place to backtrack and allow all trans women in the women's pool.

Do we actually need places to start saying these spaces are only for people with vaginas? As surely this can't be argued against, men can't them claim to have one, unlike them being able to claim to be a 'woman'.

Obviously I am hopeful this wouldn't be for long, but for long enough for this identity politics (bullshit) to pass and people referring to women and men back in the biological/ common sense terms.

OP posts:
OvaHere · 17/01/2021 14:49

No we hold the line. There's more of us and people everywhere are increasingly fed up of insane boundary pushing by some clearly disordered thinking.

Beamur · 17/01/2021 14:47

No because all that will happen is a push to change what that means

yourhairiswinterfire · 17/01/2021 14:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Floisme · 17/01/2021 14:44

It's a great big no from me. Whatever wording we chose would become the next target.
Also why give up now just when the sunlight is getting in?

HecatesCats · 17/01/2021 14:43

Nope. Woman means adult human female. That's it. It doesn't mean male people who like skirts and hosiery. Liking skirts and hosiery is a preference that some women have and others don't, because women are many and various and not defined by their likes and dislikes, our biology is what we have in common and it is a base from which our personality and preferences grow (influenced by the way society treats us because of our sex). It also doesn't mean males with gender dysphoria, because they're males with gender dysphoria. The demands of a 'tiny minority' (we're so often told they are only a tiny proportion of the population) should not result in wholesale changes in language or meaning. Why should their needs supersede the needs of neuro-diverse individuals, for example, for whole clarity is so important, or woman for whom English is a second language, but for whom the meaning of woman is clear? ANY capitulation will lead to endless capitulation.

FWRLurker · 17/01/2021 14:40

“People born female” or “anyone born assumed to have a female reproductive system” or “no penises”. Have all already been declared transphobic

I would try “natal women, trans men, and non-binary females”. Because it demonstrates inclusivity.

sosotired1 · 17/01/2021 14:35

... but then that will be pushed to "all people who had a vagina that was observed at birth" as we will have to start referring to created orifices which are intended to resemble vaginas as vaginas. It is never ending. I think we need to hold the line on 'women' until it passes.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread