Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Over the past decade, there's been a concerted push from activists for transgender privileges to systematically dismantle language that is specific to the female sex. Things like:

• replacing mother with birthing parent or gestational parent
• replacing breastfeeding with chestfeeding
• replacing the word woman with person with a cervix, womb-haver, people with uteruses, menstruators, bleeders, breeders, and other dehumanizing language

...OK, you do understand that all those replacement words were fot the benefit of transmen, right? Or in your terms, for biological women?

• expanding the word woman to include males by default

I don't think that is true.

You know what has NOT been pushed? The same sort of dehumanizing, degrading, reduction to bodily functions when it comes to males. There has NOT been a push to replace father with inseminating parent, or to refer to men as sperm producers or prostate owners or people with a vas deferens or ejaculators or anything remotely similar. There've been instances of magazines putting out articles in the same periodical, in the same *week* where one addressed "people with cervixes" needing to get screened for cancer

...right. Again. that's not taking away from women when it is the women pushing for the terminology.

and another saying that "men" need to get prostate screenings, and similar sorts of disparities.

Ok not to get all technical on you but men getting prostrate screenings is not actually a bad idea. Not something to blame on da trans, anyway.

At the end of the day, the words related to specifically female experiences have been abused and stretched beyond recognition... but the words related to specifically male experiences have remained intact.

So tell me how females aren't having anything taken away and I'm overreacting again...

 

[Thermal]

1) For like the fiftieth time, please stop using derogatory language in reference to people with transgender identities. I've asked you to stop using slurs multiple times now, and you keep doing it. You might think that because you're shoving those terms into someone else's mouth that makes it okay, and it really doesn't - that just makes it doubly offensive.

And I've noted that you and the Basher Brigade use 'trans identifying males', which is a non-negotiably offensive and derogatory term.

You get that, right? It ain't your call if others find that offensive. No matter what half assed justification for it you try to cook up, it's a slur. You are knowingly and willfully using derogatory language. So take your sanctimonious bull ◊◊◊◊ and shove it.

2) Once again, you're talking your way around to a position where you're arguing AGAINST females having single-sex spaces that exclude males.

I am not, for the same reasons i have spelled out for you a dozen times already, which you will ignore and repeat the accusation a couple pages later, as you just did above.

 

[smartcooky]

I actually had a row with Novella. He's one of those people who thinks because he's an expert in something he's obviously going to be an expert in everything else , and he isn't afraid to trample all over scientific consensus that's stacked against his biased garbage. Another is Richard Carrier, with whom I also had a row.

Indeed. There are several well known quotes related to this, some from eminent scientists, some from not-so-eminent scientists, and some from people who are not scientists at all!

Biochemist Erwin Chargaff said that "Outside his own ever-narrowing field of specialization, a scientist is a layman".
Canadian philosopher Herbert Marshall McLuhan said "The scientist rigorously defends his right to be ignorant of almost everything except his specialty", and the great Richard Feynman... "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy".

But the pick of the bunch has to be from the American philosopher, diplomat, and educator, Nicholas Butler... "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing".

 

[smartcooky]

...OK, you do understand that all those replacement words were fot the benefit of transmen, right? Or in your terms, for biological women?

And why would that make any difference?

I don't think that is true.

Well you are wrong, and you clearly haven't being paying close enough attention.

The term "transwomen" includes "women", but "transwomen" are in fact transgender identifying males.

Further, TRAs claim the correct term in "trans woman"... TWO words so that they further claim that a male can beome a woman just on their own say-so.

...right. Again. that's not taking away from women when it is the women pushing for the terminology.

Utter Bollocks

Ok not to get all technical on you but men getting prostrate screenings is not actually a bad idea. Not something to blame on da trans, anyway.

Err what?

 

[smartcooky]

And I've noted that you and the Basher Brigade use 'trans identifying males', which is a non-negotiably offensive and derogatory term.

Point 1: No-one here is a member of your imagined "basher brigade".

Point 2: You don't get to decide what is negotiable and non-negotiable.

Point 3: You dont get to decide what I find offensive.

The term "transgender identifying male" is the ONLY term for a so-called "transwoman" that expresses observable, objective, scientific reality. All three words represent reality, and therefore I will continue to use it (and I can tell you its use is growing). If you find it offensive, tough titty... and I donlt give a fat rat's arse if other TRA's find it offensive.

The term "transwoman" (or "trans woman") is half truth, and half-lie. They are not women, they are men. I consider the terms "transwoman", "trans woman", "transman" and "trans man" to all be slurs against my strongly held belief that scientific truth ought to be inviolate.

You get that, right? It ain't your call if others find that offensive. No matter what half assed justification for it you try to cook up, it's a slur. You are knowingly and willfully using derogatory language. So take your sanctimonious bull ◊◊◊◊ and shove it.

Right back at ya Scooter!!

 

[smartcooky]

John Money: The Monster Behind Gender Theory, and the Atrocious Lie He Based It On

Watch as Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Dr. Miriam Grossman walk us through the horrific true story behind the Reimer twins. The atrocity of their upbringing, branded as a successful experiment by Dr. John Money, was used as the bedrock of gender and identity ideology that has captured the western world today.

WARNING: Some of the descriptions might be disturbing for some people.


TRAs and their sycophants try to pretend all this never happened.

A lot of people don't like Jordan Peterson, but I do like that he allows the person he is interviewing to speak virtually without interruption

 

[John Freestone]

• replacing mother with birthing parent or gestational parent
• replacing breastfeeding with chestfeeding
• replacing the word woman with person with a cervix, womb-haver, people with uteruses, menstruators, bleeders, breeders, and other dehumanizing language
• expanding the word woman to include males by default

OK, you do understand that all those replacement words were fot the benefit of transmen

I for one don't. It'll be fun watching you explain it. Mind you don't electrocute your brain with all those crossed wires.

 

[p0lka]

The highlighted parts of @Emily's Cat's post that I was responding to...

Post in thread 'Transwomen are not Women - Part 15'

Jan 23, 2026

I'm not hearing similar indignation about transmen taking "men's words"? While we're at it, imma throw a fit because 'human' and 'woman' and 'mankind' stole our special word. Hey, you stole the 'male' to use in 'female'.Where's my clutching pearls?

EC, you're not 'giving up' anything, or having anything taken away from you. This is ridiculous.

Over the past decade, there's been a concerted push from activists for transgender privileges to systematically dismantle language that is specific to the female sex. Things like:

• replacing mother with birthing parent or gestational...

• Emily's Cat

• 

yeah, those are FACTS chum!

... as are the bullet points above that...



Oh, you don't think so? Read on MacDuff...

Brighton NHS Trust introduces new trans-friendly terms

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust said it won't exclude "the language of motherhood".

www.bbc.com

Top Australian university urges staff to say 'chestfeeding'

Australia's leading uni has asked staff to adopt 'gender-inclusive' parenting language.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Hospital to use terms like 'birthing parents' and 'human milk'

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust unveiled a blizzard of 'gender inclusive' phrases in a drive to stamp out 'mainstream transphobia'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There has even been a BBC Newsreader (Martine Croxall) who was censured, by the BBC for using the correct term for women... "women" instead of what her auto-prompter script said... "pregnant people"

BBC Rebukes Presenter Martine Croxall After Viewers Complained About Her Facial Expression When She Corrected “Pregnant People” To “Women”

The BBC has censured news presenter Martine Croxall after she went viral for changing her autocue from “pregnant people” to “women.”

deadline.com

This is part of the sinister methodology by which gender ideologues have infiltrated and insinuated their ideology into society - by subverting speech to their own ends and punishing those in positions of influence who do not comply with the Doctrine of the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology. This incident demonstrates as clearly as is possible, the extent to which the ideologically captured BBC has fallen down the transgenderism rabbit hole - censuring one of their top newsreaders for speaking biological truth!

Thanks for the reply. Your links refer to non sensible positions that I think are caused by the very mixing of gender and sex together that I oppose.

You're against separating gender from sex, yet hate the consequences of society not separating gender from sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're against separating gender from sex, yet hate the consequences of society not separating gender from sex.

Society did separate gender from sex. That wasn't really the problem, though. The problem is the prioritization of gender over sex. That's where we have really gotten into trouble.

 

[p0lka]

I agree, so long as they make it clear up front to their clients and members - something like...

"This is a transgender inclusive facility - this means areas are segregated in the basis of gender identity. Clients should be aware they are likely to encounter members of the opposite biological sex in their gender segregated areas"

Then people can vote with their feet, and most women will!

What I object to is laws making it illegal for the owners/operators of such facilities to segregate on the basis of biological sex.

I just saw this and agree mostly with your idea. I would have sex segregated spaces, but with the ability to put up a gender welcome sign as you suggested on top of that if wanted. Then just see how society takes it.

 

[p0lka]

Society did separate gender from sex. That wasn't really the problem, though. The problem is the prioritization of gender over sex. That's where we have really gotten into trouble.

When did society separate gender from sex as I don't see it? Laws and rules and what not haven't done it which is why it's a big issue.

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks for the reply. Your links refer to non sensible positions that I think are caused by the very mixing of gender and sex together that I oppose.

You're against separating gender from sex, yet hate the consequences of society not separating gender from sex.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Those non-sensible positions are a consequence of separating sex and gender. They are only possible because their holders are using a meaning of gender that is different from that of sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

When did society separate gender from sex as I don't see it? Laws and rules and what not haven't done it which is why it's a big issue.

Every law or rule which provides access to women's spaces, sports, etc. on the basis of gender instead of sex separates gender from sex. Do you really need examples of such laws and rules? They abound.

 

[p0lka]

Quite the opposite in fact.

Those non-sensible positions are a consequence of separating sex and gender.

They're not.

They are only possible because their holders are using a meaning of gender that is different from that of sex.

The holders are using a meaning of gender that is different from that of sex, then immediately circling back to mix them together again to argue a position. It's kinda like a loophole in present society and separating them would solve it.

 

[Aber]

The holders are using a meaning of gender that is different from that of sex, then immediately circling back to mix them together again to argue a position. It's kinda like a loophole in present society and separating them would solve it.

It's not accidental, it's a deliberate choice; how do you propose changing the rules against active opposition?

 

[p0lka]

Every law or rule which provides access to women's spaces, sports, etc. on the basis of gender instead of sex separates gender from sex. Do you really need examples of such laws and rules? They abound.

No, the laws and rules worked under the assumption that gender and sex were equivalent. So womans sports would only have females and mens sports would only have males.
The reason why everyone is arguing is that the laws and rules assumed gender = sex, yet you're telling me they separated it?

 

[p0lka]

offtopic: My mum sent me this

 

[Ziggurat]

No, the laws and rules worked under the assumption that gender and sex were equivalent.

That may be true about old laws and rules. That's explicitly not true about new laws which specify gender identity.

Were you not aware that there were such laws?

The reason why everyone is arguing is that the laws and rules assumed gender = sex,

A lot of old laws did, yes.

yet you're telling me they separated it?

Of course they separated it. That's how they twisted those old laws to justify their position. Had gender and sex remained synonymous, they wouldn't have been able to do that.

Moreover, again, some new laws explicitly define gender as something other than sex.

You keep finding new ways to be wrong.

 

[John Freestone]

Thanks for the reply. Your links refer to non sensible positions that I think are caused by the very mixing of gender and sex together that I oppose.

No, they're not. If gender and sex meant the same to those concerned, there would be no demand to change "mother" to "birthing parent", since all birthing parents would be understood to be mothers (as indeed they are and we all know they are, and as they have been described since the word entered the English language). No one would have the ridiculous expectation that a man would try to nurse a baby on his chest, so no one would replace "breastfeeding" with "chestfeeding" - even more idiotic because men have breasts anyway, and are diagnosed with "breast cancer" not "chest cancer". Etc. You have it entirely backwards. The gender cult has hypnotised you.

 

[d4m10n]

And there's a sort of privilege to being able to be indifferent about whether spaces are segregated by sex or by self-ID gender.

I believe that's called "male privilege" in this particular case, since non-trans men are generally unthreatened by trans men in their spaces.

Whether or not particular choices should be compelled by law is different from whether or not those choices have a moral dimension, or even whether or not there's a right choice and a wrong choice.

I don't believe you (or anyone here) has made the case that there is a universal "wrong choice" when it comes to public accommodations offering sexed or gendered services. You have at best made the case that many people would greatly prefer to have those services offered by sex, and that they deserve to have their preferences taken into account enough to have services made available to them. There is a huge difference between having at least some gyms or spas or pools which offer single-sex spaces and forcing every gym or spa or pool offer them.

Choosing an answer that does more harm with less benefit is morally wrong.

Totalitarianism is the notion that it is the government's proper role to make all of us moral in all things.

I'm not a huge fan of smoke-filled dive bars; these days I'd much rather enjoy a nice smoke-free hipster bar with bougie cocktails for the wife. That said, I do not support efforts to eliminate the older bars, because I understand that people other than myself greatly prefer the old ways and should be free to make their own unhealthy decisions. I appreciate that our teetotaling Mormon friends are not campaigning to get all bars shut down because they believe—perhaps correctly—that drinking alcohol generally does more harm than good.

Requiring every gym, spa, pool, & public bathroom to adopt the same government-approved solution causes harm to those who'd be more comfortable with an alternative solution and eliminates any benefits which flow from an alternative solution. For some reason this problem is only obvious to people whenever they end up on the losing side of a politicized debate.

I get that sometimes the government has to take a side (e.g. armed service eligibility) but many of the issues we've debated here would be better left to free minds and free markets than to government bureaucrats and lawyers.