Agreed. But it’s also correct to say that a cervix isn’t exclusive to women as some trans men have them too.
They are for all purposes a female.
They can identify as male if they want and that is what they feel they are, but biologically they have female reproductive organs. Like it or not, thats what cards they were delt when they were born.
Put it this way. Some trans men have a cervix because they used to be a woman.
I think that makes it clearer if you’re not going to distinguish between being female and being a woman.
Also can’t an approximation of a cervix be created surgically?
You mean for trans women? I think most trans women would think of themselves as women, wouldn’t they? Dunno.
I think I see where you are coming from on this Mascot. Are you suggesting that provided she has had all the anatomical changes, you think a trans woman should be considered both a woman and female. Are uturus transplants in transgender women a thing yet?
I think anybody saying ‘oh you are a trans woman but actually male’ is probably doing so just to make a point or to try to piss off the person in question.
I suppose if you are anatomically identical to a woman you would be a female. Born male, identifying as a woman and also female. But can you draw a line? A woman without any uterus transplant? Could they be considered female? Probably not.
Is there any need to label a transgender woman as male or female at all after their surgery? Probably only for healthcare where there needs to be distinctions for different screenings for example. But certainly I don’t think it’s necessary in any other part of life.
Shocking to see the Labour party conference degenerate into petty squabbles between a knight of the realm and a self-described “soft-left” ginger woman whose only credential seems to be the unfortunate fact she was born in Stockport.
Lucky nobody pays any attention to Labour these days, otherwise it’d be fucking embarrassing.
Paid no attention to it to be honest but they are in a mess, right at the time when the UK needs a credible opposition more than anytime. There’s naff all they can do in parliament but they should be turning heads to the utter disaster that is being unleashed on the UK from Boris and co.
2 Likes
You’re not missing anything. Labour is more enabler than opposition at this point.
Yeah. It’s frustrating because they have some good people but I do wonder if they are trying to appeal to too many and not actually appealing to anyone as a result? 
annoyingly I saw a YouGov poll last week that showed 58% though Boris was doing a rubbish job.
The problem is there are a number of conditions where the genitalia of what you associate with male or female, are absent, have both or the opposite to what you would anticipate.
It’s rare but in the region of 0.02% to 0.05% which is still significant. (4000 or so people in the UK). For perspective 0.2% of population identify as transgender.
Whilst tempting to say, many of these are different. Many make a choice. I don’t think it’s so black and white. Sex like other traits like height are governed by 1000s of genes. Instead of simply XY, XX there is more of a spectrum.
A good example of this is someone with XY chromosomes, gave birth to a daughter also with XY chromosomes. That’s highly unusual but it does highlight the spectrum, complexity and difficulties of gender and sex.
If someone has an artificial cervix be it a doctor correcting it at birth defect or gender reassignment later in life I think legally, morally and ethically they deserve to be treated no differently.
Obviously there is a spectrum, but why is a spectrum a problem? I think the entire premise is flawed. That woman won’t feel safe, or those that are transgendered will abuse the system. As if those transgendered are sexual deviants or a risk, or there are lots of examples of people gaming the system.
3 Likes
UK politics - a load of genitalia
2 Likes
Not sure why you’re hating on her so much, she honestly does seem to hold rather well-reasoned views.
Will completely agree about Labour though. As someone who ought to be a natural Labour voter in some ways, they are an absolute disgrace at the moment, the rot starting from the very top. No idea why the likes of Mandelson are given so much free airtime. If Starmer and co’s idea of winning an election involves marginalising the left, then they will soon realise that (a) nobody really wants to vote for Tory-lite when they can just actually vote for the Tories, or worse, the Lib Dems, (b) they’re going to lose much of the youth vote, and most importantly (or at least an actual point) (c), no one wants a leader who can’t even build consensus rather than stamping out any dissent.
Like him or hate him, at least Johnson has gotten the Conservatives solidly behind him on almost every step where it mattered. No doubt they all have their knives ready for the moment push comes to shove, but at least he’s kept them on his side for the most part. Starmer? At a conference when Labour should really be pushing a unified vision for the country and start laying out what they stand for, his main focus seems to be the petty squabbles, trying to get rid of the left. It’s almost as though the Labour right are using him to indulge in petty revenge for the left wanting to have a voice, rather than actually focusing on getting themselves ready to be elected.
Nobody at Labour seems to have learnt any lessons from the last decade or so. Johnson would do well to have elections soon. Doesn’t matter if he’s popular or not, at least he’s not the absolute shambles that is Labour at the moment. Takes quite a lot of effort to be an even more incompetent leader than Johnson, but Starmer is managing to do it at the moment.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t put it as incompetent. More of looking in the wrong direction I think.
To me, he seems to be trying to appeal to the middle ground of the electorate which is what got Blair into power. A couple of years ago I thought that is what Labour needed. Now, I’m not so sure. The Conservatives and hammered the “working classes” so hard of late I do wonder if they really need to be targeting those areas, their traditional vote as it were and building from there?
Are we talking about Rayner here or Duffield?
Starmer disagreed with both with regard to language and views respectively.
1 Like
The problem Labour have got is that they struggling to articulate a vision of what they will be like in Government. ‘We are not the Tories’ really should be enough, with their careering from disaster to disaster, but it clearly isn’t.
2 Likes
My apologies, thought @El-Cuchillero was talking about Rayner. Think Duffield was born in Norwich?
I think what Starmer articulated during his leadership campaign (not that I paid that close attention to it) was a pretty decent vision. Continuity of general philosophy of the predecessor (something that he has completely backtracked on) but with actual competent leadership. I think most polls showed that Labour’s policies were popular, but the leadership was what turned them off, at least in 2019.
It’s a shame that he seems to be adopting the leadership approach and not the policies, instead backtracking on everything, such as the nationalisation of energy companies. And to top it off, he’s contradicting what his own shadow cabinet said at the party conference, not even hours before.
Rayner certainly fits the physical description and place of birth given by @El-Cuchillero but we had been talking about Starmer/Duffield up to that point.
Think @El-Cuchillero was going off on a tangent about the conference in general.
1 Like