Rosie Duffield Lab MP embroiled in transphobia row.

Watch
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 days ago
#21
(Original post by JSG29)
I would presume it could be considered transphobic because it is saying trans men who haven't had a total hysterectomy are women and trans women are not women. Given the struggles the trans community face for recognition, criticising people for being inclusive doesn't seem to be hugely helpful.
I see.

Gender =/= Biological sex. I think we can agree on that.

Female (gender) =/= Woman (biological sex)

Same with male and Man

Transwomen have female gender, but biological sex male.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 days ago
#22
(Original post by JSG29)
I would presume it could be considered transphobic because it is saying trans men who haven't had a total hysterectomy are women and trans women are not women. Given the struggles the trans community face for recognition, criticising people for being inclusive doesn't seem to be hugely helpful.
But that doesnt answer the fact that a man cannot be born with a cervix, it is an immutable biological fact, no?
Critisising who for being 'inclusive' sorry?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 days ago
#23
(Original post by Napp)
But that doesnt answer the fact that a man cannot be born with a cervix, it is an immutable biological fact, no?
Critisising who for being 'inclusive' sorry?
But the statement in question doesn't mention anything about birth.

"individuals with a cervix"
Not
"individuals born with a cervix"
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 days ago
#24
(Original post by Occitanie)
I see.

Gender =/= Biological sex. I think we can agree on that.

Female (gender) =/= Woman (biological sex)

Same with male and Man

Transwomen have female gender, but biological sex male.
In my eyes it's always been the other way around. Woman (gender) and female (sex). You're recorded as male or female sex on a birth certificate, not a man, woman, boy or girl.
2
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 days ago
#25
(Original post by 04MR17)
But the statement in question doesn't mention anything about birth.

"individuals with a cervix"
Not
"individuals born with a cervix"
So a transman (a person who identifies as male, but was born female) would have a cervix because they are biologically female.
1
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 days ago
#26
(Original post by Occitanie)
So a transman (a person who identifies as male, but was born female) would have a cervix because they are biologically female.
If they are an individual with a cervix, the statement can be applied to them. If they are either not an individual, or not in possession of a cervix, then the recommendation to start cancer screenings is not applicable to them.
0
reply
JSG29
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 days ago
#27
(Original post by Napp)
But that doesnt answer the fact that a man cannot be born with a cervix, it is an immutable biological fact, no?
Critisising who for being 'inclusive' sorry?
Apologies, should have been clearer. Piers Morgan (and by extension Duffield) criticising CNN/the American Cancer guidelines for including trans people.
Someone born male does not have a cervix, but a trans man (born female) may have a cervix (depending on whether they have had it removed).

(Original post by Occitanie)
So a transman (a person who identifies as male, but was born female) would have a cervix because they are biologically female.
Yes, unless they have had a total hysterectomy. The point is, the way it was originally worded, i.e. 'individuals with a cervix', was specific and accurate. If you wanted to be equally specific, you might have to write something like 'women, but not transwomen, and transmen who have not had a total hysterectomy'. Clearly it is far quicker to write individuals with a cervix. Sure, you can just write 'women', but then transmen who need the screening may not go for it.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 days ago
#28
So in Liverpool for example, Transmen would go the 'Liverpool Women's Hospital' for cervical work, or is the hospital going to need renaming to be inclusive?
Perhaps the,"Liverpool Women and Transmens Hospital"?
Last edited by Just my opinion; 3 days ago
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 days ago
#29
(Original post by Just my opinion)
So in Liverpool for example, Transmen would go the Liverpool Women's Hospital for cervical work, or is the hospital going to need renaming?
I doubt the New American Cancer society will have had that in mind.
0
reply
Nabu123
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 days ago
#30
Yes its transphobic. Hate crimes against trans people, especially women have been on the rise. Trans people are more likely to be suicidal or depressed, and are more likely to be homeless, due to rhetoric like this. This is especially damaging as it's coming from an mp, basically signalling that it's okay to abuse and deny trans people.

Also the idea that only women can have cervixs is wrong biologically as well, sex isnt binary and there are millions of people who are intersex. She is obviously just spreading hate to deny trans people there rights.
1
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 days ago
#31
Right let's get cracking.

In my personal view, gender identity is not something physical, it is a social and cultural idea. That somebody is a man and is expected to behave in certain ways and look in certain ways and do certain things is all a construction - not biologically engineered - it is learned behaviour. The same can be applied to the idea of womanhood. "Having bigger balls" - an excellent example of a gender construction. These are inventions.

Biologically speaking, to the best of my knowledge there are 3 known forms of sex a person is born as. Male, female and intersex (meaning parts of male and female sex-determining anatomy).

As others have pointed out, the statement in question is correct and perfectly inoffensive. “Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65, with HPV testing every five years.” The only people I can think of who really have any justification to be offended by such a term could be the Siamese community who took issue with the word individuals. Are women individuals? All women I've met do seem to be. And who is their champion against this horrific term "individual"? Piers Morgan. Hoorah.

Piers Morgan, the man offended by the word "individual" describing (you guessed it) individuals!

As for Rosie Duffield, what we have to remember here is that the issue started when she liked a tweet. She didn't use any of her own words, she just liked the tweet from somebody else. If I was facing that criticism for doing so, my response would be "sorry, I pressed like by accident as I was scrolling on my phone. I didn't mean to cause offence to anyone" and leave it there. Instead she's responded in a very jumpy way that really hasn't helped the situation much at all.

And once again the whole thing boils down to "twitter people angry".

Were I elected MP I'd ask not to have control of my own twitter in order to avoid these frackars.
1
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 days ago
#32
(Original post by 04MR17)
But the statement in question doesn't mention anything about birth.

"individuals with a cervix"
Not
"individuals born with a cervix"
Those tend to be the same thing, no? People not being able to transplant such body parts.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 days ago
#33
(Original post by Napp)
Those tend to be the same thing, no? People not being able to transplant such body parts.
They often are the same thing, yes. That doesn't mean they have to be.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 days ago
#34
(Original post by 04MR17)
They often are the same thing, yes. That doesn't mean they have to be.
I'd say in general it does, this being a topic on generalizing not the exceptions to the rule?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 days ago
#35
(Original post by Napp)
I'd say in general it does, this being a topic on generalizing not the exceptions to the rule?
Why should the New American Cancer society make that generalisation when they don't need to? Who is harmed by the phrase?
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 days ago
#36
Give it a week and most people will have completely forgotten.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 days ago
#37
(Original post by 04MR17)
Why should the New American Cancer society make that generalisation when they don't need to? Who is harmed by the phrase?
No one at all, the question was on how is it 'transphobic' to question a male having female anatomy though...
0
reply
LovelyMrFox
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 days ago
#38
I find her comment unnecessary rather than blatantly transphobic.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 days ago
#39
(Original post by Napp)
No one at all, the question was on how is it 'transphobic' to question a male having female anatomy though...
Ah well I haven't alleged that anyone has been transphobic here. On the face of it, it isn't offensive to question anything. The way you do so is usually the problem. E. G. Liking somebody else's tweet isn't a crime and is fairly easily fixable. Producing your own erratic statement on the topic allows more criticism of the actions taken.
0
reply
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 days ago
#40
The comment is true. Only a women can have a cervix. Only a man has testicles. We need to pay more attention to women's rights and the struggles we have been through. I feel my sex is being encroached upon by ignoring what it is that makes someone a woman (female reproductive organs).
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (47)
41.23%
Take autumn exams (40)
35.09%
Look for a job (2)
1.75%
Consider an apprenticeship (3)
2.63%
Take a year out (15)
13.16%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (7)
6.14%

Watched Threads

View All