I'm lost for words at the level of wilful stupidity.
Questioning myself now that my Mum isn't actually my Dad, and my Dad isn't actually my Mum.
Printable View
I'm lost for words at the level of wilful stupidity.
Questioning myself now that my Mum isn't actually my Dad, and my Dad isn't actually my Mum.
Nice to see the Health Secretary stand up for basic biology and truth.
Total denial of scientific fact.
— Sajid Javid (@sajidjavid) September 26, 2021
And he wants to run the NHS. https://t.co/zdQjJU55r3
Everyone here knows you're just using this as an inflammatory thread to push your outdated views on transgender and non binary individuals so let's just avoid that because you've made it clear you are never going to change your mind on that. Even though the NHS which Javid supposedly (and scarily) runs has an entire webpage dedicated to trans men. But anyway, any further inflammatory comments on the topic of trans people will result in, well, you know what.
But basic biology? Hmm. Intersex people are born with cervix but might be assigned male at birth and present as a male otherwise. They might even have a penis!!! They're not "basic biology fact"?
Hey look! There's even a specific rare disease that otherwise genetically and physically normal males have female reproductive organs INCLUDING a cervix!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persis..._duct_syndrome - must get in touch with everyone who has this ASAP to let them know that they're not a biological fact!
As a Tory, watching the Labour Party form a circular firing squad at its conference over basic human biology is a joy to behold.
Imagine what the general population - most of whom know the difference between a man and a woman - think when they see this in the news. 2025 will be a walk.
Only women have a cervix. There, I said it. It’s not difficult. Women also have a right to women-only spaces. Speaking up in defence of women’s rights doesn’t mean we can’t respect how others wish to live their lives. @UKLabour @LibDems don’t get it @RosieDuffield1 @Keir_Starmer
— Brendan Clarke-Smith (@Bren4Bassetlaw) September 26, 2021So sorry to disappoint you Michael - you're clearly not a fan of women's rights. But I am not about to have the whip removed for defending them.
— Rosie Duffield MP (@RosieDuffield1) September 25, 2021Why are you mentioning obscure diseases to somehow argue that men have cervixes?Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrawrrr
That'd be like me saying humans have tails, and you say "no they don't" and I then bring up caudal appendages as if to somehow prove that humans have tails.
Anyway, as the Health Secretary, biology itself and a Conservative and Labour MP above say - men can't have cervixes just as they can't become pregnant or have periods. I've never come across or heard of a man who can do/has any of those and neither have you. There's no expiration date on scientific & observable fact.
Because there is, provably, a subset of the population who are intersex or have this disease (no matter how obscure) who are legally, genetically otherwise men (but aren’t transgender men, who I know don’t exist in your world view) and have cervices, therefore not everyone with a cervix is a woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Did you know intersex people can get ovarian / testicular cancer even if they outwardly present as male/female (respectively?). Are these people not biological fact? Even if you think intersex people are neither women OR men, it still makes the statement “everyone with a cervix is a woman” untrue!!!
I mean obviously I personally think that trans men are men but I’m just trying to say that eeeeeeven in your world where trans people don’t exist, this is still incorrect because, although very rare, these things exist, and if it exists, it’s simply not true to say “EVERYONE with a cervix is a woman”. Most? Sure. Majority? Yah absolutely. But not every single person.
Oh and yes very rarely some humans are born with tails so it’s also factually incorrect to say NO HUMANS HAVE TAILS because no humans means zero and even the existence of 1 person means that’s wrong because 1 is more than zero. Rare does not equal none.
I have heard of all these extremely rare medical examples before and while they exist, it does not mean we cannot define between male and female.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrawrrr
It seems to me that the transgender issue and lobby pushing it are so determined to prove that those who undergo it are actually women, that - to the horror of many famous feminists like Germaine Greer - they've basically declared that to be a woman is to be nothing more than a self-declaratory thing so long as you "feel" like a woman. That evidently isn't true to the vast majority of mankind, who have no issue in discerning who is and who isn't a woman - both by basic biology and behaviour.
Erasing women by claiming their sexual organs can belong to men and that men can also have periods and pregnancies is an insult to womanhood.
I didn't say you can't define between male and female (although our definitions are certainly not the same thing by any means).
I said that not all people with cervixes are women, and not all women have cervixes. Because, in your definition of 'male and female', there are people with rare conditions. And if there are some people, then not "no" women have cervixes because some is more than none.
If I had a total hysterectomy would I suddenly become not a woman because I don't have a cervix any more? Noone's "erasing" women, you're "erasing" intersex people and men with rare diseases by saying that "only women have cervixes". It is not offensive to say "people with cervixes should get cervical smear tests" no more than it is offensive to say "people with prostates should get their prostate examined" or "people with growing moles should get their moles checked" because these are objective body parts that people have.
It is quite blatantly incorrect to say that it's wrong to say that "only women have cervixes" - even ifyou don't "believe" in transgender people