To find this unreasonable and offensive to women or is it just me?

[Toorahtoorahaye]

Saw this on twitter and this rhetoric seems to be spreading. So is it just me or are others concerned with this? How does this help women and girls, especially with the turn this has taken in the US recently.

Getting back to the actual topic - women have to be centred in this, if the word 'people' is used instead it allows the misogynists who are steadfastly trying to remove reproductive rights to claim it isn't an attack on women at all. It will be a law that affects people in general so no misogyny involved. Using the word 'women' means we can focus on what is really happening.

This.

It really is crazy and as someone said upthread the wordage of being inclusive has become more important than what women/girls/females actually deal with all over the world due to their female biology, their ability to conceive, carry and give birth

It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

I do see this, I'm not going to go down every rabbit hole. I think we need to hear the counter argument, even when not made in good faith. I'm happy to change my mind if shown I'm wrong.

I think people like japab are what win the argument for us. Evasion and name calling aren't clever strategies, they fail when very basic questions are asked.

I can’t believe Mumsnet deleted my post overnight. Or that someone reported it!

Was it because I said transwomen are a subset of men? That’s a fact!!!!

Was it because I said the reason transwomen hate talk of female reproductive issues is because it’s a part of womanhood they can’t access? They want to remove those rights and safe spaces for women because it makes them feel left out. Was it that?

Was it because I said the issue here isn’t transmen but transwomen?

The issue isn't transwomen, it's misogyny. Some of the misogynists may be trans, but most aren't. The trans issue is being used as a stick to beat women with, to remove the definition of the word 'women' which makes it easier to legislate against the interests of women because if women are just 'people' then they can't be targeted (or campaign and protest) as a class.

Twitter seems to be rammed with these people who clearly cannot talk in normal day to day language anymore.

It's an echo chamber where they block everyone they disagree with. It's not healthy.

makes it easier to legislate against the interests of women because if women are just 'people' then they can't be targeted (or campaign and protest) as a class.

Yep. And makes it harder to connect the ways in which women are oppressed. There’s one group of ‘people who can get pregnant’ and another group of ‘menstruators’ and another group of ‘people at risk of FGM’ and another group of people disproportionately at risk of DV and yet another group of ‘people who do most of the housework and caring work’. But you can’t link these groups together or use any collective words to describe what they have in common, or we’re not being inclusive...

Yep. And makes it harder to connect the ways in which women are oppressed. There’s one group of ‘people who can get pregnant’ and another group of ‘menstruators’ and another group of ‘people at risk of FGM’ and another group of people disproportionately at risk of DV and yet another group of ‘people who do most of the housework and caring work’. But you can’t link these groups together or use any collective words to describe what they have in common, or we’re not being inclusive...

Exactly!

It's similar to the attempt to change 'black lives matter' to 'all lives matter' to avoid talking about why so many young, black men were being killed by the police.

Exactly what she said.

SaskiaRembrandt I meant that using intersectional language isn't on the top of my agenda in this.

To a woman living this reality, struggling to get non-religious gynecological healthcare in a city where my non-abortion providing PP branch was just burned down and barely anyone blinked an eyelid, access to abortion, contraceptives and sexual healthcare are all at the top of my list.

But when I protest this legislation, I hold the banner for everyone who the Christian right seek to eradicate as they aren't just after women: they are after the freedom of everyone in the country who wants to live a life that contradicts their religious doctrine.

Do you see the argument being made by 53rdway, SpaceCadet? As I say you are basically saying you are happy to pander to an untruth. Moreover it's an untruth which is damaging to women. You can prioritise whatever you want, obviously, but you came on the thread to tell us why "intersectional" was better. As if you can't possibly support LGBT people without pandering to the prevailing nonsense ideology of many LGBT supporters.

SpaceCadet4000 sorry for the misunderstanding!

But when I protest this legislation, I hold the banner for everyone who the Christian right seek to eradicate as they aren't just after women: they are after the freedom of everyone in the country who wants to live a life that contradicts their religious doctrine.

That's admirable. People absolutely should defend anyone who is being targeted by the religious right. But the way to do that is not to remove the language people need to identify precisely who is being targeted and why. If you follow that to its logical conclusion you end up saying 'some people are being targeted but we can't say who they are'. It all becomes meaningless.

We need to use the correct terms - that's for everyone, not just women - to identify who is being targeted and why. And in this case, women are being targeted because they are women.

Isn't all this just "whatsboutery" on a massive scale?

*Whataboutery

I need more coffee.

I hold the banner for everyone who the Christian right seek to eradicate as they aren't just after women: they are after the freedom of everyone in the country who wants to live a life that contradicts their religious doctrine.

Yes, but the LGBT movement (and I’m speaking as a lesbian) are also after the freedom of everyone who wants to live a life that contradicts their gender doctrine. Look what happens to lesbians who refuse to recognise transwomen as viable sexual partners. Look at the Equality Act, proposing to reduce ‘woman’ to an identity. Both the right and the left are dangerous.

Yes, it is whataboutery. And it deflects from what is a very simple but dangerous issue: at the moment in the US a group of misogynists have gained a lot of power and are attempting to use it to remove women's reproductive rights.

Yes, it is whataboutery. And it deflects from what is a very simple but dangerous issue: at the moment in the US a group of misogynists have gained a lot of power and are attempting to use it to remove women's reproductive rights.

Yes, but as Empress says those on the left are against this and pro trans rights but also quite happy to remove different important sex based rights from women.

And I apologise for being repetitive, but clearly this is something that needs repeating because so many people apparently struggle to grasp what is a very simple point.

But a transwoman cannot have an abortion and a man (if you choose to identify as one) cannot have babies. Therefore, how is it transphobic?

It's like saying marmite is racist because it's brown.
Nonesensical.

I wasn't disagreeing with you Saskia, sorry if that's how it comes across!

Yes, they are. As I said upthread, they are cheerfully doing the dirty work of the religious right, despite their conviction that they are the wokest of the woke.

No, it's okay, I got what you meant.

But a transwoman cannot have an abortion and a man (if you choose to identify as one) cannot have babies. Therefore, how is it transphobic?

They think "men" can have babies. Therefore it's a men's issue as much as a women's one.

I was disagreeing with you either, just realised I kept saying more or less the same thing

It's important to stress that thing, I think.