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

jam_mac_jam

RWCNT wrote: »

"All you see now"? How many trans women do you come across in your day to day life? Where are you seeing them exactly?

I live in a University city and I see masses of young women dolled up to the nines all over the place on a regular basis. That's their prerogative, they're adults and can dress how they like - wouldn't you agree? I'd never dream to make such a daft generalisation that "all i see" are people dressed up in such and such a way, or that there's something wrong with it.

Trans people I've known personally present themselves in as many different ways as anyone else I know.

I agree. Even if all trans women are dressing like that, which I really doubt they are, so what they can wear whatever they want.

If they want to look like a 70s hooker they can. Same way if I want to dress like a 70s hooker.Comments like that are not helpful.

Gervais08

I disagree - it is an example of the rampant misogyny of these men - enforcing a pathetic stereotype that woman are defined by wearing make up, inappropriate skirts (bandage dresses for a business meeting ?? Have we not moved on from Mad Men ??) and it has to stop.

You’re not trying to be a woman - you’re trying to keep the power imbalance going by trying to be a decades old version of us. It’s called being a fifth column.

RWCNT

Gervais08 wrote: »

I disagree - it is an example of the rampant misogyny of these men - enforcing a pathetic stereotype that woman are defined by wearing make up, inappropriate skirts (bandage dresses for a business meeting ?? Have we not moved on from Mad Men ??) and it has to stop.

You’re not trying to be a woman - you’re trying to keep the power imbalance going by trying to be a decades old version of us. It’s called being a fifth column.

Do you think the same of women that present themselves in this way? Are they victims of some sort of internalised misogyny? Should they adhere to a certain dress code so as not to perpetuate a power imbalance?

jam_mac_jam

I have no right to comment on whatever anyone wears.

If an 18 year old girl wants to go around in a tiny skirt as many of them do it doesn't mean she is misogynist or a transwoman like a 70s hooker is a misogynist. I have no right to comment. If a woman wants to flaunt herself or cover up it's nothing to do with me.

Its none of my business. That's how I see it. We live in Europe and should have the freedom to dress however we want. Man or woman or transwoman.

jam_mac_jam

Also mens clothes are crap. No wonder some go mad on the clothes and make up. I know I would.

It could come from a flamboyance and excitement on being finally able to wear things they wanted to and go to far. I don't really see it as misogynist.

ProfessorPlum

RWCNT wrote: »

Do you think the same of women that present themselves in this way? Are they victims of some sort of internalised misogyny? Should they adhere to a certain dress code so as not to perpetuate a power imbalance?

Firstly, I don’t think the majority of trans women present this way, I’m sure most of them just want to blend in tbh. And if some of them do, well then more power to them.
But, just today on Twitter (yes I know, I should stop looking ) there’s a trans /gender fluid person wearing a business suit to work on ‘male’ days, and what can only be described as a french maids outfit on ‘female’ days. And yes, there’s the usual ‘stunning’/‘so brave’/‘beautiful woman’ blah blah blah. If any natal woman turned up for work looking that they would be made a mockery of and probably disciplined for going against dress code. And I’m sad to say, I’ve met someone similar in real life (not quite french maid, but very much flaunting dress codes that female colleagues are rigorously held to. And nobody dares to call it out. Munroe Bergdorf is posing topless while being lauded as a ‘woman at the top’ by the FT. I challenge anyone to find me another business woman featured in the FT who wasn’t wearing clothes. And another Tw on twitter asserting ‘don’t tell me TW aren’t women’ with a series of sexually provocative poses in full makeup and lingerie. Being a woman is not centred on a large cleavage and a ‘come hither’ look.
It’s a case of double standards really. I’ve yet to see a business woman turning up at the office dressed in a hooker ensemble referred to as ‘stunning and brave’.
A ‘former employee’ maybe.

Gruffalux

I can see both sides of it.
People should wear what the hell they want. I know I do!
Autogynophelia is a thing. It has a sexual fetish element.

RWCNT

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Firstly, I don’t think the majority of trans women present this way, I’m sure most of them just want to blend in tbh. And if some of them do, well then more power to them.
But, just today on Twitter (yes I know, I should stop looking ) there’s a trans /gender fluid person wearing a business suit to work on ‘male’ days, and what can only be described as a french maids outfit on ‘female’ days. And yes, there’s the usual ‘stunning’/‘so brave’/‘beautiful woman’ blah blah blah. If any natal woman turned up for work looking that they would be made a mockery of and probably disciplined for going against dress code. And I’m sad to say, I’ve met someone similar in real life (not quite french maid, but very much flaunting dress codes that female colleagues are rigorously held to. And nobody dares to call it out. Munroe Bergdorf is posing topless while being lauded as a ‘woman at the top’ by the FT. I challenge anyone to find me another business woman featured in the FT who wasn’t wearing clothes. And another Tw on twitter asserting ‘don’t tell me TW aren’t women’ with a series of sexually provocative poses in full makeup and lingerie. Being a woman is
Anot centred on a large cleavage and a ‘come hither’ look.
It’s a case of double standards really. I’ve yet to see a business woman turning up at the office dressed in a hooker ensemble referred to as ‘stunning and brave’. ‘former employee’ maybe.

I see what you're getting at and agree that being a woman isn't defined by appearing feminine in a conventional sense - I'm surprised that individual is allowed to turn up to work in an outfit such as the one you describe. I assure you she wouldn't be allowed to in my place of work but I do find it believable that some HR person is scared of being accused of some sort of anti-trans prejudice and that is an unfair double standard when it happens - to what regularity it does, I don't know. A woman I used to work with got a lot of guff from her manager even though I thought she was dressed modestly - she just had a very full figure that was hard to disguise short of wearing a burlap sack. A lot of workplaces have an ill defined dress code for women and it seems to end up making life difficult for them which isn't on.

About Munroe though - she's included in the "women at the top" from the FT as an activist rather than a businesswoman. The FT has given a great deal of coverage to the business ventures of the Kardashians who have done photoshoots sans clobber dozens of times. Kim K probably comes with a higher pricetag than Munroe, I'd imagine.

Justin Credible Darts

RWCNT wrote: »

Trans people I've known personally present themselves in as many different ways as anyone else I know.

no one has an issue with that.


the issue is when the biological men who now are trans women think they are "real" women is the problem.


You have to be aware of this by now or you have chosen to ignore it

One eyed Jack

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

no one has an issue with that.

Plenty of people have issues with how other people (not just those people who are transgender) present themselves. It’s a well observed phenomenon in sociology - Respectability politics

I certainly wouldn’t base my perception of women on one individuals ideas who attempted to portray themselves on social media as “a real woman”, as though their egocentric standards are anything other than entirely subjective.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the issue is when the biological men who now are trans women think they are "real" women is the problem.

Last time I checked, freedom of thought was... yep, it’s still a human right afforded to everyone in a democratic society under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Though I do acknowledge that other people having that freedom is indeed an issue for those people who would rather they didn’t. It’s precisely why there are restrictions on some human rights, with the test being only those restrictions which are determined to be necessary in a democratic society.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of people have issues with how other people (not just those people who are transgender) present themselves. It’s a well observed phenomenon in sociology - Respectability politics

I certainly wouldn’t base my perception of women on one individuals ideas who attempted to portray themselves on social media as “a real woman”, as though their egocentric standards are anything other than entirely subjective.


Last time I checked, freedom of thought was... yep, it’s still a human right afforded to everyone in a democratic society under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Though I do acknowledge that other people having that freedom is indeed an issue for those people who would rather they didn’t. It’s precisely why there are restrictions on some human rights, with the test being only those restrictions which are determined to be necessary in a democratic society.

So you are 100% behind white women who would like to identify as black women e.g. Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug?

RWCNT

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

no one has an issue with that.


the issue is when the biological men who now are trans women think they are "real" women is the problem.


You have to be aware of this by now or you have chosen to ignore it

There's a lot of sub-issues that have been discussed as is common in an extremely long thread, you have to be aware of that or you have chosen to ignore it. I'm responding directly to the point made in the post I quoted, which runs counter to the point I've made - so clearly not everyone does accept that.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

So you are 100% behind white women who would like to identify as black women e.g. Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug?

Dear God no! Those women need help :pac:

I think you’re conflating two different things though - I’ll defend the right of every person to freedom of thought or freedom of conscience, or freedom of belief.

Whether or not I share or support or even disagree entirely with their beliefs, is an entirely separate matter which would depend upon their beliefs and how those beliefs manifest in their behaviours and attitudes towards other people.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Dear God no! Those women need help :pac:

I think you’re conflating two different things though - I’ll defend the right of every person to freedom of thought or freedom of conscience, or freedom of belief.

Whether or not I share or support or even disagree entirely with their beliefs, is an entirely separate matter which would depend upon their beliefs and how those beliefs manifest in their behaviours and attitudes towards other people.

If you believe that any man can self identify as a woman and that he can change his sex then I can't see how you think "these women need help". Are trans rights somehow superior to other rights?
Does the fact that signing a gender recognition form make it more legitimate? No surgery, no hormones, no therapy, just a 2 page form and you are truly now a woman but a woman who believes she identifies more as a black woman is the one who needs help? I don't see how one is ok for you but the other, that requires no make believe change of biological reality, is not.

Gervais08

ingalway wrote: »

If you believe that any man can self identify as a woman and that he can change his sex then I can't see how you think "these women need help". Are trans rights somehow superior to other rights?
Does the fact that signing a gender recognition form make it more legitimate? No surgery, no hormones, no therapy, just a 2 page form and you are truly now a woman but a woman who believes she identifies more as a black woman is the one who needs help? I don't see how one is ok for you but the other, that requires no make believe change of biological reality, is not.

It’s baffling isn’t it ??

ingalway

Gervais08 wrote: »

It’s baffling isn’t it ??

I think it's more bull**** than baffling.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

If you believe that any man can self identify as a woman and that he can change his sex then I can't see how you think "these women need help". Are trans rights somehow superior to other rights?

That’s two things which I have to answer separately - I do believe that any man can self identify as a woman, because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there are men who self identify themselves as women. I don’t believe that a man can change their sex, because there is no evidence for that particular phenomenon whatsoever.

Depending upon the degree to which his beliefs might cause him a degree of mental distress, I do believe he may need help to cope with his mental distress. If a man isn’t experiencing any distress as a consequence of believing himself to be a woman, then I don’t imagine he needs help, he’s harmless.

I don’t think the rights of people who are transgender inherently supersede other rights, but there are circumstances where a balancing act of rights means that depending upon what rights are in conflict, the right to protection from discrimination of a person who is transgender may well supersede another person’s rights, or they may not. The case of Freddie McConnell is a good example -


Transgender man loses appeal court battle to be registered as father

ingalway wrote: »

Does the fact that signing a gender recognition form make it more legitimate? No surgery, no hormones, no therapy, just a 2 page form and you are truly now a woman but a woman who believes she identifies more as a black woman is the one who needs help? I don't see how one is ok for you but the other, that requires no make believe change of biological reality, is not.

In terms of their rights? Yes, of course a GRC makes their belief absolutely legitimate as it affords a person recognition in law as their preferred gender, which will of course determine what rights they are entitled to, or what protection from discrimination they are entitled to. The GRC is the only thing which makes a difference. Without it they can be gussied up like Tootsie and it still doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t matter in law.

Surgery, hormones and therapy are not a requirement, because making them a requirement of obtaining a GRC is not only considered unethical, but it’s generally not a good idea to force people to undergo any form of medical or surgical procedures against their will.

Sweden for example, a country long regarded as a shining beacon of gender equality in Europe, only decided to rescind the practice of mandatory sterilisation to qualify for gender reassignment surgery in 2012 -


Compulsory sterilisation in Sweden

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s two things which I have to answer separately - I do believe that any man can self identify as a woman, because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there are men who self identify themselves as women. I don’t believe that a man can change their sex, because there is no evidence for that particular phenomenon whatsoever.

Depending upon the degree to which his beliefs might cause him a degree of mental distress, I do believe he may need help to cope with his mental distress. If a man isn’t experiencing any distress as a consequence of believing himself to be a woman, then I don’t imagine he needs help, he’s harmless.

I don’t think the rights of people who are transgender inherently supersede other rights, but there are circumstances where a balancing act of rights means that depending upon what rights are in conflict, the right to protection from discrimination of a person who is transgender may well supersede another person’s rights, or they may not. The case of Freddie McConnell is a good example -

Transgender man loses appeal court battle to be registered as father

In terms of their rights? Yes, of course a GRC makes their belief absolutely legitimate as it affords a person recognition in law as their preferred gender, which will of course determine what rights they are entitled to, or what protection from discrimination they are entitled to. The GRC is the only thing which makes a difference. Without it they can be gussied up like Tootsie and it still doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t matter in law.

Surgery, hormones and therapy are not a requirement, because making them a requirement of obtaining a GRC is not only considered unethical, but it’s generally not a good idea to force people to undergo any form of medical or surgical procedures against their will.

Sweden for example, a country long regarded as a shining beacon of gender equality in Europe, only decided to rescind the practice of mandatory sterilisation to qualify for gender reassignment surgery in 2012 -


Compulsory sterilisation in Sweden

Sweden are starting to ask serious questions about the 1,500% increase in trans identification

Surgery, hormones and therapy are not a requirement, because making them a requirement of obtaining a GRC is not only considered unethical, but it’s generally not a good idea to force people to undergo any form of medical or surgical procedures against their will.

The trans lobby have fought very hard to normalise the use of puberty blockers for children. The arguments being they are reversible, they only pause puberty, children who are born in the 'wrong body' should not have to go through the 'wrong' puberty. These dangerous claims are being backtracked on big time now with many allies distancing themselves from the likes of Mermaids and Tavistock.

If a man isn’t experiencing any distress as a consequence of believing himself to be a woman, then I don’t imagine he needs help, he’s harmless.

I don't really care whether he truly believes himself to be a woman. What I do care about is that once he says he is then he can freely access single sex spaces - women’s and girl’s toilets, showering areas, changing rooms, dorms, hospital wards, rape shelters. So no, I don't believe for one second that all of these men who tell us they are women, and who we cannot challenge without being called bigots, terfs, transphobes, are harmless. It does not take long to turn up men who are blatantly exploiting this and are a significant danger to women and girls. You seem to have no concern whatsoever for women’s rights to single sex spaces and their safety, you only care about what is best for these trans identifying males.

I don’t believe that a man can change their sex, because there is no evidence for that particular phenomenon whatsoever.

So you don't believe that Trans Women are Women then? You would say that Trans Women are Trans Women? You do realise that is a cardinal sin in the cult of trans?

Justin Credible Darts

RWCNT wrote: »

There's a lot of sub-issues that have been discussed as is common in an extremely long thread, you have to be aware of that or you have chosen to ignore it. I'm responding directly to the point made in the post I quoted, which runs counter to the point I've made - so clearly not everyone does accept that.

Wrong, the thread was about trans women and biology.
How trans women think they are real women and how people like JK Rowling defended a real woman.


The clue is in the name of the thread.

Tired Gardener

RWCNT wrote: »

"All you see now"? How many trans women do you come across in your day to day life? Where are you seeing them exactly?

I live in a University city and I see masses of young women dolled up to the nines all over the place on a regular basis. That's their prerogative, they're adults and can dress how they like - wouldn't you agree? I'd never dream to make such a daft generalisation that "all i see" are people dressed up in such and such a way, or that there's something wrong with it.

Trans people I've known personally present themselves in as many different ways as anyone else I know.

Of all the 7 Transgender folk I have known over the years, only 2 of them dressed to provoke and gain attention, but those two had other 'issues' shall we say. The rest just wore clothes that were appropriate for the environment they were in... which I think is the only real rule that should be applied to clothes. Dress appropriate to the environment, no good turning up to work in a hospital in motorbike leathers, no good exploring the artic circle in a pair of speedos, etc.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Sweden are starting to ask serious questions about the 1,500% increase in trans identification

The 1500% figure represents just the rise in the number of teenage girls, the rise among males 18-24 is 400% over the same ten year period. My own theory on the rising rates in teenagers presenting as transgender is that similar to the way in which they have broadened the criteria for a diagnosis of autism, they have broadened the criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The growing acceptance and embracing even of transgender ideology is undoubtedly also an influential factor as while those are the numbers presenting at clinics and being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they don’t appear to take account of the numbers of teenagers who are claiming to be transgender and arguing that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is not necessary to self-identify themselves as transgender. I ask plenty of questions too tbh -


Not All Transgender People Have Dysphoria – And Here Are 6 Reasons Why That Matters


So too does Prof. Donal O Shea, the Irish consultant endocrinologist at St. Vincent’s and St. Columcille’s hospitals -


Sex-change specialist warns of surgery regrets as two Irish people reverse procedure


I’d love if medicine were an exact science, but it’s not, and nobody can offer any guarantees of outcomes. There are very few rogue clinicians by comparison to the number of clinicians who are trying to do their best for their patients and see that they receive the best of care. The idea that they are being shunted over to the Tavistock and diagnosed on a whim, then put on hormones blockers and sex hormones is something of a myth that got some serious legs, perpetuated among the general public by fear, not facts.

ingalway wrote: »

The trans lobby have fought very hard to normalise the use of puberty blockers for children. The arguments being they are reversible, they only pause puberty, children who are born in the 'wrong body' should not have to go through the 'wrong' puberty. These dangerous claims are being backtracked on big time now with many allies distancing themselves from the likes of Mermaids and Tavistock.

Ahh look I’m not going to be smart about it or anything, but just like most adults don’t actually care about the science, neither do children, and they sure as hell don’t care where they’re ordering their hormones from. We’re waaaay past the idea of lobby groups deciding what is or isn’t in children’s best interests when the children themselves are deciding what’s in their own best interests. A quick google search will throw up a couple of places selling hormones online and offering advice on how to self-medicate to avoid “gatekeeping doctors”. I won’t link for the simple reason it might be construed as medical advice. Essentially, the adults, and the law, are playing catch-up, and like JK, they ain’t even in the ha’penny place when it comes to this stuff.

ingalway wrote: »

I don't really care whether he truly believes himself to be a woman. What I do care about is that once he says he is then he can freely access single sex spaces - women’s and girl’s toilets, showering areas, changing rooms, dorms, hospital wards, rape shelters. So no, I don't believe for one second that all of these men who tell us they are women, and who we cannot challenge without being called bigots, terfs, transphobes, are harmless. It does not take long to turn up men who are blatantly exploiting this and are a significant danger to women and girls. You seem to have no concern whatsoever for women’s rights to single sex spaces and their safety, you only care about what is best for these trans identifying males.

I would ask that you wouldn’t mistake my apathy for hyperbolic nonsense with the idea that I don’t care about women or women’s rights or welfare. I don’t care that he says he’s a woman either, but knowing what I do actually know about women’s shelters and “homeless hubs” and SATU centres in Ireland (there are only six SATU centres in Ireland, which cater to both men and women over 14 years of age), you’re way off the mark. I’m simply not going to entertain ideas that a man, and a man who is a sexual predator, are one and the same as though they present an equal danger to girls and women, or young boys present as a danger to young girls or women simply by virtue of being male.

Frankly it reminds me of being in the schoolyard nearly 30 years ago as a teenager and there were a few gay lads in the school, other lads would proclaim “arses to the wall lads” and sometimes even purposely try and get a rise out of the lads, visibly offended in some cases upon realising that just because a lad was gay, doesn’t mean they fancy every lad, or that the lads were actually ever in any danger of being raped. It was a shìtty thing for those lads then, and it’s a shìtty thing to assume of any man now.

I’m not for one minute saying you can’t or shouldn’t challenge being called a terf, bigot, transphobe or whatever other godawful nonsense people who want to get a rise out of you will call you, but maybe I’m just used to it at this stage that it’s water off a ducks back.

ingalway wrote: »

So you don't believe that Trans Women are Women then? You would say that Trans Women are Trans Women? You do realise that is a cardinal sin in the cult of trans?

I’d say that women are women, and men are men, I don’t even bother with the ‘trans’, because while I might be visually impaired, I haven’t gone completely blind, I know a woman when I meet one and I don’t need to rely on science to inform my perception. I don’t imagine it actually IS a cardinal sin in the cult of trans because from my experiences of people who are transgender, they’re just not so precious or one dimensional as the pronoun police. They have many more ways in which they wreck my bulb and being transgender was never one of them. Over 20 years ago I can still remember getting into an argument with a mate because I told him his makeup looked shìte and he wouldn’t let me fix it up for him. I still feel bad for calling him a little bitch, even though he took it as me seeing him as a woman. I figured it best not to make him feel like complete ****e by telling him that’s not quite how I meant it!

political analyst

Please try to look past the fact that this article is from Gript.

https://gript.ie/are-trans-rights-taking-priority-over-womens-safety/

The Law Society Gazette recently reported on a new phenomenon in Irish jails, where “male-bodied” prisoners can now be housed with women – even when said prisoners have a record of sexual assault against women.

There hasn’t been a peep from Irish feminists about this. Clearly the new obsession with trans rights now takes priority over the safety of women.

Criminal defence lawyer Robert Purcell told the Gazette that the 2015 Gender Recognition Act – which was passed, as I remember it, without any real public debate or discussion, has created “an impossible position” with regard to transgender prisoners.

‘Purcell believes there is, potentially, a safety issue for women inmates housed alongside a male-bodied prisoner,’ the Gazette reports.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The question is, why are we relying on feckin’ Gript to highlight this stuff?

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The question is, why are we relying on feckin’ Gript to highlight this stuff?

It is the same with a lot of issues. The so called mainstream media do not seem to handle stuff they think goes against some kind of progressiveness, though that is a stupid term. Don't know what other word to use. I can hardly bear to listen to news these last few years and I quit all newspapers - there is always an element of spin involved. I used to love getting the Irish Times on Saturday and the Observer on a Sunday for a big weekend read. But no more. There is so much of what feels like indoctrination. Even the radio adverts annoy me though! The projection of how it is to be a proper human and how to live well, all wrapped up in constant consumerism. I am very jaundiced maybe.

RWCNT

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Wrong, the thread was about trans women and biology.
How trans women think they are real women and how people like JK Rowling defended a real woman.


The clue is in the name of the thread.

Imagine a 370 page thread occasionally straying from the premise of it's first post and thread title and related topics being discussed, absolutely unthinkable :rolleyes: The comment I was responding to is right there in the original post from me you quoted- you can read back if you want? The poster even responded to me (and I assume the others that weighed in) saying they disagreed and expanded on their ideas. Almost like a discussion.

If you feel I'm dragging the thread so far off topic please feel free to report. Otherwise, have a good one.

Tired Gardener

JK Rowling says she thinks sex is real and that Women menstruate. Receives death, and rape threats, has an online backlash... which doesn't stop her latest book selling like hot cakes.

World Rugby has recently confirmed their proposals to stop most trans women playing in competitions.

I wonder if those who work for World Rugby will receive death, and rape threats? I mean, what they have done is an actual barrier to transwomen, not just a view... so surely it would be more 'deserving of a vocal out rage..

ingalway

Tired Gardener wrote: »

JK Rowling says she thinks sex is real and that Women menstruate. Receives death, and rape threats, has an online backlash... which doesn't stop her latest book selling like hot cakes.

World Rugby has recently confirmed their proposals to stop most trans women playing in competitions.

I wonder if those who work for World Rugby will receive death, and rape threats? I mean, what they have done is an actual barrier to transwomen, not just a view... so surely it would be more 'deserving of a vocal out rage..

I'll do my best to describe the difference without offending any prostate havers; World Rugby is run by men and JK Rowling is a person with a cervix, formely known as a woman. I hope this is clear.

suicide_circus

Tired Gardener wrote: »

JK Rowling says she thinks sex is real and that Women menstruate. Receives death, and rape threats, has an online backlash... which doesn't stop her latest book selling like hot cakes.

World Rugby has recently confirmed their proposals to stop most trans women playing in competitions.

I wonder if those who work for World Rugby will receive death, and rape threats? I mean, what they have done is an actual barrier to transwomen, not just a view... so surely it would be more 'deserving of a vocal out rage..

Girldick-having-cervix-not-havers probably have bad memories of receiving wedgies from the type of prostate-havers who play rugby

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

I'll do my best to describe the difference without offending any prostate havers; World Rugby is run by men and JK Rowling is a person with a cervix, formely known as a woman. I hope this is clear.

Reminded me of this -


If I remember correctly and according to the presentation that you shared on one, or probably all, of the ISSWSH meetings, the female analogous organ to the male prostate was not just the Skene and peri-urethral glands, but also the vestibular glands scattered around the vestibule area. I hope I did not get that wrong!!

As a male, it does not offend me to use the term female prostate, yet that being said I think the term serves a purpose far beyond naming an organ that already has a name. The term “prostate” was more so to stress on the organs’ thirst for testosterone for proper function and health. Stressing on this homology helps providers and patients who might be skeptic with the treatment options that entail prescribing Male Hormones to Female patients.

If men would accept calling their testicles the Male Ovaries or penis: the Male Clitoris then women should be ok with calling their Skene’s Glands Female prostates or Ovaries the Female Testicles. The name calling does not sound right and I can understand the urogynecologist’s concern and see where she/he is coming from.

I do believe there is a lot to blame on the original sin of calling Testosterone the :Male hormone and Estrogen the Female hormone. These are just hormones and are present in both sexes and serve their purpose.

With continued resistance to assimilate the use of androgens in treatment of female sexual pain and sexual dysfunction when indicated, I find myself obliged to use the term Female Prostate with patients to help them understand how androgen use can help their symptoms. Not because I think the term female prostate is appropriate, but more so because its the closest functional descriptor I can use to-date.


The Female Prostate: Fact or Fiction?

LLMMLL

Tired Gardener wrote: »

JK Rowling says she thinks sex is real and that Women menstruate. Receives death, and rape threats, has an online backlash... which doesn't stop her latest book selling like hot cakes.

World Rugby has recently confirmed their proposals to stop most trans women playing in competitions.

I wonder if those who work for World Rugby will receive death, and rape threats? I mean, what they have done is an actual barrier to transwomen, not just a view... so surely it would be more 'deserving of a vocal out rage..

Didn't world rugby pretty much say that clubs below national level could make their own rules?