"periods: a genderless function" FFS!!!

[whistleblown]

How greedy and selfish of us to keen periods to ourselves all this time. 🙄🙄🙄

Yes, it's a nonsense argument.

And not even a word coincidence, it's just taking it! Taking an existing word and slapping it on a concept they just made up. Ta da!

Like the unicorn and the horse with a plunger on it's head. Two unicorns innit.

You need to read the definition carefully iI think @babyjellyfish - you are still included.

Me too. When someone says "nuance" they are actually saying "too complicated for you to understand".

I'd love to know what they mean by "bodily reasons".

Reading the definition carefully it does not include anyone who does not wish to be assumed to identify as a woman

Many women are in fact rather against the idea that women is an identity- that it describe something other than biology - that expecting them to be associated with woman as identities is hurtful and disrespectful

Let's try a thought experiment
If someone changed the word innocent to mean people who were not guilty or people who thought themselves innocent but were in fact guilty , would you want to call yourself innocent when asked if you AHF committed a crime? Would you take the risk ?

Or another way since this seems hard for some to understand

My identity excludes " women " as an identity

Now

Do I say I am a woman meaning biology and leave people thinking it's my identity?

But My identity is personal to me and important

And I have suffered direct harm through people making none biological assumptions about me because they assume I have a specific identity on account if my sex

I have spent a god part of my life showing people that my identity is not my sex

And you are asking me to undo al I have stood for and striven for ?

Yes I see what you mean.

Perhaps a better analogy for the situation we're discussing would be "star". It can mean some sort of astronomical body. It can mean a celebrity. Those are quite different meanings of the same word.

However, within the astronomical-body sense, it can be used scientifically to refer to very distant bodies of hydrogen fusing to form helium, or it can be used more colloquially to include anything glowing in the night sky including planets, comets shooting "stars".

Anyway, words can clearly have multiple, overlapping or conflicting meanings. And I don't think there's any point raging about editors of dictionaries, or how dreadful and illogical their definitions are. Dictionaries just record usage. To fight the changing mean of the words man and woman you really need to stop people using them in novel ways (not that you need reminding!).

Star and moon are not the same though and using the same word for both "adastral object " is uncommon

The context of words is clear then no problem

• so woman could mean a type of plant and adult human female

What it shouldn't mean and adult human female or adult human male

And no one is trying to argue that we should allow astral bodies into the Oscars or make celebrities use an entirely different termonologyvor give up rights (e.g. press intrusion). There isn't really a new definition of woman. TRAs are just trying to bully one through.

Yes, just drop the 'identity' nonsense altogether. It seems to make you unhappy, it annoys other people, and it's unnecessary.

Be an individual instead of an identity.

How?

I don't "identify as" anything.

The thing with actually being female is that you don't need to "identify as" female, and in fact you are female whether you identify as such or not, and whether you like it or not.

It's not an identity.

Do you understand the purpose of language?

That it is a tool for communication?

If a toilet or a sporting category is labelled as being for women, or for females, how do we know what this means? How are members of the public supposed to understand whether this refers to sex, or identity? And if the latter, where are the toilets and sporting categories for the vast majority of people who do not have a "gender identity"?

If your position is that the toilet or sporting category in question is for people who are either of the female sex, or of the male sex but "identify as" female (whatever the fuck that means), why? What is the purpose of this category?

We don't need sporting categories for people who are either female or are male but identify as female any more than the type of fish called "sole" and the bottom of your shoe both need to be kept in the fridge.

Like I suggested, read it! You don't need to identify as anything. You too are a "woman"

A1 [ C ]
an adult female human being
^^
^dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman^

Oh goody. I get to be a subclass of a mixed sex group so men aren't sad.

No.

Sporting category - read the rules

Toilets - tricky!

Clearly you don't have to accept the way in which some people use the word, in the same way that an astrophysicist might stick to a very strict interpretation of the word star and be irritated by people who use it in a scientifically inaccurate way. But you cannot really stop people adapting language and nor can you stop dictionaries recording changed usage of words.

Sporting category - read the rules

The rules which, in too many cases at the moment are grossly unfair and sometimes unsafe for women and girls? Those rules?

<shrug>

I can change wikipedia and redefine carrots as a type of panda. It isn't going to change reality, it just means I've exploited a system to force my wishes on others and to try and make it a 'thing'. For my own benefit.

It isn't a case of live and let live, is it? I'm fine with others calling themselves whatever they happen to feel like. When they start however redefining and controlling my language, they are going to get told some home truths about boundaries and respect for others.

That was a very long winded way of saying we cannot stop males from invading women's spaces and sporting categories.

Yes, I am a woman because I am an adult human female.

I am not the same thing as an adult human male who calls themself a woman because they believe woman is an identity.

In the same way that the sole on the bottom of your shoe is not a type of fish.

So why are we being lumped together with these males with identities?

But has been pointed out before, I am sure, women who don't have periods for whatever reason ( e.g. health, older women) are still actually women of the female sex so his "argument" fails on that point alone. These particular women still maintain their female chromosomes.

Maybe they might take endometriosis seriously now it's also a 'man's problem' 🙄

I think the endometriosis men are the wrong kind of men.

Why didn't TW stick to the rules rather than using their male privilege to bully people into changing them?

How do I let people know that I'm a woman solely in the biological sense and therefore should not have to share any sex segregated spaces with people using an entirely different definition?

It's like joining a vegan dining club when you happily eat meat, then insisting that those claiming that vegans don't eat meat are bigoted and phobic - because 'we're all vegans here', but some of us do eat meat; so how dare you be so uninclusive as to deny my identified reality, which is every bit as valid as yours (even if the others don't identify as vegans: they just never eat meat).

I'm pretty sure that once you add up post menopausal women, pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women and any women using hormonal contraception which suppresses their ovulation, most women do not in fact currently menstruate. We need a term which is inclusive of all adult human females.

If you say that periods can be a masculine thing and women can have penises it means you can widen the scope of transgenderism because people can transition without the hard graft.

All the fun of playing dress up with none of the life changing commitment of brutal surgeries.

It's either sheer laziness to commit, a deep-down knowledge that they're actually too damn scared to fully commit, or they've decided to troll society until it bends to their will to provide "essential trans gender healthcare" (read surgery) at the snap of their fingers. I.e., if you won't give us surgery at the drop of a hat on the NHS then we'll just force everyone to say that these sex-based biological functions and features can be a characteristic of either sex.

Which leads to the question- if all of these biological features and functions are sexless, how can you have any right to demand surgeries, hormones and puberty blockers? "I'm a man so I want medical intervention to remove my breasts and stop my periods." Reply: "why on earth would you want to do that? Men also have periods, breasts and vaginas."

Men can even get pregnant now apparently so any desire for a so-called "man" to surgically alter himself to appear more manly should be shot down as bigotry. In fact, how fucking dare you insinuate that men can't have breasts, wide hips, periods and wombs. Bigot.