Why are trans things discussed in Feminism section not a separate topic or have I missed something?

[PearlyG8]

Slightly confused. Apologies for any unintended offence.

To be clear so she doesn't think I'm having a go at her - I mean that they've noticed that OP is afraid to speak clearly and are aiming to reinforce that fear so that she stays silent.

Marriage is a social construct. Sex isn't. Analogy ends there.

Biological elitism.

The word 'woman' is discriminatory.

Two insights from Snappity there. Thanks for supporting your fellow women. Not.

See James Kirkup's commentary (link includes evidence):

"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.
August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

Snappity

I am actually quite interested in how you see the future.

Say transwomen and women are all just called women.

But, they have different biological needs, right? So if you were to talk about funding for, let's say, endometriosis, you would say 'women with a womb'? In order to make the distinction?

What other places or scenarios do you think a distinction would be made?

If the stats showed that transwomen still committed the same sorts of crime as natal men, for instance, would you consider a female prison divided into two sections? Or would that be transphobic?

And say women wanted to march about, eg maternity provision. Would that be "a woman's march? Or a 'woman who potentially gestates' march? What point would it be exclusionary because it excluded transwomen who could not gestate.

'Pussy hats' for instance. Why are they transphobic? Why can they not be something that only applies to women with 'pussies'.

Because if we're talking about reality, versus redefining words, the reality is still going to remain.
How do you deal with that?

I'm behind as usual but Datun those are fantastic questions

But, they have different biological needs, right? So if you were to talk about funding for, let's say, endometriosis, you would say 'women with a womb'? In order to make the distinction?

I would just say "funding for endometriosis". End of. The rest is irrelevance.

And say women wanted to march about, eg maternity provision. Would that be "a woman's march? Or a 'woman who potentially gestates' march? What point would it be exclusionary because it excluded transwomen who could not gestate.

That would be a "march for better maternity provision". The rest is irrelevant.

Because if we're talking about reality, versus redefining words, the reality is still going to remain.
How do you deal with that?

I think you make a good point datun. Realistically, we are going to continue to use the word women to mean, well, women. Insisting on a forum that it shouldn't happen isn't going to change that fact.

I agree. No matter how upsetting some people find the word woman (meaning natal woman) it is necessary.

Never mind not having definitions for woman and man. They don't even have words for adult humans who produce motile gametes and adult humans who gestate.

When they say 'language evolves' are they claiming it evolves to have no words at all for the basic human units who developed language in the first place?

Snappity

Saying a march for 'this issue', or 'that funding', doesn't work unless you are identifying the people to whom it applies.

How would you target people who had a vested interest??

Men who will never require maternity leave, will not be worth doing a door drop campaign to, for instance.

I can think of numerous reasons why you need to identify the cohort for whom you are campaigning.

In your version of the future, how does that even work?

And the pussy hat thing, is a microcosm of this. Transactivists were outraged as it was deemed exclusionary. But it only applied to the cohort (whatever you call them), in possession of a 'pussy'.

How can something be excluding a person, when it doesn't apply to them?

So again, who is the pussy hat for?

Remove the references to women and you have a bunch of apparently unrelated problems impacting a bunch of totally random people. What could be the connection between these groups? Might they be connected in ways that suggest that specific attention should be paid to their needs and to ensuring that they're being treated fairly by society?

Ensuring that that is no longer possible is one of the goals of removing the references to women from public information campaigns, imo.

How would you target people who had a vested interest??

Because you target the issue. It is the issue which matters.

Kittens: I agree that is a goal

OP said All over the world people have been told they are not to use their native tongue. It's not done to liberate them is it?

It is of no benefit to women if we remove the word 'women' from women's health. Acting like everyone has the same standard of knowledge in English and biology and would understand the newspeak is elitist.

In order to get your message across you first have to work out who needs to hear it, and work out how to reach them. It's called targeting. A scattergun approach won't work, and for healthcare in particular not all people will know what applies to them so you have to spell it out.