Women's rights general conversations - Thread 2

[Kucingsparkles]

Continuation of Thread 1

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

"Actual woman"

Footnotes are banned because of accessibility rules.

So far my suggestion is biological or natal women. Pretty sure natal will be ruled out on plain English grounds.

Personally I dislike recorded or observed female at birth, but find either less offensive than assigned (which is wrong in fact as well as intent).

Actual woman opens you up to transwomen claiming to be actual women. That's why I like natal woman because it states that's how you were born.

In that case, I'd go with "biological woman" I think.

I don’t like the term natal women. Biological women is better I think. And ‘born female’ rather than AFAB.

Another vote here for "biological women" even though India Willoughby claims to be one.

I wonder if IW would claim to be a natal women.

Maybe biological women (including transmen who were born biological women). That makes it hard for anyone to accuse you of being trans exclusive and also protects the health needs of all females.

You may need a short introductory paragraph or definitions list stating that for health and safety reasons. the term biological woman does not include biological males who identify as transwomen.

In a medical context, why not just 'female'?

Thanks for the thoughts - that's helped me come up with a lost of suggestions and reasons.

(I'm ignoring what IW might self classify as - one can't cater for all possible extremists.)

I think an intro paragraph will be part of it. It would be a lot simpler if we could just say biological women (including transmen who were born biological women). We do that for maternity stuff already. But in this case in some circumstances transmen will count as women and in some they won't (ditto transwomen). Any on hormones or who have had surgery are a separate risk group and need different treatment from both men and women, so we're dealing with multiple, shifting, groupings.

That is 'ditto transwomen counting as men'.

I was thinking earlier that with things like transwomen now being at more risk of breast cancer than other men, it brings in a whole new layer of difficultly around language.

It's also a reason why the Census figures indicating that there are 96K total transgender adults in the country makes a strong case for their having one dedicated hospital that can deal with their often quite complex medical as well as accommodation needs.

Sorry, that's no help with bint's immediate problem. Huge respect to you for tackling it btw.

In that care I'd go with biological. They can't argue with it. Well they can and will. But it's factually correct.

If "natal" is allowed under plain English grounds then surely, SURELY "cis" or "AFAB" are not plain English either?

So yes, "biological women" or in some sentences "biological female" probably the best and clearest phrasing to use.

I think an intro paragraph will be part of it. It would be a lot simpler if we could just say biological women (including transmen who were born biological women). We do that for maternity stuff already. But in this case in some circumstances transmen will count as women and in some they won't (ditto transwomen). Any on hormones or who have had surgery are a separate risk group and need different treatment from both men and women, so we're dealing with multiple, shifting, groupings.

If the overall group may genuinely include some transwomen on hormones then maybe need a fairly detailed intro, use 'people' as a generic (or 'you' if it's that sort of document) and then there would be subsections for the specific risk groups?

While it's objectionable to not use 'women' for issues which are 100% female like pregnancy, menstruation or ovarian cancer, it's rather different if males may also be affected, as with breast cancer.

" it's rather different if males may also be affected, as with breast cancer."

I had an acrimonious conversation on Twitter about chest feeding in which I pointed out the absurdity of using that term when men had breast tissue and breastbones and got breast cancer not chest cancer. They didn't like the fact that I found "chest feeding" risible.

bignosebignose · Today 14:10

Another vote here for "biological women" even though India Willoughby claims to be one.

Willoughby is off their chump. They also claim to have a cervix and that all of their bodily cells are completely female, after 7 years of taking oestrogen.

Bint I've no idea how you get round it, I think you'll have to follow one of the pieces of advice here. Personally, I think that women and transwomen works fine, but I'm a horrid bigot, of course.

a strong case for their having one dedicated hospital that can deal with their often quite complex medical as well as accommodation needs

Yes, I've just been trying to work out in my head how many potential categories there are for this particular condition and I think it's at least a dozen possible groups (more if you count detransitioners), all needing different screening and different treatment.

Can I also suggest that if it's part of a communication on health issues, it would be useful to calculate the risks of failed communications. So if you are aiming at a pop of 500,000 women, what is the risk of failure if the women are not clearly described (including women with EFL, learning needs and so on)? In that pop there may be a small number of transmen with similar health issues - what is the prob of failing to describe them accurately and have a similar comms failure?

So where must the emphasis be? And what can be in the intro, for inclusivity? I suppose ditto transwomen (and I even find that term, in one word, completely misguided) but only if there's evidence.

It's for health professionals, not the public, which reduces that risk.

(Also, good points but waaaay beyond my remit.)

Using ANY kind of prefix, IMO, plays into this bullshit.
There is ONLY one type of woman, and that is a biological female.
WOMAN has meant this since language evolved.
Why do we need to change it?
...."something" woman implies that there are different types of woman.

There are not.

If we go down that path it just plays right into the hands of the people who want subsets of woman, which include men.

Nope.

Absolutely agree with you @HootyMcboob76 !

On this point, I completely agree with Kellie-Jay:

”Call them whatever silly term you like, I just call them men… every last one.”

I know what AFAB is but I can't find TRSOH, could someone enlighten me, please.

The right side of history, Crows.