Hey! We're just "non-trans women" now"!

[HootyMcBooby76]

So I've seen a quite a few numbers of social media videos now, where the increasing trend in the ideology is to describe women (the original type) as "non-trans women".

So, not women.
Not even "biological women".
Not even the revolting "cis" women.

We are now "non-trans women".

Talk about linguistic gymnastics!

SO...trans women are actually women, but WE are "non-trans" women.

Ok, gotcha.

Women are now defined by what they are NOT (ie, men).

My two girls are at an age where they are applying for their first jobs for a bit of extra cash while they study. The remarkable array of choices now that exist for the old "sex" category (instead of the traditional and REALISTIC two) are astounding. I think I counted seven on one form.

I'm not sure how I feel about my new status as a "non-trans|" woman?
Oh actually I do.
Fuck right off.

If @DadJoke keeps digging at this rate they will be in the antipodes by the morning.

Women are women. Trans women are men. Women do not need a another word to define us. It is already so broad as to include slightly over half of the adult population. Trans women are a subset of men. Trans identified man would be a clearer description for trans women.

Can you actually quote the "men with playdough cocks" please

because you appear to be twisting something in order to somehow make out that a specific poster is denying the existence of tran men

Are you not dizzy from all the twisting?

There's no similarity though.

Black women are black. White women are white. It's not a social construct it's fact.

Women are adult human females (factual) and transwomen are men pretending to be women. (Social construct)

Calling women "not transwomen" is putting additional explanation where it's not required.

Yeah you've completely mis- read it . I said men pretending to be women and using their cocks and playdough to make fake vaginas . I haven't once mentioned trans men . Try reading it again !

During a radio advertisement running nationally across Scotland a couple of years ago for the cervical screening programme, the phrasing used was 'those with a cervix'. No mention of the word woman at all. Such language (and not additional language such as women and...) excludes those who speak English as a second or other language as an example. It excludes those who don't know what a cervix is (Jo's Trust research showed a surprising amount of women in the UK don't actually know what/where it is).

In comparison, Prostate Cancer UK, when asked if they were likely to use similar 'inclusive' language in their campaign materials, stated clearly and very sensibly that they would continue to (solely) use the word men as it reaches more of the group they are trying to target.

@SuperNewMe's incoherent ramblings have totally spoilt your post @Wiccan - I snorted my wine at your "bits of old cock and play doh" comment 😂👏🏻

But that's not right anatomically?

The urethra would be 'the front hole' and evenusing the terminology for that makes me want to vomit

I actually thought about rewording it as I might get deleted but thought 🤔 Nah fuck it . I wish some posters would read posts correctly before getting all holyer than thou about it 😂😂

Ok, that addresses what I said, bravo
What do men and play dough cocks have to do with trans men (born female) being seen and using terminology they are comfortable with if they go for a health check up?

If it gets deleted it doesn't matter as it will stay with me forever so thank you 😂😂
And yes - I'm not sure what they're taking about or what their point is. I don't hear transmen trying to re-name Men in order to be included. Nor do I imagine that it would work in the slightest.

Fuck me read it again ! I'm not talking about trans men !!!!

Amendment - my last post should read 'excludes those who have just begun to learn to speak English as a second or other language as an example

@SuperNewMe I don't think you can read. I've no idea what your point is.

But they've got nothing to do with what the subject is about though, so why bring them up?
It's for the benefit of trans men, not trans women.

I've certainly not addressed what you've said. I've no idea what you're banging on about.

Except the terminology is not just changed for THESE people is it? Swathes of NHS pages have been re-written to accommodate the few who may feel "offended" or "excluded", at the expense of clarity and medical reality.

Books have been taken off shelves in libraries.
Product names have been changed, wording in advertisements has been changed, medical forms have been changed.

It's not just making exemptions for the few, it's expecting the majority to accept new-speak by stealth.

@SuperNewMe you brought up transmen! Are you ok?!!!

Christ you're fucking exhausting !!

‘As you clearly object, what other adjective would you like to use to refer to people who are not transgender?’

How about ‘sane’?

I mean the subject is about women being referred to as non trans women

I'm not sure what you are on about but I'm pretty sure it's not that

You are right though that the language being discussed excludes trans man, or rather lumps them in together under the umbrella of "non trans women" aka women, men and trans men

So I understand why you might feel the terminology is excluding them

That will be reported and deleted by the hand maidens, but let me say I agree with you before you pop off into the ether.....

So trans people aren't sane then?
This gets better

At the rate this thread is currently going with some random posts I'm going to struggle to claim sane woman by the end of it!

Referring to women as sane doesn't make trans women any less sane...