Starker: Not only women have a cervix

Perhaps a group of constituents could arrange to meet with him, well away from their actual addresses. While wearing dinosaur masks to protect their identities.

I heard David Lammy on the Today programme this morning saying he resented being asked about this issue as it doesn't come up on the doorstep. So please if you live in his constituency and he drops by bring it up!

The fact that males including rapists have been going to women's prisons. And I for one have never seen when this decision was made, who was involved, why it was considered in the first place.

So no wide visibility or things in the press which means it really was under the table.

And only came out when people started looking into the policies etc of orgs after it was realised they were not as everyone assumed.

And that there have been women in prison sexually assaulted. Or scared, uncomfortable, unsettled etc.

And that various knowledgeable individuals and groups have submitted evidence to govt, warned this policy is likely to be abused, testimony from women in prison and those working in prisons. All saying in no uncertain terms that this is a massive risk and a disaster for the other inmates, plus they are a particularly vulnerable group.

All that.

And the policy remains in place.

That tells us that NO political party gives a shit about women and girls. And/ or will not touch this topic with a bargepole.

The power is incredible. Achieving something unthinkable to the population, so thoroughly and including such extreme situations. And making it so that NO political party will disagree/ review policies etc.

We will never stop dealing with this stuff until we stop bullshitting around and accept that transmen are women and transwomen are men full stop. That they can be proud of that, there's nothing wrong with that, and that they will die if they can not accept that.

It's worse than that.

It's claiming a human right for male people to be provided with female humans. The female humans not consenting to be provided is not relevant in this process.

Ugh. You're right Artichoke.

Women are designated as a never-ending supply to men in order to validate their feelings, including those feelings which are a danger to women.

Lovely to see the kind of men backing Starmer on this. Obligatory beard and allusions to sexual violence.

On men in women's prisons, there is also the impact on women's career prospects. Why would women want to go into the Prison Service if they know they will likely have to deal with physically stronger men in their daily work? Just makes the whole job less attractive and more dangerous for them, as well as for the female prisoners.

It's fucking 2021 and men are successfully claiming their human right to intimidate, harass and sexually assault incarcerated women.

It's worse than that.

It's claiming a human right for male people to be provided with female humans. The female humans not consenting to be provided is not relevant in this process.

It's just beyond belief.

Welcome to the UK, where no one will admit to knowing there's such a thing as sex. Apparently. But we all still know who gets to demand and who has to give, and who gets spoken of in the language of serial killers.

There was zero problem with the words woman girl until very recently.

Everyone knew what it meant.
It was clear.

Exactly. How else would ozzy know that ozzy has a cervix?

I too, would like to know how to determine one's gender. And what gender means actually, as it seems to mean something else these days.

[quote WarriorN]By the way, for any of KS's aids who might be reading this or any plopping monitors, this is worth a watch, detailing what really happens when men go into female jails:

It's fucking 2021 and men are successfully claiming their human right to intimidate, harass and sexually assault incarcerated women.

This is a shameful period in British politics. And Boris is every bit as craven as his fellow politicians, by his silence.

Thank god for women like Kate Coleman who refuse to be silenced.

Eresh to hear the abuse detailed as in that statement is just abominable.

Thread on the queer birth stuff which is all around controlling language.

Some excellent points made by other posters.

"Queer birth" response from With Woman www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4360825-queer-birth-response-from-with-woman

By the way, for any of KS's aids who might be reading this or any plopping monitors, this is worth a watch, detailing what really happens when men go into female jails:

Utterly rage making how dare they let these women be sexually abused and gaslighted in this way.

From the Telegraph article which Dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby :

He not only denied biological reality – for of course only women have cervixes – he also claimed the right to tell us what to think and say.

The telling people what to say is also what shocked me. The UK is supposed to have freedom of speech and freedom of belief /expression of beliefs and yet we have someone who wants to lead the country trying to control what people say.

And, on this tangent I recently read this which was interesting and I think needs its own thread:

with-woman.org/2021/09/21/mothers-they-matter-however-they-identify-heres-why/?fbclid=IwAR0l7G7EzoIUATlOpwJdrkjntaI5t-XDuwVyxv2s8V8WxgvNNvUAX6zKk6E

So-called ‘additive language’ – a suggested idea in the Open Letter – doesn’t help in any way. ‘Women and birthing people’ in a document sounds like there are two different sorts of people who give birth. It’s confusing, divisive and inaccurate….and still denies the impact of biological sex. We also know that in real life the result of additive language is that the words ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ disappear – often for practical reasons of space and time, and other times to deliberately omit the whole notion of ‘women’ as a biological sex.

Which is another good point; in breastfeeding circles they want to stop using breast and woman, mother etc. I was told it's gendered language and so upsetting.

What's a cervix if it's not gendered language? Doesn't fucking make sense.

From the association of breastfeeding mothers conference www.facebook.com/164256076965047/posts/4571944662862811/?d=n

Only people born female have uteruses 🤷🏼‍♀️ fucking simple

Though I do feel I've seen many cases where young girls, often vulnerable or with autism (and so also vulnerable) have been led into this, coerced or even abused to believe they're the opposite sex.

The grown women / mothers who claim NB status, who seem to be the worst in face book sling and breastfeeding groups at demanding that we erase "gendered language" of mother, breast feeding etc (i did once want to point out that milk bleb may also be gendered so what should be used instead but cba to go there) should definitely know better.

By the way, for any of KS's aids who might be reading this or any plopping monitors, this is worth a watch, detailing what really happens when men go into female jails:

Yes I agree.

Also, just occurred to me, if we pander to the idea that to use the word woman or mother is dysphorically "triggering," how the FUCK can the TRAs claim that therefore trans women must be in women's prisons with vulnerable women who've likely to have been victims of actual violence?

Where being affected (triggered, hate that word) by the presence of a male reminds of the actual literal violence they experienced?

As I said before, my inclusion of the word trans men is directly linked to public health where I am concerned about young confused teens.

If a woman has the mental capacity to choose to be a trans man, then she has the mental capacity to understand that all trans men have female bodies and are therefore women. That is literally how it works. Therefore, all that needs to be said is Women have cervixes.

Nick Timothy gets it in today's Daily Telegraph (he used to work for Theresa May until she lost her majority at the unnecessary GE):
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/26/virtue-signalling-now-clue-institution-failing-deliver/
'Amid the factionalism at the Labour conference, the sanctimony and virtue-seeking is visible for all to see. Keir Starmer kicked off by promising to reform the Gender Recognition Act. Saying only women have a cervix, he declared, “is not right” and “something that shouldn’t be said”.

Starmer’s intervention is a case study in progressive politics. He promises legal changes to make it easier for men to declare themselves women and access single-sex services and spaces, which will jeopardise the privacy and safety of women. He not only denied biological reality – for of course only women have cervixes – he also claimed the right to tell us what to think and say.

The issue arose because Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP and feminist who has criticised proposed changes to gender-recognition laws, has said she cannot attend the party conference because of threats made against her by activists. Instead of defending Duffield, Starmer asserted that she did not have the right to say what is a biological fact.

It is yet another example of how those who believe in their own virtue, and those who shout loudest about their virtuous beliefs, are often those who show the least virtue in the real world. It is not just the Labour Party that proves it, for public services, big business and even this Government – run by Conservatives – are also guilty.'

'Elsewhere, we have the prison service – which allows men identifying as women without official gender recognition certificates into women’s prisons – distributing pronoun badges for staff. We have the NHS confusing patients and referring to women as “people with a cervix” in information campaigns about cancer. We have universities abandoning free speech and dictating the parameters of “acceptable” thought.'

There was zero problem with the words woman girl until very recently.

Everyone knew what it meant.
It was clear.
It handily encompassed women and girls as whole human people who shared female biology. Whether this bit or that had been removed, whether you were currently having periods or not was no problem.

That's the beauty of the terms. They meant female human. They still do to the vast majority of the general public.

And the equivalent words around the world also mean female.

I note though that female is currently being redefined. And that leaves the female half of the worlds population. In this country. With no words to describe us as a defined group.

Given that women and girls have globally and as far back as we know, been oppressed in a variety of ways and still are being. It's quite important to have a word for us. Given the oppression is due to our sex.

The headline 'People with vaginas in Afghanistan worried about the future under the Taliban' has a nice ring to it I think.

ozzyteabiscuit it is not inclusive language.
Its exclusive.
Medical information needs to be simple and clear or it makes it much harder for women with learning disabilities, Deaf women and women with English as a second language to access health care.
Women with LDs, as a group, have a life expectancy of 30 years less than those without. This is partly down to poor uptake^ of screening and other health^ opportunities.
Your average TM is educated, white and middle class. Please do not tell me that a female with short hair who wears trousers and calls themselves Luke is more vulnerable than a woman with LDs.
I am not having it and I am sick of hearing it.

Very well said 👏

Not to mention the utter nonsense being pedalled in schools. Catch them while they're young eh?

Yes my (chilling) thoughts when I did it.