Saw this headline, thought "It's GOT to be a Mumsnetter!"

[bupcakesandcunting]

Yeah, yeah, it's a Daily Mail article but still [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Are-PC-parents-world-The-couple-raising-genderless-baby--protect-right-choice.html BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!"

They're coco loco, right? Surely no-one can say "fuck off, there's a dear" to THIS one?!

It doesn't matter if a transwoman can produce a child. If she has gone through extensive and painful surgery, not to mention counselling and the horrific bullying and discrimination she must face every day, she has the right to be treated as and referred to as a woman.

It's absolute crap that it 'takes away our power as women' or some other such hardline-feminist tosh.

My point about some women being unable to have children was more as an aside. Of course a transwoman/man can never biologically be a woman/man. I don't really think anyone is disputing that. But it is discourteous, disrespectful and downright inhumane to insist that someone cannot be referred to in the manner they choose.

My son once insisted that I call him Jimi Hendrix for an entire month. He didn't want to be called anything else, so I respected his decision. Just because he isn't a dead, black musician from the 1970s doesn't mean I should disrespect his wishes to be called after one.

If that had been my son, I wouldn't have humoured him, but that's just me.

I'd like to know your definition of FEMALE. So if a man decides one day to become "female", I can make the assessment on whether or not I consider him the same gender as me.

It's the fact that a man CHOOSING to be a woman one day, means our gender is becoming (has become) disposable.

Why wouldn't you have humoured him? What harm would it have done?

You would make your assessment on whether or not you consider a man to be female based on my definition? I'm flattered .

Women have gender reassignment surgery too. Does that mean that men are becoming disposable, too?
How can a man having a sex change make women disposable? We've already agreed that transwomen cannot give birth.

But if they cannot produce eggs how can they be referred to as anything but MALE?

My point about asking for your definition is that, if all it takes is a hormone supply and a dress to make a FEMALE, where does that put the ones that are born female with ovaries and egg supply-are we less female because other another gender has adopted it by merely removing their penis and wearing a dress?

You don't have to be "less" anything. There isn't a finite allowance of 'women' on the planet, so that if someone has gender reassignment surgery and chooses to be referred to as a woman, you suddenly become "less of a woman". I just don't understand this viewpoint.

I had a baby. Then I had another baby. The first baby didn't become any less of a person because I'd had another one.

It's not about biology. It's about respect. You wouldn't refer to someone as "this is my female friend, Jane". So why would you say "this is my male friend, Jane"?

Not that you'd have a trans friend, obv.

But removing a penis does not a female make. It makes a penis-less male.

If these MTF have surgery to remove their penises, and wear dresses and call themselves "she" does that make them female? THat's what I'm trying to establish...how far do they have to go before people like yourself recognise them for being something other than male.

"But if they cannot produce eggs how can they be referred to as anything but MALE?"

So, a female born without functioning ovaries should be referred to as male?

Interesting story- My Mum has a friend whom she went to school with called Ian. Ian began to "live" as a woman (whatever that means) and referred to himself as Alex.

I had no issues in calling him Alex merely because I'd never known him as Ian (as I wasn't born). However he was 6"4, size 14 feet, had male pattern balding and wore the same clothes he wore when "living as a man".

Couldn't see the point myself, as he didn't do anything different then when he was "living as a man" to when he was "living as a woman".

Name wasn't changed by deed poll or anything...does this mean that he merely adopted being a "woman", but not making it permanent so he could switch back when he got bored of it?

I was never mean to him, no need, he was an alright person...just because I don't agree with his lifestyle doesn't mean I'm horrid to him...it just means I wouldn't hang out in a trans bar to make friends.

I rather suspect that Male-to-female transgender people are more accurately described as "living as if female" but really it's far more convenient and nicer to just call them female.

The word "female" covers so much more than just the basic biology.

No Soup, because the female would have ovaries, in theory she can produce eggs, regardless of whether or not she can conceive.

how far do they have to go before people like yourself recognise them for being something other than male.

When they tell me they would like to be referred to as 'she'. That is all it takes. I don't care if they can give birth or produce sperm. It is not about biology. If someone tells me they would like to be referred to as 'she', 'he' or 'it', THAT is what I call them. Because that is just common decency.

If someone had gone through extensive and painful surgery to become a tree, not to mention counselling and horrific bullying they face every day for claiming their tree-ness, would you be happy to refer to them as a tree?

Of course. I honestly don't even understand why one wouldn't.

dittany, what about when a woman wants to become a man? Are women then erasing mens' reality?

Is it because it would fucking outrageous?!

*b

or *be

x-posted.

But again, you're making very sweeping statements and falsifying bending the truth, without backup, to suit your argument.

Dittany, sometimes you sound like a loon. This is one of those times.