Just been kicked out of a group for objecting to being referred to as my reproductive organs

[Gerlais]

Group on Facebook. I was referred to as a “uterus owner”. I objected to this. I’m now banned from the group for being transphobic. Everyone piled on me and if I wasn’t kicked out I would have been leaving anyway. I don’t care what other people want to be called but I will not be referred to as my reproductive organs!! It’s not transphobic to want to be referred to as a woman if you were in fact born female and wish to remain a woman? surely?? Or AIBU?

@MothExterminator

I don’t think it is very helpful to call people naive and inadequate. Or dumping loads of information which has nothing to do with this thread.

But I also don’t understand why some people here say that there is transphobia on this thread. Could someone tell me which statements are transphobic?

I do think we need to be kind and respectful to each other. It is really unhelpful if people here starts name calling and if people aren’t allowed to go about their lives in peace.

But I think it seems awful if you are thrown out from a group because you don’t want to be called a uterus haver. That sounds like you have a dog.

And I still don’t really get why a transwoman would be joining a menopause group. I thought those groups only were for people who went through menopause? If you can’t talk about menopause issues and have to watch your language, what it the point of the group?

I genuinely hope this post doesn’t come across as transphobic. I am just trying to understand this better.

@MothExterminator You are not at at all coming across as transphobic, you are doing what most of us women have been doing, questioning things; and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

And I still don’t really get why a transwoman would be joining a menopause group. I thought those groups only were for people who went through menopause? If you can’t talk about menopause issues and have to watch your language, what it the point of the group?

Because they see it as their "right" to involve themselves in anything about the female experience. They want to be seen as female and use these groups to validate themselves as 'real' women. They get a feeling of euphoria when they are treated as a woman. We're props essentially.

From periods to menopause, breastfeeding to even miscarriage support groups, there's nothing that can't be invaded.

There was a very upsetting report of an individual joining a support group and stimulating a pregnancy, birth etc (I've seen it but I'm not looking for it again to post, it's awful but out there somewhere). They got fawning over and supported and anyone who voiced otherwise got booted out.

There are threads on twitter from people who believe the side effects from all the hormones they are taking counts as a period, thus making them a 'real' woman. They fish for PMS relief tips about their menstrual cramps, looking to be included in a conversation that has nothing to do with them.

I don’t think it is very helpful to call people naive and inadequate. Or dumping loads of information which has nothing to do with this thread.

I think the difficulty is, it's hard to explain how things have come into play like the language changes if you don't understand how and what else has been lobbied for or changed in the last decade or so.

You have some very reasonable questions, but I am afraid I couldn't answer them without going into detail.

The fact is, although it is presented as trans people want to live in peace, that's not what's been lobbied for. Women aren't being transphobic because they don't want trans people to exist, it's that women's sports, refuges and single sex places as well as the language to describe us are being eroded. Most women are objecting to that.
That is deemed transphobic by some people (not all trans people) because they think their rights should take priority when a clash of rights takes place.

This is not just limited to lobby groups like stonewall now. The Labour party, greens and lib Dems for example won't use the word women or have given men women only posts in their ranks.

This goes a lot deeper than the solution you propose, as there is a clash of rights and you can't be kind to both groups at once.

And I still don’t really get why a transwoman would be joining a menopause group.

Because it's about validating a female identity as being no different to actually having a female body.

Nobody believes this, because it is demonstrably untrue. But with enough intimidation, gaslighting and cries of "bigot", we can make everyone too scared to say it.

And I still don’t really get why a transwoman would be joining a menopause group. I thought those groups only were for people who went through menopause? If you can’t talk about menopause issues and have to watch your language, what it the point of the group?

Some of the 'uterus owner' type of language being enforced by some people at the moment is supposedly for the benefit of transmen or female 'nonbinary' people.

@MothExterminator this is a genuinely useful thread if you want to understand the background - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

The changes to language etc have been going on for a few years - 2016/2017 seems to be when it really started to ramp up. Women on the FWR board who started to raise concerns then were told they were being ridiculous and in many cases banned.

I came to this discussion late (last two years or so ago) and had questions very similar to yours. The Feminism (sex and gender board) is honestly such a wealth of information to understand what's going on.

As a pp said, the 'be kind' approach directed at women who are socialised to be helpful and kind and reasonable has ended up in a situation where Governmental policies are changed and anyone expressing concerns is shouted down with 'be kind' or 'transphobe'. Safeguarding itself has been described as a 'transphobic dogwhistle'. That's really concerning.

Some of the 'uterus owner' type of language being enforced by some people at the moment is supposedly for the benefit of transmen or female 'nonbinary' people.

Which might be plausible, if groups, sites, organisations and spaces for men were doing the same en masses for female people who identify otherwise. But they aren't. It's all going one way.

@DrSbaitso

Do you really think that anyone anywhere is preventing us from calling ourselves women?

I've found myself called a cervix haver, bleeder and person assigned female at birth in the last few weeks, without seeking any of it out (why would I do that?), so yes, I do.

Honestly, can you not see the difference between those two things? Much of this thread and the anger in it seems to be based on a comprehension failure.

Honestly, can you not see the difference between those two things?

What two things?

The problem is that, as can be seen, all this language policing and alternative terms is just making it very difficult to offer single-sex services and voluntary groups either because people feel the have to include others who have no real reason to be there, volunteers are walking away because they have been subject to abuse or even disciplinary action or many have been significantly defunded. Stonewall can say what they like on record, but the reality is that it is a hostile place to be trying to offer single-sex services for women and girls.

I'm lucky in that I haven't really encountered a lot of this myself. What I'm worried about is how I might react to people giving me labels that I don't want, I suspect it might get me in trouble. I'm not interested in being labelled as a "uterus/vagina haver", "menstruator", "cis-het" or other things I see out there that try and avoid calling me a woman because some biological male will get upset.

The problem is that, as can be seen, all this language policing and alternative terms is just making it very difficult to offer single-sex services and voluntary groups either

It's almost as if it's intentional.

Much of this thread and the anger in it seems to be based on a comprehension failure.
No. It's based on a growing realisation that this is not about trans rights or inclusion at all. It IS about finding a new and socially acceptable way of attacking women. Plus ça change...

I hate people like this. They demand the right to choose exactly how they’re referred to, preferred pronouns etc, but they also reserve the right to control what everyone else is called. If you don’t identify as transphobic, surely by their own logic, you aren’t transphobic. But they have no logic. This is about power and the control of language. This is about shutting up women.

JK Rowling has been sent hundreds of dearh threats for objecting to being referred to as “people who menstruate.” It didn’t seem to occur to the people who came up with that phrase that JK is a woman in her fifties and probably doesn’t menstruate. Shows how little transwomen actually know about women 🧐

I don’t think it is very helpful to call people naive and inadequate. Or dumping loads of information which has nothing to do with this thread.

This thread is about the removal of the right of female members of the human race to have a name to call themselves. This then results in them being described as having certain body parts and by extension, in them being no longer permitted to organise as a discrete group. All the information posted on this thread would seem to me to refer to these situations. What information do you think is extraneous?

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Do you really think that anyone anywhere is preventing us from calling ourselves women? This really is dog-whistle nonsense, along the lines of we're not allowed to call Christmas "Christmas" any more due to "political correctness gone mad"!

You can repeat that ad nauseum, and keep on ignoring the answers you have already received.

I have a question or two though. Why are you not questioning the reasons behind the very obvious changes that are happening right in front of you? Why are you constantly replying, trying to downplay what is happening to real people, in real life?

Sorry @HoardingSamphireSaurus, I missed this earlier.

I don't feel the need to question, because I'm confident I know the answer. It's to make transmen feel more comfortable in groups discussing menstruation, menopause and other issues which are a consequence of female biology.

(And as far as I can see from @Gerlais's posts, she was not prevented from calling herself a woman or identifying as a woman.)

Language has to be exclusionary, or it's meaningless. A dog is not a teapot, a piano is not an umbrella and a man is not a woman.

@DrSbaitso

Do you really think that anyone anywhere is preventing us from calling ourselves women?

I've found myself called a cervix haver, bleeder and person assigned female at birth in the last few weeks, without seeking any of it out (why would I do that?), so yes, I do.

Sorry @DrSbaitso. My post wasn't very clear.

Can you not see the difference between
-being prevented from calling yourself a woman
and

• being called a cervix- haver?

Again, the OP was referred to by another Facebook user as a 'uterus haver'. When she said she didn't want to be called that and wanted to be referred to as a woman, she was expelled from the group.

So this comes under both your statements of -

'Can you not see the difference between
-being prevented from calling yourself a woman
and

• being called a cervix- haver?'

The difference must be incredibly subtle because I genuinely don't see it. You have previously said that's it's too 'tiresome' to explain the difference so I guess I will have to continue to not see it.

It's funny though - many other posters will go to great length to explain concepts other posters don't understand. I've not seen many 'it's too tiresome' from them.

The difference must be incredibly subtle because I genuinely don't see it.

Me either. The OP wanted to be referred to as a woman, but was given another title that she objected to.

I don't feel the need to question, because I'm confident I know the answer. It's to make transmen feel more comfortable in groups discussing menstruation, menopause and other issues which are a consequence of female biology.

Then why is it not acceptable to say women and others who have uteruses? Why is it not acceptable to say women and those who have a cervix? If inclusion of transmen and non binary people of the female sex were the main reason, then the above would be acceptable. Moreover, if inclusion of transmen was the main reason, why are there not similar campaigns against e.g.men's prostate cancer survivor groups? Why are they excluding transwomen and non binary male people? Why are there not campaigns to say " Not only men have testicles, some women have them too"?
The main reason for removing the word " woman" from anything to do with female biology , is to placate the male people who identify as women but feel excluded when we refer to female biology, as they are not female.

Might start calling DH ‘penis owner’

MurielSpriggs

. Tryagainplease
. This has given me the rage.
. I AM A WOMAN
. There, I said it.

Do you really think that anyone anywhere is preventing us from calling ourselves women? This really is dog-whistle nonsense, along the lines of we're not allowed to call Christmas "Christmas" any more due to "political correctness gone mad"!

Ireland wins again🏆

After TRA lobbying the Irish Health Service inclusively removed the word woman from its single sex cancer care replacing it with person with a cervix.

Oddly men still featured in prostate cancer.

This was while they were fighting women with cervical cancer in court.
The legalisation for funding and services were for women.

Now fair is fair, as the women refused to sign confidentially agreements, media reports of the missed diagnosis resulted in most English speaking females and males knowing that a women could develop cervical cancer.

Women objected to the removal and requested the reinstatement, so "woman and people with a cervix". The TRA with vulva (who claimed the removal of woman was due to their lobbying), et al threw a rather public "wobbler" over women being used.

Can you not see the difference between being prevented from calling yourself a woman and being called a cervix-haver?

To all practical intents and purposes, no. When I am being told that the word "woman" is not appropriate for these discussions, and its meaning has become so diluted that I cannot use it to define myself as an adult human female, that most definitely affects my use of it.

I can see the gnat's wing of difference you're scrabbling for here in that I can use the word for myself (why, thank you), but when the meaning is useless, and I'm not allowed to use it in a discussion about female biology, the difference is so subtle that it disappears. I can't call myself a woman and have it cover the fact that I'm biologically female.

I see you're claiming that it's actually about including transmen, and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.* If that were true, men's groups would be just as averse to using their word. Here's a snap I literally just took from the Prostate Cancer UK site (and to be clear, I absolutely support them using this language).

*It's actually a matchstick, but it still costs £5 million and will be used to traverse rivers. No problem with that, I hope? After all, London Bridge can still use the term.

To add to @DrSbaitso 's post, this was Prostate Cancer UK's response in regards to why they use the word man or men instead of prostate havers in their campaign materials. Their response is entirely reasonable. However, women's groups saying the same thing are screamed down.

Men's language isn't being changed in the same way. It's not due to wanting to be 'inclusive' if it only affects women.

Are there not safeguarding organisations who could actively campaign against the obvious risks posed by self ID? Who do we write to? The post above about the young 'trans' girl and confused classmates made a good point. What's this teaching our daughters?

Any group set up which does not centre the wants of trans people tends to be called a 'transphobic hate group' by the TRA's .

Look at how the LGB Alliance Charity has been treated as an example.