Isn't this a good thing?

[rumplestiltskinp]

Just looking for some way to clear my thoughts around this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11080589/Why-NHS-sexing-WOMENS-health-pages.html

The effect of this is;

Allowing women who "identify as male" to go and be treated for gynae problems whilst having their "gender identity" recognised and not being put off going for treatment regarding their female anatomy.

Means that men (people with male anatomy) are still going to be referred to as men and male with no conditioning to refer to them by their gender.

So on face value it seems like this policy does nothing to validate transwomen and does everything to ensure females go for the treatment they need.

Just like with unisex/mixed sex toilets it doesn't mean men can go into women's toilets, it means men and women use the same space - again not validating men as women.

Not saying I support any of this but I'm right about those observations, aren't I?

➡️note correction⬅️

I am 100% sure that pretending that pregnant TW ➡️TM⬅️ and pregnant non-binary are not female and pregnancy and female reproductive system is a people thing will work out just great.

SolasAnla as I said, I work in IT not a legislator but I'd have a go if it was peer reviewed thoroughly by the relevant parties and a whole team of lawyers so I didn't fuck it up. I wouldn't exclude the word woman or women for a start. I'm not familiar with the legislation but if it was to do with cervical cancer or cervices then I'd add something to the definition that included trans men who still had a cervix and the same for people who identified as non-binary who still had a cervix - although it complicates matters to do with law and legislation when non-binary isn't recognised in law so that definition would have to be water-tight, or other legislation passed, I dunno, writing the law ain't my thing I just work in IT

I also feel very sorry for all women from ethnic minorities who may not speak English very well if the word “woman” is removed from cancer information. Will they know what a cervix is?

This is a massive question. Has anyone asked the NHS why they do this?

The NHS pages are medical, not legal. They can say woman and include a disclaimer with a link to resources for trans/NB female people. That they are choosing not to is a political agenda.

Yes I they should still include the words women and woman and link through to other pages for resources for trans and non-binary people as you say.

Incidentally, I had a quick look yesterday for resources on breast feeding, as people were saying it had been replaced by chest feeding. The pages I looked at used 'women' and 'breast' and 'new mum' all the way through and linked through to a separate page for trans men and that was where chest feeding was used.

It may well be political decision to remove the word 'woman' and I have seen examples of them doing so, it may be just them misunderstanding what should be done to make sure language is inclusive, I just don't think it's a good decision to take out rather than add.

The NHS and the treatment is provides doesn't exist to validate the feelings of a minority. It is there to cure conditions and save lives.

I have a question on this thought experiment. What if the male-presenting person forcing their way into the women's facility is a transman - i.e. born as a female, but having transitioned to be male presenting? If we segregate our spaces on sex, a transman - presenting as a man - is entitled to be in women's spaces, regardless of whether that person is perceived as a male of not. Or are we saying that only women who were born women and still identify/present as women are entitled to women's spaces?

the winter soldier , you are communicating with a woman so please don't deflect with the I am just to silly to understand or offer an opinion trope.

Some peer guidance:

You have failed to consider a primary treatment for any cancer.

As I previously pointed out the law recognises woman and men, trans-men are not recognised at all, they get the "gold standard" full legal recognition as men/male or they stay women/female.

This is the social contract a female creates when applying for that legal recognition of being a man/male:

(f) a statutory declaration declaring that he or she—

^(i) [ . ]-

(ii) has a settled and solemn intention of living in the preferred gender for the rest of his or her life,

(iii) understands the consequences of the application, and

(iv) makes the application of his or her free will

I suspect that you may not regard
(ii) has a settled and solemn intention of living in the non-binary gender for the rest of his or her life,
as a watertight definition of non-binary, however if the "gold standard" is good enough to be a man/male why not accept it as appropiate legislation to be recognised as non-binary.

Anyway taking account of that peer review, do you want to try again to create a suitable list of words?

"appropriate person” means—

(a) a relevant

(i)woman,

(ii) trans men who still had a cervix.

(iii) for people who identified as non-binary who still had a cervix

(ix) .

I have no idea what you're talking about

Which part?

That removal of cervical cancer involves surgical intervention and the removal of the cervix?

Or that including words such as TM or NB would require a definition in any legislation?

I understand both of those things in your last post. I don't understand why you think I'm doing the whole 'aww shucks I'm just a girlie' routine if that's what you are implying. I literally said I work in IT not legislation. IT is unfortunately still a male dominated profession but my knowledge and experience have nothing to do with my sex, or the sex of the people I'm speaking to. If Its not my area of expertise I'll say so. I also don't get why are you insisting on quizzing me on writing legislation, where did this whole quiz thing come from? I gave it a go the first time.

Oh and 'You have failed to consider a primary treatment for any cancer.' Wtf?! When the heck was I ever asked to do that?!

Looks to me like you could replace ‘woman’ with ‘person’ throughout that and it would have exactly the same legal effect.

This was you?
Where you were saying about children being educated in UK schools?
If TRA get their way woman and female will also mean person with a penis; man and male will also mean a person with a cervix and this will be taught as "fact" in schools.

Oh and 'You have failed to consider a primary treatment for any cancer.' Wtf?! When the heck was I ever asked to do that?!

When I asked for a replacement word for woman.

The legislation is about a cancer only one sex can develop.

You defined 3 subclass of that sex, 1 as a "woman", and 2 by body parts " trans men who still had a cervix" and "people who identified as non-binary who still had a cervix" but yet default these body part class exclude "men don't a cervix" and "people who identified as non-binary don't have cervix", due to the cancer being removed. And you can see the problem the two new subclass bring.

You vote politicians into office who pass legislation like this on your behalf. Do you think that the person you voted for is an expert on every single Bill they review? Or should the Bill be written in such a way as to be accessible for the average citizen/politician to read and understand?
As you have previously pointed out it is important that definition would have to be water-tight, failure to do so has real life consequences yet TRA seek to skew the fundemental meaning of language and words.

The idea that there can be two classes - one of 'woman' that includes some but not all females and some but not all males; and a class of based around sex, which cannot be named because some females and some males will feel invalidated, is never going to work socially and certainly cannot work within law. The first is forced teaming that isnt based on anything therefore will never be a useful class in practice, and the second is in danger of excluding individuals from protection because it's complicated to express.

We're wasting years and funding to force something that is never going to work, because sex is real and it has an impact on all of us. The fudge that is happening in business and services is to pretend SSE aren't really necessary, and we can write essays when one word - woman or female would do. And we know these aren't working.

I feel for any government moving forward because untill they radically revise the GRA and EqA they are just tinkering with bad legalisation.

It would.
With the added benefit of halving mortality rate, and doubling funding per capita.

No, it's not a good decision to take things out. But I don't understand the point of adding them, either. If you (general you) add trans and non-binary, you are saying you agree with the ideology. How can it possibly work in a medical situation, which treats people based on their sex?

What difference to your medical treatment could it make if you say you are non-binary? It's meaningless. No one cares if you don't identify with any gender stereotypes, or you do, but on different days of the week, when it comes to treating you for breast cancer or prostate cancer.

Every single trans person knows exactly what sex they are, otherwise they wouldn't know what they're transitioning to and from or what treatment to access.

You've got a really good point there Datum and I had to think hard about it. What I thought about was what if I'd transitioned as a twenty year old.

Rightly or wrongly, I'd transitioned medically, taking testosterone and having a mastectomy. (I had to really put myself in someone else's shoes for this because although I have a friend who is a trans man and has done that, and an ex colleague at work who both transitioned medically, it's not something I could ever imagine for myself.) My face had changed shape to appear more masculine, I had more muscles, my voice deepened from the testosterone and I now have facial hair. I changed my name and documents and to all intents and purposes I've looked like a man for over thirty years. And maybe I'm not out so new people I meet don't know I'm trans unless I tell them. And yes you couldn't tell with my friend or my colleague even though I knew.

So now I've been a 'man' longer than some younger people on this forum have been alive. It would feel really weird to then be treated as someone I haven't been for over thirty years. I don't know for sure but if I transitioned medically I probably had some severe dysphoria about my body too, so I might need to be careful about my mental health.

I guess it does all come down to feelings in the end, but feelings are important. I have depression and anxiety which is medicated, but I still struggle and have to work really hard just to function some days. It may only be feelings but they can affect your whole life and those around you.

So to answer your question, I guess it doesn't make a difference medically unless you include the impact of potential mental health on the individual. And I would assume that goes the same for non-binary people. I only know one, at work, and they do get upset when they are misgendered, they don't make a fuss but I can see it in their face. So, feelings again, but as someone whose mental health affects them every day I happen to think feelings are pretty important and we wouldn't expect someone to just 'run off' a broken leg so why do we sometimes expect people to 'just get over' their mental feelings. Yes they know inside what sex they are but if they are being treated at the hospital for something physical why make their mental health worse while you're trying to fix the physical.

As someone who's suffered from severe mental illness since my mid-teens and who has family members and friends who suffer from mental illness, I am tired of "mental health" being used this way. You don't manage your mental health by pretending reality is the way you'd prefer. Mental health should never be a justification for coercing other people to lie. Having painful feelings is not in itself a mental health problem — often, painful feelings are mentally healthy.

*the winter soldier"
A transman will be injecting themselves on a regular basis with testosterone as a daily reminder that they need to do this because they are female.

Every aspect of the trans medical pathway will be a reminder of a trans person's actual biological sex, because they wouldn't need to go through it otherwise.

Why are we all pretending that transpeople can't be reminded of their biological sex when it comes to cancer or pregnancy, but they can if it's related to the trans medical path.
On top of that, we're expected to believe that a trans person may feel depressed when reminded of their biology that they are in fact confronted with every time they step in the shower and wash, so this means females can't be called "female" anymore. I just don't buy it.

I'm sorry you and your family and friends also have mental health issues. Presumably you all attempt manage the issues in a way that suits you best. But you're tired of other people managing their issues in the way that suits them. Okay.

I take numerous medications a day, it's a routine, it doesn't remind me of anything. I don't have people calling me a 'depressive anxious xxx (insert other disabilities here)' everyday to my face. One is not the same as the other.

I take your point about the shower, I would imagine it's unsettling. I had a bad scar which didn't heal well, I used to avoid looking at it in the mirror and skipped over it in the shower. Perhaps they do to.

I don't expect everyone to all have the same opinion though and you are of course entitled to think differently.

I see you have been stunned by my question @the winter soldier

How does a parent or teacher explain to their kids that females have periods when teachers and parents are also telling them that they can be any sex they want? And that telling a female child they are female and will have female things happen is literal violence? So simultaneously telling them they can change sex and also that they can't?

It's quite the conundrum.

I'm sorry you've had issues. And of course, in a medical setting healthcare professionals should take care of the feelings of the person who's sitting in front of them. That's just basic compassion.

It's not the same as accommodating all possible mental health issues in campaigns for all other issues.

There's a difference between gender dysphoria, and calling a person transgender. One is a medical condition, the other is an ideology.

There's absolutely no reason why one's medical condition or mental health should not be taken into account when speaking to a health professional. But it's not necessary to include it in information given to everyone else, just in case they read it.

And in terms of non-binary. It's not a medical condition, physical or mental. It's a label people give themselves when they believe they do not subscribe to gender stereotyping. Unfortunately, by saying that's the reason they don't identify as male or female, it would appear they believe that gender stereotypes are innate. Thereby upholding gender stereotyping rather than demolishing it.