JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Sheilbh]

Although I don't know the details about the example from CNN but the UK language in emails for cervical screening from the NHS are addressed to "all women and people with a cervix" - because trans men, for example, have a cervix. I don't see the issue with that, but as I say I don't know the details of the CNN example - does it not say "women" at all, is it one clinic in one neighbourhood in New York or is it the standard language in the US?

Because without that it just all reminds me of the other culture war stuff - like the Telegraph's stories about campaigns to demolish the statue of Constantine in York because he was a slaveholder, or to remove war memorials in some village because they're imperialist memorials. You dig into either of those stories and they were both about one local crank making a comment/complaint. That one individual then gets a 500 word article about them vaguely described as "campaigners" in a national newspaper and lots of shares all around the world on social media. Except in this case, possibly, replace the Telegraph with Piers Morgan.

That may not be the case with a lot of trans issues, but it's how it feels and I don't think it's particularly healthy for us as a society that the incentives for media companies, social media companies and personalities to share and circulate the most extreme opinions/statements (possibly out of context - as I say I don't know the example from the CNN story) rather than what is representative opinion.

Especially given that opinion in the UK is actually relatively nuanced:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

[Tamas]

Sure its culture war but its both sides waging it and it doesn't automatically mean that self-proclaimed progressives are always in the right.

"Persons with a cervix" is saying "I mean women but I don't want to unleash a Twitter shitstorm by saying women". I guess they could have used female but then both sides of the trenches would have unleashed on them, one for not using women and the other for using female instead of person with the applicable internal organ.

And I really do not get how using sex for such a thing is inappropriate. If a tiny minority of transgender people (who are already a tiny minority) are not reasonable enough to realise that writing "female" is more efficient than "person with a cervix" and it is not meant to belittle or insult their own custom-made gender identity, then I don't think it is worth a society-wide effort to accommodate them. 


Also, and this does have me puzzled, if sex/gender should be forbidden to be used to identify primary sexual characteristics, then, do tell me, what is their use? When a male identifies as a woman, what does that mean? Is a way of dressing or hairsyle or mannerism? If yes, are we saying that women are defined by the way they look talk or dress? I mean, sure, society have forced men and women to adhere to certain appearance and mannerism, but how can we try to simultaneously move away from that while also applying a far more nuanced and specific meaning to the genders? If at one hand you remove their meaning in terms of identifying sex, but on the other hand, you make them a self-declared but strict, prime core of a person's identity, what are you ending up with?

Transgender people, or at least the activists proclaim to act on their behalf, seek both to blurry the division between genders, while also fighting hard to enforce definitions and thus divisions between them. It's nonsense, and the culture war is increasingly hostage of it.

[Sheilbh]

Don't have time to respond in full but the point of "all women and people with a cervix" is that there are trans men who live as men and present as men, may well have documents as men but are still at risk of cervical cancer. Saying "all women and females" doesn't help with that, so trans men who need cervical cancer screening wouldn't get it/realise they needed to do it. That's why the NHS uses the language it does which I don't have an issue with.

As I say I don't know about the CNN story and I haven't looked into it (again time ) - but my point is I'm not sure I am willing to trust Piers Morgan posting something as accurate because I don't trust Piers Morgan any more than I trust the Telegraph on culture war issues wherre they deliberately promote non-stories - local crank dislikes statue. The NHS language, which is used for millions of people in this country, seems useful to me and a way of reaching everyone who needs cervical cancer screening (it'd be the same as "all men and people with a prostate" need screening).

Edit - I suppose the other point is it does cover off intersex people as well who I think could have a prostate or cervix, but I'm not sure.

[Tamas]

I think the Guardian article I quoted goes way past what Morgan thinks and is not in general concerned with that.

Would it really be such an unacceptable state of societal affairs if we assumed that health information for "females" mean those female at birth? Surely you can have equality without pretending that sex is not determined by birth?

[garbon]

Well yes it made me wonder what your angle was.

[merithyn]

But that's where we can circle back to Rowling.  She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters.  Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.

Competing against women in sports <> being a woman.

But as Sheilbh has said, my points lead to a a very slippery slope. There are "naturally born" women with high levels of testosterone, too. Do we scientifically ban them? I think the answer is no, we don't. And we're back to a woman is a woman.

[merithyn]

I think it is transphobic to fret about the risk from a community when there is no evidence it actually exists - there are individual cases and anecdata but that's it. But my bigger issue is with just approaching this from a theoretical perspective without addressing the practical solution - what changing rooms should trans people use? Or what's the difference between a real trans person (without surgery or hormones in current situation) and who's a risk (under the new law)?

[merithyn]

"Persons with a cervix" is saying "I mean women but I don't want to unleash a Twitter shitstorm by saying women". I guess they could have used female but then both sides of the trenches would have unleashed on them, one for not using women and the other for using female instead of person with the applicable internal organ.

Because it's not "women", it's people with cervixes. I am a woman without a cervix. There are men with cervixes. It is definitely not "women".

And I really do not get how using sex for such a thing is inappropriate. If a tiny minority of transgender people (who are already a tiny minority) are not reasonable enough to realise that writing "female" is more efficient than "person with a cervix" and it is not meant to belittle or insult their own custom-made gender identity, then I don't think it is worth a society-wide effort to accommodate them. 

Says the cis het white man who's never not been included in the grand scheme.

Also, and this does have me puzzled, if sex/gender should be forbidden to be used to identify primary sexual characteristics, then, do tell me, what is their use? When a male identifies as a woman, what does that mean? Is a way of dressing or hairsyle or mannerism? If yes, are we saying that women are defined by the way they look talk or dress? I mean, sure, society have forced men and women to adhere to certain appearance and mannerism, but how can we try to simultaneously move away from that while also applying a far more nuanced and specific meaning to the genders? If at one hand you remove their meaning in terms of identifying sex, but on the other hand, you make them a self-declared but strict, prime core of a person's identity, what are you ending up with?

How about we not a strict, prime core of a person's identity? That seems like a good start. I've been a huge proponent of this for decades.

[Duque de Bragança]

Says the cis het white man who's never not been included in the grand scheme.

Actually, Tamas is trans[spoiler]leithanian.[/spoiler] 

[Sheilbh]

"Persons with a cervix" is saying "I mean women but I don't want to unleash a Twitter shitstorm by saying women". I guess they could have used female but then both sides of the trenches would have unleashed on them, one for not using women and the other for using female instead of person with the applicable internal organ.

Because it's not "women", it's people with cervixes. I am a woman without a cervix. There are men with cervixes. It is definitely not "women".

Yeah I think there is a famous example of a trans man who died of ovarian cancer because his doctor didn't examine the possibility of that risk for him (I think he was sent to a psychiatrist instead).

The purpose of "people with ovaries/cervix/prostate" isn't to exclude "men"/"women" but to make sure it includes, for example, intersex people or trans people who may still need to check for prostate cancer/gynaecological care.

Would it really be such an unacceptable state of societal affairs if we assumed that health information for "females" mean those female at birth? Surely you can have equality without pretending that sex is not determined by birth?

I just don't think it's how we use the word "female". So, it's worse than being unacceptable, it's ineffective. The equality issue here is, I think, ensuring that people who do not identify or present or live their lives as women/men, who may not have told their GP, who may not even have a passport based on their assigned sex at birth still get the right information and access to care that they may need.

And you're right it's a tiny minority, but you know some intersex traits are far more common but a lot are around 1 in 1000 which is not super-super rare.

I think the Guardian article I quoted goes way past what Morgan thinks and is not in general concerned with that.

You're right - but it is the only piece of evidence.

And again this goes back to my issue with a lot of articles in the UK especially is there is a lack of evidence in them. They tend to be as I say slightly theoretical or based on anecdata like a comment Piers Morgan tweets and the responses to a tweet by Suzanne Moore. And I just don't think many of us would be comfortable with articles in that style about any other minority group. I think they just need to back it up and then go to the next question of what it means in practice? So in this case - from a healthcare perspective how do we get trans men or intersex people to get cervical cancer checks/care they need/mention to their doctor that they have a cervix if they have pain or whatever? And I think the same question goes for trans women needing prostate checks/communicating that risk to doctors.

[Zoupa]

Honestly coming at it from a healthcare perspective, trans people have researched this stuff for years before surgery (usually). They are very up to date on medical terminology, treatments, check-ups etc.

A trans man knows he still has a cervix. This seems like a tempest in a tea cup.

[merithyn]

Honestly coming at it from a healthcare perspective, trans people have researched this stuff for years before surgery (usually). They are very up to date on medical terminology, treatments, check-ups etc.

A trans man knows he still has a cervix. This seems like a tempest in a tea cup.

Again, not all women - even those like me born a woman and still a woman - have cervixes and not all men have prostates. It's incorrect language to say "Women should be scanned for...." because it's simply wrong. And we've seen how that plays out with breast cancer, because men can get breast cancer, too, but they won't go in because they don't want to be associated with a "woman's" disease.

So remove gender from the discussion, use correct language, and it works better.

What is the problem with that? Where is there an issue?

[Zoupa]

There is no issue either way is my point.

[merithyn]

There is no issue either way is my point.

So, you're just going to ignore my arguments that there are real problems with using gendered language? Yeah, okay. I'm convinced. 

[Zoupa]

If you've got numbers to show me that gendered language decreases access or usage of healthcare resources, I will gladly agree.

As I said earlier, I see absolutely no problem using non-gendered language either so have at it.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.