I think you’re right, but I don’t know why people are foolish enough to be so trusting. Like, we’re watching how incompetent and sociopathic the government can be on the news every day. Why would anyone trust the government to implement a slogan like TWAW fairly and justly? Why would people take it on faith that things would sort themselves out? Things never sort themselves out. Things always require oversight and scrutiny and someone brave enough to say “No” to potentially harmful notions and schemes.
I participated in a regulatory board meeting yesterday. A citizen spent about 10 minutes voicing her concerns over some proposed environmental regulations. She was shrill at times. Her tirade was cringy at times. You could tell the board members were tired of listening to her at times. But even though I don’t know the issues she was complaining about, I’m glad she was so brave. I’m glad she was more interested in getting her concerns heard than being kind and courteous. This time she was ignored, but maybe the next time she’ll be listened to. I think we should all be so brave.
I think we should keep transwomen who refuse to take HRT out of women’s prisons. Even if their crimes are non-violent, even if they have been wearing skirts for years. If they are gender dysphoric, they should demonstrate it by taking estrogen. If they don’t want that, then tough titty. They should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They stay with the biological males. She can be housed in the special wing for sexual and gender minorities. But she should not be entitled to be housed with women unless she alters her biology.
Even if a transwomen is on HRT, I don’t think she should be housed in gen-pop. Not unless she also has no penis, no testes.
Yep. I agree totally. A genetically XY person housed in a women’s prison needs to meet certain hormone requirements, and have been meeting them well before they got arrested. A genetically XY person can go on HRT after being arrested or while serving their sentence, but that won’t change them from being housed in the men’s prison. A system like that would mean that sincere transwomen who are are at lower threat levels could be housed in the women’s prison without being greatly disruptive.
It’s not a lack of common sense, it’s politics. There is huge political disadvantage in doing anything that can get you labelled a transphobe. There is little to no political disadvantage in worrying about the welfare of convicts.
This isn’t even really that anyone involved cares about transwomen. It’s just the path of least resistance.
Take a look at this terrifying story from Ireland:
It’s completely crazy and horrifying that someone like that could be released. But relevant to this thread is what they didn’t think necessary to inform the public: this homicidal teenager is a biological male (explaining the rape threats). The courts have banned the media from reporting that minor fact. And why no photo if they’re warning the public about a dangerous person? It’s very strange.
“All lives matter, but trans lives matter more”. I assumed we had a few more months before we got to chapter 10 of Animal Farm, but I should rethink that. Looks like Ireland has read ahead.
Notice that transmen and transwomen are specifically mentioned in this guidance. Women are not. When the word female is used, it is only in reference to transmen. Women are erased and it’s being rubbed in our faces now.
That is interesting. The only time the word “women” is mentioned in the entire HSE public health announcement is when it includes the “trans” prefix. Otherwise, first sentence out of the gate is: “Anyone with a cervix between the age of 25 and 65 should go for regular cervical screening when it’s due.”
I assume HSE is aware that 99.5% of their target audience are biological women.
Clicking through on guidance for trans-women has this:
If you’re a trans woman aged 25 to 65, you may be invited to attend cervical screening.
But as you do not have a cervix, you do not need to be screened.
You or your GP should let us know your correct details. This is so that we can update our records so we don’t contact you unnecessarily.
Just a modicum of common sense - is that too much to ask for? FFS.
Why the hell would a transwoman need to be invited to attend cervical screening? And why include this sentence, but not a parallel one like “If you’re a girl or ciswoman without a uterus, you may be invited to attend cervical screening.”
That whole thing is ridiculous. And this is the kind of madness that JKR was complaining about. Too bad she’s still being excoriated over it. But she’s going to be vindicated one of these days.
This is deliberate. This isn’t an oversight caused by a well-meaning health communicator who failed to think this through.
It’s not common sense we need to be asking for, IMO. Something with a virulently anti-female agenda has captured government institutions and the media. We need to find who this something is, sue it into penury, charge it for all the crimes it’s aiding and abetting, and ensure it is portrayed as the worst villain the 21 century has seen to date when the movies, documentaries, and history books are made.
We are in this position partly because only some of us understand Orwell wasn’t writing just for entertainment purposes.
I just realized how they could have written that sentence so that it could be truly inclusive:
“If you’re a girl or woman without a uterus, you may still be invited to attend cervical screening.”
Transwomen are women, right? So why would “woman” not encapsulate both cis and trans?
@YWTF, I’m going to be slightly more charitable than you and assume that whomever wrote this is just very very stupid. Because I could see a very very stupid person thinking that cis women (I’m starting to hate this term of art, but whatever) already know this stuff. They know they have a cervix, so why mention it. I think this is very very harmful assumption, especially since the purpose of this article is to educate, but I think it is a very very prevalent one.
There is backstory behind this guidance. The backstory makes clear this as deliberate as the words I used to describe it. If it was just a silly mistake, HSE wouldn’t be refusing to change the language . So now there’s a petition to get them to change it. Twitter is the only reason I’m aware of any of this, so FYI if this is the first time you are hearing about this stuff.
The time for benefit of the doubt has expired. This shit is getting to be bananas.
I think most of the people behind this change in language have good intentions. They know people who are suffering and they want to help them. But they’ve got tunnel vision. They don’t see that their schemes could have unintended consequences, and they don’t want to see it. And I think these people did read Orwell and they do believe that if you change language you can change the way people think. The point of these changes isn’t just to make trans men and non-binary people feel better, it’s to entirely divorce the concepts of male and female, man and woman from their biological roots and enforce the idea that (contrary to the constellation of traits @Hellestal mentions) gender identity is the only thing that matters.
Everyone always have “good“ intentions…for some value of good. No one writes themselves as the villain in their autobiography. It becomes easier to miss the danger in front of us when we keep assigning well-meaning ignorance to it. If you and I both know cervical health illiteracy is epidemic among women, surely the person in charge of that guidance knows this. So I refuse to believe good intentions has anything to do with this massive dereliction of duty. Something else is happening.
When this shitstorm got kicked off in June, my convictions on this were softer. But now I’m certain there is method to the madness. To go from “people with cervixes” to “transmen with cervixes and nameless others” is trolling. If it’s not trolling, it is indistinguishable from trolling and should be responded the same way we respond to trolls on this board.
If this were true, then we’d expect men’s health to be treated just like women’s health. Right? But we both know this isn’t the case. I just looked up HSE’s prostate guidance. I counted 63 matches when I did a word search for the word men. The prefix “trans” shows up zero times.
So yes, we must refrain from assigning well-meaning ignorance to an issue that has public health consequence to our sex class. To erase women from guidance that almost exclusively applies to us while liberally using the word men in prostate guidance is the product of purposeful action.