Ageism often lurks within the ideas and rhetoric of trans activists - Victoria Smith

[IwantToRetire]

... In a recent interview to celebrate 80 years of Woman’s Hour, programme editor Karen Dalziel was quizzed on its handling of the “what is a woman?” question. When asked why the programme didn’t simply reflect the law as clarified by the Supreme Court, she offered a rather convoluted response:

One thing we have to remember here is that you’re on Radio 4. Many of our audience are over sixty. They don’t understand the terminology and part of our role in the preceding years has been to help people understand the terms and what all the different terms mean.

A generous interpretation of this could be that this is about complex legal terminology (who wasn’t an expert in case law when they were in their teens and early twenties? Funny how you forget!). Except Dalziel goes on to say that the Supreme Court judgment has “helped listeners have some clarity about what is meant, but this is moving”. For many people, she argues, it’s “a beginning”:

People said that women couldn’t vote. Other people have different ideas and continue to campaign. We follow the story. ...

Full article https://thecritic.co.uk/you-dont-have-to-be-young-to-understand-gender-identity/

Also at https://archive.is/Ye7A0

😴😴😴

Do you remember when some organisations were so deeply mired in this ideology that they actually thought it was reasonable to label women as "non-men"? Do you find that objectionable? Because taking men as the default is pretty offensive and not progressive at all. Cis women is also offensive to women as it presupposes that what makes me a woman is not my biology but some kind of essence of feminity or even just a boring refusal to consider my own gender identity. Bollocks to that.

We are all ageing. I don't think it's ageist to describe someone as elderly or ageing unless you are also using it disparagingly.

People never update their image of "old people", they are still picturing them as little old dears that have fought in WW2, even the ones who were born years after and grew up during the 60s and later. My oldest brother is turning 70 next year, I remember him with long hair, playing guitar (badly) in a band and hitchhiking to Christiana in Copenhagen for the summer and interrailing all over Europe. My next brother was a punk with actual real safety pins through ears and nose who also played guitar (even worse) in a band. None of them needs transgenderism explained to them.

Do you remember when some organisations were so deeply mired in this ideology that they actually thought it was reasonable to label women as "non-men"? Do you find that objectionable?

I've never heard of that. Must be some nonsense fringe idea so its hardly comparable to cis.

Cis women is also offensive to women as it presupposes that what makes me a woman is not my biology but some kind of essence of feminity or even just a boring refusal to consider my own gender identity. Bollocks to that.

I believe the full term is cis gendered women so its a distinct category from natal women.

I can only be a cis woman if I believe BOTH that

my gender identity is woman (no-one can explain what this is and how it differs from a man)
And
That the gender identity of woman 'matches' or 'aligns with' being female, which is apparently a transphobic belief.

Gender simply refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours , expressions, and identities that societies associate to men, women, boys, girls, and gender-diverse people.

Its not a controversial take & in fact socially constructed sex stereotyping underpins gender critical feminism so even they ascribe to it.

Please can you give me an example of a specific behaviour or expression that differentiates a woman from a man, in your view?

(Edit - and don't pretend I've asked something different from what I've written, please)

Victoria Smith is so bloody good. She thinks and writes so clearly.

Agreed. Having said that, though, both of my parents were in the army in WW2 - neither could ever have been described as an 'old dear', not even in their 90s, they were far too busy running the town.

The so fringe idea of women as non man came from John Hopkins University, not really from an obscure corner of the internet.

University.https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/johns-hopkins-pulls-lesbian-definition-uproar-use-non-men-instead-wome-rcna89307

I vaguely remembered a controversy involving the Lancet, but that one was about 'people with vaginas'.

They are both examples of how it can end when you try to refine the word women to include biological men.

Cis is a meaningless term because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.
Using this word, cis, then means there is no word left for female people.

Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes. This has also recently been the basis of the new IOC policy too,
(from the IOC policy:

This is under the definitions section:

Sex: Either of the two categories, Male or Female, into which humans are divided according to their reproductive biology.
Biological Female (Female): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced female sex development usually based on their XX-chromosomes, ovaries, and estrogenic hormones.

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf )

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a* *word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:
1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:
Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^

Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

And that is not even covering the discussion about forcibly categorising someone to believe in gender identity when they don’t, which is what the use of ‘cis’ forces. It is an ideological term and nothing to do with science yet it is also argued as a scientific term.

I do not think that even those who embrace the term ‘cis’ agree with its meaning.

Yeah, neither did my mum. She’s had a lifetime of men taking the piss. She can spot it from a mile away

The quote that was meant to be attached above!

So this term was never in broad public usage? Like I said an extreme fringe minority view that is hardly comparative to the usage of cis.

I've never heard of that [referring to women as non men] Must be some nonsense fringe idea so its hardly comparable to cis

well you’re doing a shit job of the reading around you’re so proud of then. The Green Party have been all over this bullshit for years

@Wishesandhorses your post said exactly how I feel as an older woman. I understand the issues and telling me the same things over and over won't make me say Oh right, how silly of me.

Again, the meaning of cisgender in broad social usage is an adjective describing a person whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.

In other words It's a term describing gender not sex.

Is it any wonder the BBC needs to agonisingly correct misinformation for those without access to unbiased sources.

Really? Can you quote them using this term in their policy statements?

This 💯👆

It’s the TRAs’ call to educate yourselves because obviously the only reason an older woman might disagree with this is because she is too stupid to understand it. Not that she might have her own opinions and (heaven forfend) actual rights.

And WTF is progressive about the T+? Regressive stereotypes, built in obedience to men - however they identify, anti-LGB and vulnerable children used as shields for adult males. All highly regressive.

With age comes experience, after all. An extra 40 years of dealing with crap from men and dealing with our female bodies. That experience gives more of a well rounded view. VS is a bloody good writer.

Must be a fringe category - it was John Hopkins University (apparently number 9 in the US) leading to that great definition of lesbians as non men attracted to non men.

Not sure why you’re so keen to prevent offence to the trans folx by insisting they get to define their own categories while also being determined that no woman should get to define her own category (and nor should biology) because that’s the job of the trans folx. Do you think that’s progressive? Why do you refuse to listen to all of the posters telling you it’s offensive? Why do you insist we have some magical gender essence when we tell you we really don’t?

One thing we have to remember here is that you’re on Radio 4. Many of our audience are over sixty. They don’t understand the terminology and part of our role in the preceding years has been to help people understand the terms and what all the different terms mean.

My mother never listened to WH, she was of the opinion that it was a load of patronising MC women talking down to other women.

I've never listened to WH either (always working, for one thing)and if this is an example of what they think of their audience, I'm glad I didn't. Oddly enough this 72 year old (thanks to this board) has no problem understanding the terminology and I don't bloody need R4 to explain it slowly in words of one syllable.

The insufferable CHEEK of that woman talking about other women as if they're stupid children.

You only get your ‘ I read around so much’ news from policy statements? Interesting approach

cor blimey MN is giving me the run around this morning