This has really upset me

I am the daughter of my mother, as she is the daughter of her mother, as she was the daughter of her mother. When my grandmother was born her ovaries and eggs grew in her, in her mother’s womb, my mother was one of those eggs. As she grew in my grandmothers womb her ovaries and eggs grew in her within my grandmothers womb. I was one of those eggs. No male can do this. No matter what accommodations you want us to make, no matter how you try to erase the word. WE ARE MOTHERS.

Yet not one person here read or commented on the article in the Lancet which explains it all from a medical perspective.

We all just run and jump on the Daily Mail to inform us of our opinions.

What do you think we are missing? Many of the people on this thread are perfectly well informed on the "medical perspective". Speak for yourself. Why don't you quote the portion of the article you find so important so that we know what we are supposed to be looking at?

No one is stopping anyone from using the word mother to describe themselves.

Not yet, no. Though I expect there are TRAs who think this should happen. But the removal of words like 'mother' and 'woman' from official and government documentation is still unacceptable. If we absolutely must maintain the utter fiction that people who aren't women can give birth, then at least documentation should say "mothers and those who identify as birth parents" or something. But it is a fiction, and the law should not be dealing in fiction.

It isn't a sentiment though?

It's fact. Biological fact.

Trans women are not women.

Trans mens are not men.

That biological fact may be upsetting or distressing. These people can present as they wish and use whatever name they choose, but they can't insist on everyone agreeing with something that is factually untrue.

I am very distressed at the fact that I am ageing. My knees are clicky and my hair is grey, I have a saggy tummy covered in stretch marks. It genuinely upsets me that I have pelvic floor and joint issues.

If I insisted I was only 20 would it change how old I am? If I had plastic surgery and a tummy tuck and Botox and fillers and dyed my hair....would I be any less of an older woman? Insisting I should have a Student Railcard and don't need a smear test yet?

Insisting on something doesn't change the biological facts.

Yet not one person here read or commented on the article in the Lancet which explains it all from a medical perspective.

We all just run and jump on the Daily Mail to inform us of our opinions.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32764-3/fulltext

Yet not one person here read or commented on the article in the Lancet which explains it all from a medical perspective.

We all just run and jump on the Daily Mail to inform us of our opinions.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32764-3/fulltext

Because the language we use changes over time. We do not use derogatory words such as 'coloured' or 'retarded', despite there at the time being objection to changing the status quo.

That is not the same thing. Demanding that biologically male people be called women, and that women who have given birth should not be referred to as mothers is not discouraging derogatory language, it's enabling one group of people to appropriate, change and police the language which defines and describes another group of peoole whom they have historically oppressed (and continue to oppress in some cases). A better comparison would be if white people were allowed to identify as black and then started trying to remove words which people from black communities use to describe themselves or things about their cultures.

I have seen many reports from the LGB who want to keep their sex based rights and to express same-sex attraction too.

Lesbians, for example, are sexually attracted to women with vaginas, and not to penises. It doesn't matter if the penis-owner says it's a woman's penis, it isn't. It's like me entering my gerbil into a dog show, even with a collar saying Boxer it's still a gerbil.

The saying “ give an inch and people take a mile” has never been more pertinent than it is now.

Not everything this over-indulged group of people want is a "human right", but how very convenient that they've persuaded people that it is.

because we should be accommodating this, in the same way that we accommodate other LGB minorities.

"Other LGB minorities" don't tell me what I am allowed to think about my own biological reality, and how I should label myself and what words I can and can't use about my sex.

Yes those words thankfully aren't accepted now as they are derogatory. Are you saying mother is in the same league?

No obviously not. Point is that the way we talk about things and the way we use language changes over time. No one is stopping anyone from using the word mother to describe themselves.

Chalking disgusting comments outside a woman’s conference isn’t a human right.

@freudien

But gender cannot be fluid and fixed at the same point. How can you say
"some people will change their gender" when gender can fluctuate within the same day based on feelings?

What are they changing from and to what?

We need female and male spaces, and a third space for anyone with 'additional feelings'.

Reading through this thread however, it is sad to see the sentiment - trans women are not women. Trans men are not men.

It's even more sad to see damaging pseudoscience and misguided virtue signalling take the place of the biological reality of billions of people disadvantaged on the grounds of their female sex, when making policy.

What human rights don’t trans people have?
Being able to access spaces exclusively meant for women and girls is not a “human right”

@ErrolTheDragon

Most women are ok with appropriate accommodations re trans men - by using additional terms. We are not ok with expunging the word 'mother'. It's pretty much equivalent to saying that to accommodate gay marriage you have to ban heterosexual marriage.

No one is telling you to not call yourself a mother. The argument is around trans women who want to call themselves mother. And trans men who want to call themselves father. And that that whole group of parents should be called 'parents'.

Reading through this thread however, it is sad to see the sentiment - trans women are not women. Trans men are not men. That is the human rights issue here - because we should be accommodating this, in the same way that we accommodate other LGB minorities.

The way we use language does mater - anyone here with an SEN child for example, or someone from any minority will tell you - the way we talk about things matters.

Most women are ok with appropriate accommodations re trans men - by using additional terms. We are not ok with expunging the word 'mother'.
It's pretty much equivalent to saying that to accommodate gay marriage you have to ban heterosexual marriage.

Women in general and mothers in particular have always been, and still are, systematically and structurally discriminated against. I suppose these words have been used in derogatory ways for centuries, and still are.
But it's up to women and mothers to decide if they want to keep them. An analogy is 'gay', I suppose, and there are obvious racial examples.

If you think at this point in U.K. history woman or mother should be viewed in any way as a derogatory term on a par with 'retarded' ... well, I'd say that was a pretty odd and perhaps unintentionally misogynistic position.

some people will change their gender, and we all have to accommodate this

What accommodations did you have in mind?

Just as we accommodated same sex marriage, abortion

No gay person has ever asked me to pretend I can’t tell what sex they are. What changes did I have to make to accommodate gay marriage?

The truth is that some people will change their gender

It's meaningless as it's not possible to change sex, and yes there is going to be resistance to an obvious group of disadvantaged people being erased from language.

Because the language we use changes over time.

We do not use derogatory words such as 'coloured' or 'retarded', despite there at the time being objection to changing the status quo.

In the same vein we no longer use 'disorder' and 'co-morbidity' but 'condition', and 'co-occurrence'. It wasn't that long ago that being gay was classed as a 'sexual perversion' in the DSM.

The truth is that some people will change their gender, and we all have to accommodate this. Just as we accommodated same sex marriage, abortion, civil rights and all the other rights that came before. It's sad to see so much resistance to this.