J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

rightmove

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

No mention of the term man or men being offensive in any of the male related health sources, they didnt change the prostate cancer page from men to 'people with prostates' - ...
Apparently even when men identify as female their given more rights over biological women.

Even when its LGBTABCDEFG V women = mens fault somehow :rolleyes:

JoannaJag

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I brought up the HSE thing months ago on this or another thread and was told by the usual suspects that I was lying and hysterical because at the time there was one single incidence of woman on the page (that wasn't there months previous btw). This stuff has been going on for a while now.

Anyone who is concerned by this should make a complaint to the HSE. I have. There’s no reason to remove the word “woman” once you are including trans men and non binary people. “Woman and people with a cervix” Or “women, trans men and non binary people with a cervix” would cover it easily.

https://www2.hse.ie/services/forms/your-service-your-say/

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I brought up the HSE thing months ago on this or another thread and was told by the usual suspects that I was lying and hysterical because at the time there was one single incidence of woman on the page (that wasn't there months previous btw). This stuff has been going on for a while now.

why are we pandering to a tiny minority....

RWCNT

JoannaJag wrote: »

Anyone who is concerned by this should make a complaint to the HSE. I have. There’s no reason to remove the word “woman” once you are including trans men and non binary people. “Woman and people with a cervix” Or “women, trans men and non binary people with a cervix” would cover it easily.

https://www2.hse.ie/services/forms/your-service-your-say/

Completely in agreement with this and just sent a similar suggestion after reading your post. Even a note at the start of the guidance saying it applies to those groups as well, as repeating it in every single instance may make the guidance a bit wordy. I think all but the most extreme wings of this argument would be fine with this.

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

Completely in agreement with this and just sent a similar suggestion after reading your post. Even a note at the start of the guidance saying it applies to those groups as well, as repeating it in every single instance may make the guidance a bit wordy. I think all but the most extreme wings of this argument would be fine with this.

By far the most people are not on the extreme wings. Keeping the category and word woman as it is but noting that the campaign targets others with a cervix also is the nost sensible thing. It is extremism to obliterate the word woman. Or to obliterate the biological reality of female. Yet it would seem govt bodies are choosing to be extremists.

Sand

Aarav Lazy Bucket wrote: »

why are we pandering to a tiny minority....

Because they are lobbying effectively for their views, while the presumed silent majority is not.

RWCNT

Gruffalox wrote: »

By far the most people are not on the extreme wings. Keeping the category and word woman as it is but noting that the campaign targets others with a cervix also is the nost sensible thing. It is extremism to obliterate the word woman. Or to obliterate the biological reality of female. Yet it would seem govt bodies are choosing to be extremists.

It's definitely the most sensible thing, as you say, guidance like this above all things must be clear - and that's as clear as you can be.

The debate around use of language such as discussed above, I've long found quite paradoxical. Each group, in different senses, are effectively saying "I don't want to be reduced to just being an organism with certain body parts".

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

It's definitely the most sensible thing, as you say, guidance like this above all things must be clear - and that's as clear as you can be.

The debate around use of language such as discussed above, I've long found quite paradoxical. Each group, in different senses, are effectively saying "I don't want to be reduced to just being an organism with certain body parts".

The debate around the use of words like man woman male female is not long. It is quite new. Whereas man woman male female and the innate instinctive knowing of these as such is as old as human like creatures have been on earth.

The attempt to overthrow language and its shared meaning is quite subversive. It is not simply an intellectual exercise. Sophisticated language is fundamental to the difference between us and other creatures. And no that does not mean someone who does not speak etc etc...we are submersed in language and meaning.

If asked to describe a male who has identified as a woman we can easily say transwoman because it has meaning. To say woman is a further step which is not true but a good few may go along to be supportive. To say this person is female is subversive to reason and to subvert reason by means of ideology is dangerous, both to the compeller or to the compelled.

Sheeps

We live in a country where we have some of the most liberal regulations around self identification that support trans people transitioning and living their life in their preferred gender role. I think this is a good thing. There are however a lot of parallels between people who believe transwomen are female and flat earthers. Thankfully most normal people don't actually seriously entertain either idea.

mohawk

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I brought up the HSE thing months ago on this or another thread and was told by the usual suspects that I was lying and hysterical because at the time there was one single incidence of woman on the page (that wasn't there months previous btw). This stuff has been going on for a while now.

A couple months ago I had zero interest in anything to do with trans issues. I thought let them live their life as whatever as long as no one is being hurt then who cares.
But then I started to see things like pregnant people and people who menstrate and It really grates on me. It reminds me of the way certain men just stare at my chest instead of looking at my face when talking to me.

Well it may hurt peoples feelings but pregnancy and periods, not getting periods, cervix’s, hysterectomies Etc are women’s issues. Yes they also affect Transmen and Non Binary people who were born female but their bodies and genetics are female. Self acceptance is one if the greatest things you can do for yourself. Is it not healthier for people to acknowledge that they have changed gender and that it’s okay for a Transman to go to a gynaecologist. It’s also okay that there will always be differences between women and transwomen. Different doesn’t mean unequal.

Redefining the word women to how a person feels doesn’t make sense for most women. It’s not how I felt inside that made me be harassed by men in the past. It was most definitely that I am clearly female and am easy overpowered physically by a man aka the biological stuff.

mesu

On the HSE cervical screening website, the only time the word woman is there is when it's with the word trans. A trans woman (whether self ID or fully transitioned) does not have a cervix so a screening service for cervical cancer is not relevant to them. At all. There was good discussion on Joe Duffy about this yesterday.

I think this trend is very worrying and not just because it's distorting facts and confusing ideology with biology. It is worth looking at what is happening to women's safe spaces around the world.

Talking about this is not anti trans or exclusionary. It is a fact that small numbers of predatory men are hijacking the right to self ID and putting vulnerable women at risk, it is happening and we must talk about it. I know the majority of trans people would be as horrified as I am reading these stories.

Thankfully none of these cases are Irish and long may that last. This is just a sample.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/amp/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/18/transgender-prisoner-sexually-assaulted-female-inmates-days-jailed-7728870/

https://abc30.com/amp/homeless-women-harassed-in-shower-lawsuit-says/3514544/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44877856

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/court/changing-room-pervert-filmed-women-underwear-at-aberdeen-clothes-shop/

https://mobile.twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1143047256339181568

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it misses out on the adjectival definition.

The adjectival definition misses out the adjectival definition! That does not make sense!

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

You generally have to back up your inferrance with some logically sound reasoning in order to receive a passing mark - this is what literary students do in their assignments - everyone who did English in secondary school did this. They also studied poems and novels and learned about the most supported analyses of the themes and motifs to learn how its done. You'd have a serious job inferring credibly that Trump is a supporter of antifa. I'd honestly love to see someone have a crack at that.

Yes, I agree. In theory you can, but realistically you can not do this with every work of fiction, which is what I meant by 'in a real sense'. Maybe I should've said realistically to have been clearer.

RWCNT wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by "I'm talking in a real sense" - of course we can't draw a firm conclusion, and that was never the point. Of course all works of fiction can offer a potential insight into the authors worldview. This is the entire basis of literary analysis as practised for hundreds and hundreds of years. You're an absolute gas man Cteven, and thanks for the chat but I've probably dragged the thread off topic enough at this stage. You can repeat yourself again if you want and call it a W. Have a good one.

And with some works you can't draw any conclusions. And as such my initial point stands. I will leave it here myself as I cannot make myself any clearer. Please disinfect my medal and make sure the W on it is nice and shiny:pac:

andekwarhola

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I used to like the word 'problematic'.

Evokes memories of personal politics and critical theory in university although at least then it was largely confined to campus.

Unfortunately, it nearly always signifies an opportunity to make hay: whether or not that involves a new academic seam to mine or a niche cultural vaccum into which you can position yourself in order to gain attention or money.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The HSE thing is sickening. The equivalent page on prostate cancer is peppered with references to men.

So, why does this matter? Public health information must be as clear and concise as possible. You are trying to reach a wide group of people, with differing intellects. You also have to consider women who have English as a second language. You have to consider women with learning difficulties. Obfuscating is the last thing you want to do. Non-binary and transgender men are probably amongst the most acutely aware that they are female. Is sparing their feelings more important than getting the message out to as many women as possible? And what about transgender women in all this? Well, what about them? The most that will happen is that their feelings might be hurt. Cry me a fucking river.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

It’s also my own personal experience in the recent past in the HSE that has made me very sensitive to all this.

When my husband was experiencing bad headaches a few years ago, it did not take long for him to get referred to a hospital specialist for further examination.

Me? I spent 2.5 years being treated like a hysterical woman by a succession of GPs, despite a growing lump in my breast, agonising bone pain and worsening breathing. I remember begging a doctor to refer me for scans three months before I was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. At that visit, my nipple had not stopped bleeding for two weeks (albeit slowly but it wouldn’t heal), my back felt like it was about to snap in two (that would be the extensive bone mets) and I could not walk two metres without being dangerously out of breath (that would be the lung mets). The doctor refused to refer me and said I would have to go private but didn’t advise it because of how expensive it would be. Not only should I have been referred but it should have been an urgent referral. This was in 2015, not decades ago. 2015. My utter frustration after that GP visit lead me to the first suicidal thoughts of my life.

So to see women erased from literature like this makes me bristle. We already aren’t doing right by women in the health service going by my experience. This is contemptuous towards half the population of this country.

AbusesToilets

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s also my own personal experience in the recent past in the HSE that has made me very sensitive to all this.

When my husband was experiencing bad headaches a few years ago, it did not take long for him to get referred to a hospital specialist for further examination.

Me? I spent 2.5 years being treated like a hysterical woman by a succession of GPs, despite a growing lump in my breast, agonising bone pain and worsening breathing. I remember begging a doctor to refer me for scans three months before I was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. At that visit, my nipple had not stopped bleeding for two weeks (albeit slowly but it wouldn’t heal), my back felt like it was about to snap in two (that would be the extensive bone mets) and I could not walk two metres without being dangerously out of breath (that would be the lung mets). The doctor refused to refer me and said I would have to go private but didn’t advise it because of how expensive it would be. Not only should I have been referred but it should have been an urgent referral. This was in 2015, not decades ago. 2015. My utter frustration after that GP visit lead me to the first suicidal thoughts of my life.

So to see women erased from literature like this makes me bristle. We already aren’t doing right by women in the health service going by my experience. This is contemptuous towards half the population of this country.

I hope you sued the ever loving ****e out of them for malpractice. That's infuriating and an absolute disgrace.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I hope you sued the ever loving ****e out of them for malpractice. That's infuriating and an absolute disgrace.

I looked into it but those cases are really hard to win. All it would take is one doctor giving the opinion that it had already spread at the time of the first GP visit for you to be shagged. The medical community in Ireland is small and sticks together. An acquaintance lost a similar case last year that she was expected to win but she lost unfortunately. And it took a lot out of her. She died not long after.

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I looked into it but those cases are really hard to win. All it would take is one doctor giving the opinion that it had already spread at the time of the first GP visit for you to be shagged. The medical community in Ireland is small and sticks together. An acquaintance lost a similar case last year that she was expected to win but she lost unfortunately. And it took a lot out of her. She died not long after.

Thats awful

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Thanks all.

So I can't even deal with people farting on about inclusiveness when I (and many other young women of my acquaintance) have such recent experience of being treated badly by the health service, which will cost most of us our lives.

Transgender healthcare is lacking in certain areas. That needs to be tackled.

But cervical cancer and other female health problems are not transgender health problems. They are female health problems.

If this is truly about inclusiveness, why is the HSE on prostate cancer littered with the word 'man'? Why do women have to make all the allowances?

To my cynical eyes, it's the same old same old of women being treated with contempt in healthcare settings in this country. We have a long, long history of that. Self ID was legal in Ireland before abortion was, FFS.

Airyfairy12

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Thanks all.

So I can't even deal with people farting on about inclusiveness when I (and many other young women of my acquaintance) have such recent experience of being treated badly by the health service, which will cost most of us our lives.

Transgender healthcare is lacking in certain areas. That needs to be tackled.

But cervical cancer and other female health problems are not transgender health problems. They are female health problems.

If this is truly about inclusiveness, why is the HSE on prostate cancer littered with the word 'man'? Why do women have to make all the allowances?

To my cynical eyes, it's the same old same old of women being treated with contempt in healthcare settings in this country. We have a long, long history of that. Self ID was legal in Ireland before abortion was, FFS.

This post just hit the nail on the head but unfortunately its not just in the health system!

Calina

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I hope you sued the ever loving ****e out of them for malpractice. That's infuriating and an absolute disgrace.

You might think so but it is standard experience for a lot of women. It takes a long while to get medical issues taken seriously.

Sir Oxman

Well said OBD ODB, well said.

LLMMLL

Did anyone actually look at the cervical cancer HSE page. I just checked and there are multiple references to women. The last 2 pages of this thread are just pure falsehoods.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

Because they are lobbying effectively for their views, while the presumed silent majority is not.

If someone as high profile and socially powerful as JK Rowling can't speak up about this without being attacked and "cancelled", it shouldn't be any surprise that the silent majority remains as such. Unfortunately, the silent majority end up doing other things such as voting for the alt-right.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to claim that anti-identity politics sentiment didn't play a gigantic, pivotal role in elevating Donald Trump from joke candidate to the White House. Of course it wasn't the only thing, but it would be truly ridiculous to deny that it played a significant role. If this kind of thing becomes more and more entrenched, I unfortunately see more and more of a niche market for the social right, especially if you get a socially right wing party which combines it with economic leftism.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

Did anyone actually look at the cervical cancer HSE page. I just checked and there are multiple references to women. The last 2 pages of this thread are just pure falsehoods.

Multiple references? Really? Here's the link:
https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/cervical-screening/what-cervical-screening-is.html

Where does it say "woman" please?

Here's another page, where it has the word "woman" just once, and that's not when=re it says who needs to have screening : https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/cervical-cancer/overview.html



"People with cervixes" appears several time though. Which is the point being made.

JoannaJag

LLMMLL wrote: »

Did anyone actually look at the cervical cancer HSE page. I just checked and there are multiple references to women. The last 2 pages of this thread are just pure falsehoods.

https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/cervical-screening/when-you-should-have-cervical-screening/who-should-have-cervical-screening.html

I can’t see it anywhere.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

Multiple references? Really? Here's the link:
https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/cervical-screening/what-cervical-screening-is.html

Where does it say "woman" please?

Here's another page, where it has the word "woman" just once, and that's not when=re it says who needs to have screening : https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/cervical-cancer/overview.html



"People with cervixes" appears several time though. Which is the point being made.

The poster said the cervical cancer page which is here:
https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/cervical-cancer/overview.html

Multiple references to women. Zero references to trans.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Did anyone actually look at the cervical cancer HSE page. I just checked and there are multiple references to women. The last 2 pages of this thread are just pure falsehoods.

Oh really? You looked at this page? I did not see the word woman mentioned once. I see 'female' mentioned once but not woman. Where are these multiple mentions?

https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/cervical-screening/when-you-should-have-cervical-screening/who-should-have-cervical-screening.html

Here's the entire page screengrabbed:

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

The poster said the cervical cancer page which is here:
https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/cervical-cancer/overview.html

Multiple references to women. Zero references to trans.

Not multiple. Two. And as I said, neither appear in the part that says who needs to have screening. Here's what the page you linked to says about that:

Anyone with a cervix between the age of 25 and 65 should go for regular cervical screening when it’s due.