New terminology

[LaPerduta]

I posted this a few days ago on chat, but nobody responded. If no-one bites this time I will have to conclude that my musings aren't as interesting as I thought. Anyway, this may not be an original idea, but it has just occured to me:

If the people who were formerly known as women are to be reclassified as "people with uteruses" or "people who menstruate", and trans women obviously aren't people with uteruses or people who menstruate, does this mean that the only people who can now be called "women" are actually biological men?

And also:

If these new definitions are meant to be inclusive, what about the exclusion of intersex women who often don't menstruate and sometimes don't have a uterus? As I understand it, there are more intersex people than trans-gender people, so those whom the terminology excludes because of their biology are actually greater in number than those whom it includes because of their identity. And even if they're not greater in number, it's still excluding one group in favour of another.

Yes, it's so infuriating, isn't it?
If only there was a solution.
Y'know, like fetus identified on scan as baby to be a boy or girl, no silly arguments.
Or failing that, the baby is delivered and observation immediately discerns boy or girl.
But silly me, I forgot, it's 2023. And people have to make simple things so difficult.

It's absolute and utter madness. There's so much madness that there isn't enough room in my brain for it all, so it seeps out around the edges.

Your musings are interesting, but just reading more about the new terminology makes me furious! You raise some valid points but I don't think they've thought about it to that extent. They just want to take 'woman' away from us.

we are witnessing rampaging narcissists trying to bend reality and logic to fit their needs. There is no sense.

But if they take "woman" away from us they've created a third group! Or do you think that's what they want?

Well the Greens classed us as 'non-men', for a time.

OP there is no point in trying to find logic in genderism. The whole thing is built on illogic. It's built entirely on a hyperindividualistic 'choice' of what you want/feel, disregarding entirely any kind of shared linguistic meaning or indeed the wants/feels/needs of other people.

This can't work. We all have to live in society with other people.

It's especially nonsensical because very quickly one sees that unlimited personal freedom for one person will inevitably come up against someone else's personal freedom.

Currently, this is rationalised by claiming the Special People are terribly special and must have their wants/needs respected, while women everyone else has to be Kind and Budge Up.

But society is starting to wonder whether other people might also be quite fond of their human rights and want to hold onto them.

It's so misogynistic. But still, do trans men want to be "non-men" (which is a strangely negative/nihilistic concept, a bit like describing apples as "non-bananas": it doesn't tell you what they actually are, just what they're not)? No, they want to be women. So whichever way the cookie crumbles, if the humans formerly known as women are no longer women - and "women" as a group, or a classification, no longer exists - what do trans men want to be, exactly?

People with DSDs ask and ask to be left out of all this; 'intersex' is such a misnomer, and not helpful - no one is intersex.

I agree the end game is to have only males allowed to be called women, and us cunty types will have to do with some breadcrumbs. (and yes we shall never forget NON MEN from the Greens)

Oh, I absolutely agree that there's no point. But it's quite fun debating it. I've haven't posted on this board before, but so far I like it!

Yes, we do. 😉 Intersex as a term doesn't bother me hugely (I look, and feel, 100% female, but have XY chromosomes, so it is sort of "inter-"), but I deeply resent being used as a sort of "gotcha" for trans-gender stuff. Intersex/DSD is biology, not identity (although of course it can inform one's identity), whereas being trans is the opposite.

Anyone looking for logic in this shit show would soon be insane. Who knows what these people want? It changes every day.

Your initial post here, OP, uses the present tense, so those who menstruate etc. What about we who used to menstruate but don't any longer due to age? What if the uterus has been surgically removed? We certainly aren't women if we are all defined only by bodily or sexual functions so what are we?

I fear I may know the answer already. Remember those 'untouchable' women who scavenged on the scrap heaps in 'The Handmaid's Tale'? That's us.

No, someone has to wash the programmer socks.

I don't know! I'm so confused.

Yes of course you're right - the descriptions "women who menstruate", etc., exclude post-menopausal women, women who have had a hysterectomy for some reason, and so on, so even that "solution" doesn't work.

I do wonder if there is something in the "non-men" approach, so people who don't have testicles or a penis or a Y chromosome vs people who don't give birth or have a uterus or ovaries or a vagina or two X chromosomes.

In some ways that's more inclusive, as it doesn't exclude people who don't completely meet the biological norm for some medical reason. Also even with DSDs it's extremely rare to have much of a combination of the above; it's more likely that one thing has just gone slightly wrong.

Sorry, don't understand this?

Under the new terminology, "woman" just means an adult person of either sex. There are no further criteria anyone will admit to that 'make' a person a woman. A woman is a person, any person.

People use the word as if there are some sort of further criteria - it's sort of implied there is something that differentiates a woman from a man, but can't name one such thing.

You don't need to reply but are you CAIS?

It's not about the words, it's what the words do; enable us to talk about female humans as a group, separate and distinct from male humans. That's what they can't stand.

If we let them have women, and girls and female and said "fuck it you can have those, well call ourselves flibshmangles" how long would it be until they colonised that, too?

As for "non-men"... fuck that shit. I am not defined by what I'm not. And anyway, what is a man?

No thanks. They can prise the words women, girls and female from my cold, dead hands.

« Trans women are women, but women who are women can’t say they’re women. »

That’s how I sum up the whole situation.

I don't know this acronym, but assume it's something Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

No, I don't have that condition, and even if I did I wouldn't be CAIS. 🤨

Why do you ask?

LOL at flibshmangles (but you're probably right).

And yes, good point; what is a man?