Starker: Not only women have a cervix

Why does it matter that you don't understand how somebody feels something. Just accept that they feel it, especially when it doesn't affect you any any way.

I know I am late but @ozzyteabiscuit could you explain why, when women tell you they feel something, you just dismiss it?

Is it that the feelings of wmen just don't matter?

That when they see something being imposed upon them they must just silently accept it?

Being able to self identify??
Sexual harrassment
Rape?

This argument is tedious and dangerous:

Worth noting that the evidence of violence by trans women in women's spaces is far less than the evidence of violence against trans women in men's spaces.

Yes, you're absolutely right @ozzyteabiscuit.

I'm not sure they are. Citation please.

[quote Mumobag]@EdgeOfACoin that's why it makes more sense to say 'Women and other people with a cervix' (or whatever term defines the people you're trying to reach). Using 'women and trans men' doesn't include female non-binary people either.[/quote]
Female Non-binary people are women.

Unless there's an alternative definition of 'woman'? If so, please could you provide it?

You've missed my exact point, of course you are a woman there is no doubt in your mind and my mind that it does not change your gender.

She's a woman because of her female sexed body, that's the only reason. Not because she feels she is one. Having female body parts removed does not change your sex and literally no one here thinks it does. You are being ridiculous.

"Gender" is a social construct based on sex stereotypes. Sex is material reality.

@EdgeOfACoin that's why it makes more sense to say 'Women and other people with a cervix' (or whatever term defines the people you're trying to reach). Using 'women and trans men' doesn't include female non-binary people either.

Just because I believe trans women are women and trans men are men doesn't mean I disagree with science. I have a masters in science, facts are facts.

Yes, just like there are scientists who are creationists, there are scientists who adopt all kinds of pseudoscientific faith based beliefs.

I don't like the term 'women and transmen' when talking about cervixes because it implies that 'woman' means something other than 'adult human female'.

I don't know what that 'other' is. What am I identifying as, ozzie? On another thread I asked this question and was told by another poster that she identified as a woman because she always wanted to bear children and liked traditionally feminine things.

Is thar your definition of a woman, ozzie? Are 'women' people who want to bear children and like traditionally feminine things?

Also, you may recall that I asked you a question ages ago about how one 'lives as a male'. I gave you the example of Freddy McConnell who identifies as a man but who, after receiving a Gender Recognition Certificate, underwent IVF treatment in order to conceive and bear a child.

In your view, is that 'living as a man'? (How does that square with the poster on the other thread who said that the desire to bear a child was part of her gender identity as 'woman'?)

You also dislike the terms 'male' and 'female' as categories for biological sex. However, these terms extend far beyond just humans. Holly trees, for instance, are male or female depending on whether they bear berries.

Please can you tell me how we can work out the internal gender of holly trees, since you reject the idea of 'male' and 'female' referring to reproductive function? Is it possible to misgender a holly tree?

Btw, I ask a lot of questions and very rarely get replies. I've watched a lot of Jamie and Shaaba in my time. They seem nice, but they never really cover the questions I have. I thought they might, because Jamie has a PhD in gender, but they don't.

Nevertheless, since you are open minded enough to read Joyce's book, I am prepared to give Jammidodger another go.

It's all been around trans women again.

Surely the right answer is "yes, only women and trans men have cervixes . This matters as they can both get cervical cancer, because they both have xx genes and bodies."

Worth noting that the evidence of violence by trans women in women's spaces is far less than the evidence of violence against trans women in men's spaces.

Yes, you're absolutely right @ozzyteabiscuit. And do you know why? Because the problem is male violence. Yet in the delightfully misogynistic society we live in, instead of tackling the root of the problem, it's decided that women should simply 'shift up' and sacrifice our own spaces in order to accomodate transwomen.

Nobody should be in fear of violence when using the toilet, for example. But why is no one focussing on the male violence that transwomen are trying to get away from, but screaming at women for wanting to protect their single sex spaces?

Not to mention of course, that if a violent man has decided to target a transwoman, all he has to do is 'identify as a woman' and follow said transwoman into the women's toilets to attack her... so now nobody is safe from male violence...

But that's fine, all in the name of inclusivity eh.

@ozzyteabiscuit
"Just offering some wisdom so there is no confusion regarding appointments being given to individuals who don't have a cervix because that isn't what is happening"

I'm not really that fussed over the argument and it's good to hear a different side argued on here, but I have to point out that transwomen have taken official complaints out against their gps because they had not been called for routine smears. They said to be left off the list, even though they didn't have a cervix, was discriminatory. So I think you might find that GPs, to avoid legal fees, might indeed be giving appointment to bodies with no cervixes. Sorry, is that the proper term these days?

It came at the end of a bit where he said that no child in the UK had been given hormones

That's not true. Helen Webberley has prescribed hormones for children. She gave testosterone to a 12 year old girl.

Onto talking about people with vulvas etc. Shaaba doesn't feel she's been reduced to her body parts by being called a "person who menstruates" and realises that it's only being inclusive to trans men. Personally, I'd feel saying "women and trans men" is inclusive and that talking about people as their body parts is not inclusive. Why on earth not just say women and trans men. I get that some women don't menstruate and nor do some trans men. However, when has a non-menstruating woman ever taken offence at being included in menstruation advice even though she herself doesn't menstruate.

I disagree strongly on this, not just because I feel it does reduce people to body parts but also because that reduction forms part of the mysogynist's armoury against women.

I'm aware this may sound as if it's falling into the smearing a lot of people with the same brush when it's only a few issue, but I think that mysogyny is still such a huge problem for women that anything that gives free rein to it isn't a good move.

Well.

Iran is very much at the forefront of affording full surgery.

Incidentally. Homosexuality is punishable by death there.

I'm at 45.12 now and Jamie's just mentioned puberty blockers. This I feel has been skipped over. It came at the end of a bit where he said that no child in the UK had been given hormones and it's mentioned the UK a bit on this subject. Which takes my mind back to when he said violence against trans people was astronomical but didn't say the stats they were showing were worldwide.

I feel they are being a bit naughty here by using different types of statistics and not saying so. Are hormones used elsewhere in the world? What are children's trans services like elsewhere? Yes they keep saying viewers can look into the articles etc themselves but I must be one of the few who's doing that, and I've only done it with a couple of their screenshots.

Anyway, back to puberty blockers. This bit was tagged onto the end of the no hormones used on children part. It was skimmed over, and no articles or evidence was cited, so I'm feeling a bit wary about this aspect and not convinced by their argument.

because of a few people you can't deny the rights of an entire group.

Safeguarding works exactly on the principle you can deny the wants of few for the protection of the many.

Assuming any group should be exempted from safeguarding is always a disaster because some of the initial cohort in the group will statistically be a risk and once a pathway to abuse becomes set others will join the group with the abuse opportunity specifically for that purpose.

I’m not sure anyone who claims men can have a uterus and women can have a prostrate and it’s fine to call transmen “bodies with vaginas” are actually being inclusive when they don’t push for transwomen to be referred to as “bodies with a prostate”.

If this language is to include transpeople with vaginas/cervices/who menstruate then probably you ought to be clarifying that transpeople with penises/prostates/who produce sperm deserve the respect and inclusivity of being referred to in these inclusive, non-dehumanising ways.

I expect to see some of our dear friends clarifying that these terms are not just ok but should be widely used or else I may think they’re not that inclusive at all.

They're talking now about predatory trans women and that because of a few people you can't deny the rights of an entire group. I agree with this. Muslims and people from the traveller community get this all the time. They are all, by some people, pushed under the umbrella of the few who commit crimes.

However, they state that there have been no cases whatsoever of men masquerading as women then commiting crimes against women. This puzzled me and I thought of the case of Karen White. I looked into it and Karen White is currently in a man's prison and is undergoing realignment surgery. So, despite being a violent criminal, she's still not pretending to be a woman because she is actually transitioning.

The thing that I wonder about with this though is that people like Karen will skew statistics because they were born men and will as a result be statistically more likely to commit violent crime. I feel this is a problem although can't articulate why exactly. Is that just my lack of knowledge? Statistics dictate service provision and this could be affected. I wonder if they'll talk about that aspect later in the film.

On I go!

However, Jamie has just said that violence against trans people is astronomical and a screenshot of an article appears stating 331 trans murders in a year. When I looked into the article, it is a worldwide statistic, and 1 of the murders was in the UK and 9 in the rest of Europe. Most of the murders were in Brazil.

Astronomical feels like hyperbole here. When you look at (cis) women statistics that show 87,000 women being murdered in 2017 (139 in UK), the trans rate is tiny in comparison.

This is the first time in the video that I've felt uneasy at what they're saying. I get that there are far fewer trans people than cis people, however to say "astronomical" feels something of a stretch. 1 is not astronomical.

I'll continue watching now and report back.

So an individual with XY chromosome is a man.
Even though they have a uterus, ovaries, cervix, breasts and truly feels and believes they are a woman?

say what now???
Let's get back to basics here: is this hypothetical individual of the human species?

Even the shouty activists and orgs.

This is about politics.

It's about men wanting to access the 'special treatment' that so many resent women and girls having. IE. Anything that men can't join in with.

Same dynamic as men who get angry about eg a women only swim session once a week.
Make no mistake. Stacks of seemingly nice men have a real problem with that sort of thing.

I have been saying for a while that in many orgs, charities, politicians of various colours, businesses and govt depts. The police prisons etc.The redefinition of the words man woman girl boy. Is done. Been accepted.

The fact that the words are used to mean sex still by pretty much the whole population is not seen as a problem. Those who have power, make policy, control workplaces, access to services. On board. Mostly.

And that the words male female are next. The application of male female to those of the opposite sex has been growing. The posts on here are a good example of this next step.

Result.

No words at all to describe the billions of female people (women girls) on the planet as a single distinct group.

None.

All the while men are men and boys are boys.

This is all about women.

And this sounds OTT. But it's about destroying everything we have experienced, our whole history. Our struggles. The fact of the gross oppression in parts of the world. And of course the everyday issues in the countries with less overt oppression (sexual harrassment, sexual assault, mass grooming and sexual exploitation, rape, DV, everyday sexism, inequalities around work and money, and a million more).

We are to be referred to by our reproductive organs, the very root of our millennia of oppression. Bodies with vaginas. Cunts. As so many men see us anyway. A walking selection of penis holes.

We are to be split into specific smaller groups and described by our biological parts and functions.

Not a distinct group. Not a group with a fundamental commonality- shared biology and with a shared experience and history due to our biology.

No words.
No name.
Nothing.

Make no mistake this is what the activists want.

And they are getting it done very very fast.