Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

I am not a "person who menstruates"

211 replies

auserna · 01/03/2026 15:22

AIBU to think that terms such as "birthing person", "partner with eggs", "womb-carrier", "cervix haver", "people who menstruate", "chest-feeder" are not only insulting to women but downright hurtful to those who have any gynaecological and/or fertility issues, including DSDs?

Those terms may be considered inclusive to/by people whose gender identity doesn't match their sex (c.0.5% in the UK) but are exclusive to those with DSDs or gynaecological issues (c.12% in the UK).

NB My figures are rough, partly because the statistics relating to people with DSDs are very contentious and because "gynaecological issues" is a broad term, but they are clearly significantly higher for the latter group.

OP posts:
5MinuteArgument · 02/03/2026 11:07

It's crazy that the NHS and other institutions are captured by all this.

I had to complete a health consent form about 2 years ago. It had a section headed 'people with the ability to give birth'. As I've had a hysterectomy, I was going to leave this section out. But when I glanced at the questions in that section, one of them was 'have you had a hysterectomy?'

I realised that section was specifically for women but they couldn't just say that. I resent the amount of money, time and effort spent on diversity teams to come up with this nonsense.

5MinuteArgument · 02/03/2026 11:13

I don't find all the nonsense language particularly dehumanising. I just wish the NHS and other institutions would get off the woke bandwagon and get on with their actual jobs.

HipTightOnions · 02/03/2026 12:30

How do I know that I have a cervix?

Because I’m a woman female cervix-haver.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 02/03/2026 13:46

5MinuteArgument · 02/03/2026 11:07

It's crazy that the NHS and other institutions are captured by all this.

I had to complete a health consent form about 2 years ago. It had a section headed 'people with the ability to give birth'. As I've had a hysterectomy, I was going to leave this section out. But when I glanced at the questions in that section, one of them was 'have you had a hysterectomy?'

I realised that section was specifically for women but they couldn't just say that. I resent the amount of money, time and effort spent on diversity teams to come up with this nonsense.

Exactly this. How much money has the NHS spent on this harmful ideology altogether?

When you add up the vast sums squandered on defending the indefensible (forcing nurses to change with men, punishing nurses for calling a male rapist Mr), the pronoun badge and rainbow schemes, the free full body electrolysis/ (for men who call themselves only, not women either PCOS obvs) boob surgery/double mastectomies/vast quantities of hormones (men take 4x a women’s dose), the writing up and reproduction of ‘health information’ literature that is less clear and accurate then before, the changing of all the NHS IT systems etc. It will be millions and millions of £££

Then we’ve got the ticking time bomb if medical malpractice lawsuits that will ensue when vulnerable kids realise they’ve been sold the biggest dud ever, they haven’t changed sex, they don’t want to be ‘trans’ any more, no one wants to date them and they have ruined their bodies and fertility.

And some PPs can’t see any issue with waving through the tip of that very big iceberg.

Worktillate · 02/03/2026 13:51

auserna · 01/03/2026 15:22

AIBU to think that terms such as "birthing person", "partner with eggs", "womb-carrier", "cervix haver", "people who menstruate", "chest-feeder" are not only insulting to women but downright hurtful to those who have any gynaecological and/or fertility issues, including DSDs?

Those terms may be considered inclusive to/by people whose gender identity doesn't match their sex (c.0.5% in the UK) but are exclusive to those with DSDs or gynaecological issues (c.12% in the UK).

NB My figures are rough, partly because the statistics relating to people with DSDs are very contentious and because "gynaecological issues" is a broad term, but they are clearly significantly higher for the latter group.

I agree with you fully @auserna as 4/6 of those phrases no longer apply to me ( I haven't done the other 2 in a long time either) but I am most definitely a woman.

It is offensive

whymadam · 02/03/2026 13:57

auserna · 01/03/2026 15:45

People can identify how they wish, but it's when they start expecting the entire world to bend around them that I object.

This, OP!

Meteorite87 · 02/03/2026 14:21

auserna · 01/03/2026 15:43

And not only this, but TRAs also seem to get away with calling gender critical women TERFs, transphobes and bigots with impunity, which makes me similarly livid. But woe betide you if you misgender the 6'3" "woman" with an Adam's apple and a five-o'-clock shadow.

All true @auserna

As a 6ft 2" adult human female, I don't feel much if I'm "misgendered". I know my own sex, regardless.

Those who get angry at being "misgendered" hate that others won't go along with their beliefs.

CatsAreBetterThanMen · 02/03/2026 14:54

Birdsongisangry · 02/03/2026 07:02

La leche league are common knowledge because of how bizarre their 'campaign' was, I don't know anyone who took that seriously. You can bring up fringe extremists for any subject it doesn't mean there's an actual threat. Perhaps if the NHS start taking policy advice from them.

I could quote a hardline Islamic cleric and say that we're under threat of Sharia Law and Christmas being banned. Most people would recognise that as racism and not reality. Same situation.

Oh dear, why am I wasting my valuable time debating realty with someone so firmly wrapped in a delusion they'll argue as an Olympic sport? this thread is starting to make me question my own sanity!

Why you keep referring to "gutter press" Muslims and Christmas is beyond me, it's not what's being discussed here, we're discussing a woman's right to be called a woman. And yes, you've possibly been living under a rock or with you head in the clouds if you haven't encountered any such language or example or the erosion of women's rights over the past ten years in your day-to-day life. Indeed, maybe you just don't care, that really isn't my problem. The majority of women do care and we object to being euphemized to pander to a man's delusions.

Thank God for the truly brave women that have fought on the frontline of this outrage for years and have now given lots of other women the courage to stick their head's above the parapet.

Biological men, whether in a dress and make up or not, are not the most marginalised group in society, I think you'll find that's women, maybe that's why they have had so much power in this debate for so long, because it is essentially a men's rights movement.

I'm off to make a cup of tea now and do something enjoyable, whilst quietly thanking all the brave women that are helping defeat this madness.

Birdsongisangry · 02/03/2026 17:12

'questioning my own sanity' that makes two of us. Ironic that most the points being debated actually apply to trans men in these spaces not trans women, but you're still obsessed by men in dresses and fears of things that aren't happening outside of the scare mongering limited to Mumsnet and TERF discussion groups.

Brave women don't punch down.

Catiette · 02/03/2026 18:09

✔️ You're obsessed
✔️ Men in dresses
✔️ Fear of things that aren't happening
✔️ Scaremongering
✔️ Limited to Mumsnet and TERFs
✔️ Punching down

What I don't understand is why you post things like this. In response to paragraphs and paragraphs of reasoned argument, data and intensely personal anecdote... you resort to misrepresentation, avoidance and cliché, and this is so far removed from the reality of the surrounding posts that it just draws attention to its own absurdity.

It doesn't help your cause!

(And this is why some of us keep posting - so others can see, laid out in rows of easily comparable posts, the frequent difference in content, approach and tone between the two sides of the debate).

There's a reason that trans ideology attempted to normalise #nodebate, whereas so-called TERFs created the idea of #operationletthemspeak.

In just the last 2 pages, on the GC side of the ring, we have:

  • "...research into women with head injuries..." / "I don't want transwomen/men to lose their identity, and I also don't want women to [either]..." (me)
  • "Losing specificity of the single sex group "women" in favour of the mixed sex refers-to-all-of-humanity "people" disconnects us from our history and each other..." (Rhino)
  • "2024 MoJ data" / "It is a very contentious issue..." / "Please consider googling [name of anthropologist]..." (Cats)

and over on the other side of the ring, we have:

  • "Daily Mail" / "to stoke hate and division" / "confected outrage" (Queene)
  • "Hardline Islamic cleric" / "threat of Sharia law" / "racism" (Bird)
  • The tiredly familiar list with which I opened this post

The difference in approach and tone is striking.

It honestly sometimes makes me wonder if posters resorting to these associations and accusations actually believe in their own cause. I wish you'd do it more justice - surely, if you truly care about it, it deserves a better airing than this; a firmer foundation for the apparent strength of feeling it engenders?

5MinuteArgument · 02/03/2026 18:53

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 02/03/2026 13:46

Exactly this. How much money has the NHS spent on this harmful ideology altogether?

When you add up the vast sums squandered on defending the indefensible (forcing nurses to change with men, punishing nurses for calling a male rapist Mr), the pronoun badge and rainbow schemes, the free full body electrolysis/ (for men who call themselves only, not women either PCOS obvs) boob surgery/double mastectomies/vast quantities of hormones (men take 4x a women’s dose), the writing up and reproduction of ‘health information’ literature that is less clear and accurate then before, the changing of all the NHS IT systems etc. It will be millions and millions of £££

Then we’ve got the ticking time bomb if medical malpractice lawsuits that will ensue when vulnerable kids realise they’ve been sold the biggest dud ever, they haven’t changed sex, they don’t want to be ‘trans’ any more, no one wants to date them and they have ruined their bodies and fertility.

And some PPs can’t see any issue with waving through the tip of that very big iceberg.

Yes, they should disband all these diversity teams and get back to what they are supposed to be doing. It's not as if they have spare capacity to waste on all this idiocy.

Witchcraftandhokum · 02/03/2026 19:31

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/03/2026 10:38

Well yes. Feminists care about women's social rights and status as a whole, and that means we often seem weird and angry to women who just care about their own lives and their own status. Twas ever thus. You should have seen what some women said about the Suffrgettes!

Although since the topic of this thread is not imposing sexist and false distinctions between women (female people) based on beliefs about gender, TERF was rather the wrong word to pick wasn't it? MERF certainly, but someone arguing that trans identifying female people are still women is hardly excluding trans people from Feminism.

I also notice you haven't even tried to answer my question, just dismiss me as a person. But surely such a simple question should be easy as anything to answer?

Trans rights activists insist that trans women are women and trans men are men because they have the minds of women and men.

In what way is that not a sexist belief that only some types of minds are right for men and for women?

Insisting that society consider "women" and "trans men" to be different types of "people who menstruate" changes us from simply being the half of humanity who are female in all our diversity and with any type of mind into the people who have whatever type of mind it is that transmen feel they don't have.

In what way is that not imposing onto all women a sexist reduction of who we are?

That's the thing. I'm not obliged to answer your question. I'm not bothered whether you stamp your foot and have a little tantrum about it, I don't owe you anything. All I said was I'm not bothered by terms like these, and you then proceeded to tell me what women who share my view should think. It happens every time it's discussed on here. It's so predictable it's boring.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/03/2026 19:57

Witchcraftandhokum · 02/03/2026 19:31

That's the thing. I'm not obliged to answer your question. I'm not bothered whether you stamp your foot and have a little tantrum about it, I don't owe you anything. All I said was I'm not bothered by terms like these, and you then proceeded to tell me what women who share my view should think. It happens every time it's discussed on here. It's so predictable it's boring.

Of course you aren't obliged.

But we all know if you could answer it with a pithy put down to put me in my place, you would.

But since you can't, you pulled out the old tried and tested shame the angry woman put downs instead.

Stamp my foot.
Little tantrum.
Berate other women.

Yes, there'll always be women ready to defend the status quo by sneering at women who suggest we deserve better, then get up a height when someone dares to challenge them. Some things never change.

Birdsongisangry · 02/03/2026 20:02

I'll stop telling TERFS they're obsessed with people's genitals and scare mongering about men in dresses when they stop filling AIBU with posts about people's genitals and scare mongering about men in dresses. It's not difficult really.
Perhaps if people are saying these things to you so often that you have a ticklist, you might be the common denominator @Catiette ?

If lots of people told me I was racist, or sexist, or that I kept punching down, I might think that I need to reflect on my character instead of chalking it up to a conspiracy against me.

Also I don't understand why you and others in here object to the word TERF - trans exclusionary radical feminist. You don't believe in/accept/agree that trans people have a right to exist in the world with the same rights as other people, ergo trans exclusionary, the position comes from radical feminism. If you don't want it pointing out, perhaps don't embody what it means.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/03/2026 20:22

Birdsongisangry · 02/03/2026 20:02

I'll stop telling TERFS they're obsessed with people's genitals and scare mongering about men in dresses when they stop filling AIBU with posts about people's genitals and scare mongering about men in dresses. It's not difficult really.
Perhaps if people are saying these things to you so often that you have a ticklist, you might be the common denominator @Catiette ?

If lots of people told me I was racist, or sexist, or that I kept punching down, I might think that I need to reflect on my character instead of chalking it up to a conspiracy against me.

Also I don't understand why you and others in here object to the word TERF - trans exclusionary radical feminist. You don't believe in/accept/agree that trans people have a right to exist in the world with the same rights as other people, ergo trans exclusionary, the position comes from radical feminism. If you don't want it pointing out, perhaps don't embody what it means.

I mean, this post is so wrong I don't know where to start. You really haven't understood anything that you have read, have you?

You came in with prejudices, and you've still got 'em all these pages later. What a shame.

Trans people exist in the world, but they do not exist in the world as the opposite sex. It's just a fantasy they want us to play along with for their own needs.

Some of those needs may be suspect but many deserve our sympathy. However, that doesn't justify legitimising the fantasy that some people's minds makes them really the opposite sex, because the impact of that goes beyond those people's needs into the needs and identities of other people too.

So like every person, they should have all the rights of their own sex. But also like every person, they don't get to appropriate the rights of the opposite sex.

Believing the thing that makes men and women different is our minds rather than our bodies is sexist in two dimensions. It is sexist firstly because it assumes some ways of thinking are right for men and others are right for women, and it is sexist secondly because it takes away the language, history, rights and identity of female people, delegitimising our experiences and our voices and re-marginalising and disempowering us just as we were marginalised and disempowered by Patriarchy in the past.

Sexism doesn't follow the word "woman", it follows the female body whatever we may or may not be called.

MERF - male excluding. No one is excluding trans identifying female people from the rights and protections of women. Just male people.

I'm sorry you value women so little that you can't see this.

Yes, I am calling you sexist. And saying you are punching down. I hope you will take your own advice and reflect on your character.

SatinPajamas · 02/03/2026 20:33

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/03/2026 20:22

I mean, this post is so wrong I don't know where to start. You really haven't understood anything that you have read, have you?

You came in with prejudices, and you've still got 'em all these pages later. What a shame.

Trans people exist in the world, but they do not exist in the world as the opposite sex. It's just a fantasy they want us to play along with for their own needs.

Some of those needs may be suspect but many deserve our sympathy. However, that doesn't justify legitimising the fantasy that some people's minds makes them really the opposite sex, because the impact of that goes beyond those people's needs into the needs and identities of other people too.

So like every person, they should have all the rights of their own sex. But also like every person, they don't get to appropriate the rights of the opposite sex.

Believing the thing that makes men and women different is our minds rather than our bodies is sexist in two dimensions. It is sexist firstly because it assumes some ways of thinking are right for men and others are right for women, and it is sexist secondly because it takes away the language, history, rights and identity of female people, delegitimising our experiences and our voices and re-marginalising and disempowering us just as we were marginalised and disempowered by Patriarchy in the past.

Sexism doesn't follow the word "woman", it follows the female body whatever we may or may not be called.

MERF - male excluding. No one is excluding trans identifying female people from the rights and protections of women. Just male people.

I'm sorry you value women so little that you can't see this.

Yes, I am calling you sexist. And saying you are punching down. I hope you will take your own advice and reflect on your character.

Oh dear.

Do you realise that automated branded a person sexist because they are transgender or don't have a problem with transgender people is an example of prejudice?

Birdsongisangry · 02/03/2026 20:34

As I said in my previous post, ironic that you're still talking about trans women when the subject of the thread - people who menstruate, people who have a cervix, chest feeding etc - all applies to trans men. The (reputable) services that use these terms are taegeting women and trans men. Not trans women.
I'm being criticised for saying TERFs on here are obsessed with men in dresses, yet you're so focused on it you don't seem to have noticed that you've switched the people you're arguing about. You claim that I'm the sexist one and against women, you're forgetting these people even exist, in your focus on sharing your hatred for trans women.

I can sleep soundly tonight knowing that my morals are intact, thanks very much.

BoeotianNightmare · 02/03/2026 20:38

Went to a webinar about menopause once and the trainer was at pains to avoid using the word woman on its own. Women were referred to as "those in possession of a uterus" and all sorts of bizarre phrases.
It's very simple. Only women menstruate. Only women have the menopause. You can just say "woman".
See Milli Hill's weekly article "the word is woman" for lots more enraging examples.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/03/2026 20:46

SatinPajamas · 02/03/2026 20:33

Oh dear.

Do you realise that automated branded a person sexist because they are transgender or don't have a problem with transgender people is an example of prejudice?

Please, do yourself a favour and read what I have said, both on this thread and many times before.

I have said very clearly, many times, that to believe in transgender identities, whether as a trans person oneself o as an "ally", requires first the belief that what makes men and different is our minds and not our bodies, and therefore that some ways of thinking, behaving or feeling are correct for men but not for women, and other ways are correct for women but not for men.

Yes, I consider that sexist.

That's not a "prejudice", that is a coherent and well argued position.

If you disagree, you are welcome to try to answer the questions I have posed several times now:

Trans rights activists insist that trans women are women and trans men are men because they have the minds of women and men.

In what way is that not a sexist belief that only some types of minds are right for men and for women?

Insisting that society consider "women" and "trans men" to be different types of "people who menstruate" changes us from simply being the half of humanity who are female in all our diversity and with any type of mind into the people who have whatever type of mind it is that transmen feel they don't have.

In what way is that not imposing onto all women a sexist reduction of who we are?

CatsAreBetterThanMen · 02/03/2026 21:24

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/03/2026 20:22

I mean, this post is so wrong I don't know where to start. You really haven't understood anything that you have read, have you?

You came in with prejudices, and you've still got 'em all these pages later. What a shame.

Trans people exist in the world, but they do not exist in the world as the opposite sex. It's just a fantasy they want us to play along with for their own needs.

Some of those needs may be suspect but many deserve our sympathy. However, that doesn't justify legitimising the fantasy that some people's minds makes them really the opposite sex, because the impact of that goes beyond those people's needs into the needs and identities of other people too.

So like every person, they should have all the rights of their own sex. But also like every person, they don't get to appropriate the rights of the opposite sex.

Believing the thing that makes men and women different is our minds rather than our bodies is sexist in two dimensions. It is sexist firstly because it assumes some ways of thinking are right for men and others are right for women, and it is sexist secondly because it takes away the language, history, rights and identity of female people, delegitimising our experiences and our voices and re-marginalising and disempowering us just as we were marginalised and disempowered by Patriarchy in the past.

Sexism doesn't follow the word "woman", it follows the female body whatever we may or may not be called.

MERF - male excluding. No one is excluding trans identifying female people from the rights and protections of women. Just male people.

I'm sorry you value women so little that you can't see this.

Yes, I am calling you sexist. And saying you are punching down. I hope you will take your own advice and reflect on your character.

FlirtsWithRhinos please don't waste your time and energy engaging with this any more. Anyone with a sane, rational mind is aware of biological reality and understands that men can never be women, just as women can never be men. The term TERF is absurd, there is nothing radical about saying men can't be women and shouldn't be in women's spaces.

Some people are so entrenched in this ideology because they are either personally or publicly married to the delusion and to concede any point in this debate feels to them to literally challenge their identity and in their deeply disturbed minds their very existence, or it would mean admitting their culpability in the medical abuse of vulnerable children and in the trashing of hard fought women's rights.

We are living in scary times. Virtually all of us women alive today never experienced life without voting rights and most of us have been fortunate enough to live most or all of our adult lives with approaching equal rights to men in this country, but let's not forget that women have only had the full franchise to vote for 98 years. We have taken our position for granted and our biological disposition to emotional reasoning and compassion has been hijacked and exploited by men and we have been facing an onslaught against the rights that our Mothers, Grandmothers and Great Grandmothers won us.

You can argue for the next ten years with someone like Birdsongisangry and it will just be a waste of your precious oxygen. The tide is turning. More people are becoming aware of the insanity, abuse and injustice. With brave detransitioners like Ritchie Heron, Michael Kerr and Keira Bell in this country (and there will be many more to come in the next few years) and Fox Varian, Prisha Mosley and Chloe Cole (and the 24 others currently suing for medical malpractice) in the US people are starting to ask more questions and their horrendous experiences are helping tip the balance back to reason.

Save your arguments for minds that still have the capacity to reason and are open enough to be changed.

Helleofabore · 02/03/2026 21:40

I wonder if this is of interest OP.

WHAT DOES TRANS INCLUSION IN A LIBERAL STATE REQUIRE?

January 2026

https://hollylawford-smith.org/what-does-trans-inclusion-in-a-liberal-state-require-pre-print/

Abstract. One of the most prominent minority groups today is trans people. Those who see themselves as fighting for trans rights have tended to take these to include a right to legal recognition by the state, and social treatment by fellow citizens, as the sex of identification. These rights claims have been given substantial legal and institutional uptake. If trans people's full inclusion in public life requires legal recognition and social treatment as the sex of identification, then this is merely a description of things being as they should be. But if trans people's inclusion within the liberal state does not require these things, then this may be a description of a violation of liberal neutrality, the enforcement by the state of a contested and controversial conception of the good; and a tyranny of the majority, the weight of social opinion being pressed against those who want to talk about (what they see as) the fact that things are not as they should be. One way to gain some clarity on whether things are as they should be or not is to carefully consider the principles that liberal democratic states have used to secure the full inclusion in public life of other minority groups, and their application to trans people. I'll consider in particular toleration, collective and individual exemptions, and full accommodation; as they have applied to religious minorities, women, sexual orientation minorities, black people, and people with physical disabilities.

Conclusion

Arguments for adopting, or acting as though we have adopted, trans activist beliefs, in the name of the full inclusion of trans people in public life, appear to have failed. Trans people should be protected from discrimination, but trans activist beliefs are not owed more than toleration. The introduction of trans activist beliefs into law and policy in a liberal state should be just as concerning to us as the introduction of religious beliefs into the same. The insistent social enforcement of trans activist beliefs is a tyranny of the majority, upholding one group's interest in living as it believes it should at the expense of everyone else's interests in living as they believe they should. A liberal state is neutral between competing conceptions of the good; liberal individuals form and pursue their own conceptions of the good, the only constraint being that the pursuit does not harm others (Mill [1859] 1978) or wrongfully set back their interests (Feinberg 1987, Ch. 1). Liberalism does not, and cannot (coherently), require one person's participation (affirmation, validation, acceptance, endorsement, or adoption) in another person's projects. Toleration is required; indifference is sufficient. This is the same conclusion that Francione (2024) reached, just via a route likely to be more satisfying to those sympathetic to the case for trans
inclusion.

(sorry, just to add this is a downloadable PDF of a pre-print article from Holly Lawford-Smith. She covers different aspects of the language demands by people with gender identities.)

Catiette · 02/03/2026 22:06

Birdsongisangry · 02/03/2026 20:02

I'll stop telling TERFS they're obsessed with people's genitals and scare mongering about men in dresses when they stop filling AIBU with posts about people's genitals and scare mongering about men in dresses. It's not difficult really.
Perhaps if people are saying these things to you so often that you have a ticklist, you might be the common denominator @Catiette ?

If lots of people told me I was racist, or sexist, or that I kept punching down, I might think that I need to reflect on my character instead of chalking it up to a conspiracy against me.

Also I don't understand why you and others in here object to the word TERF - trans exclusionary radical feminist. You don't believe in/accept/agree that trans people have a right to exist in the world with the same rights as other people, ergo trans exclusionary, the position comes from radical feminism. If you don't want it pointing out, perhaps don't embody what it means.

✔️ obsessed with genitals (ugh, I've typed that twice in my life to quote activists & I know that because it makes me shudder each time - W.T.A.F.?!)
✔️ multiple ad hominems
✔️ exist in the world (again, what's with this whole existence thing?!)
✔️ the anger showing through when the arguments fail

BINGO! Full house, drinks on me!

Ahem. You get rude(-r), I apparently get sarky(/-ier!). I didn't used to - I tend to be the stoically patient type in this debate - but boy, does one need it sometimes in this kind of thread. An explanation as to how that happened, and why I'm confident in my position, below, in answer to your quote as follows:

Perhaps if people are saying these things to you so often that you have a ticklist, you might be the common denominator? If lots of people told me I was racist, or sexist, or that I kept punching down, I might think that I need to reflect on my character instead of chalking it up to a conspiracy against me.

In summary (TLDR!), when "people keep saying these things to me" but only ever in this one, isolated context, whereas in all others what they say about me directly opposes the kind of values the above would suggest - and above all when the language those people use tends towards the absurd and extreme - the common denominator is not me, but those people.

In more detail, though...

I started out thinking similarly to you, and it was, more than anything else, posts like yours that changed my views.

Originally unquestioningly supportive of "transwomen are women", I then became aware there was debate. It was via MN, yes, but I responded to it in the way I usually do - I read more widely (compulsively - it fascinated me!) including on both sides. And what I read left me disturbed enough to start re-thinking my prior acceptance of this. What was it that disturbed me most? The realisation that the "trans side" tended with unusual consistency towards emotional reasoning, hyperbole and, fairly often, personal attack, instead of engaging with the contrastingly in-depth arguments put forward by the GC feminists.

But still I went through an extended period of questioning myself, during which I desperately sought a fair middle ground and, above all, intelligent discussion of what was, quite clearly, a conflict of rights at the very least. And I expected to develop a better understanding of both sides. But, instead, my concern grew. For the same reason.

Over time, with more reading, I shifted into full-on GC. A key turning point was reading a refutation of GC views by a trans(?) critic in 3 devoted hours of hard thought (I spent all that time in a manky station café because I didn't want to lose my train of thought!) My GC-style was the gentler kind, perhaps (some would say naive!), always giving the benefit of the doubt, staying the course of threads like this, and unfailingly assuming any "opponent" may be vulnerable and so choosing each and every word with care and empathy. And I still honestly thought I could draw out something I'd missed, or at least some acknowledgement of my concerns in my equivalent careful acknowledgement of yours. But instead, my concern grew. For the same reason.

I skimmed Pink News, Trans Reddit etc., thinking surely those sites will offer something more than debates on MN... and I saw the same trends. Reddit, in particular, disturbs me. It feels like a lot of vulnerable people who have been taught the litany of ticked absurdities you use and I list above and are hurting in their total misunderstanding of how people like me think and feel about them. It makes me very angry, actually. I want to reach out to reassure the younger among them, in the gentlest of terms possible... but I know from threads like this how that's likely to end. And I also know from threads like these that there's a very real risk of being targetted myself with an intimate cruelty to a stranger that the poster appears to think is entirely justified by my simple disagreement. The kind that your post to me, to which I respond here, is edging towards.

And so now, like many, I have far less patience. I've given this ideology every possible chance I can. But even now, while I indulge in sarcasm (that on this thread's made me look like a waaay committed Trekkie!), I still tend to answer in a largely courteous and always thoughtful way, taking care to highlight my concern for trans people themselves too at one or more points (as I have several times above).

And do you know what? Over on that hotbed of GC evil, the forum dedicated to this, I see others doing the same: women of different races, nationalities and backgrounds; lesbians who themselves fought to win the rights gay people currently enjoy; women who have endured life-changing devastation because of their female bodies; and women - so, so many women - who have suffered abuse because of this. Women who know trans people, have trans friends, and worry about trans children. Women who have read far, far more than me, ploughing their way through Angela Long Chu and Grace Lavery and other well-known trans names. Women who, like me, listen, and think, and respond in the way I and others have above.

And yet, still - still - in the face of all of this, we still end up with something akin to the checklist above. The same old accusations, levelled again and again at total strangers who are simply arguing, in some depth and with passion, an entirely legal, valid angle on their own human rights.

So no, I have no concerns about my character. I've done the work there. And I've waited and waited and waited for the posters I engage with on this to do the same.

In the interests of full disclosure in what's become a rather embarrassing "History of Catiette" (and apologies for that - I also use this forum to work out my own thoughts and test my own views; another reason, btw, that I'm pretty confident in both)... I am a bit concerned right now that I'm beginning to lose patience and my posts are getting sarkier and sometimes a bit too direct and honest. I want to reign that in, because I don't know who's on the other end, and because it's exactly the patience and kindness of other GC posters (and the arbitrary unpleasantness of the insutlingly reductive accusations levelled at them) that gave me the confidence I now have to post as I do.

(Congrats if you made it through. Am now looking for the "Phew!" / embarrassed emoji, but the dictionary isn't behaving. Sad face.)

Catiette · 02/03/2026 22:12

SatinPajamas · 02/03/2026 20:33

Oh dear.

Do you realise that automated branded a person sexist because they are transgender or don't have a problem with transgender people is an example of prejudice?

Catching up now on the posts following the one to which I responded. That's what you got from Rhino's reply?!

I rest my case, m'lud (love m'lud, saw it on another thread and have been desperae for a chance to use it).

SatinPajamas · 02/03/2026 22:26

Catiette · 02/03/2026 22:12

Catching up now on the posts following the one to which I responded. That's what you got from Rhino's reply?!

I rest my case, m'lud (love m'lud, saw it on another thread and have been desperae for a chance to use it).

After she gave a hypocritical lecture on prejudice, yes it is.

I actually appreciate the humanity and empathy in your previous post, my experience of the FWR regulars has been that they are rude, aggressive and scathing with an arrogance that is off putting and after witnessing many a pile on I have only been pushed further from taking any of their points on board. It's been pointed out by many posters who are quickly shouted down too so I'm not alone.

Catiette · 02/03/2026 22:30

Second paragraph appreciated - thanks. I do understand why posters can be so scathing there (fair word) and am also getting a bit more that way inclined myself (for reasons aforementioned!) So it's genuinely good to have a reminder of the value of sticking with my preferred style. It takes all sorts, is my view - different approaches speak to different people. And the humour there is second to none!

First paragraph the cause of some bemusement. I readily invite you to find anything I've said that is remotely prejudiced (misinterpretations can be addressed if I revisit tomorrow, but I may not, as today's taken up a bit of time; if so, I'm quite happy to leave others to judge my words on their own merits, as long as you quote fully with the full post for context).