New Zealand: Bill on transgender birth certificates creates big issues

[TimeLady]

Sounds familiar....

www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/108740984/Bill-on-transgender-birth-certificates-creates-big-issues

And yes the midwives/cursory glance, is a massive giveaway. You do realise that your baby is fully examined and scored on the Apgar scale, don't you?

There's nothing cursory about childbirth, I can assure you.

When babies/children show symptoms of sex specific conditions, HCPs don't refuse to investigate, preferring to wait and see how the individual later 'identifies'; they recognise the child's sex and its relevance and act accordingly.

To follow on the point Stars made: women who work in the fields in Egypt have the same problem with a lack of sanitation due to fear of sexual assault leading to urinary tract infections.

Plus, they have the added burden that in Islam there have to be witnesses to a sexual assault who are willing to testify on behalf of the victim. If the woman is unmarried she is considered to have brought shame on the family for having sex outside of marriage. In some cases, women are forced to marry their rapists to protect the 'honour' of their families. In other cases, women are killed - or imprisoned for their own protection - because they are considered to have brought 'dishonour' on their families.

So, do you want to ask the monumentally stupid question again about "convention[s] of western society"?

Ah, thanks, Shots. I hadn't realised that the newest poster was trans. I thought they were just incredibly stupid.

an Indian woman

India, which is not western, is one of the worst countries (along with Afghanistan, also not western) in which to be female. Do you need examples of how women in those countries are victimised because of their sex?

Or how about Bangladesh where women have had acid thrown in their faces by the men they did not want to marry? Can they "identify" their way of that?

Or women in India who are burnt to death because their dowries are deemed insufficient by their in-laws?

Neither of these are western countries.

Awaiting your reasoned and well-evidenced rebuttal.

So, just in case it is not clear...

Sex separation exists to protect women from those men who would do us harm.

And to meet biological needs that we do not share with men because they are unique to our female biology.

The reason we no longer require chaperones in this country is largely because we now have sex specific services, including public toilets, that offer us some protection.

That is why we separate by sex.

See, the thing is, Julj a woman already knows these things.

We might need to check up on the specifics but it's already in our consciousness. It's in the consciousness of all women. Wherever they live.

The fact it isn't ever in the consciousness of transwomen is very revealing...

Being a man makes someone not a woman at all nothing to do with clothes or scarf colour

Actually, I will apologise for that. It is in the consciousness of some transwomen.

They tend to be the ones who are also arguing against self id and TWAW.

Because they get it too.

julj

Happy to discuss intersex conditions with you if you think that’s a gotcha.

This I would love to see. Bowl wipes the floor with anyone who is foolhardy enough to take her up on the challenge.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale Ah, thanks, Shots. I hadn't realised that the newest poster was trans. I thought they were just incredibly stupid.

Yes they have an incredibly short posting history and all on one topic, funnily enough.

Almost like they came, they saw, they plopped.

Saskia luckily my mother was present... also my grandmother. Despite neither being a medical practitioner, they were able to accurately observe my sex as female. As in well over 99% of births.

What could be more Westernized than the 'assigned at birth by a doctor' definition of sex, hastily repurposed for the UK as 'assigned at birth by a medical practitioner' in case anyone spotted that British babies tend not to be delivered by a doctor. 'Assigned at birth by the mother' somehow doesn't sound quite as coercive, does it? It's equally untrue, though, hence my recent letter to my MP (so far unanswered) requesting this inaccurate definition of sex be removed from all government documents.

A very intelligent friend of mine told me recently that she was struggling to see how anyone can establish or really even define sex, it is just so complicated. She might as well have announced she is a creationist I'm struggling to see her in the same way now.

It's really really odd how sex is such a mysterious thing to fathom and yet men have successfully and viciously oppressed women for millenia. I mean, I'm honestly baffled and even more impressed than I once was. I think their brains are just infinitely superior to lady brains really.

Julj won't be back because there's no sensible response to the points made.

If they’re in New Zealand, it’s only just morning now and they’ve probably been asleep!

Julj won't be back because there's no sensible response to the points made.

Those are two different issues: (1) Julj may or may not be back but (2) irrespective of their return there is no sensible defence to the points raised.

Julj70, should you ever return to this thread, perhaps you could give us the criteria (chromosomes? Presence of certain physical characteristics?) that you use to class yourself as a human. We can then use the same methodology to come up with a corresponding definition of "woman".

Please do take care not to class anyone who, say, was born with a genetic abnormality, or who has lost a limb in a car crash, as non-human.

Shit.
Cats bark?

I wish people would stop saying that“to define women by their reproductive organs” is “reductive”.
Of COURSE women are MORE than their reproductive organs, but it doesn’t then follow that women don’t have female reproductive organs. It’s a fallacious argument.

It’s like saying that it’s “reductive to say you need to eat to live because
there’s more to life than eating”.

Good lord.

Those are two different issues: (1) Julj may or may not be back but (2) irrespective of their return there is no sensible defence to the points raised.

Of course.

Woman is a biological category. Of course it means your reproductive organs or "genitals".

If woman is instead defined as a "sincerely held internal essence", then I'm afraid I don't have this. Could you please let me know what I am, Julj?

I find it incredibly sad that purported feminists think that being big, or wearing frilly pink scarves make someone any less of a woman

For me (a feminist since the 1970s) it’s pretty much the posession of a penis that makes someone less of a woman.

And more of a man, actually.