To think that women should not be referred to as menstruators and pregnant people?

[FRETGNIKCUF]

*This is a thread about the impact trans activism is having on women. This is the beginning.

Don't read on if you're going to whine about another trans thread.*

Julian Vigo (@lubelleludotcom on Twitter) wrote the following.

There is a war on women, folks. The transgender lobby has gone down the rabbit hole by refusing to acknowledge that women's lives and bodies not only matter, but that they are real. Instead women's bodies have become the simulacra in an extended theatre of male entitlement (to be women while telling women to STFU) or they are rendered an extension of male subjectivity such that we now see hairy transmen's female bodies breastfeeding, the only form of female body hair that would ever be allowed in Time magazine.

And now for the latest: we are being called "menstruators" by the same right-wing discourse which seeks to remove the mention of woman from women's healthcare across the USA (ie. now many providers have been pressured to remove the term woman and write instead "pregnant person.") It is as if the last 100 years of women's rights had never occured.

The ironies are multiple. Here you have a group which claims its own marginalisation while working steadily to marginalise an already marginalised group, women. Then you have a group of female people who by virtue of the current transgender identity doxa necessitates "gender dysphoria," yet paradoxically adheres to—and even embraces—the real and symbolic thrust of much of what the female body actually is and produces, a complete opposition to gender dysphoria. Therein lies the greatest contradiction which, not surprisingly, once again holds women hostage: woman is symbolic for those who emulate her, woman is only acceptable inasmuch as she recognises males as females, and women are now relegated to "non-males" by political parties, as "pregnant humans" and "menstruators" by females who reject their bodies yet who hold out for the double-bind of gender in this theatre of cruelty where only a [sic] "man" can truly understood pregnancy, breastfeeding, and motherhood.

The only parallel I can think of is if the KKK were to insist that the Black Panthers stop calling themselves "black", demand that their white hoods be viewed as black, assert that only white people know what it is like to experience life as a black person, and then turn around and maintain that black people are just a group of entitled, bio-essentialist racists.

I have two right on young people in my home, and my daughter has two trans friends (one that was apparently happily androgynous before deciding to be a boy and the other who is now gender fluid in a very confusing way). They get an awful lot of exposure to these ideas which I think is actually rather worrying rather than great and groovy.

ds is convinced that you can (or will soon be able to) actually change sex, and I think that's part of the issue, a willful blindness to the reality that no you cannot become male if you are female, you can only aim for an expensive medicalised psuedo man/woman status.

There is also an odd change from stating what you are to stating what you identify as. It's a rejection of reality for ideation, and I can totally see why it appeals to teenagers as it gives the idea that there is some sort of control. Of course we (the adults in their lives) encourage them in their ideas that they can be anything they want to be, but that should be tempered by realism otherwise it's setting them up for a nasty fall.

I guess that depends on how your DS describes 'sex', nooka.

If you stick with the biological explanation, it is physically impossible. You can take hormones and have surgery so that you can mimic the opposite sex, to a certain extent, but you'll always be 100% the sex you were born - male, female, or intersex.

It must be frustrating for you.

My kids are still quite young, not quite teens. But they're all quite caring and potentially 'right on'. They'll potentially go down the same route as your son. I comfort myself that I'm a much more different person than I was when I was a young'un. Still considerate and caring, but...very different. More...fact focussed, if you like.

Sex ed in school taught my ds that you can change sex!

I'm not the sort of parent who would want to remove them from sex ed but...

But what do they believe a woman is?

Different things depending on your views. For many young trans folk it is how you feel, what sex you think you are. Biology is unimportant and there are many science articles and thoughts on it to back this up. They believe science is behind them and proves their ideas. I've seen many young tans folk say exactly this.

Biology is unimportant actually it is important because biological males and females have different rights based on their anatomy.

Hypothetical situation. Trans man is legally a male. Has changed birth certificate and new employer must recognise them as male. In the eyes of the law they are now very much a man.

Transman decides to have children. Gets pregnant. Has that now legal male still got the same maternity rights or are they only allowed paternity rights? If biology is unimportant the trans man doesn't need those 6 legal weeks off (min amount of Maternity leave a woman must take) work to recover because they are now male and 'biology is unimportant' so would the employer be penalised for only granting 2 weeks paternity leave? After all they have to treat that person as 'male'.

I know this is only a hypothetical situation and very unlikely to happen given the uk is pretty liberal but can you not see that when people are flippant in suggesting biology and biological sex and the very definitions of what makes a male and female is unimportant how it could be interpreted to the detriment of transpeople and women especially?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe biology isn't important at all.

Actually it's more genitals which are seen as unimportant in dime trans theory. There is plenty of scientific biological studies and theories which backs up the idea that gender is innate and biological - and not necessarily linked to genitals or chromosomes - the sex binary as society generally accepts.

But gender is a social construct:
I have no problem accepting genuine trans people. I have a real problem with children being told their trans because they like the 'wrong' toys and clothes. That is just bull shit.

Transman decides to have children. Gets pregnant. Has that now legal male still got the same maternity rights or are they only allowed paternity rights? If biology is unimportant the trans man doesn't need those 6 legal weeks off (min amount of Maternity leave a woman must take) work to recover because they are now male and 'biology is unimportant' so would the employer be penalised for only granting 2 weeks paternity leave? After all they have to treat that person as 'male'.

There seem to be at least two solutions to that problem:
A. Refuse to recognize the trans man as a man, and give him maternity leave;
B. Recognize that the man satisfies all the requirements laid out by the law to qualify for maternity leave. Does the law actually specify anywhere that it only applies to women?

But many people believe that gender isn't a social contruct - that it's innate with biological scientific studies,results and theories which backs that belief up.

For goodness sake what a load of nonsense.

I blame postmodernism / neoliberalism for all this narcissistic crap.

Gender is not an identity. What these people mean when they talk about "gender" is actually gender roles. Gender roles are the culture of sexual hegemony and stereotypes that society imposes on men and women with varying degrees of reward and punishment for compliance and noncompliance. Gender roles are the rule book for acceptable behaviour within the socio-political system we call patriarchy.

Gender itself is a social order. It is a caste system. Gender is male supremacy.

The only thing that gender has to do with genitals is that it manifests as the low caste assignment "girls and women" for those with female genitals/reproductive system in order to control, oppress and exploit that caste. Gender manifests as the high status group assignment "boys and men" for those with male genitals/reproductive system and the justification of their unearned high status and their oppression and exploitation of girls and women.

I am sick of hearing from a group of people who call themselves transgender who do not actually know what gender is. Just as they don't seem to know what sex is. Sex is short for reproductive sex. It is purely concerned with reproduction AKA where babies come from. Gender roles were invented in order to justify the creation of sex classes / castes / status groups and in order to present those castes to the population as the natural order. This is known as patriarchy.

And if these bright young people want to challenge the above ideas that's fine. But they have to actually a) understand what they are challenging and b) challenge it with something robust and coherent.

Utter crap about being female because you like women's underwear and lipstick won't cut it. Indeed it is insulting to women to tell us that you are female because you like the trappings of femininity. The trappings of femininity were created to mark girls and women out as submissive and inferior. No wonder so many men like them, they are a male fantasy, they have been made up by men.

You cannot change or queer sex. You can muck about with gender roles (which can involve challenging or reinforcing gender depending on the action . Not all queering of gender roles Is progressive, indeed lots of it is deeply conservative). To actually change gender would be to revolutionize our current socio-political status quo (this is the aim of radical feminism). It is not the act of an individual.

bambambini there is no scientific evidence for gender roles being innate. Being can believe what they want, but research doesn't back up their beliefs

Banning thank you for being honest. You have revealed that the word 'woman' is wholly redundant for trans males. The aim is not to become a woman but to erase women. To erase the meaning of 'women', so reducing the cohesion of women as a group. An added bonus is that you obviously therefore revealed that there is no new definition of 'women' for you to even attempt to articulate or justify. So no complaints if I stick with the real meaning. Adult human female. Not males, not anyone who was born male.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Banning? Banning.

Bambini. Fuck bugger and arse.

Thank you NotAnotherHarlot.

My only hope is that I keep reading about young women who have been seduced by what currently passes for liberal feminism and who were trans allies (because why wouldn't you be if you were an inclusive liberal progressive decent person) having peak trans moments and then going on to seek out gender critical / radical feminist analysis.

Then of course there are the detransitioners and the transmen and transwomen who know that what they are doing is not changing sex but seeking to alleviate gender dysphoria.

I hope things don't go too far down the misogynistic women's rights eroding rabbit hole in the meantime. We are pretty far gone already.

It's such a stupid and unnecessary backlash. When women wanted to have the right to vote, to wear practical clothes, to drive cars and run businesses they didn't claim to be men in order to legitimize doing those things. They wanted to do them as liberated women.

Transgenderism highlights how misogynistic (and homophobic) society still is and how low status womanhood and the things associated with it are.

Literally bollocks. If I got my kit off to be presented with a fanjo, I would be mightily pissed off. And really, come on, fuck off, most (straight) men would be the same, unless they were high on the night as it were. (Which is fine obv)

I agree that many transpeople are very attractive but you can't say it's not about the genitals. It's about the expectation of one's preferred genitals when you get there. It's not a fucking tombola

[Grin] fucking tombola

Smashing turnips you are right but what you are doing here is changing the southeast. People are not just changing their minds, they are getting the confidence to speak about it publicly. I've persuaded my teen children and I would happily speak up at work

Southeast obviously = zeitgeist

"The problem is most transpeople do indeed just want to pass. To live their own quiet lives without impinging on anyone else."

This misses the entire point of this thread. The entire notion of using the term menstruators erases women, females (who actually menstruate). There is great hypocrisy in a movement that is established upon the refusal of their body and the u-turn to have women actually include them (despite the fact they identify as transmen). So not, they don't want to just pass. They want to control the language of women--both sides of this community in fact. The males intimidate organisations and women who say, "But I am uncomfortable with your penis in my changing area" or "I am a lesbian, I do not sleep with males" and the females are detransitioning as trans, since gender dysphoria is not about celebrating menstruation or pregnancy but ending it. So these narratives read very much about forcing a population of women mostly to be unwilling participants in a theatre of the other. We are asked to pretend that males pass as females (they don't); we are asked to take the super aggressive behaviour of identity politics which is thrown onto us (i.e. call yourself trans, don't call me cis, a pregnant person, a menstruator, a front hole, etc). The langauge of this community is apolitical to the core such that it removes all reference that women have, our only political tools really, to speak about ourselves. The vocabulary of the self is every human's right just as not being labelled something by another, just as opting out of this gender game that clearly only affects those who fetishise gender.

Yeah, that's rub for gender beleivers--there is much social evidence to demonstrate that gender is uniquely a social construct. We establish relationships to how others see us, our bodies, etc. However, just as MJ could not really become "white", one cannot change one's sex. And one's gender as social, that's the easy part. Everyone is non-binary. It is only the transgender movement which strangely ignores that femininity and masculinity are not unique to women and men respectively. Every human is a mixture of both. So one can be a gender Creationist and believe that gender is, like baby Jesus, innate to the structure of this internal believe, or one can open one's eyes to the gendered world out there and fight the good fight that people can accept effeminate men and butch women.

I am a Marxist. I vote for the latter.

Obviously WinchesterWoman

i'm trying to detail the issues specifically, probably badly!

1. The erosion of language of specific to women and their bodies.
2. The Trojan horse of self identification.
3. The increased risks to women and removal of currently legislated women's rights if the changes discussed in the governments response to the transgender equality review are made.
4. Women's sports will not have legislation which ensure a level playing field for biological women.
5. Crime statistics will become meaningless.
6. Health statistics will become meaningless, what about drug testing?
7. The conflating of sex and gender is a backwards step for women.
8. Employment statistics will become meaningless. MTF CEO who were male when they reached CEO will be reported as being female and having cracked the glass ceiling.
9. life insurance - how can premiums be calculated accurately if health statistics are wrong - penalises women.
10. Car insurance - risks will be calculated incorrectly, penalising women.

I'm sure there are more. All the areas which need accurate data will be impacted and it will penalise women at every turn.

10. children are being put through untested and unnecessary procedures.

Children are being permanently damaged & scarred by an act first not think first pushy trans agenda.