Starker: Not only women have a cervix

[WildRunner]

This has made me cross.

Labour conference: Not right to say only women have a cervix, says Starmer www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58698406

I'm about to go for my smear test. Any man who feels like a woman is welcome to have a speculum inserted into his non-existent cervix - as long as it isn't at the expense of appointments for biological women.

Yes, ducksalive, it's a term that hs been hijacked and is now used to mean almost anything.

wingsoverscotland.com/everything-is-transphobic/

@2old4thissite

New Farher Ted script unearthed: Dougal: So Ted, is it true we can all have a cervix now? Ted: Yes Dougal, sometimes. Dougal: Oh great. Ted..what is a cervix? Ted: Erm, ahh. Mrs Doyle might know.

Ted: Aaah, Mrs Doyle. Would you show Ted your cervix? Mrs Doyle: Of course, Father. Come here, Father... Ted: ....No. ...I don't want ...to Mrs Doyle: ...Ah, c'mon and look, yer will. Yer will yer will yer will. Ted: Aaaaaaaah!

Father Ted would need more than a nice cup of tea after that.

What's happening is you're becoming radicalised by all the transphobic shite on here. Disgusting.

It's identity shite that's being discussed. If discussing identity shite is transphobic and disgusting then I suggest it's the identity shite that has some intrinsic problems.

Twitter is still a delight:

Oh and I forgot:

(Not mine) you can get badges.

There's also a book recently published about the mn radical feminism revolution

""This is not solved by using the phrase 'women and trans men' it's just another way of suggesting trans men are women which they aren't.""

Science disagrees with you.
Genetics disagrees with you.
Evolution disagrees with you.
Established facts of physiology, anatomy and biology disagrees with you.

And PLEASE stop rolling out the old "what about intersex people" line. They represent less than 0.018% of the population, and it has been shown that the incidence of intersex conditions in the trans community is no higher than that of the rest of the population.
Within the 0.018% it is almost always possible through karotyping to identify if the individual in question is male or female.
Not to mention the fact that those with DSDs have repeatedly asked not to be used as some kind of argument for any of this.

No matter what your individual belief system or what you think about how people identify, biology CANNOT be denied. It will NEVER change, and in 100'000 years human beings will still be sexually dimorphic, there will still be males and females, and they will still have either XX or XY chromosomes (apart from a tiny minority).

And all the word salad, butchering of language and hand wringing won't change that.

And please don't be so obtuse as to trot out the "what if a woman has a hysterectomy" etc.
We all know they are female to their very cells, forever, unchangeably and immutably.
It's so overdone as to be laughable quite frankly.

It's always reassuring to see the predictability of people complaining that we are transphobic, which isn't allowed under guidelines, followed by all their posts being deleted for breaking guidelines.

Re radicalisation, I've done the GOV online prevent training for work, which is all around how radicalisation works.

It describes how TRAs and gender ideology works to a tea. Not mumsnet.

Especially alienation from parents, binary no debate thinking etc.

@WarriorN

Re radicalisation, I've done the GOV online prevent training for work, which is all around how radicalisation works.

It describes how TRAs and gender ideology works to a tea. Not mumsnet.

Especially alienation from parents, binary no debate thinking etc.

Not to mention the utter nonsense being pedalled in schools. Catch them while they're young eh?

@WarriorN

Re radicalisation, I've done the GOV online prevent training for work, which is all around how radicalisation works.

It describes how TRAs and gender ideology works to a tea. Not mumsnet.

Especially alienation from parents, binary no debate thinking etc.

Yes, having done that training I agree. Describes exactly the behaviour of that particular system of belief.

@RVN123 interestingly I saw someone use this argument earlier as "I have had my womb removed am I not a woman" i think there needs to be some kind of "at birth" argument here to really take home the point!

Thank you for the encouragement to listen to today's Women's Hour. It was worth it. Thank you Emma Barnett

Not to mention the utter nonsense being pedalled in schools. Catch them while they're young eh?

Yes my (chilling) thoughts when I did it.

ozzyteabiscuit it is not inclusive language.
Its exclusive.
Medical information needs to be simple and clear or it makes it much harder for women with learning disabilities, Deaf women and women with English as a second language to access health care.
Women with LDs, as a group, have a life expectancy of 30 years less than those without. This is partly down to poor uptake^ of screening and other health^ opportunities.
Your average TM is educated, white and middle class. Please do not tell me that a female with short hair who wears trousers and calls themselves Luke is more vulnerable than a woman with LDs.
I am not having it and I am sick of hearing it.

Very well said 👏

There was zero problem with the words woman girl until very recently.

Everyone knew what it meant.
It was clear.
It handily encompassed women and girls as whole human people who shared female biology. Whether this bit or that had been removed, whether you were currently having periods or not was no problem.

That's the beauty of the terms. They meant female human. They still do to the vast majority of the general public.

And the equivalent words around the world also mean female.

I note though that female is currently being redefined. And that leaves the female half of the worlds population. In this country. With no words to describe us as a defined group.

Given that women and girls have globally and as far back as we know, been oppressed in a variety of ways and still are being. It's quite important to have a word for us. Given the oppression is due to our sex.

The headline 'People with vaginas in Afghanistan worried about the future under the Taliban' has a nice ring to it I think.

Nick Timothy gets it in today's Daily Telegraph (he used to work for Theresa May until she lost her majority at the unnecessary GE):
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/26/virtue-signalling-now-clue-institution-failing-deliver/
'Amid the factionalism at the Labour conference, the sanctimony and virtue-seeking is visible for all to see. Keir Starmer kicked off by promising to reform the Gender Recognition Act. Saying only women have a cervix, he declared, “is not right” and “something that shouldn’t be said”.

Starmer’s intervention is a case study in progressive politics. He promises legal changes to make it easier for men to declare themselves women and access single-sex services and spaces, which will jeopardise the privacy and safety of women. He not only denied biological reality – for of course only women have cervixes – he also claimed the right to tell us what to think and say.

The issue arose because Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP and feminist who has criticised proposed changes to gender-recognition laws, has said she cannot attend the party conference because of threats made against her by activists. Instead of defending Duffield, Starmer asserted that she did not have the right to say what is a biological fact.

It is yet another example of how those who believe in their own virtue, and those who shout loudest about their virtuous beliefs, are often those who show the least virtue in the real world. It is not just the Labour Party that proves it, for public services, big business and even this Government – run by Conservatives – are also guilty.'

'Elsewhere, we have the prison service – which allows men identifying as women without official gender recognition certificates into women’s prisons – distributing pronoun badges for staff. We have the NHS confusing patients and referring to women as “people with a cervix” in information campaigns about cancer. We have universities abandoning free speech and dictating the parameters of “acceptable” thought.'

If a woman has the mental capacity to choose to be a trans man, then she has the mental capacity to understand that all trans men have female bodies and are therefore women. That is literally how it works. Therefore, all that needs to be said is Women have cervixes.

Yes I agree.

Also, just occurred to me, if we pander to the idea that to use the word woman or mother is dysphorically "triggering," how the FUCK can the TRAs claim that therefore trans women must be in women's prisons with vulnerable women who've likely to have been victims of actual violence?

Where being affected (triggered, hate that word) by the presence of a male reminds of the actual literal violence they experienced?

As I said before, my inclusion of the word trans men is directly linked to public health where I am concerned about young confused teens.

By the way, for any of KS's aids who might be reading this or any plopping monitors, this is worth a watch, detailing what really happens when men go into female jails:

@PrincessNutella

If a woman has the mental capacity to choose to be a trans man, then she has the mental capacity to understand that all trans men have female bodies and are therefore women. That is literally how it works. Therefore, all that needs to be said is Women have cervixes.

Though I do feel I've seen many cases where young girls, often vulnerable or with autism (and so also vulnerable) have been led into this, coerced or even abused to believe they're the opposite sex.

The grown women / mothers who claim NB status, who seem to be the worst in face book sling and breastfeeding groups at demanding that we erase "gendered language" of mother, breast feeding etc (i did once want to point out that milk bleb may also be gendered so what should be used instead but cba to go there) should definitely know better.

Only people born female have uteruses 🤷🏼‍♀️ fucking simple

Which is another good point; in breastfeeding circles they want to stop using breast and woman, mother etc. I was told it's gendered language and so upsetting.

What's a cervix if it's not gendered language? Doesn't fucking make sense.

From the association of breastfeeding mothers conference www.facebook.com/164256076965047/posts/4571944662862811/?d=n

And, on this tangent I recently read this which was interesting and I think needs its own thread:

with-woman.org/2021/09/21/mothers-they-matter-however-they-identify-heres-why/?fbclid=IwAR0l7G7EzoIUATlOpwJdrkjntaI5t-XDuwVyxv2s8V8WxgvNNvUAX6zKk6E

So-called ‘additive language’ – a suggested idea in the Open Letter – doesn’t help in any way. ‘Women and birthing people’ in a document sounds like there are two different sorts of people who give birth. It’s confusing, divisive and inaccurate….and still denies the impact of biological sex. We also know that in real life the result of additive language is that the words ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ disappear – often for practical reasons of space and time, and other times to deliberately omit the whole notion of ‘women’ as a biological sex.