If you avoid the feminist section then at least read this article

[RedthroatedCaracara]

because all females need to be aware of this

And there's no need to have an attack of the vapours because it's a Daily Mail link. For all their multitude of shortcomings, the Mail at least have the guts to publish articles that stand up for women and girls.

"females"

I've read it. Normally don't like Sarah vine but she's spot on with this

@suspiria777

"females"

Yes, but males can read it too.

Spot on

I can’t really get exercised about the very small number of transmen(I.e biological females) who have given birth and breast feed but identify as male so don’t wish to be called mothers. That’s who this is about isn’t it? In real life women who give birth will still be mothers. Their children will still call them mum.

Not a daily mail fan but I must say this writer is actually stepping up and saying something. She should be applauded for using her power to support women.
Also probably reaches quite a few who are unaware of these issues.
Will she be targeted like JK?

I'm not sure that she will be targeted now more and more people are speaking up.

That article also slags off four different women on different topics, has a dig at vegans for their children being short and says Osaka doesn’t have mental health issues but anxiety is just ‘life’.

That doesn’t strike me as someone who gives a shit about women so long as they get paid to be an arsehole.

It doesn't make it not true pumper. Whether you think she gives a shit about women or not.

@Erikrie

It doesn't make it not true pumper. Whether you think she gives a shit about women or not.

She very clearly does not give a shit about women.

That doesn’t strike me as someone who gives a shit about women so long as they get paid to be an arsehole.

My thoughts exactly

I don't understand why you identify as male and still go through such a feminine journey such as be inseminated, be pregnant, give birth and breastfeed. Only to then get upset at being called a mother. Fathers accompany the journey, they do not partake. Do not change the language on the basis of people who pick and choose what biology and roles they want to be involved with when the vast majority of "people who give birth" are happy and joyous when they get called mum. Milk comes from breasts, not chests and if men can deal with having a life changing and perhaps fatal breast cancer then the 1 or 2 transmen can deal with breastfeeding especially if they still have breasts!

But the important thing is, despite the fact she "doesn't give a shit about women" is that she is highlighting the issue that women's rights are being trampled on, in order to not offend the trans community even though the trans community's misogyny and determination to erode women's spaces and rights is breathtaking. The more people hear this message the more will realise what is actually happening, ie every time language is changed to allegedly become more inclusive, it becomes more exclusionary to another group, usually women

Genuine question. I read a lot about this on MN, but how much of an issue is it really in the actual world? I don’t live in the sticks with limited contact with the modern world, I live in London. I work for a very large, liberal organisation, I move in several very “woke” and liberal social circles, including the Burning Man crowd and kink scene, I’m vaguely acquainted with a handful of trans people, I hang out at Bar Wotever and The Glory sometimes. And I have honestly never heard anyone ever refer to chest feeding, or person who has given birth, or lady penis; or chastise people for using perfectly normal terminology. I’m thinking of some of the “rightest on” people I know, and they certainly wouldn’t say chest feeding. Is it just such a prominent issue on MN because so many posters have teenage DC who, like teenagers everywhere throughout all time, like to glue themselves to a cause and an idealogy and so their parents, the MN posters who have to listen to their DC’s beliefs, think it’s everywhere when it isn’t?

She very clearly does not give a shit about women.

What's your point? Or are you not fussed about the word mother / woman being erased? She's not the only person writing about this.

And there's no need to have an attack of the vapours because it's a Daily Mail link. For all their multitude of shortcomings, the Mail at least have the guts to publish articles that stand up for women and girls.

‘And there's no need to have an attack of the vapours because it's a Daily Mail link. For all their multitude of shortcomings, the Mail at least are bigoted in the same way as me on this particular issue, so I’ll turn a blind eye to multiple examples of sexism, racism and homophobia for the sake of having a newspaper back up my prejudices’

See, I think it's precisely because Sarah Vine can be quite malicious about women that makes her views on the eradication of them more powerful. She might not a "sister" but she won't stay silent. Ditto Liz Truss.

I can’t really get exercised about the very small number of transmen(I.e biological females) who have given birth and breast feed but identify as male so don’t wish to be called mothers.

And yet it’s because of that “very small number” that the words woman and mother are being written out of legal, medical and social language as though they’ve become dirty, unspeakable words.

Give over User of lots of numbers

I read all newspapers that give their content away free online as I have the critical faculties to differentiate between bigotry, differing opinions and facts that can be checked.

I don't seek out echo chambers.

Genuine question.I read a lot about this on MN, but how much of an issue is it really in the actual world?^

Well this has come from Stonewall who have been working hard behind the scenes to get the protected characteristic of sex removed from the equality act, this is part of their drive. Hence then getting into organisations to change the language that they use. As a singular issue, you'd think it wasn't important, but when you know what Stonewalls end goal is, then actually, it really is. After all, if women no longer have the words to describe themselves, and sex is no longer a protected characteristic, then they no longer have legal sex based protections. Which would impact every part of our lives, from safeguarding to health. Why would any woman want that removed? You may not have noticed it in the real world, but if stonewall had managed to get away with this, then you certainly would have done at some point. When it's too late.

@Erikrie

Genuine question.I read a lot about this on MN, but how much of an issue is it really in the actual world?^

Well this has come from Stonewall who have been working hard behind the scenes to get the protected characteristic of sex removed from the equality act, this is part of their drive. Hence then getting into organisations to change the language that they use. As a singular issue, you'd think it wasn't important, but when you know what Stonewalls end goal is, then actually, it really is. After all, if women no longer have the words to describe themselves, and sex is no longer a protected characteristic, then they no longer have legal sex based protections. Which would impact every part of our lives, from safeguarding to health. Why would any woman want that removed? You may not have noticed it in the real world, but if stonewall had managed to get away with this, then you certainly would have done at some point. When it's too late.

But that’s my point. I don’t know any organisations or people who have changed the language they use. I read about it, but I don’t experience it. So how prevalent is it really?

Stonewall is one charitable organisation. They don’t seem to be having a great deal of impact, when it’s only online that people seem to know what they stand for.

@sunshineandhappy

But the important thing is, despite the fact she "doesn't give a shit about women" is that she is highlighting the issue that women's rights are being trampled on, in order to not offend the trans community even though the trans community's misogyny and determination to erode women's spaces and rights is breathtaking. The more people hear this message the more will realise what is actually happening, ie every time language is changed to allegedly become more inclusive, it becomes more exclusionary to another group, usually women

I don’t think that’s true though, I think it’s a convenient way for people like Sarah Vine to make money because it’s so ridiculous. It’s the ‘PC gone mad’ angle for the 21st century.

@Erikrie

She very clearly does not give a shit about women.

What's your point? Or are you not fussed about the word mother / woman being erased? She's not the only person writing about this.

I don’t think it’s happening. And I think there’s more important things to worry about than what vegans feed their children and how low cut Davina McCall’s dress is.

Stonewall is one charitable organisation. They don’t seem to be having a great deal of impact, when it’s only online that people seem to know what they stand for.

They have had a huge impact on hundreds of organisations including the government.

@RedthroatedCaracara

See, I think it's precisely because Sarah Vine can be quite malicious about women that makes her views on the eradication of them more powerful. She might not a "sister" but she won't stay silent. Ditto Liz Truss.

So it doesn’t matter how much damage she causes to say, women suffering from mental health issues because she’s happy to slag off a group of people you don’t agree with?