Anti trans for asking not to conflate sex with gender?

[OatALot]

On a menopause event at work and in the comments section they are being asked to use inclusive language such as 'people who menstrate'. These are being challenged and those who challenged are being called terf and accusssd of making others feel unsafe.

The people doing the presentation therefore have taken the stance anyone can go through the menopause.

I'd love to feedback that they should not conflate sex and gender. Surely if we just talk in term of sex and a biological function it can't be challenged? It takes the discussion away from a condition impacting females.

@MurielSpriggs

A thread full of outrage at strawman arguments and ad hominems from what I see when I last contributed!

No one is being told they can't describe themself as a woman, unless I've very much misunderstood.

Yeah. You've misunderstood very much.

@DadJoke

“Some women and trans men” is perfectly reasonable as I said earlier, and if it assuages gender critical peoples’ irritation too, that’s great.

Mate, objecting to the half of humanity who are female being unnamed as a political and social group is more than "irritation". It's fucking existential. It is literally undefining us.

It's not like sex itself is going away. We will still suffer both deliberate and unconscious sexism and we will still be disadvantaged by navigating a society structured around male as default. It's just that we will lose the ability to say clearly "this happens to US and it doesn't happen to YOU, and that is not ok".

Would you tell any other oppressed group they cannot have a name for themselves that themselves alone?

@Artichokeleaves

'Some' women....

ffs, this is sex based to the point that if a biological female does not menstruate or does not menopause it is a medical problem that needs investigation.

No, I won't be pretending that this is not something that affects all women. Women and (TM/NB/whatever other words) will do fine. The 50% of the human race who are female are affected by this, we get to choose the frigging words for it. The other 50% are going to have to get over themselves.

This is true. Without pre-existing knowledge of both female human biology and the cultural references of ongoing c debates, "some women and transmen" implies to me that many women do not have menopause and continue to have periods in old age! Like me, approximately 1.6% of the population also have autism spectrum conditions.

I feel the entire point of educational workshops is not to assume participants have previous knowledge.

And I don't think ad hominem means quite what you think it does.

As in telling DadJoke he can't have an informed opinion in issues around the experiences of female biology are not fallacious. They are rooted in his male physiology.

@MurielSpriggs

You came in quite late in the discussion, I think that some posters here already were quite upset and it came across in our posting.

A woman was upset over how her work proposed to discuss menopause and I believe there were male people suggesting “people who go through menopause”.

I did a long post this morning about how horrific menopause can be, physically and mentally. It is also something I felt ashamed of for a long time and was reluctant to discuss with others. In my opinion we had a discussion going on here how a work place could encourage this discussion and how the target group (99% women) can be more comfortable to discuss it.

I specifically stated that transmen were free to come up with a description which felt relevant to them.

In bursts someone I first thought was a woman but who turned out to be a biological male. This poster (with zero lived experience on this) proceeded to lecture us about inclusivity.

In this lecturing, language which a disabled poster considered ableist was used by the male. The disabled poster was really upset. Another poster who worried that her daughter would be unable to understand the terms proposed by this intruding male was completely ignored. Screenshots from transmen objecting to the initial terms proposed by the male poster were ignored.

In the end this male poster grudgingly conceded that he/(they?) “found it acceptable” to use “women and transmen”. This is still language about a condition where this poster has zero lived experience. And terms which will never apply to him (them?).

This is why some posters are sarcastic. And why I did my comparison with erectile dysfunction above.

You could certainly say "most women and trans men" - I would have no objection to that, but "people" is easier

Why are you so invested in women's biological functions and the language they use to describe that? It doesn't involve you. Women dont care about your objections or opinion on this.

Many thanks for the summary @Doubletoilandtrouble, and I can see that hackles have been raised. I think some of language used in these contexts (eg "menstruators") is awful. Erectile dysfunction is a good comparison.

There may well be many genuine grievances in all this. But some posters are angry that somehow women are not allowed to call themselves women any more. I'm not even aware of this sort of demand coming from the crazier corners of Twitter, never mind the usual suspects of Stonewall etc.

Why are you so invested in women's biological functions and the language they use to describe that? It doesn't involve you

I do not know about Dad's motivation but males who identify as women are very invested in the idea that the word " women" should be divested of any reference to the female reproductive role as it excludes them. If women = adult human female, then where does it leave them.

Without pre-existing knowledge of both female human biology and the cultural references

This is the key thing isn't it? All the so-called (but really anything but) "inclusive" language relies on the fact that behind the scenes everyone does actually know which set class they belong to and what's normal for that group. It's just that to comply with gender ideology we are never allowed to name those sex groups out loud so all public discourse about actual sex-based needs ends up using the amorphous "some people in group X and some people in group Y..."

Thst works fine for the transitional (no pun intended) generation who do know what sex they are and what goes along with it even if they politely pretend not to, but will fall apart if we actually reach gender nirvana where everyone from birth is just an individual collection of "person who..." features with no overarching context.

@MurielSpriggs

But some posters are angry that somehow women are not allowed to call themselves women any more

Oh we know we can still call ourselves "women", it's just that "women" now means something completely different which makes it utterly useless for the important purpose it previously served.

I'm not angry that I can't use specific word W-O-M-A-N, I'm angry that its appropriation by gender ideology means there is no collective noun for the half of humanity that deals with the social and physical reality of being female.

Ok @Blibbyblobby, without singling out people who seemed very upset about it, I'm not sure that is universally understood.

Well in the later half of this thread, there was a male who was remonstrating women over using the word woman. In fact, said he felt it was just easier to use ‘people who..’ and told us that was the ‘inclusive’ approach.

And we were, of course, updating dadjoke that they were now out of step with stonewall’s new direction, thanks to the push back on erasing the word ‘mother’ to use only gender neutral terms.

Sorry. To be clear - some of us were stating that ‘of course we can use the word woman’, the poster was the one telling us that that was inappropriate and to use ‘people who…’. And to stop censuring and censoring women’s language that actually has no impact on him at all.

@MurielSpriggs

Ok *@Blibbyblobby*, without singling out people who seemed very upset about it, I'm not sure that is universally understood.

Understood by whom?

You seem to be annoyed that some posters are annoyed about something you are unaware of.

There have been many posts about the changes in NHS guidance, the changes in language around breastfeeding, midwifery, female cancers, not to even start on the politicisation of the word 'woman' - see Keir Starmer and others recently stuttering over whether it is right to say only women have female anatomy!

@Beckert

You could certainly say "most women and trans men" - I would have no objection to that, but "people" is easier

Why are you so invested in women's biological functions and the language they use to describe that? It doesn't involve you. Women dont care about your objections or opinion on this.

Indeed Beckert! I assume Dad is a bog standard misogynist who enjoys lecturing women on how they’re doing everything wrong

Whatever his motivation, his opinion is irrelevant

There is a phrase often used in the disabled communities I'm a member of, which applies here: nothing about us, without us.

What it means, is that decisions that affect the disabled community should not be made without disabled people having the final say.

Look at what we have here. A person whose body is of the form that experiences ejaculation, telling menopausal women and women who will experience menopause in the future (provided we live for long enough), what language should be used in a menopause workshop. He is doing this as the self-selected, unelected representative of a group he does not belong to.

This situation fails the nothing about us, without us bench mark twice!

@DadJoke

“Some women and trans men” is perfectly reasonable as I said earlier, and if it assuages gender critical peoples’ irritation too, that’s great.

What sort of people does 'women' refer to in your phrase 'some women and trans men'? Who do you include in the term 'women'? Why do you include the word 'some' and not just say 'women and transmen'?

I'd be interested to know if DadJoke has made his irrelevant feelings on this subject known to a menopausal woman in person. As one myself, I've no need to imagine the response.

I do not know about Dad's motivation but males who identify as women are very invested in the idea that the word " women" should be divested of any reference to the female reproductive role as it excludes them. If women = adult human female, then where does it leave them

I understand this. I don't like it, but I understand the motivation.

I don't understand dad's motivations, as, I am assuming, he is male, and identifies as so because of his name. So what does he get out of telling women how they are allowed to describe themselves. What's his interest. He has no skin in the game. (I'm not asking you to provide an answer to that by the way, I'm just thinking, or more accurately, writing, out loud.) Maybe dad will tell me why.

Hi @Beckert

So what does he get out of telling women how they are allowed to describe themselves.

He seems to have gone, at least temporarily!

But my understanding of this particular discussion is that it has nothing to do with telling women how they can describe themselves. They can absolutely describe themselves as women. (And clearly should!)

The discussion so far, Muriel, suggests to me that I have to accept being described by others as a "person who experiences menopause" or being addressed as "people who experience menopause".

This is as important as whether I am allowed to describe myself how I like.

But my understanding of this particular discussion is that it has nothing to do with telling women how they can describe themselves

Dad is advocating that women who menstruate should be described as people who menstruate. Not all women menstruate, but it's only women who do menstruate. He has been quite forceful in how he thinks women should describe their biological functions. I am interested to know why he is so invested in this.

I don't understand dad's motivations, as, I am assuming, he is male, and identifies as so because of his name. So what does he get out of telling women how they are allowed to describe themselves. What's his interest.

I assume he is just an average man who thinks that because he is a man he knows better than a bunch of women with their silly little lady brains. If only we would listen to him and and his pearls of manly wisdom we would understand so much better.

What DadJoke needs to do is get down off his high horse, stop assuming he knows best, and listen to what we have to say. Perhaps start by thinking about why a man coming on to a feminist forum and telling women how they should be allowed to refer to themselves is inappropriate.

And then, DadJoke, how about answering my questions:

What sort of people does 'women' refer to in your phrase 'some women and trans men'? Who do you include in the term 'women'? Why do you include the word 'some' and not just say 'women and transmen'?

And if you believe transwomen are women, what is a woman?

Less mansplaining and more thinking and you might see what our issue is with this language manipulation.

@Beckert

But my understanding of this particular discussion is that it has nothing to do with telling women how they can describe themselves

Dad is advocating that women who menstruate should be described as people who menstruate. Not all women menstruate, but it's only women who do menstruate. He has been quite forceful in how he thinks women should describe their biological functions. I am interested to know why he is so invested in this.

I don't think there's any more to it than this.

Why do men feel the need to mansplain and assume women need them to do this. What makes them like this. Is it nature? Born to dominate and explain even if they know nothing about a topic. Or is it how they're brought up.
I have even observed very young male, (children) doing this, I just wonder what exactly it is that makes them behave in this manner.