Anti trans for asking not to conflate sex with gender?

Echo chamber

I am so bored with this ridiculous, mindless tag, that just simply now means 'has turned up here pre programmed with brain not engaged'.

Obviously it isn't, or you wouldn't be here as a penis person introducing all sorts of misogyny and interesting ableism and inability to cope with intersectionality and lived experience in actual terms as opposed to your pre programming.

There really is no point turning up here, dumping a lot of pre programming and leaving again. You're changing no one's mind and it just makes you look unable to engage or debate.

The length of menopause for me is an issue. I was told by a doctor (a female doctor who told it like it was) that I was in perimenopause nearly 8 years ago. From listening to other people’s accounts, I am not even near entering menopause so I expect it be a decade or more long. And experiencing all your list of symptoms doubletoil.

Having any male lecture me that I should accept being called ‘a person who’ rather than using the words ‘women and..’ is incredibly offensive. Particularly with the direct experience of male doctors not providing care for menstrual issues that now seems I have live with endometriosis for decades because of their attitude. Oh, and having another male doctor tell me that my morning sickness was just like everyone else’s and to get over it, to discover other women got time off work with symptoms like mine. So after being treated as ‘less than’ by medical staff for decades … having a male tell me to use dehumanising language is very offensive. Whatever the reason.

And I doubt that my experience is unusual in anyway.

I'm peri menopausal. I do not want to be referred to as a person who is going through the menopause. I am a woman. Only females can go through the menopause. The language does not need to be more "inclusive".

I think there may be a confusion from transwomen’s side if they claim that they want to go through the menopause.

Menopause has

a) physical impacts such as flooding, hot flushes, breast tenderness, vaginal dryness and urine leakage

b) mental health symptoms such as anxiety, difficulty sleeping, depression and brain fog

c) reactions from the environment in that older women are treated as worth less, discriminated against and the menopause is actually treated as a joke by some misogynistic men.

This can actually be quite a traumatic time in a woman’s life. A friend of mine felt suicidal until she got HRT. Women also find this hard to discuss and some find it shameful. I know I did.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to go through that. If a specific transman wants to use specific terms to discuss their experience, that is obviously always ok.

But if I understand this correctly, DadJoke is biologically male. I normally find it offensive that women are lectured about their language for talking about themselves and in this context it is appalling. To top that up with ableist languages is …. I lack words. I am happy that DadJoke has taken responsibility for this and is trying to do better.

I think the equivalent would be me popping into a men’s forum, burst into a discussion about erectile disfunction and lecture them about their language. More specifically telling them that they needed to include transwomen in this discussion and argue with them about the terms they should use. And keep going as the transwomen said that they didn’t want to be called penis people with erectile dysfunction. @DadJoke do you recommend that I do that? It is exactly the same thing.

Trans women want to treated as they go through the menopause? They want to go through the menopause?

Right, so use of the word 'woman' make people unsafe but name called people an insult like 'terf' is ok?

past silencing discrimination that women who are now experiencing menopause.

Should be

‘past silencing discrimination that women who are now experiencing menopause have dealt with. ‘

Have you recently had information regarding International Men’s Day sent to you from your organisation? (Public sector worker here) I noted that it talked about MEN and prostate and testicular cancer, male suicide etc there was no talk of people with testicles, women with a prostate. It was trans exclusionary. No attempt whatsoever to be inclusive at all.

weedonkey

I am utterly surprised by your deletion. I thought it was spot on. Like many others, I would not comment on BMN. I occasionally go and read to understand another perspective but my comments would not add much to the conversation.

I do hope that you don’t leave this thread though. As always, I enjoy reading your posts.

Excellent post Hellebore and yes of course you're right Shedbuilder my post has now been deleted as I mentioned the other group of men we're not allowed to discuss when talking about issues that effect women. So there we go. Think I'll bow out of this thread now.

This is always a great reminder that there is a reason for using language that is clear and understandable to the majority. As a marketing person, I have been taught that any communications of this importance needs to be simplified.

There are always some people in a team who will some barrier to understanding the use of ‘people with x body part’ and ‘people who x body function’. Learning differences due to ability for that particular area of language, cultural, and English as a second language.

Even mental and physical health at the time can mean someone skimming over a wall of text and not processing it to be important to them.

I keep coming back to the survey that found 48% of women surveyed did not know they had a cervix!!!

There are so many reasons why language is processed differently. That is why using the detached language of. ‘people who/with’ is not inclusive for the majority. Although, activists insist that it is because it suits their agenda which is not purely to progress trans people’s rights.

And let’s not forget, many trans people don’t want this language either. It seems those with alternative agendas behind making life better for trans people tend to be the ones pushing the hardest on this. And I include some, a very small number of trans people here who seem to not even be listening to other trans people for reasons of their own.

Interesting to note that " women and transmem" is not considered inclusive enough. Perhaps this desperate need to erase a word used by the human female sex to define themselves and their bodies has more to do with the need of males who identify as women, not to be confronted by the fact that they cannot share this part of " womanhood"

for Purgatory.

And thank you for your excellent posts.

The gaslighting that continues in calling MN FWR an echo chamber seems to actually be so ingrained now. You, having your behaviour called out in attempting to censor and censure women discussing how they want to be referred to, does not make this an echo chamber. It means you have again crossed the line into misogynistic behaviour. The fact you have left unanswered many questions and comments and focused on only ever your own agenda is clear.

Did it ever occur to you that there actually is always a 90%+ result in MN polls that no female likes the dehumanising language being pushed? Have you looked at the tweets that Purgatory has posted that show you that even trans people disagree with the language? I can easily find more. Transitioned males particularly hate being referred to as people with penises oddly enough. They tweet about it all the time.

And finally, I have asked you twice already if you knew that Stonewall have now changed their direction on this. They are seeking additive language. I have even offered to get you the quote. The push back on their erasing ‘mother’, such as on this thread about detaching ‘woman’ from menopause, was so strong that they backed down. And have stated their policy is now for suggestions ONLY and usually those suggestions will be additive in nature.

So, rather than this being an ‘echo chamber’, it is actually a thread that is reflective of the opinion of huge majority of the people it refers to. Your refusal to accept our rejection of using ‘people with’ is also signaling that you are now genuinely out of date. YOU. You even stated here that YOU found it easier to use the language you seem to be unable to move from.

And you say it is us that is in an echo chamber. I think if more likely DadJoke that you use that term erroneously, as you have before, for your own agenda. You seem to rarely have any positive contribution to make for trans people in these threads. I question your motivation for posting.

You are, of course, welcome to post. But you are also likely to experience negative reactions to your posts because they constantly seek to shame women who are discussing the boundaries of their rights where they conflict with another group. Evoking that negative response seems to be your aim.

On this thread it was very apparent. And never once did you display one iota of knowledge about the past silencing discrimination that women who are now experiencing menopause. That you are being told the language choices YOU are insisting on perpetuates.

And you continue your shaming by telling us we are in an echo chamber.

Well, that sounds like projection to me.

It really did take a turn. Hope you’re ok purgatory.

There really are some men who can’t tolerate women discussing things without feeling the urge to monitor and correct, aren’t there?

You know on BMN when a white person goes on there presuming to know or educate black and brown women about their own experience they get told swiftly and bluntly where to go.

I don't because I'm not black and therefore wouldm't dream of postng on BMN.

However on FWR we'd be banned if we swiftly told men where to go when they come on and tell us how to think. Because there are special rules to protect men on here.

That’s only needed because gender ideology shifts the definition of woman from a fact of the body to a state of mind.*

However, this now-nameless group of humans with female bodies still exists, with undeniable and visible needs that are unique to the group.

So gender ideologists tie themselves in ridiculous knots trying to find a way to refer to that group within an ideology that cannot acknowledge the group’s existence.

It would be so so much simpler to simply realise sex exists as a fact of the body not an attitude of the mind, and as such can be recognised, labelled and discussed without anyone’s identity being ignored, denied or even part of the topic in the first place.

What is the word for that group of people who can gestate and birth young, who usually provide the majority of care for the young, who have the types of bodies that a majority of men are sexually attracted to, whose healthcare needs are under researched and often ignored, who do the vast majority of the shitty work that no one wants to do, which is neither recognised nor paid as work, who have less time to invest in paid career work and who have the shittiest pensions as a result, but who do not identify as innately aligned with that role in life?

And which class of people benefit if the above mentioned class of people do not have a name to call themselves, and so do not have a way of joining the dots or recognising that they constitute a class, with needs, as a class?

Thank you for taking this on board.

Can you please explain to me the process and weighting on people's feelings that leads you to prefer "people who experience menopause" over "women and transmen" and so on?

I understand the desire to avoid offending the subset of female people, who are classed as transmen. I do not understand the casual attitude toward offending the subset of female people who find it dehumanising to be referred to by biological functions.

As those who are familiar with autistic spectrum conditions may be able to guess, I spent years of my childhood and adolescence developing conscious awareness of what constitutes politeness and rudeness, our social norms, the unspoken social contracts and so on.

I cannot fathom this. It is a double standard. Moreover, what about women like Petrarkanian's daughter? I understand that "person who experiences menopause" is a set that includes me, but I can safely say that there were girls at my old school who I do not think would understand this terminology. And yet menopause does not restrict itself only to adult female humans with a certain level of language proficiency.

The prominent transwoman and trans activist Jessica Yaniv/Jessica Simpson has said that it is offensive to be referred to by one's prostate.

If being referred to by body parts or bodily processes isn't good enough for Jessica, it's not good enough for anyone else who objects, either. Why should it be?

How can a request not to be referred to by body part or functions only be a reasonable request from some people, but not others?

Text of tweet for people using screenreaders.

Calling trans women "this person with a prostate" is rude and offensive. Not myself, nor@nicespurlingshould take that kind of harassment. Completely disgraceful. #LGBTQ2 #LGBTQ

www.twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1329159192012353550?s=19

Why should we accept being dehumanised and called 'people with' body parts and functions? Because some females and males have disassociated from their sex and therefore, their needs have been judged to be more important.

The disassociating women and men are just the excuse. The women at least are just useful pawns.

When we see a man opining on which language women should be allowed when discussing our own bodies and our bodily functions with each other, this is less about ‘inclusion’ of anybody, even those identifying under the trans umbrella, and more about patriarchy in action.

Sometimes when the term ‘patriarchy’ is bandied around, we are led to imagine it as a cabal of nasty men plotting how best to subjugate women. It is easy to understand why a lot of people are doubtful about the existence of patriarchy when this is what they think it means.

That is not what patriarchy is, although there may of course also be groups of plotting men here and there. Patriarchy is the men coming into FWR with a sense of entitlement to dictate to us how we should speak, what we should think, and how we ought to behave towards others.

FWR is still holding out, which is what functions as a red flag to some men. It is an abomination to them that there should be any pockets of womanhood that does not bow to their superiority. Twats.

It’s because I think menopause it such an important issue that it should be discussed inclusively, not because I don’t.

What do you mean by inclusively? Only female people (women) experience menopause. This includes those female people who identify as transmen or nonbinary. They are still female. Still women. It's not possible to change sex. These people know they are female, so the words 'women' and 'female' are totally inclusive of all female people (women).

It's not possible to change sex, either by medical means or by wishful thinking. And it's not very inclusive to insist on trying to change the language that we all use just because some women don't want to be women and some men don't want to be men.

You're going on about 'inclusivity', while trying to change language according to the wishes of less than 1% of the population, to the detriment of the other 99%. How is that inclusive?

@DadJoke

What collective noun would you find acceptable for biologically female - female at birth (and indeed conception) people? How can we express the knowledge that the set of people who will/do/did/should menstruate entirely encompasses the set of people who may will/do/did/could give birth if we wanted to, for example, understand how these things impact ones long term economic outcomes?

I had no idea that meltdown was ableist language and I apologise for the offence I caused. I won’t use it again.

I am not disagreeing with women as a whole, but with the opinions on inclusivity of a very specific group of gender critical people.

It’s because I think menopause it such an important issue that it should be discussed inclusively, not because I don’t.

I used the words brain fog in response to a poster who used brain fog.

I posted here because in the main it’s a gender critical echo chamber and there a few alternative views.

However, this now-nameless group of humans with female bodies still exists, with undeniable and visible needs that are unique to the group.

So gender ideologists tie themselves in ridiculous knots trying to find a way to refer to that group within an ideology that cannot acknowledge the group’s existence.

It would be so so much simpler to simply realise sex exists as a fact of the body not an attitude of the mind, and as such can be recognised, labelled and discussed without anyone’s identity being ignored, denied or even part of the topic in the first place.