Labour conference: Not right to say only women have a cervix, says Starmer

[LV-426]

Disclaimer: I totally support the rights of individuals to live as they please, free from persecution, but this is just getting ridiculous.

This man wants to lead the country

 

Labour conference: Not right to say only women have a cervix, says Starmer

"Sir Keir Starmer says it is "not right" to say only women have a cervix amid a row involving one of his MPs.

Rosie Duffield came under fire after supporting online criticism of a tweet, which referred to "individuals with a cervix" to be inclusive of trans men.

The incident was called transphobic by trans rights supporters - but Labour MP Ms Duffield rejects the claim.

Asked about the row, Sir Keir said claiming only women have cervixes was "something that shouldn't be said".

But Health Secretary Sajid Javid attacked the Labour leader, saying his remarks were a "total denial of scientific fact"."

[+and-then]

MASS PSYCHOSIS and those who refuse to engage in it are the ones who get punished.  

[Knob Oddy]

I think you will find that it is perfectly true that only women (or girls) have a cervix.

Unless there is a new definition of the word woman that I am unaware of. Seriously, why say that this MP is wrong when you can't even define the word woman...

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Hugh Mungus said:

I think you will find that it is perfectly true that only women (or girls) have a cervix.

Unless there is a new definition of the word woman that I am unaware of. Seriously, why say that this MP is wrong when you can't even define the word woman...

There is a new definition of the word woman: any individual who identifies as a woman.  Therefore, if you identify as a woman, even though  you physically have no cervix, you are identifying as someone who does have a cervix and therefore you do.  If you say that only females born with a physical cervix have a cervix then you are by default discriminating against a transgendered person who is identifying as someone with a cervix...even though physically they do not have one...mentally they do and that should be taken into consideration because if  you hurt the transgendered's feelings, well...that isn't right is it?

What part of that do you not get?  

[Michelle]

32 minutes ago, joc said:

What part of that do you not get? 

Technically, according to the woke, that would be gender appropriation and highly offensive to women.

[Silver]

26 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Technically, according to the woke, that would be gender appropriation and highly offensive to women.

It is offensive to a LOT of women, and not just woke women. They see if as a regressive move, where biological women are relegated in status with regard to men, patriarchy is back in force once again where men's rights are paramount. Their arguement is, it means there is no need to have regard for women's rights, or needs, because they are not special:  men can be women if they choose, so it is no big deal.

There has been a lot of pertinent discussion about whether criminals who identify as female should be incarcerated in a male or female prison- I haven't looked it up, but believe it went to court because a transgender "woman" raped a biological woman in prison.

Edited September 27, 2021 by The Silver Shroud

[glorybebe]

I don't understand how a biologically born male needs to strip a biologically born female of her right to call herself a woman.  I have seen "a person who bleeds", this was where JK Rowling got into that whole argument.  I read today that we are now to be called bodies with vaginas, not even people any more, and now this.  Why are the transgender women declaring war on women?  Hell, they are trying to say I can't be called mom, I need to be call a parent who birthed.   I am a woman, no one us going to take that away from me.

[Silver]

21 minutes ago, glorybebe said:

I don't understand how a biologically born male needs to strip a biologically born female of her right to call herself a woman.  I have seen "a person who bleeds", this was where JK Rowling got into that whole argument.  I read today that we are now to be called bodies with vaginas, not even people any more, and now this.  Why are the transgender women declaring war on women?  Hell, they are trying to say I can't be called mom, I need to be call a parent who birthed.   I am a woman, no one us going to take that away from me.

There doesn't seem to be a similar attack on men. "Be a man about this", "act like a man" still means something good, positive. But "act like a woman" is seen as negative. Any strides women have made to redress this seems to be undermined by this latest move to prevent women even being women anymore. Men will still be men, and women will be - well, anything really, depends how men feel at the time.

[Silver]

29 minutes ago, glorybebe said:

I don't understand how a biologically born male needs to strip a biologically born female of her right to call herself a woman.  I have seen "a person who bleeds", this was where JK Rowling got into that whole argument.  I read today that we are now to be called bodies with vaginas, not even people any more, and now this.  Why are the transgender women declaring war on women?  Hell, they are trying to say I can't be called mom, I need to be call a parent who birthed.   I am a woman, no one us going to take that away from me.

The row began last weekend, after Rowling responded to a headline on an online article discussing "people who menstruate" by writing in a tweet: "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"

Critics accused her of being transphobic, but Rowling said she stood by her comments, saying it "isn't hate to speak the truth".

JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism - BBC News

Edited September 27, 2021 by The Silver Shroud

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

“individuals who have or had and who desired to use if they so wished a cervix”….. rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

[diddyman68]

8 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Disclaimer: I totally support the rights of individuals to live as they please, free from persecution, but this is just getting ridiculous.

This man wants to lead the country

 

Labour conference: Not right to say only women have a cervix, says Starmer

"Sir Keir Starmer says it is "not right" to say only women have a cervix amid a row involving one of his MPs.

Rosie Duffield came under fire after supporting online criticism of a tweet, which referred to "individuals with a cervix" to be inclusive of trans men.

The incident was called transphobic by trans rights supporters - but Labour MP Ms Duffield rejects the claim.

Asked about the row, Sir Keir said claiming only women have cervixes was "something that shouldn't be said".

But Health Secretary Sajid Javid attacked the Labour leader, saying his remarks were a "total denial of scientific fact"."

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

14 minutes ago, diddyman68 said:

 

There’s a payoff to that gag later on - they do call her Loretta during a meeting.

[itsnotoutthere]

3 hours ago, The Silver Shroud said:

It is offensive to a LOT of women, and not just woke women. They see if as a regressive move, where biological women are relegated in status with regard to men, patriarchy is back in force once again where men's rights are paramount. Their arguement is, it means there is no need to have regard for women's rights, or needs, because they are not special:  men can be women if they choose, so it is no big deal.

There has been a lot of pertinent discussion about whether criminals who identify as female should be incarcerated in a male or female prison- I haven't looked it up, but believe it went to court because a transgender "woman" raped a biological woman in prison.

Well put. Another aspect to this is the unfairness of biological men performing in womens sport. Men beating women at their own game, so to speak.

[itsnotoutthere]

2 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Well put. Another aspect to this is the unfairness of biological men performing in womens sport. Men beating women at their own game, so to speak.

e.g. https://nypost.com/2021/09/11/transgender-fighter-alana-mclaughlin-wins-mma-debut/

[+joc]

7 hours ago, Michelle said:

Technically, according to the woke, that would be gender appropriation and highly offensive to women.

While it may be highly offensive to women, no one is hurting the feelings of a particular woman.  It is also offensive to some men...but...again...we are talking about particular people not groups.  

[+joc]

6 hours ago, The Silver Shroud said:

There doesn't seem to be a similar attack on men. "Be a man about this", "act like a man" still means something good, positive. But "act like a woman" is seen as negative. Any strides women have made to redress this seems to be undermined by this latest move to prevent women even being women anymore. Men will still be men, and women will be - well, anything really, depends how men feel at the time.

No one really says, Act like a woman.   But the phrase, Act like a man, tells a transgender who identifies as a woman that they should be acting like a man instead of a woman, and that hurts their feelings.  On the other hand, the phrase, Act like a man, to a transgender who identifies as a male might cause a response such as, What the hell do you think I'm doing dumbass?

[glorybebe]

8 hours ago, The Silver Shroud said:

The row began last weekend, after Rowling responded to a headline on an online article discussing "people who menstruate" by writing in a tweet: "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"

Critics accused her of being transphobic, but Rowling said she stood by her comments, saying it "isn't hate to speak the truth".

JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism - BBC News

That was a few months ago. Even the child stars of Harry Potter had a go at her

[LV-426]

9 hours ago, The Silver Shroud said:

It is offensive to a LOT of women, and not just woke women. They see if as a regressive move, where biological women are relegated in status with regard to men, patriarchy is back in force once again where men's rights are paramount. Their arguement is, it means there is no need to have regard for women's rights, or needs, because they are not special:  men can be women if they choose, so it is no big deal.

There has been a lot of pertinent discussion about whether criminals who identify as female should be incarcerated in a male or female prison- I haven't looked it up, but believe it went to court because a transgender "woman" raped a biological woman in prison.

 

It's also a major issue for women fleeing domestic violence in refuges, where their wishes and rights should be absolutely paramount.

[itsnotoutthere]

22 minutes ago, glorybebe said:

That was a few months ago. Even the child stars of Harry Potter had a go at her

Yes, signaling your virtue is paramount if you're a celeb, it even trumps science.......darling.

Edited September 27, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[Knob Oddy]

On 9/27/2021 at 4:43 PM, joc said:

There is a new definition of the word woman: any individual who identifies as a woman. 

I find it incredibly frustrating when someone uses the word you are trying to define in the definition of the word.

Can you imagine reading the definition of the word woman in the dictionary? "Anyone who identifies as a woman"....... if only i knew what the word Women ment

[Golden Duck]

GNU's Not Unix!

[SHaYap]

So, is this 50 shades of gay or not? 

~

[itsnotoutthere]