you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NecessaryScene1 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yet something like 98% of all people with a cervix think of themselves as women.

And the vast majority of the remaining 2% know that they're really women, so would only be "excluding" themselves if they chose to ignore health advice for women.

Statistically, it is utterly crucial to concentrate the messaging clearly towards women. Even cluttering it with a load of "and transmen and non-binaries and otherkin" etc could statistically do more harm than good overall, by distracting from the core, inclusive "all women" point.

People choosing to go down the path of biology denial and their organisations have to take responsibility of targetting specific information tailored to them and their delusions - it's not a good outcome to cause overall harm by making them the focus of general messaging.

How hard would it be to repeatedly make clear (as was historically the case) to them - "the medication you are taking does not actually change your sex - unless specifically advised otherwise all general medical advice for women continues to apply to you".

[–]sisterinsomnia[S] 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am extremely angry that this development is sold as inclusiveness. My own gender identity is that I am a woman because I am female, i.e, because I have a female body, and that body affects my life as well as the way others treat me.

So when the inclusionists use terms such as 'menstruating people' my gender identity gets slapped on its face and invalidated. But this must not happen to those whose identities require that the body not be mentioned. There is a clear clash of rights and one size, the one with lots more people, is expected to lie down and identify as a silent door mat. Because of #nodebate.