FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Pregnant People
Pregnant People
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BBC News anchor Martine Croxall has had twenty complaints upheld because she changed the script ‘pregnant people’ to ‘women’ and ‘made a face’… Pregnant people! FFS! The person who wrote the script should’ve been fired." You knew I was going to comment on this non-story. Martine Croxall wasn’t sanctioned for saying “women.” The BBC upheld the complaints because she changed the wording of the actual study she was reading from — the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine used the term “pregnant people” — and then raised her eyebrows in a way that made it look like she was editorialising. Under BBC impartiality rules, news anchors can’t alter quotes or appear to take sides on ongoing culture war topics. That’s what triggered the complaints — not the use of the word women itself. So the real headline should’ve been something like: "BBC reminds presenter not to change source wording live on air.” But that doesn’t feed the culture-war machine quite as well." Now it’s time for someone to deflect or move the goalposts... they sure as hell won’t provide contrary evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m glad the changed the wording, although she could’ve just changed it as she came to that point in the script and left it at that. No one with a straight face can say ‘pregnant people’." The term “pregnant people” exists because not all pregnancies involve adults. Girls as young as 11 or 12 can and do become pregnant, tragically often through abuse. Calling them “women” is medically and ethically wrong — it erases the fact that they’re children. So using “pregnant people” isn’t ideology, it’s accuracy. It allows language to cover everyone who might need medical care or protection, including minors, without mislabelling them as adults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, you’re bringing child abuse into the discussion… " Because it’s a tragic part of the discussion. Ignoring it doesn’t make it less tragic or less real. If we’re talking about why inclusive medical language matters, we have to acknowledge everyone affected — even in circumstances that are uncomfortable to face. Pretending those cases don’t exist doesn’t protect anyone; it just hides the people most in need of care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, you’re bringing child abuse into the discussion… " What about 2 15 year olds having sex and a resultant pregnancy? Is that child abuse? On whose part, as they are both children? Or an 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend. Above the age of consent, but not yet an adult. Is that child abuse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The gaslighting in this thread is insane. The term "pregnant people" was pushed to be inclusive of trans people. It was not to include young girls who could also become pregnant. If the goal was to include young girls only, they could have gone with pregnant females instead." Thank you! You’ve expressed what I meant, just much more succinctly and eloquently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman." Who are you replying to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You…
"So maybe use reply+quote - it really helps! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman." The point I was making was that not all teen pregnancies are about child abuse, but that's where you automatically went. 🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You…
So maybe use reply+quote - it really helps! "Or just confuses things more if several replies are included. Anyway, as the _ostindreams fella said, you and the namby she/they are just gaslighting us by bringing teenage pregnancy into this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the pregnant men I feel sorry for always left out of the conversation "I’m just wondering if, as a 52 year old gay man, have I totally missed my chance at getting pregnant?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You…
So maybe use reply+quote - it really helps!
Or just confuses things more if several replies are included.
Anyway, as the _ostindreams fella said, you and the namby she/they are just gaslighting us by bringing teenage pregnancy into this.
"No, as I've already said, your mind immediately went to child abuse and I offered situations that would not be classed as child abuse. That was the limit to my contribution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman. The point I was making was that not all teen pregnancies are about child abuse, but that's where you automatically went. 🤷" Just responding to namby as I saw fit at the time. He brought up the topic of under age sex. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the pregnant men I feel sorry for always left out of the conversation
I’m just wondering if, as a 52 year old gay man, have I totally missed my chance at getting pregnant?
"Well it's probably not through lack of trying I assume  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman. The point I was making was that not all teen pregnancies are about child abuse, but that's where you automatically went. 🤷 Just responding to namby as I saw fit at the time. He brought up the topic of under age sex." Deliberate misgendering. Nice touch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the pregnant men I feel sorry for always left out of the conversation
I’m just wondering if, as a 52 year old gay man, have I totally missed my chance at getting pregnant?
"Not necessarily, there's ongoing research into male pregnancy. You might still be alive and capable by the time it's available! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman. The point I was making was that not all teen pregnancies are about child abuse, but that's where you automatically went. 🤷 Just responding to namby as I saw fit at the time. He brought up the topic of under age sex. Deliberate misgendering. Nice touch. " Fair enough…. It was uncalled for, however, I’ve no idea what a she/they actually is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the pregnant men I feel sorry for always left out of the conversation
I’m just wondering if, as a 52 year old gay man, have I totally missed my chance at getting pregnant?
Not necessarily, there's ongoing research into male pregnancy. You might still be alive and capable by the time it's available! "Well, I’m having a reasonable amount of unprotected man on man action, so maybe it’s not middle-aged spread…  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m glad the changed the wording, although she could’ve just changed it as she came to that point in the script and left it at that. No one with a straight face can say ‘pregnant people’. The term “pregnant people” exists because not all pregnancies involve adults. Girls as young as 11 or 12 can and do become pregnant, tragically often through abuse. Calling them “women” is medically and ethically wrong — it erases the fact that they’re children. So using “pregnant people” isn’t ideology, it’s accuracy. It allows language to cover everyone who might need medical care or protection, including minors, without mislabelling them as adults." I thought that Dr Mistry used the phrase 'pregnant women' in the interview that followed. Surely he would know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the pregnant men I feel sorry for always left out of the conversation
I’m just wondering if, as a 52 year old gay man, have I totally missed my chance at getting pregnant?
Well it's probably not through lack of trying I assume "I’m an easy lay definitely and often have my legs at 13:50, so it’s bound to happen sooner or later… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman. The point I was making was that not all teen pregnancies are about child abuse, but that's where you automatically went. 🤷 Just responding to namby as I saw fit at the time. He brought up the topic of under age sex. Deliberate misgendering. Nice touch. Fair enough…. It was uncalled for, however, I’ve no idea what a she/they actually is." It's not difficult, that person wants to be referred to as she/her or they/them - not he/him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the pregnant men I feel sorry for always left out of the conversation
I’m just wondering if, as a 52 year old gay man, have I totally missed my chance at getting pregnant?
Not necessarily, there's ongoing research into male pregnancy. You might still be alive and capable by the time it's available!
Well, I’m having a reasonable amount of unprotected man on man action, so maybe it’s not middle-aged spread… "Oooh, you could be part of the clinical trials and be one of the first men to be pregnant, and then have a dependant for 18 years, miss out on work, payrises etc. Go you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman." So you agree, then, that “pregnant women” by itself isn’t accurate? Because if you’re adding “girls” to cover minors, that means “women” alone doesn’t include everyone who can be pregnant. At that point, “pregnant people” is just a more precise shorthand for the same reality. And let’s be honest — if “pregnant women” isn’t accurate, and “pregnant girls” still doesn’t cover everyone, then the only real objection left to “pregnant people” is that it includes trans men and non-binary people. That’s not about language anymore — that’s about exclusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the pregnant men I feel sorry for always left out of the conversation "Funny you say that — research is already underway that could make pregnancy possible without needing natal males at all. Scientists have already created viable embryos from same-sex cells in mammals, and some estimate it could be only a few decades before similar methods reach humans. So if anything, “pregnant men” might not be the punchline for long — but “male not needed” might be the plot twist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman. So you agree, then, that “pregnant women” by itself isn’t accurate? Because if you’re adding “girls” to cover minors, that means “women” alone doesn’t include everyone who can be pregnant. At that point, “pregnant people” is just a more precise shorthand for the same reality. And let’s be honest — if “pregnant women” isn’t accurate, and “pregnant girls” still doesn’t cover everyone, then the only real objection left to “pregnant people” is that it includes trans men and non-binary people. That’s not about language anymore — that’s about exclusion." I thought you care about more accuracy? Isn't "pregnant females" more accurate than "pregnant people"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Best to stick to the terms of your employment and to take heed that your flouting of rules has consequences, however skilled you may be. She is paid to work in a specific way, which fits with the other staff who do so. This is the important point " That’s the crux of it. She wasn’t reprimanded for what she said — she was reprimanded for not doing her job in the manner she’s paid and trained to. And just hypothetically, for those insisting she shouldn’t have been disciplined: flip it. Imagine if she’d changed “women” to “people” instead. If that reversal suddenly changes how you feel about it, then your issue isn’t with impartiality — it’s with who the word includes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought you care about more accuracy? Isn't "pregnant females" more accurate than "pregnant people"?" Actually, I don’t think either is more accurate than the other. Pregnancy is a binary state — you either are or you aren’t — and both terms correctly describe that. So if I’m choosing between two equally accurate options, I’ll go with the one that’s inclusive rather than exclusionary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Best to stick to the terms of your employment and to take heed that your flouting of rules has consequences, however skilled you may be. She is paid to work in a specific way, which fits with the other staff who do so. This is the important point " So whatever the rule an employer sets and breaking of that rule results in some consequence, you will always take the side of the employer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it’s not ideal is it? Regardless of that kind of situation, it still isn’t needed or appropriate to call a pregnant teenager a pregnant person. Pregnant teenage girl/ pregnant woman. So you agree, then, that “pregnant women” by itself isn’t accurate? Because if you’re adding “girls” to cover minors, that means “women” alone doesn’t include everyone who can be pregnant. At that point, “pregnant people” is just a more precise shorthand for the same reality. And let’s be honest — if “pregnant women” isn’t accurate, and “pregnant girls” still doesn’t cover everyone, then the only real objection left to “pregnant people” is that it includes trans men and non-binary people. That’s not about language anymore — that’s about exclusion. I thought you care about more accuracy? Isn't "pregnant females" more accurate than "pregnant people"?" That would depend on your definition of woman and female. Some trans men have been and will be pregnant and give birth, they have the biological make up for this to happen, but their gender identity is not aligned with their assigned at birth sex. Some intersex people are capable of conceiving and giving birth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought you care about more accuracy? Isn't "pregnant females" more accurate than "pregnant people"? Actually, I don’t think either is more accurate than the other. Pregnancy is a binary state — you either are or you aren’t — and both terms correctly describe that. So if I’m choosing between two equally accurate options, I’ll go with the one that’s inclusive rather than exclusionary. " You can go with whatever you want. No one cares. Another person using a different term to be more specific does make them exclusionary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That would depend on your definition of woman and female. Some trans men have been and will be pregnant and give birth, they have the biological make up for this to happen, but their gender identity is not aligned with their assigned at birth sex. Some intersex people are capable of conceiving and giving birth. " I thought the term "female" is based on biological body parts and hence trans men are also covered. Now we have confusion about that too? 🤔 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That would depend on your definition of woman and female. Some trans men have been and will be pregnant and give birth, they have the biological make up for this to happen, but their gender identity is not aligned with their assigned at birth sex. Some intersex people are capable of conceiving and giving birth. I thought the term "female" is based on biological body parts and hence trans men are also covered. Now we have confusion about that too? 🤔" What are you not understanding? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That would depend on your definition of woman and female. Some trans men have been and will be pregnant and give birth, they have the biological make up for this to happen, but their gender identity is not aligned with their assigned at birth sex. Some intersex people are capable of conceiving and giving birth. I thought the term "female" is based on biological body parts and hence trans men are also covered. Now we have confusion about that too? 🤔 What are you not understanding? " You said "your definition of woman and female". I thought that at least the term female is well defined and it is based on biological sex. Now you are saying that the meaning of that word is also subjective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the BBC should look at how something so crass got as far as her script viewing machine without it being spotted . " I find it crass that she changed the text she was given. It’s her job to read the script as written, not edit it live on air. The story itself wasn’t about gender or language, but by making that change she turned it into a culture-war flashpoint. If she’d just read the teleprompter like every other time, it would’ve been a total non-issue. And to add context, those weren’t BBC words — they were quoting directly from the medical study the report was about. The researchers themselves used the phrase “pregnant people” in their findings. So she wasn’t just going off-script — she was changing the wording of a study she was reporting on. That’s not journalism, that’s editorialising. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You said "your definition of woman and female". I thought that at least the term female is well defined and it is based on biological sex. Now you are saying that the meaning of that word is also subjective. " “Female” might sound straightforward, but biology isn’t always neat. Intersex variations complicate the definition — for example, someone can have XX chromosomes but androgen insensitivity, or XY chromosomes and functional ovaries. So while female is usually linked to reproductive anatomy, it doesn’t always describe everyone who can conceive. That’s why medical language tends to go with people — it’s neutral, inclusive, and avoids accidentally excluding someone who still needs that care. It’s not ideology, it’s just accuracy — and a bit of simple human decency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That would depend on your definition of woman and female. Some trans men have been and will be pregnant and give birth, they have the biological make up for this to happen, but their gender identity is not aligned with their assigned at birth sex. Some intersex people are capable of conceiving and giving birth. I thought the term "female" is based on biological body parts and hence trans men are also covered. Now we have confusion about that too? 🤔 What are you not understanding? You said "your definition of woman and female". I thought that at least the term female is well defined and it is based on biological sex. Now you are saying that the meaning of that word is also subjective. " Language and definitions evolve. So what happens when men are able to conceive and give birth? Research is happening in that area. How are men and women defined in that scenario? If only women/females are able to conceive and give birth, how will men being able to do the same alter that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You said "your definition of woman and female". I thought that at least the term female is well defined and it is based on biological sex. Now you are saying that the meaning of that word is also subjective. “Female” might sound straightforward, but biology isn’t always neat. Intersex variations complicate the definition — for example, someone can have XX chromosomes but androgen insensitivity, or XY chromosomes and functional ovaries. So while female is usually linked to reproductive anatomy, it doesn’t always describe everyone who can conceive. That’s why medical language tends to go with people — it’s neutral, inclusive, and avoids accidentally excluding someone who still needs that care. It’s not ideology, it’s just accuracy — " Isn't the definition of "female" someone who can produce ovum? Can someone not produce ovum and still be pregnant? " and a bit of simple human decency." Human decency has nothing to do with the choice of words in this context. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is — and this is just my view — most of the outrage over the phrase “pregnant people” doesn’t come from confusion about language. It comes from discomfort with who it includes. People can insist that’s not the case, but every time the argument gets unpacked, it ends up circling back to trans exclusion. That’s the common thread. It’s not really about grammar or science — it’s about who’s being allowed to exist comfortably in the sentence. " It's about people being forced to change their language and meaning of the words just for the convenience of a few. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human decency has nothing to do with the choice of words in this context. " Maybe if you don’t have any, sure. But for people who do experience dysphoria — trans men, non-binary people, even some intersex folks — the term female can hit hard. That’s not about ideology, it’s about lived experience. And like I said, female isn’t any more accurate than people when describing pregnancy. Both refer to humans capable of it — the difference is that one term risks distress for some, and the other doesn’t. So if the meaning stays the same but one choice spares unnecessary pain, why wouldn’t we go with the kinder option? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's about people being forced to change their language and meaning of the words just for the convenience of a few." Who’s forcing you? Tell me who they are and I’ll happily ask them to stop. No one’s marching into homes demanding new words — people are just asking others to show a little consideration for a small minority who exist alongside them. If you choose not to extend that courtesy, that’s your right, and I’ll defend that right. But it does make me think less of you as a person when the only hill you want to die on is other people’s comfort. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You said "your definition of woman and female". I thought that at least the term female is well defined and it is based on biological sex. Now you are saying that the meaning of that word is also subjective. “Female” might sound straightforward, but biology isn’t always neat. Intersex variations complicate the definition — for example, someone can have XX chromosomes but androgen insensitivity, or XY chromosomes and functional ovaries. So while female is usually linked to reproductive anatomy, it doesn’t always describe everyone who can conceive. That’s why medical language tends to go with people — it’s neutral, inclusive, and avoids accidentally excluding someone who still needs that care. It’s not ideology, it’s just accuracy — Isn't the definition of "female" someone who can produce ovum? Can someone not produce ovum and still be pregnant? and a bit of simple human decency. Human decency has nothing to do with the choice of words in this context. " What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human decency has nothing to do with the choice of words in this context. Maybe if you don’t have any, sure. But for people who do experience dysphoria — trans men, non-binary people, even some intersex folks — the term female can hit hard. That’s not about ideology, it’s about lived experience. And like I said, female isn’t any more accurate than people when describing pregnancy. Both refer to humans capable of it — the difference is that one term risks distress for some, and the other doesn’t. So if the meaning stays the same but one choice spares unnecessary pain, why wouldn’t we go with the kinder option?" Lots of people on fab said that they are offended by the term "cis-woman" and would prefer the term "woman" to only include biological females. Isn't it lack of human decency to use the word "cis-woman" because it clearly causes unnecessary pain? Why wouldn't you go with the kinder option? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? " In this situation where we are talking pregnancy, it wouldn't matter. In general terms, if this would not be inclusive of women who can't get pregnant, what do you think should be the definition of "female"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is — and this is just my view — most of the outrage over the phrase “pregnant people” doesn’t come from confusion about language. It comes from discomfort with who it includes" No. It's about the erasure of [female] women. Women spent decades to get recognition, and now their identity is being diluted, subordinated and/or erased. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? " They potentially could, but don't. Semantics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is — and this is just my view — most of the outrage over the phrase “pregnant people” doesn’t come from confusion about language. It comes from discomfort with who it includes No. It's about the erasure of [female] women. Women spent decades to get recognition, and now their identity is being diluted, subordinated and/or erased." Absolutely, 100% true, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whats this issue of pregnant kids?" A cynical way to throw ambiguity into the term "pregnant women", to justify erasing "women" and replacing with "people". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is — and this is just my view — most of the outrage over the phrase “pregnant people” doesn’t come from confusion about language. It comes from discomfort with who it includes No. It's about the erasure of [female] women. Women spent decades to get recognition, and now their identity is being diluted, subordinated and/or erased." And yet, by your own admission, the discomfort comes from who’s being included. No one’s being erased by broadening language to include those who are otherwise left out — that’s the opposite of erasure. “Pregnant people” doesn’t delete women; it simply acknowledges that not everyone who can be pregnant identifies as one. Inclusion isn’t subtraction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? In this situation where we are talking pregnancy, it wouldn't matter. In general terms, if this would not be inclusive of women who can't get pregnant, what do you think should be the definition of "female"?" Maybe we need a new word, because in the not too distant future, it is likely that men will be pregnant and give birth, so the 'traditional' definition of woman/female breaks down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human decency has nothing to do with the choice of words in this context. Maybe if you don’t have any, sure. But for people who do experience dysphoria — trans men, non-binary people, even some intersex folks — the term female can hit hard. That’s not about ideology, it’s about lived experience. And like I said, female isn’t any more accurate than people when describing pregnancy. Both refer to humans capable of it — the difference is that one term risks distress for some, and the other doesn’t. So if the meaning stays the same but one choice spares unnecessary pain, why wouldn’t we go with the kinder option?" Even Gender Affirmative theory recognise male and female as terms relating to sex, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one’s being erased by broadening language to include those who are..." Dilution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we need a new word, because in the not too distant future, it is likely that men will be pregnant and give birth, so the 'traditional' definition of woman/female breaks down. " Exactly — and like I mentioned earlier, science is already inching toward that reality. Research into artificial gametogenesis and uterus transplantation means conception without a natal male’s involvement could be possible within a few decades. When that happens, what happens to the term male? If reproductive capacity is how we define sex, the whole framework collapses the moment technology catches up. That’s why clinging to fixed biological definitions doesn’t hold up — they’re snapshots of current capability, not eternal truths. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dilution." Exfoliation. Shedding the dead layers of old language so something more inclusive can grow underneath. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? They potentially could, but don't. Semantics." Only if the uterus is in working order, and then it would likely need to be artificial insemination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? In this situation where we are talking pregnancy, it wouldn't matter. In general terms, if this would not be inclusive of women who can't get pregnant, what do you think should be the definition of "female"? Maybe we need a new word, because in the not too distant future, it is likely that men will be pregnant and give birth, so the 'traditional' definition of woman/female breaks down. " Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? In this situation where we are talking pregnancy, it wouldn't matter. In general terms, if this would not be inclusive of women who can't get pregnant, what do you think should be the definition of "female"? Maybe we need a new word, because in the not too distant future, it is likely that men will be pregnant and give birth, so the 'traditional' definition of woman/female breaks down. " Thats just not true at present. It's purely theoretical, there isn't even any medical trials for this. It's just not happening in the near future. So the terms don't breakdown Trans woman would cover this, if it ever happened but its science fiction right now. Its almost like saying what happens to terms like man and woman when 'artifical humans are created. Its theoretically possible but not likely in any of our lifetimes. So until it becomes a common occurrence its not worth talking about, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? " Wow that reads like a white nationalist manifesto Are you sure THAT is the path you want to travel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we need a new word, because in the not too distant future, it is likely that men will be pregnant and give birth, so the 'traditional' definition of woman/female breaks down. Exactly — and like I mentioned earlier, science is already inching toward that reality. Research into artificial gametogenesis and uterus transplantation means conception without a natal male’s involvement could be possible within a few decades. When that happens, what happens to the term male? If reproductive capacity is how we define sex, the whole framework collapses the moment technology catches up. That’s why clinging to fixed biological definitions doesn’t hold up — they’re snapshots of current capability, not eternal truths." What? And when is this going to happen? Until then its a ridiculous premise. How about we change all words to take into account any possible change in any area. That sounds like a great argument. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's your view of women who cannot produce ova, and therefore cannot be pregnant? In this situation where we are talking pregnancy, it wouldn't matter. In general terms, if this would not be inclusive of women who can't get pregnant, what do you think should be the definition of "female"? Maybe we need a new word, because in the not too distant future, it is likely that men will be pregnant and give birth, so the 'traditional' definition of woman/female breaks down. Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? " Feel free to start a thread on that topic - it's not really relevant to this one. Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dilution. Exfoliation. Shedding the dead layers of old language so something more inclusive can grow underneath." Scrubbing away the use of the word woman, you'd love that haha, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. " Everything you said about sex applies to race too. No clear boundary between where one race starts and another ends, multiracial people, etc. Would you be happy with getting rid of all the older racial terms and creating new ones for the sake of "inclusivity"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? Wow that reads like a white nationalist manifesto Are you sure THAT is the path you want to travel?" This is the person who stated that protecting women was the way its always been. Or words to that effect. Doesn't see that all men are involved in the challenge to the gendered crime of assaults on women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. Everything you said about sex applies to race too. No clear boundary between where one race starts and another ends, multiracial people, etc. Would you be happy with getting rid of all the older racial terms and creating new ones for the sake of "inclusivity"?" Start your own thread if it bothers you so much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. Everything you said about sex applies to race too. No clear boundary between where one race starts and another ends, multiracial people, etc. Would you be happy with getting rid of all the older racial terms and creating new ones for the sake of "inclusivity"? Start your own thread if it bothers you so much. " Sounds like you don't have an answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. Everything you said about sex applies to race too. No clear boundary between where one race starts and another ends, multiracial people, etc. Would you be happy with getting rid of all the older racial terms and creating new ones for the sake of "inclusivity"? Start your own thread if it bothers you so much. Sounds like you don't have an answer "Nope. Not relevant to this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like you don't have an answer "Start your own thread, maybe you will find out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? Wow that reads like a white nationalist manifesto Are you sure THAT is the path you want to travel?" How is this related to white nationalist manifesto?
I am saying that if we follow the line of argument that you are using, because of the blurry lines between races, we should stop using words addressing specific race and use more inclusive terms.
If what I am suggesting is white nationalism, what you are suggesting is male chauvinism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. Everything you said about sex applies to race too. No clear boundary between where one race starts and another ends, multiracial people, etc. Would you be happy with getting rid of all the older racial terms and creating new ones for the sake of "inclusivity"? Start your own thread if it bothers you so much. Sounds like you don't have an answer
Nope. Not relevant to this thread. "It is relevant. You are asking for a change in language. I am saying that this creates a slippery slope that would mess up so many things with language. The problem is not specific to gender/sex. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is — and this is just my view — most of the outrage over the phrase “pregnant people” doesn’t come from confusion about language. It comes from discomfort with who it includes. People can insist that’s not the case, but every time the argument gets unpacked, it ends up circling back to trans exclusion. That’s the common thread. It’s not really about grammar or science — it’s about who’s being allowed to exist comfortably in the sentence. And when you strip away the noise, “pregnant people” is a total non-issue. It doesn’t harm anyone’s day, it doesn’t erase anyone, and it doesn’t change what pregnancy is. All it really does is include a few people who are usually left out — which, in any decent society, should be seen as a small kindness, not a threat." Who does it include that saying pregnant woman would leave out? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. Everything you said about sex applies to race too. No clear boundary between where one race starts and another ends, multiracial people, etc. Would you be happy with getting rid of all the older racial terms and creating new ones for the sake of "inclusivity"? Start your own thread if it bothers you so much. Sounds like you don't have an answer
Nope. Not relevant to this thread.
It is relevant. You are asking for a change in language. I am saying that this creates a slippery slope that would mess up so many things with language. The problem is not specific to gender/sex. "You know that language evolves, along with society, right? If you have an issue around language and race, take it elsewhere. You are derailing the discussion on this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? Wow that reads like a white nationalist manifesto Are you sure THAT is the path you want to travel? How is this related to white nationalist manifesto?
I am saying that if we follow the line of argument that you are using, because of the blurry lines between races, we should stop using words addressing specific race and use more inclusive terms.
If what I am suggesting is white nationalism, what you are suggesting is male chauvinism."I mean if you don't see it... ... ... yikes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? Wow that reads like a white nationalist manifesto Are you sure THAT is the path you want to travel? How is this related to white nationalist manifesto?
I am saying that if we follow the line of argument that you are using, because of the blurry lines between races, we should stop using words addressing specific race and use more inclusive terms.
If what I am suggesting is white nationalism, what you are suggesting is male chauvinism.
I mean if you don't see it...
...
... yikes"If you don't see that you are a male chauvinist, yikes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Although, you may want to check research into genealogy and genetics - there is a starting point with an African village from whers we have all evolved. Everything you said about sex applies to race too. No clear boundary between where one race starts and another ends, multiracial people, etc. Would you be happy with getting rid of all the older racial terms and creating new ones for the sake of "inclusivity"? Start your own thread if it bothers you so much. Sounds like you don't have an answer
Nope. Not relevant to this thread.
It is relevant. You are asking for a change in language. I am saying that this creates a slippery slope that would mess up so many things with language. The problem is not specific to gender/sex.
You know that language evolves, along with society, right?
If you have an issue around language and race, take it elsewhere. You are derailing the discussion on this thread. "Yes language evolves. But there is reason for language to evolve. Saying that the presence of intersex people justifies replacing the term "female" with something is the same as saying that the presence of multiracial people justifies replacing the terms "white", "black", "Asian" with something else. Neither changes are warranted at this point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you don't see that you are a male chauvinist, yikes." Sure, whatever you say friend * backs away slowly *  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should get rid of all the racial terms too. Because, it would be easy to change one's skin colour. No more BLM? Wow that reads like a white nationalist manifesto Are you sure THAT is the path you want to travel? How is this related to white nationalist manifesto?
I am saying that if we follow the line of argument that you are using, because of the blurry lines between races, we should stop using words addressing specific race and use more inclusive terms.
If what I am suggesting is white nationalism, what you are suggesting is male chauvinism.
I mean if you don't see it...
...
... yikes
If you don't see that you are a male chauvinist, yikes."Wow. I didn't see that one coming! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you don't see that you are a male chauvinist, yikes. Sure, whatever you say friend * backs away slowly * "In your mind, does this really sound intelligent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you don't see that you are a male chauvinist, yikes. Sure, whatever you say friend * backs away slowly *
In your mind, does this really sound intelligent "Maybe it would help if you shared your understanding/belief of male/female/trans/intersex and how they interact, what gender roles each should have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you don't see that you are a male chauvinist, yikes. Sure, whatever you say friend * backs away slowly *
In your mind, does this really sound intelligent
Maybe it would help if you shared your understanding/belief of male/female/trans/intersex and how they interact, what gender roles each should have.
"There are biological males and biological females based on their reproductive body parts. Yes, there are outliers like intersex people. We accommodate them where we can. But it won't be possible all the time. Then there is the matter of gender which for now let's assume is based on their mental experience. For most people, the gender is same as the biological sex. But there are a small percentage of transsexual people whose mental experience makes them want to be the opposite sex. The question is what the word woman/man must mean and what implications it has in our real life. Trying to change the definition of "women" without having any sort of discussions about its implications is wrong. Allowing trans women in women's boxing would create one kind of problem, women's football would create another kind of problem, women's prisons creates a different kind of problem and women's toilets or dressing rooms creates so many other problems. Each and every problem has to be separately discussed and solutions have to be found for how we want to handle trans men and trans women in these situations. It's hard work. But it's the right way to go about it. You do this by considering trans women as different category from women and having these discussions. Taking the shortcut by just changing the meaning of the word woman was bound to invite lot of push back from the society and that's what happened. Every argument you make using the idea that gender or sex is a spectrum applies for race too. If you aren't willing to apply the same rules for race, it shows that these things being on spectrum has nothing to do with what you are asking for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is — and this is just my view — most of the outrage over the phrase “pregnant people” doesn’t come from confusion about language. It comes from discomfort with who it includes. People can insist that’s not the case, but every time the argument gets unpacked, it ends up circling back to trans exclusion. That’s the common thread. It’s not really about grammar or science — it’s about who’s being allowed to exist comfortably in the sentence." I'm going to disagree with your view. Yes, there are some people who see the change as trans people making an advance, and they don't like that. But the vast majority just think it sounds clunky. "Pregnant people" to me is like a mental road bump, it makes my mind stop and examine the words to make sure I read them correctly. To my ears even "pregnant females" sounds weird, because for decades it's always been "pregnant women". Give it 20 years of the medical establishment consistently using "pregnant people", and no one will notice any more. The opposition to the phrase will melt away as people become more familiar with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But for people who do experience dysphoria — trans men, non-binary people, even some intersex folks — the term female can hit hard. That’s not about ideology, it’s about lived experience." What problem do those people have with the word "female"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's about people being forced to change their language and meaning of the words just for the convenience of a few." "Who’s forcing you? Tell me who they are and I’ll happily ask them to stop. No one’s marching into homes demanding new words — people are just asking others to show a little consideration for a small minority who exist alongside them. If you choose not to extend that courtesy, that’s your right, and I’ll defend that right." Really? So if a particular poster on here decided to stick to what they believe is the traditional definition of 'woman', and started referring to you as a male, you'd defend their right to make that choice, because your're not asking them to change their language? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? So if a particular poster on here decided to stick to what they believe is the traditional definition of 'woman', and started referring to you as a male, you'd defend their right to make that choice, because your're not asking them to change their language?" You’re mischaracterising what ‘forced speech’ means. If someone misgenders me, I have the same right to respond as they do to speak — and I’ve done exactly that before: commented, corrected, and moved on. That’s not forcing anyone to say something; it’s exercising my own right to reply. Being held accountable for what you say isn’t censorship — it’s consequence. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? So if a particular poster on here decided to stick to what they believe is the traditional definition of 'woman', and started referring to you as a male, you'd defend their right to make that choice, because your're not asking them to change their language?" "You’re mischaracterising what ‘forced speech’ means. If someone misgenders me, I have the same right to respond as they do to speak — and I’ve done exactly that before: commented, corrected, and moved on. That’s not forcing anyone to say something; it’s exercising my own right to reply. Being held accountable for what you say isn’t censorship — it’s consequence. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence." You'd make a great politician with your ability to answer the question you are comfortable with, not the one that was actually asked. I didn't say anything about forced speech. Not did I say that you had no right to reply, or that people shouldn't be accountable for their words. You stated that "people are just asking others to show a little consideration for a small minority who exist alongside them. If you choose not to extend that courtesy, that’s your right, and I’ll defend that right". The question I asked was - will you defend the right of someone that chooses to misgender you. You said in your first post that you would think less of them for doing so, and I would join you in that condemnation, that's consequences. But will you support their right to say things the way they feel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd make a great politician with your ability to answer the question you are comfortable with, not the one that was actually asked. I didn't say anything about forced speech. Not did I say that you had no right to reply, or that people shouldn't be accountable for their words. You stated that "people are just asking others to show a little consideration for a small minority who exist alongside them. If you choose not to extend that courtesy, that’s your right, and I’ll defend that right". The question I asked was - will you defend the right of someone that chooses to misgender you. You said in your first post that you would think less of them for doing so, and I would join you in that condemnation, that's consequences. But will you support their right to say things the way they feel?" You were literally replying to a post about forced speech — that’s why I addressed it in that context. And yes, I’ll defend anyone’s right to speak, even if what they say is cruel or ignorant. But freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence. Deliberate, repeated misgendering isn’t illegal speech, but it is classed as harassment under equality law when it’s targeted. So sure, they can say it — and everyone else has the right to call it what it is and hold them accountable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd make a great politician with your ability to answer the question you are comfortable with, not the one that was actually asked. I didn't say anything about forced speech. Not did I say that you had no right to reply, or that people shouldn't be accountable for their words. You stated that "people are just asking others to show a little consideration for a small minority who exist alongside them. If you choose not to extend that courtesy, that’s your right, and I’ll defend that right". The question I asked was - will you defend the right of someone that chooses to misgender you. You said in your first post that you would think less of them for doing so, and I would join you in that condemnation, that's consequences. But will you support their right to say things the way they feel?" "You were literally replying to a post about forced speech — that’s why I addressed it in that context." No, I was replying to your statement about free speech. You were replying to someone else posting about forced speech, but then you changed tack and made a general statement, which I responded to. "And yes, I’ll defend anyone’s right to speak, even if what they say is cruel or ignorant. But freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence. Deliberate, repeated misgendering isn’t illegal speech, but it is classed as harassment under equality law when it’s targeted. So sure, they can say it — and everyone else has the right to call it what it is and hold them accountable." I disagree with your interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, but that's a different subject. What some people will be pleased to hear is that you agree that they have the right to use their own definition of all gendered terms when they need to refer to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree with your interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, but that's a different subject. What some people will be pleased to hear is that you agree that they have the right to use their own definition of all gendered terms when they need to refer to you." You’re doing it again — clipping context to make a neater argument. The post you replied to did reference forced speech, and I answered within that frame. Just like now, you’re ignoring that I’ve said repeatedly: yes, people can say what they like, and others have the equal right to reply and hold them accountable. You can’t defend free speech for one side and deny it to the other just because the response makes you uncomfortable. I know that makes what you get to say sound a little less righteous, but accuracy’s still a thing. PS: not telling you what to say — just holding you accountable for what you did say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree with your interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, but that's a different subject. What some people will be pleased to hear is that you agree that they have the right to use their own definition of all gendered terms when they need to refer to you." "You’re doing it again — clipping context to make a neater argument. The post you replied to did reference forced speech, and I answered within that frame." No, the post I replied to was yours. Here it is: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1750069#message_42826354 Your words (not the words you quoted from someone else) explicitly deny any forced speech. "Just like now, you’re ignoring that I’ve said repeatedly: yes, people can say what they like, and others have the equal right to reply and hold them accountable. You can’t defend free speech for one side and deny it to the other just because the response makes you uncomfortable." I didn't claim that you've never said this before, or that you've changed your opinion. I just quoted what you said, and asked a simple question about it. "PS: not telling you what to say — just holding you accountable for what you did say." I would be happy with that if you held me to account for what I actually said, rather than what you imagine my motivations to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But for people who do experience dysphoria — trans men, non-binary people, even some intersex folks — the term female can hit hard. That’s not about ideology, it’s about lived experience. What problem do those people have with the word "female"?" Because Trans woman can never be female, thats what 'hits hard' I imagine, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's about people being forced to change their language and meaning of the words just for the convenience of a few. Who’s forcing you? Tell me who they are and I’ll happily ask them to stop. No one’s marching into homes demanding new words — people are just asking others to show a little consideration for a small minority who exist alongside them. If you choose not to extend that courtesy, that’s your right, and I’ll defend that right. Really? So if a particular poster on here decided to stick to what they believe is the traditional definition of 'woman', and started referring to you as a male, you'd defend their right to make that choice, because your're not asking them to change their language?" Oops, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reported that the BBC team assigned to LGBTQ reporting had been encapsulated by Stonewall ideology. Hence the terms used in reports and lack of reporting on anti trans views. For example, people who say they made a mistake transitioning and now want to detransisition are under reported. Social contagion and group think is a thing and you see the results of this in this very forum regularly." That might be because none of that is true. The 'Stonewall captured the BBC' narrative was entirely manufactured by the gender critical movement and pushed by a handful of partisan outlets. Independent reviews found no evidence of editorial capture, only that the BBC had been part of Stonewall's voluntary diversity scheme, like hundreds of other major employers. As for detransition, it is one of the rarest cases of regret in all of medicine. Fewer than 1% of trans people regret transitioning, and among those who detransition, the vast majority cite lack of social support, discrimination, or hostile environments as the reason, not because they stopped being trans. So when gender critical groups use those rare cases to imply regret is common or that transition care is inherently flawed, they are not reporting facts, they are weaponising anecdotes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reported that the BBC team assigned to LGBTQ reporting had been encapsulated by Stonewall ideology. Hence the terms used in reports and lack of reporting on anti trans views. For example, people who say they made a mistake transitioning and now want to detransisition are under reported. Social contagion and group think is a thing and you see the results of this in this very forum regularly. That might be because none of that is true. The 'Stonewall captured the BBC' narrative was entirely manufactured by the gender critical movement and pushed by a handful of partisan outlets. Independent reviews found no evidence of editorial capture, only that the BBC had been part of Stonewall's voluntary diversity scheme, like hundreds of other major employers. As for detransition, it is one of the rarest cases of regret in all of medicine. Fewer than 1% of trans people regret transitioning, and among those who detransition, the vast majority cite lack of social support, discrimination, or hostile environments as the reason, not because they stopped being trans. So when gender critical groups use those rare cases to imply regret is common or that transition care is inherently flawed, they are not reporting facts, they are weaponising anecdotes." 'Rare cases' does that apply to the issue to Inter Sex too then? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reported that the BBC team assigned to LGBTQ reporting had been encapsulated by Stonewall ideology. Hence the terms used in reports and lack of reporting on anti trans views. For example, people who say they made a mistake transitioning and now want to detransisition are under reported. Social contagion and group think is a thing and you see the results of this in this very forum regularly. That might be because none of that is true. The 'Stonewall captured the BBC' narrative was entirely manufactured by the gender critical movement and pushed by a handful of partisan outlets. Independent reviews found no evidence of editorial capture, only that the BBC had been part of Stonewall's voluntary diversity scheme, like hundreds of other major employers. As for detransition, it is one of the rarest cases of regret in all of medicine. Fewer than 1% of trans people regret transitioning, and among those who detransition, the vast majority cite lack of social support, discrimination, or hostile environments as the reason, not because they stopped being trans. So when gender critical groups use those rare cases to imply regret is common or that transition care is inherently flawed, they are not reporting facts, they are weaponising anecdotes." According to an American Survey, they found figures which seem to be higher than you are suggesting... "Out of the 27,715 respondents to the survey, 8% reported that they had ever detransitioned (i.e., “gone back to living as their sex assigned at birth, at least for a while”). Among those who had pursued gender affirmation (17,151 respondents), 2,242 reported a history of detransition, which is about 13.1% of that sub-group." A recent British survey with a much smaller cohort put the figure at over 6% but acknowledged that there are fi dings with massive differences in range from less than 1% up to greater than 13%. You pay your money, you take your choice I guess. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No surprise that JKR has supported the newsreader. I did love Jinkx Monsoon's take on JKR, though! " Honestly, Jinkx’s take on most things tends to be amazing — sharp, funny, and somehow still kinder than most people deserve in these debates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence. Deliberate, " Freedom of speech does mean freedom from certain types of consequences -legal actions, violence or the threat of violence. If you are going to face legal action or if you are attacked for speaking things, you don't have freedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence. Deliberate, Freedom of speech does mean freedom from certain types of consequences -legal actions, violence or the threat of violence. If you are going to face legal action or if you are attacked for speaking things, you don't have freedom of speech. " The law is very clear on this. Freedom of speech protects people from government interference — it means the state can’t punish you simply for expressing an opinion. It doesn’t mean freedom from all consequences. Hate speech, threats, libel, and slander have never been protected. Those fall under laws against harassment and defamation, not censorship. Freedom of speech was never about what one private person can or can’t say to another. If you say something offensive or defamatory, the other person has the right to respond — and, if necessary, to seek justice. You can still say it — you just can’t expect immunity from the results. And yes, I’ll agree some of the laws around free expression have gone too far. Just look at the growing restrictions on protest — that’s the kind of state interference the principle was meant to protect us from in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The law is very clear on this. Freedom of speech protects people from government interference — it means the state can’t punish you simply for expressing an opinion. It doesn’t mean freedom from all consequences. Hate speech, threats, libel, and slander have never been protected. Those fall under laws against harassment and defamation, not censorship. " The way to put that is "Our freedom of speech is partial. We don't have freedom for certain types of speech." If I say that we have the freedom to be gay but a man kissing a man will be fined, will you say we still have freedom to be gay? " If you say something offensive or defamatory, the other person has the right to respond — and, if necessary, to seek justice. " You have the right to respond in words. But if this results in a legal action, the other person doesn't have freedom for the said speech. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is an idiotic slogan used by left wingers who are authoritarian but pretend to have liberal values and want to hide their authoritarian views on freedom of speech. In case you didn't know, it is inspired by a quote of Idi Amin, "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have the right to respond in words. But if this results in a legal action, the other person doesn't have freedom for the said speech. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is an idiotic slogan used by left wingers who are authoritarian but pretend to have liberal values and want to hide their authoritarian views on freedom of speech. In case you didn't know, it is inspired by a quote of Idi Amin, "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech." " By your logic, anyone should be able to say anything at any time. So does that include bomb threats at schools? Threats of violence against individuals or groups? Leaking people’s bank details or national security information? Because if that’s the kind of “absolute freedom” you’re defending, it’s not liberty — it’s anarchy. Free speech in the UK, like in every functioning democracy, is qualified precisely because words have power. The right to speak doesn’t erase responsibility for what that speech does. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre just to watch people trample each other — that’s not political freedom, it’s reckless endangerment. The point isn’t to silence people; it’s to balance rights with responsibility. Otherwise, “freedom” just becomes the shield behind which cruelty and chaos hide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are non binary people, afab, who can become pregnant. They don't identify as women. I'm a woman who was pregnant and it really didn't bother me being called a pregnant person. " They still had to be a biological woman no matter how they identify. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By your logic, anyone should be able to say anything at any time. So does that include bomb threats at schools? Threats of violence against individuals or groups? Leaking people’s bank details or national security information? Because if that’s the kind of “absolute freedom” you’re defending, it’s not liberty — it’s anarchy. " Absolute freedom of speech would mean freedom to say everything you said above. Having absolute freedom of speech doesn't mean anarchy. Having absolute freedom in everything is anarchy. But as I said. No country has absolute freedom of speech. It lies in a spectrum. On one end, you have absolute freedom of speech. On the other end, you have North Korea. The right way to describe it is that we have partial freedom of speech. The question is which part of the spectrum does this country or your own political views lie. If you want legal action on people who are misgendering, you have to be honest about it and say that you want to reduce our freedom of speech to protect people from misgendered, instead of saying "You have freedom of speech to misgender. But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" " Free speech in the UK, like in every functioning democracy, is qualified precisely because words have power. The right to speak doesn’t erase responsibility for what that speech does. " If a kind of speech gets you arrested, you say that "you don't have freedom for that kind of speech" As I said above, if the country fines men who kiss other men, would you say the country still has freedom to be gay? " You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre just to watch people trample each other — that’s not political freedom, it’s reckless endangerment. " It is political freedom. You are banning political freedom for the sake of safety. You can't ban something and still say you have the freedom for something. " The point isn’t to silence people; it’s to balance rights with responsibility. Otherwise, “freedom” just becomes the shield behind which cruelty and chaos hide." In that case, be honest and say that you want to take away someone's freedom of speech to protect some people. Just like we take away the freedom to hold knives, for the safety of the society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are non binary people, afab, who can become pregnant. They don't identify as women. I'm a woman who was pregnant and it really didn't bother me being called a pregnant person. " I never really understand the objection. Are women not people? Because if “pregnant people” includes women and others who can be pregnant, then objecting to it sounds less like protecting women and more like denying that they count as people at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are non binary people, afab, who can become pregnant. They don't identify as women. I'm a woman who was pregnant and it really didn't bother me being called a pregnant person. I never really understand the objection. Are women not people? Because if “pregnant people” includes women and others who can be pregnant, then objecting to it sounds less like protecting women and more like denying that they count as people at all." Only woman can get pregnant Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In that case, be honest and say that you want to take away someone's freedom of speech to protect some people. Just like we take away the freedom to hold knives, for the safety of the society." I actually joined you on the “common usage” side of the argument — and now you’ve done a full 180. Precision over common belief. When it’s about excluding trans women, you insist common understanding matters more than technical definition. But when the legal definition of free speech doesn’t suit your point, suddenly you want to ignore common usage entirely. That’s not consistency — that’s convenience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In that case, be honest and say that you want to take away someone's freedom of speech to protect some people. Just like we take away the freedom to hold knives, for the safety of the society. I actually joined you on the “common usage” side of the argument — and now you’ve done a full 180. Precision over common belief. When it’s about excluding trans women, you insist common understanding matters more than technical definition. But when the legal definition of free speech doesn’t suit your point, suddenly you want to ignore common usage entirely. That’s not consistency — that’s convenience." I am still sticking to common understanding. Freedom means ability to do something without legal consequence. That's the common understanding. If you get arrested for smoking outside, you don't have freedom to smoke outside. Most people understand what freedom means. This is why the left gets accused of taking away freedom of speech, every time they come up with laws to punish people for different kinds of speech like hate speech. And the response from the left wingers for that is usually "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". It makes zero sense for other people and they are right in continuing to criticise the left wingers for taking away freedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am still sticking to common understanding. Freedom means ability to do something without legal consequence. That's the common understanding. If you get arrested for smoking outside, you don't have freedom to smoke outside. Most people understand what freedom means. This is why the left gets accused of taking away freedom of speech, every time they come up with laws to punish people for different kinds of speech like hate speech. And the response from the left wingers for that is usually "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". It makes zero sense for other people and they are right in continuing to criticise the left wingers for taking away freedom of speech." You keep saying it’s “the left” that censors, but the record says otherwise. It was the right that brought in Section 28, banning any mention of queer lives in schools. It’s the right now pushing for an anti-trans Section 28 revival, banning teachers from acknowledging trans kids’ identities. They passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023, which criminalised “noisy” or “disruptive” protests — laws designed to silence the masses, not protect free speech. They’ve even tried to censor books and pressure arts councils over “woke” content. The loudest self-styled defenders of “free speech” always seem to be the ones writing laws to stop people using it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did anyone else notice that it wasn't just that people complained about the delivery (no pun intended), it was the amount of support the newsreader got in response to the facial expression that led the complaint to be upheld? Something to do with impartiality? " Exactly. The complaints weren’t upheld because she said “women” — they were upheld because she broke BBC impartiality rules. She went off-script, adding a political slant to a live report. If she’d done the same thing mocking the other side, it still would’ve breached impartiality — the only difference is there would’ve been a lot more complaints. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did anyone else notice that it wasn't just that people complained about the delivery (no pun intended), it was the amount of support the newsreader got in response to the facial expression that led the complaint to be upheld? Something to do with impartiality? " Although I dont disagree with what she did, she shouldn't have changed the wording. If people dont like the phrase 'pregnant prople' they could have complained if they wanted. Only 20 people complained when she changed it to woman. She should never have winked because that have an impression as to her motive for changing the word. As a news reader you are there to read the news not write it. But really its just a small story thats gained some traction, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You keep saying it’s “the left” that censors, but the record says otherwise. It was the right that brought in Section 28, banning any mention of queer lives in schools. It’s the right now pushing for an anti-trans Section 28 revival, banning teachers from acknowledging trans kids’ identities. They passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023, which criminalised “noisy” or “disruptive” protests — laws designed to silence the masses, not protect free speech. They’ve even tried to censor books and pressure arts councils over “woke” content. The loudest self-styled defenders of “free speech” always seem to be the ones writing laws to stop people using it." I never said the right doesn't censor either. Both left and right wingers try to censor out each other. The left tries to justify it by saying that they are "protecting the minorities" while the right tries to justify it under safety or protection of kids. This is why the first amendment was written in the US - To protect the speech of both the sides. Even that's not absolute freedom of speech because they have specific exceptions, but much narrower and clearly defined compared to UK's laws. I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You keep saying it’s “the left” that censors, but the record says otherwise. It was the right that brought in Section 28, banning any mention of queer lives in schools. It’s the right now pushing for an anti-trans Section 28 revival, banning teachers from acknowledging trans kids’ identities. They passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023, which criminalised “noisy” or “disruptive” protests — laws designed to silence the masses, not protect free speech. They’ve even tried to censor books and pressure arts councils over “woke” content. The loudest self-styled defenders of “free speech” always seem to be the ones writing laws to stop people using it. I never said the right doesn't censor either. Both left and right wingers try to censor out each other. The left tries to justify it by saying that they are "protecting the minorities" while the right tries to justify it under safety or protection of kids. This is why the first amendment was written in the US - To protect the speech of both the sides. Even that's not absolute freedom of speech because they have specific exceptions, but much narrower and clearly defined compared to UK's laws. I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. " You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You keep saying it’s “the left” that censors, but the record says otherwise. It was the right that brought in Section 28, banning any mention of queer lives in schools. It’s the right now pushing for an anti-trans Section 28 revival, banning teachers from acknowledging trans kids’ identities. They passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023, which criminalised “noisy” or “disruptive” protests — laws designed to silence the masses, not protect free speech. They’ve even tried to censor books and pressure arts councils over “woke” content. The loudest self-styled defenders of “free speech” always seem to be the ones writing laws to stop people using it. I never said the right doesn't censor either. Both left and right wingers try to censor out each other. The left tries to justify it by saying that they are "protecting the minorities" while the right tries to justify it under safety or protection of kids. This is why the first amendment was written in the US - To protect the speech of both the sides. Even that's not absolute freedom of speech because they have specific exceptions, but much narrower and clearly defined compared to UK's laws. I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. " Everyone is free to say what they want on threads. There's no rule against it. If you dont like other people's posts, ignore them, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You keep saying it’s “the left” that censors, but the record says otherwise. It was the right that brought in Section 28, banning any mention of queer lives in schools. It’s the right now pushing for an anti-trans Section 28 revival, banning teachers from acknowledging trans kids’ identities. They passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023, which criminalised “noisy” or “disruptive” protests — laws designed to silence the masses, not protect free speech. They’ve even tried to censor books and pressure arts councils over “woke” content. The loudest self-styled defenders of “free speech” always seem to be the ones writing laws to stop people using it. I never said the right doesn't censor either. Both left and right wingers try to censor out each other. The left tries to justify it by saying that they are "protecting the minorities" while the right tries to justify it under safety or protection of kids. This is why the first amendment was written in the US - To protect the speech of both the sides. Even that's not absolute freedom of speech because they have specific exceptions, but much narrower and clearly defined compared to UK's laws. I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. " I didn't realise you were a forum moderator | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never said the right doesn't censor either. Both left and right wingers try to censor out each other. The left tries to justify it by saying that they are "protecting the minorities" while the right tries to justify it under safety or protection of kids. This is why the first amendment was written in the US - To protect the speech of both the sides. Even that's not absolute freedom of speech because they have specific exceptions, but much narrower and clearly defined compared to UK's laws. I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. " The left tends to act from a place of protection - often clumsy, sometimes excessive, but rooted in the idea of shielding people from harm or hate. The right’s approach usually revolves around protection from ideas themselves - shielding people from reality, progress, or uncomfortable truths. One says, “Don’t punch down.” The other says, “Don’t talk about it.” And as for that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequence” line - it’s not a slogan, it’s legal reality. Freedom of speech only covers protection from government interference. It never guaranteed anyone a consequence-free audience. You keep conflating social accountability with state censorship. Someone disagreeing with you or calling you out isn’t the same as being arrested. The law only intervenes when speech crosses into harassment, credible threats, or incitement — that’s not policing opinions, that’s policing harm. In the UK, you have the right to protected speech. But not criminal speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's next? Pregnant human? The anonymity of 'pregnant person' makes me feel like a specimen in a jar. Are we to be stripped of all our defining features? What will satisfy? How far is enough? Did anyone consult the classification of women and females before their designation was claimed, repurposed, redefined and diluted? Of course not. Are we headed back to the suffragette years where women were made invisible?" I love this, so eloquent. Its almost like a movement to erase womanhood just because they haven't got the keys to the club. Its nothing to do with all that nonsense about clarity and such. Its all about sparing the feelings of a tiny minority who can't have something so they want to make sure nobody else gets to have it. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You keep saying it’s “the left” that censors, but the record says otherwise. It was the right that brought in Section 28, banning any mention of queer lives in schools. It’s the right now pushing for an anti-trans Section 28 revival, banning teachers from acknowledging trans kids’ identities. They passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023, which criminalised “noisy” or “disruptive” protests — laws designed to silence the masses, not protect free speech. They’ve even tried to censor books and pressure arts councils over “woke” content. The loudest self-styled defenders of “free speech” always seem to be the ones writing laws to stop people using it. I never said the right doesn't censor either. Both left and right wingers try to censor out each other. The left tries to justify it by saying that they are "protecting the minorities" while the right tries to justify it under safety or protection of kids. This is why the first amendment was written in the US - To protect the speech of both the sides. Even that's not absolute freedom of speech because they have specific exceptions, but much narrower and clearly defined compared to UK's laws. I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. I didn't realise you were a forum moderator" Nothing wrong with a bit of self policing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's next? Pregnant human? The anonymity of 'pregnant person' makes me feel like a specimen in a jar. Are we to be stripped of all our defining features? What will satisfy? How far is enough? Did anyone consult the classification of women and females before their designation was claimed, repurposed, redefined and diluted? Of course not. Are we headed back to the suffragette years where women were made invisible?" Feelings over facts, everyone. “Pregnant people” isn’t erasing anyone — it’s just acknowledging that not everyone who gets pregnant identifies as a woman. Nobody’s banning you from calling yourself a pregnant woman. The term simply makes space for others too. If inclusivity makes you feel invisible, maybe the issue isn’t the word — it’s the discomfort of realising the world doesn’t revolve around just one experience anymore. As for the suffragettes — yes, they made enormous progress, but let’s not rewrite history. They weren’t saints. Many of the leading figures campaigned specifically for white, straight, middle-class women and were perfectly happy to throw queer women, working-class women, and women of colour under the bus. Progress isn’t erased by acknowledging its flaws. It’s made stronger by being honest about who got left behind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You keep saying it’s “the left” that censors, but the record says otherwise. It was the right that brought in Section 28, banning any mention of queer lives in schools. It’s the right now pushing for an anti-trans Section 28 revival, banning teachers from acknowledging trans kids’ identities. They passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023, which criminalised “noisy” or “disruptive” protests — laws designed to silence the masses, not protect free speech. They’ve even tried to censor books and pressure arts councils over “woke” content. The loudest self-styled defenders of “free speech” always seem to be the ones writing laws to stop people using it. I never said the right doesn't censor either. Both left and right wingers try to censor out each other. The left tries to justify it by saying that they are "protecting the minorities" while the right tries to justify it under safety or protection of kids. This is why the first amendment was written in the US - To protect the speech of both the sides. Even that's not absolute freedom of speech because they have specific exceptions, but much narrower and clearly defined compared to UK's laws. I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. " How come you only tell one poster to start a new thread when there are two posters talking about this? Why havent you challenged the other poster? What's your motive behind this? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's next? Pregnant human? The anonymity of 'pregnant person' makes me feel like a specimen in a jar. Are we to be stripped of all our defining features? What will satisfy? How far is enough? Did anyone consult the classification of women and females before their designation was claimed, repurposed, redefined and diluted? Of course not. Are we headed back to the suffragette years where women were made invisible? Feelings over facts, everyone. “Pregnant people” isn’t erasing anyone — it’s just acknowledging that not everyone who gets pregnant identifies as a woman. Nobody’s banning you from calling yourself a pregnant woman. The term simply makes space for others too. If inclusivity makes you feel invisible, maybe the issue isn’t the word — it’s the discomfort of realising the world doesn’t revolve around just one experience anymore. As for the suffragettes — yes, they made enormous progress, but let’s not rewrite history. They weren’t saints. Many of the leading figures campaigned specifically for white, straight, middle-class women and were perfectly happy to throw queer women, working-class women, and women of colour under the bus. Progress isn’t erased by acknowledging its flaws. It’s made stronger by being honest about who got left behind." In the other thread today you were all about feelings, whats changed? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was just pointing out the lunacy of a statement like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", a line which the left wingers have been using a lot in the recent years. The left tends to act from a place of protection - often clumsy, sometimes excessive, but rooted in the idea of shielding people from harm or hate. The right’s approach usually revolves around protection from ideas themselves - shielding people from reality, progress, or uncomfortable truths. " That's just your personal opinion. Did Stalin and Mao's actions against freedom of speech come from a place of protection? 🤣 " One says, “Don’t punch down.” The other says, “Don’t talk about it.” " Again, your own interpretation of things. You are just doing some mental gymnastics to justify your censorship over the other. " And as for that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequence” line - it’s not a slogan, it’s legal reality. Freedom of speech only covers protection from government interference. It never guaranteed anyone a consequence-free audience. " That's pretty much what I said too. But if the government even fines you for speech, it's not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means freedom from legal action or violent response. The slogan "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" vastly undermines this aspect of freedom of speech. As I said in a previous post, it's inspired by an Idi Amin quote. Is that the kind of guy you want to be associated with, when it comes to your views of freedom of speech? " You keep conflating social accountability with state censorship. Someone disagreeing with you or calling you out isn’t the same as being arrested. " I never said that someone disagreeing with me and calling me out is against freedom of speech. You are making a strawman argument. " The law only intervenes when speech crosses into harassment, credible threats, or incitement — that’s not policing opinions, that’s policing harm. " Is misgendering someone harassment? If yes, then you are just using different excuse to take away freedom of someone to misgender. Be honest and say that, you don't want freedom of people to misgender, instead of using that slogan, "freedom to misgender doesn't mean freedom from consequence". " In the UK, you have the right to protected speech. But not criminal speech." It means you have right to some kind of speech but not other kind of speech. No amount of verbal gymnastics is going to hide that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. " Just because you don't like a topic, it doesn't mean the thread is being derailed. Freedom of speech is well related to this thread. If you don't like it, you can just skip it. It's not that hard to scroll over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It means you have right to some kind of speech but not other kind of speech. No amount of verbal gymnastics is going to hide that." You’re circling an argument that was never actually being made. I was talking about how freedom of speech functions in this country, not some abstract absolutist version. You can get as pedantic as you want about semantics — I don’t really care. You call my position opinion; the same applies to yours. At this point it’s not about law or principle anymore, just interpretation. So I’m stepping out — this one’s pure opinion vs opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. Just because you don't like a topic, it doesn't mean the thread is being derailed. Freedom of speech is well related to this thread. If you don't like it, you can just skip it. It's not that hard to scroll over." Well said! You could just ad easily scroll past. If you'd care to look, I've made attempts to get this back on the original topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. Just because you don't like a topic, it doesn't mean the thread is being derailed. Freedom of speech is well related to this thread. If you don't like it, you can just skip it. It's not that hard to scroll over. Well said! You could just ad easily scroll past. If you'd care to look, I've made attempts to get this back on the original topic. " But is that really your job, especially only to one of the two posters having a dialogue on this thread? Gives the wrong impression. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. Just because you don't like a topic, it doesn't mean the thread is being derailed. Freedom of speech is well related to this thread. If you don't like it, you can just skip it. It's not that hard to scroll over. Well said! You could just ad easily scroll past. If you'd care to look, I've made attempts to get this back on the original topic. " But didn’t you know — it’s far easier to argue against a straw man that’s off-topic than actually engage with the point that was made. Some people don’t debate to exchange ideas; they debate to dodge them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really should learn when to start a thread of your own, instead of derailing an existing topic. I'm sure another thread on freedom of speech is well overdue. Just because you don't like a topic, it doesn't mean the thread is being derailed. Freedom of speech is well related to this thread. If you don't like it, you can just skip it. It's not that hard to scroll over. Well said! You could just ad easily scroll past. If you'd care to look, I've made attempts to get this back on the original topic. But didn’t you know — it’s far easier to argue against a straw man that’s off-topic than actually engage with the point that was made. Some people don’t debate to exchange ideas; they debate to dodge them." Talk about dodging did you give the evidence you were using to make your point in the other thread? If you already have I apologise for missing it, really looking forward to seeing what military source you have access to, exciting. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It means you have right to some kind of speech but not other kind of speech. No amount of verbal gymnastics is going to hide that. You’re circling an argument that was never actually being made. I was talking about how freedom of speech functions in this country, not some abstract absolutist version. You can get as pedantic as you want about semantics — I don’t really care. You call my position opinion; the same applies to yours. At this point it’s not about law or principle anymore, just interpretation. So I’m stepping out — this one’s pure opinion vs opinion " My concern was specifically about the slogan "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". It's a statement that undermines the basic tenets of freedom of speech as freedom of speech does mean freedom from certain types of consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My concern was specifically about the slogan "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". It's a statement that undermines the basic tenets of freedom of speech as freedom of speech does mean freedom from certain types of consequences. " Ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But didn’t you know — it’s far easier to argue against a straw man that’s off-topic than actually engage with the point that was made. " You made a point based on an assumption about freedom of speech which was wrong. Pointing that out isn't going off topic. If you can't handle the flaws of your arguments being called out, debates are not really for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But didn’t you know — it’s far easier to argue against a straw man that’s off-topic than actually engage with the point that was made. You made a point based on an assumption about freedom of speech which was wrong. Pointing that out isn't going off topic. If you can't handle the flaws of your arguments being called out, debates are not really for you." Ok Like I said it is 100% opinion vs opinion and serves no rational purpose to continue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would it be ok to call a pregnant woman a pregnant woman and call a pregnant girl a pregnant girl? this covers both adults and children. If in the future the it becomes possible for men to have babies then they can be described using the same principle." What about people who don’t want to be called women — do we just ignore their wishes? And wouldn’t it be clunky to have to say “pregnant women, girls, men, trans men, and non-binary people” every single time? “Pregnant people” already includes everyone — present and future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Id have thought pregnant people meant more than one pregnant person, and changing that to pregnant woman was correcting a grammatical error but with recent discussions I feel it's another thin edged blade being inserted to modify our thinking to be more inclusive " Oh no inclusion, what a terrible thing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Id have thought pregnant people meant more than one pregnant person, and changing that to pregnant woman was correcting a grammatical error but with recent discussions I feel it's another thin edged blade being inserted to modify our thinking to be more inclusive Oh no inclusion, what a terrible thing! " Inclusiveness is a two way street, rights and respect are earned not forced | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Id have thought pregnant people meant more than one pregnant person, and changing that to pregnant woman was correcting a grammatical error but with recent discussions I feel it's another thin edged blade being inserted to modify our thinking to be more inclusive Oh no inclusion, what a terrible thing! Inclusiveness is a two way street, rights and respect are earned not forced " That’s where we part ways. Rights aren’t something you earn through approval or good behaviour — they’re something you have by virtue of being human. Once you make people “earn” rights, they stop being rights and turn into privileges handed out by whoever’s in power. History shows exactly how dangerous that mindset is. Respect, sure — that’s built over time. But rights are the floor, not the reward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If inclusion is done correctly everyone ought to feel respected and be empowered to co-exist side by side in community. But instead the people feel entitled to assume the defining features of women. Protected characteristics and rights are being eroded and we aren't 'allowed' to use our voice to say no or pause or discuss. If the trans community need facilities then create them. If they need pamphlets then print them. Have non-binary changing rooms. Have single occupancy facilities. There are literally endless choices. Limitless options. And yet the only ones taken forward are the easy, cheaper ones. The ones that take from women. And feeling steamrollered is dismissed. Feeling anything isn't allowed. And I have much love for all, welcome all, but it has to be recognised that my 'all' includes women. Let women be." It’s hard to miss the irony here — calling for inclusion while framing one group’s existence as theft from another. No one’s “taking” anything from women by acknowledging that not everyone who gets pregnant is one. That’s not erasure — it’s reality. Let all people be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not dismissing reality — I’m dismissing a fantasy. A fantasy built by anti-trans campaigners who’ve convinced people that inclusion equals erasure. Recognising that not everyone who can get pregnant identifies as a woman doesn’t erase women — it just acknowledges others exist too. It’s simple: adding isn’t the same as subtracting. Womb = 99.9% likelihood of female. If accuracy is really the goal, that’s the honest version. Biology has exceptions — pretending it’s absolute isn’t fact, it’s ideology." "Recognising that not everyone who can get pregnant identifies as a woman..." This is ridiculous, you could identify as a Street Lamp but the reality is if you are pregnant you are a female, believing you are something else cannot change that. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on earth? It's literally erasing language. Substitution with gender neutral phrasing. This entire thread was birthed to discuss the erasure of the word 'women' in favour of calling us 'pregnant people'" You’d only be erased if you weren’t a person. You are a person, right? Because “pregnant people” includes women — it just doesn’t exclude anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on earth? It's literally erasing language. Substitution with gender neutral phrasing. This entire thread was birthed to discuss the erasure of the word 'women' in favour of calling us 'pregnant people'" Exactly! If you do the same with race just because multiracial people exist, it would be called erasure of race and rightfully so. Some people on here tried to call me white nationalist just because I asked this question to show the fallacy of their argument. But apparently erasing gender is inclusion for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on earth? It's literally erasing language. Substitution with gender neutral phrasing. This entire thread was birthed to discuss the erasure of the word 'women' in favour of calling us 'pregnant people' You’d only be erased if you weren’t a person. You are a person, right? Because “pregnant people” includes women — it just doesn’t exclude anyone else." It does exclude people, it excludes men, thats the point, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly! If you do the same with race just because multiracial people exist, it would be called erasure of race and rightfully so. Some people on here tried to call me white nationalist just because I asked this question to show the fallacy of their argument. But apparently erasing gender is inclusion for them." It literally doesn’t erase anyone. Adding language to include others doesn’t delete you — it just stops pretending you’re the only one who exists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly! If you do the same with race just because multiracial people exist, it would be called erasure of race and rightfully so. Some people on here tried to call me white nationalist just because I asked this question to show the fallacy of their argument. But apparently erasing gender is inclusion for them. It literally doesn’t erase anyone. Adding language to include others doesn’t delete you — it just stops pretending you’re the only one who exists." Can we do the same with race? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we do the same with race?" Say “people” instead of Black, White, Asian, Maori, Arab, Latino, Indigenous, Pacific Islander, Jewish, Irish Traveller, Romani, Kurdish, Sikh, Somali, Persian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Polish, Greek, Italian, or Native American — sure, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that. In fact, I imagine some would prefer it. As I probably missed a load. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It literally doesn’t erase anyone. Adding language to include others doesn’t delete you — it just stops pretending you’re the only one who exists." But women are the only ones who are women. Men are men. Trans mtf are trans mtf. Trans ftm are trans ftm. There's no need to hide these identities. Be proud. Live your life, be your best self. You can be you without assuming space, language and identity of others. The only ones pretending are those who wish to erase realities they find incompatible with their chosen viewpoint and interpretation of biology. A trans person will always be a trans person. They cannot erase their origin. I understand that this is challenging when body dismorphia and other things are involved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly! If you do the same with race just because multiracial people exist, it would be called erasure of race and rightfully so. Some people on here tried to call me white nationalist just because I asked this question to show the fallacy of their argument. But apparently erasing gender is inclusion for them. It literally doesn’t erase anyone. Adding language to include others doesn’t delete you — it just stops pretending you’re the only one who exists." That's the crux isn't it. If Trans people dont get to give a woman a prefix too, it means that Trans people dont feel normal, feel excluded. Defosseuy said this in her recent letter when she described why she came up with this. She didnt want to make Trans feel as if they weren't normal. So you saying woman are pretending we are the one ones who exist is incorrect. We are the only ones who are female, Trans woman are Trans woman but not female. Trans Men are Trans Men and they are female. We are not denying that they exist. But it doesn't match up with what your ideology expects. Biological men are men, biological woman are woman. Unless you have transition there is no need to classify a man or a woman as anything else. To do so creates a new subset and, like the other poster has correctly stated, erases the identity of men or woman. Its all about feelings not facts and that from the person who came up with the redundant prefix, Dana Defossey. She is tge one attributed in the dictionaries for the inclusion of this stupid prefix. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But women are the only ones who are women. Men are men. Trans mtf are trans mtf. Trans ftm are trans ftm. There's no need to hide these identities. Be proud. Live your life, be your best self. You can be you without assuming space, language and identity of others. The only ones pretending are those who wish to erase realities they find incompatible with their chosen viewpoint and interpretation of biology. A trans person will always be a trans person. They cannot erase their origin. I understand that this is challenging when body dismorphia and other things are involved." Except no one is trying to “erase” womanhood — we’re just recognising that biology and gender aren’t as tidy as you’re pretending they are. Sex characteristics exist across a spectrum, and intersex people prove that every day. Gender identity isn’t the same thing as sex, and the two can coexist without contradiction. Trans men and non-binary people don’t “assume” women’s language; they reclaim inclusion in medical and social systems that already apply to them. Calling everyone who can get pregnant “pregnant people” doesn’t remove the word woman — it just acknowledges that women aren’t the only ones affected. And that’s the irony: the people shouting about “erasure” are the ones insisting only their reality be recognised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we do the same with race? Say “people” instead of Black, White, Asian, Maori, Arab, Latino, Indigenous, Pacific Islander, Jewish, Irish Traveller, Romani, Kurdish, Sikh, Somali, Persian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Polish, Greek, Italian, or Native American — sure, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that. In fact, I imagine some would prefer it. As I probably missed a load." Saying All lives matter instead of black lives matter? Because your argument isn't anything different from people making the "All lives matter" argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It literally doesn’t erase anyone. Adding language to include others doesn’t delete you — it just stops pretending you’re the only one who exists. But women are the only ones who are women. Men are men. Trans mtf are trans mtf. Trans ftm are trans ftm. There's no need to hide these identities. Be proud. Live your life, be your best self. You can be you without assuming space, language and identity of others. The only ones pretending are those who wish to erase realities they find incompatible with their chosen viewpoint and interpretation of biology. A trans person will always be a trans person. They cannot erase their origin. I understand that this is challenging when body dismorphia and other things are involved." Very eloquently put, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying All lives matter instead of black lives matter? Because your argument isn't anything different from people making the "All lives matter" argument." Nice try, but that comparison doesn’t hold. “All lives matter” was used to drown out a specific plea for justice — it erased context. “Pregnant people,” on the other hand, adds context by including everyone who can be pregnant. If you want a race-based equivalent, it’s closer to BAME or BIPOC — umbrella terms that include multiple groups without erasing any of them. That’s the key difference: one silences; the other broadens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying All lives matter instead of black lives matter? Because your argument isn't anything different from people making the "All lives matter" argument. Nice try, but that comparison doesn’t hold. “All lives matter” was used to drown out a specific plea for justice — it erased context. " Exactly what you are trying to do with women. " If you want a race-based equivalent, it’s closer to BAME or BIPOC — umbrella terms that include multiple groups without erasing any of them. That’s the key difference: one silences; the other broadens." BAME and BIPOC, all call out the individual races separately when you expand the abbreviation. You are asking for the word woman to be replaced with people. That's same as asking "Black" to be replaced by "All" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But women are the only ones who are women. Men are men. Trans mtf are trans mtf. Trans ftm are trans ftm. There's no need to hide these identities. Be proud. Live your life, be your best self. You can be you without assuming space, language and identity of others. The only ones pretending are those who wish to erase realities they find incompatible with their chosen viewpoint and interpretation of biology. A trans person will always be a trans person. They cannot erase their origin. I understand that this is challenging when body dismorphia and other things are involved. Except no one is trying to “erase” womanhood — we’re just recognising that biology and gender aren’t as tidy as you’re pretending they are. Sex characteristics exist across a spectrum, and intersex people prove that every day. Gender identity isn’t the same thing as sex, and the two can coexist without contradiction. Trans men and non-binary people don’t “assume” women’s language; they reclaim inclusion in medical and social systems that already apply to them. Calling everyone who can get pregnant “pregnant people” doesn’t remove the word woman — it just acknowledges that women aren’t the only ones affected. And that’s the irony: the people shouting about “erasure” are the ones insisting only their reality be recognised." Your reality is recognised you are a Trans woman, that's correct isn't it? So why are you concerned about what others are? By you, let others be them. Its this sort of nikitant behaviour that might not be going in Trans activistisms favour right now, can't you see that? People have a different response when they are asked as opposed to when they are told. At this moment you seem to be doing the later. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BAME and BIPOC, all call out the individual races separately when you expand the abbreviation. You are asking for the word woman to be replaced with people. That's same as asking "Black" to be replaced by "All"" Hogwash. “Minority ethnic” and “people of colour” don’t list every race included under them — they’re umbrella terms, just like pregnant people. BAME and BIPOC serve the same purpose: they simplify language while acknowledging diversity. No one thinks they erase individual identities. And I’ve already answered your false race equivalence more than once. I’m not going to keep entertaining it. This thread is about pregnant people — not whatever tortured analogy you’re trying to drag in from another topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
