This Is Getting Out Of Hand.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1395811/Piers-Morgan-NHS-midwives-transgender-chestfeeding-breastfeeding-GMB-video
Mother = Birthing parent! Breast feeding = Chest feeding! For gawds sake how far are we expected to go to accommodate these people?

[Ellipsis]

> When caring for women it is good practice to use terminology that is meaningful and appropriate to the individual; this may include terms such as woman, mother or breastfeeding.

Happy now? Or do you want to change the "may" to "must"?

[pixie374]

Cismen, ttt.... it means you are male and never do anything typically "female".
This will be controversial... but in my view, everyone is technically "transgender". I don't know anyone who always follows their sex rules without fail. It also changes over time.

[Mozz71]

Tora. Yup, CIS is applied to both sexes.

Someone using the term just means you're talking exclusively about non-trans/gender fluid folk. It's no different (in my eyes) than talking about straight people.

[ToraToraTora]

pixie: "This will be controversial... but in my view, everyone is technically "transgender". I don't know anyone who always follows their sex rules without fail. It also changes over time. " - perhaps but we don't go around wanting everything redefined to accommodate our TG tendencies.

[ToraToraTora]

mozz: "Someone using the term just means you're talking exclusively about non-trans/gender fluid folk. " - but surely that must be the default, ie 99% of people??

[pixie374]

Because nobody needs to, ttt. We are advanced enough now to accept that a man might sometimes cross his legs, wear a dress... a woman might wear boots and like cars. Nobody else really cares.

[Ellipsis]

> Why do you need a word anyway? If you're not a 'trans' woman you are a woman.

Normally you don't need a word, but if you're writing a big, formal document about how trans women may be treated differently (such as the document the quote comes from), it can be helpful to have a word that clearly differentiates a woman as non-trans.

[pixie374]

How about.... "woman". If you want accuracy?

[Jackdaw33]

So what's wrong with 'normal', then?

[ToraToraTora]

ellipsis: "Normally you don't need a word, but if you're writing a big, formal document about how trans women may be treated differently (such as the document the quote comes from), it can be helpful to have a word that clearly differentiates a woman as non-trans. " you mean like "man"?

[jim360]

// The term ‘cis woman’ is not meaningful to me. That’s a label that’s been applied to me without consultation and without my consent by people who don’t know their proverbial *** from their elbow! That offends me so I would expect Jim to fight my corner here. //

I promise never to call you personally a cis woman, Naomi, and always a woman. I trust that you'll understand if I use the term in more general conversation; that is, if I'm not talking to or addressing you personally.

[pixie374]

It doesn't apply to anyone, Jim. It's only a word for transgender people to use. A woman, is a woman.

[naomi24]

No, I won't understand, Jim. If people want to be labelled that's their choice - not yours.

[jim360]

// Jim: // Who knows? But, more to the point, why does it matter? Their body, their choice. //

Because it's illogical Captain.

As to rights, no I will not stand up for a group which seeks to trample on the hard-won rights of another group to achieve its aims. Why do their 'rights' trump mine and those of all women? //

To the first, there is no requirement of humans to act logically, so it matters not a jot whether it's "logical", objectively or in your assessment, for a trans man to seek to fall pregnant. And, besides, once they are pregnant, it is still the duty of the State (or, at the very least, any hospital) to provide appropriate medical care for them and their baby, free of moral judgement.

To the second: that isn't what is happening here. Your rights are not being trampled on, certainly not by this document, which, as the text makes clear, seeks to reaffirm them. Your identity is not erased or diminished because somebody else's is acknowledged. Your rights are not abrogated by granting them to, or reaffirming their applicability to, somebody else.

[jim360]

That's fine, you don't have to understand.

[Chinajan]

Cop-out jim360. How would you feel being referred to as a sub-division of your own sex?

And while I'm on, ask yourself why trans activists campaign so vigorously for access to women-only spaces rather than for their own separate spaces? Could it possibly be that they are seeking unfettered access to women who might be vulnerable, naked...?

[pixie374]

Rubbish, Jim. And you know that, you are being very disingenuous here. Women are being pushed aside, in healthcare, language, rights etc.
I have no objections with transpeople moving forwards, but just now, they are trying to replace female rights instead.
As with a lot of things, this will only be resolved with discussion and compromise. I'm sure you understand though, that women have fought for too long to give in now. Maybe, men need to do the same?

[jim360]

It's hard to know how even to respond to that last point of China's. It's offensive to suggest that the existence of, or validation of, trans people is, in essence, a mere front for perverts.

[New Judge]

I know you said this does not go against the needs of patients, Jim. But in one important aspect, it does.

This paper is 19 pages long and involved at least 26 people in its production (apart from the various scribes and so on involved simply in the production process). Some of the 26 appear to be transgender activists or “experts” in that very limited field. But many of them are medics whose time could be better spent healing the sick or helping women with their maternity problems.

This paper has nothing to do with “rights”. It is to do purely with the language used when addressing the miniscule number of patients who may be transgender and involved in childbirth. I’ve read much of it (until I became bored with its tedium) and quite frankly it is nineteen pages of unadulterated drivel. In is mainly bureaucratic claptrap which adds nothing to the effective care and wellbeing of patients. The NHS is in the middle of one of its most challenging times ever. It is bleating about how its staff are exhausted and the system is close to collapse. Yet it has the resources to produce a nineteen-page document which aims to tell staff to use neutral terms when addressing a person who has just given birth and to use plural pronouns when addressing or referring to a single person.

You can rest assured that this procedure will not be confined to Brighton. I imagine that many other Health Trusts are busy, even as we speak, producing their own versions (each involving another 26 authors and reviewers). Those documents will no doubt become compulsory reading for many front-line health workers. It is a perfect demonstration of why the NHS needs complete reform because if it hasn’t got the resources to treat sick patients it should not have the resources needed to produce this nonsense.

[pixie374]

Not all, Jim..... but it obviously puts us at risk of some. Anyone who truly identifies as a woman would already know that.
Is there any reason, why a man wearing a dress, for instance, shouldn't be able to use male spaces? If they are worried about their own safety, why do you think we shouldn't be?