A new definition of female, brought to you by twitter.

That whole debate is about women.

By stating that TW are categorically female, she's wiped out the sex based rights of transmen.

If you've got one you know it's muscular, warm and wet, orgasms happen all around the vagina, not just on the visible bit of clitoris - and the clitoris is much bigger than most people know - and the uterus flexes during the month and we bleed and bloat and flatten with blood and babies or blood and no babies. All being well it's a whole pulsing, sometimes painful, sometimes amazing self-maintaining city - not a cul de sac.

KettlePolly Seems like MNHQ thought that the last part of your post was not in spirit, but what a pity it was deleted because this is such a great description of the female reproductive organs.

Yes, how does disappearing the numbers help when we are told, and can see, that resources are already short in supply?

Not sure it will work they way they wish it to.

I can't imagine what happens with these figures. What if the number of trans people is shown to be really small? And then when services are inadequate do we get "oh but there are loads of us, we just weren't truthful on the census?"

'As a historian, the census is one of the best and most important documents we have about people’s lives. They have always been a positive battleground for self-Id, especially for women.'

What on gods green earth is she on about? She seems to be living in somekind of Barbra Cartland fantasy novel.
Remember girls JUST BE NICE (and the boys will llike you)
btw; bad news Fern, however 'nice'you are men like the ones you are trying to arselick will still hate you.

That academic criticises GC feminists, or "tefs" as she is fond of calling fellow women, for reducing women to their reproductive capacity.*

Unlike her definition of being fuckable in a womanly way?

My mind a genuinely blown by all this posturing about it being more important to self-validate by lying on the census (thereby making it seem like there are fewer trans people than there are) than to have accurate stats on the UK trans population so trans people can make the arguments they'd like to for NHS funding, changing the legal protections for 51% of the population, etc.

Absolutely!

Dr EM on Twitter (she's really worth a follow) did a long thread about this a couple of weeks ago. CBA to find it, but someone less lazy might be able to do so. Dr EM is a GC feminist & excellent twitterer, and she did a really good job of showing how much of an own goal lying on the census form about sex is for TWs.

That academic criticises GC feminists, or "te*fs" as she is fond of calling fellow women, for reducing women to their reproductive capacity. She has given zero thought to classification and as to why saying women belong to the female sex class is merely a biological description and the least regressive way of considering women. A simple cold fact. Apparently though, reducing being a women to penetrative fuckability is not remotely sexist or anachronistic. Holes'R'us

More to the point, if the current figures show that men are twice as likely to have (e.g.) heart disease than women are, and we suddenly see a huge rise in women with heart disease, we need to know if there's a women-with-heart-disease problem to be addressed, or just a change in labelling. And also, we can't deduce from the figures if there's a heart-disease-in-men-who've-had-female-hormones problem.

Yes, this exactly. The labels can be protective to the biological females who have been neglected by science. If we remove a meaningful distinction between a biological female and a biological male then bottom line is more females will die.

If the female academic can't get this, she's not coming across as being very bright.

Twitter and other social media keep chirping at me that it's brilliant that trans people are going to be able to record their gender identity in the census for the first time.

If there is a requirement that they must record their sex observed at birth, then it matters little if they want to record their gender identity in addition to that.

The pudding is well tanned and a bit desiccated but has forgiven me for my culinary lapse, which I rescued with some nifty trimming of the burnt bits with a sharp knife. All's well, thank you for asking

organic penis

There’s something just completely Mumsnet about that phrase grin ought it to be free range, too?

Sophocles! No, no, no! Haven't most of our problems with gender ideology been caused by its propensity to enable penises to range entirely too far?!

Surprised an academic needs to answer that. It's because a transwomen is a biological male. Gender identity and sex are not the same things.

If the inverted penis method is used, as I understand it, there can be problems with hair growth inside the neovagina if electrolysis hasn't been done adequately.

If the above method to create the neovagina isn't feasible then I think the colon is used.

My mind a genuinely blown by all this posturing about it being more important to self-validate by lying on the census (thereby making it seem like there are fewer trans people than there are) than to have accurate stats on the UK trans population so trans people can make the arguments they'd like to for NHS funding, changing the legal protections for 51% of the population, etc.

They have got to be just saying it for effect. No-one is that self defeating, surely.

If the government get back details saying that 1% of the population is trans as opposed to 10% (numbers made up) then they would cut so much funding for trans support groups etc

And there will surely be less support for changing language to cervix-havers, menstruators in official documents, for purposes of public information etc if the numbers of trans people are perceived to be very small.

Also, if the MoJ have to start recording the sex of offenders, it's going to really skew the percentages. 100 (for example) male-bodied violent offenders presenting as female is going to appear as an inflated percentage of the trans population as a whole if so many trans people haven't identified themselves as such on the census.

Fair enough. Well I wish your dd luck in the future

@ChiefBabySniffer

Jesus. The surgery sounds barbaric. I'm sorry if this gets me deleted or banned but that's basically mutilation.

I cannot escape the feeling that transsexualism/transgenderism/whatever the latest approved term is, is a serious mental disorder. To want to put yourself through such procedures, not to mention the life long upkeep and complications, strikes me as the sign of someone who is truly unwell.

How have we got to a place where any of this is acceptable? Of course a consenting adult can do whatever they please to themselves. I just wonder how we even ended up with such surgeries as an option. I imagine an alternate universe where society took the route of therapy and counselling for such people. It would be nice to see how that approach could have turned out.

@soubriquet

Yes, actually!

The neovagina is actually more sensitive than the neoclitros, and it's more likely to achieve orgasm from penetration than stimulation.

Prostrate cancer and ovarian cancer really don't care about your gender identity and feelings.. surely it's crucial to get accurate figures to ensure that allocations for medical care etc are directed correctly?

Let's assume another horrible virus like COVID comes along (heaven forbid) but has a vastly disproportionate effect on men rather than women... are trans women still going to insist they are women or will they be clamouring for their place in the vaccine priority group?

@Eteri

Can they actually feel anything when penetrated in the neovagina?