Alison Moyet attacked for her womanhood
 

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...8#.W0ZeIGgo-2c

I just read this article about trans activists attacking Alison Moyet on Twitter and thought it was quite relevant to discussions we've had here before. I don't know ow anything about the news source, I was attracted the pic of a singer I like but I do agree with a lot the author says and with Moyet's stance that she is a woman and not a cis anything. I thought others might be interested in reading it.

We all know where this thread is going to go. [emoji23]

welcome to the republican national convention 2020

She is a woman, but so is Kellie Malonie. She is a ciswoman, unlike Kellie Malonie. If she rejects the adjective cis then fine, but its not incredibly descriptive of what kind of woman she is. But thats on her I guess.

Quite a lot of missing the point in the posts above.

Shocking that those who think self identifying is the way things should be don't seem to be outraged that someone is hounded for stating how she wants to be identified. Maybe there would be more sympathy if she was a man.

it is strange, given the comments following the recent thread about a doctor being sacked for not referring the his patient as the gender they requested, apparantly it is a very fluid issue for some depending on who is involved.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: More idiotic 'bullshot with bells on'.

Alison Moyet is a 100% anatomical and physiological woman and has been since birth, **** knows just WHAT 'Kellie' Maloney (NOT Malonie) is now by a 'definition' which conforms to the correct one of a thousand B.S. 'labels' which daft idiots keep inventing for no reason, but 'she' used to be boxing promoter Frank Maloney and he was NEVER a 100% anatomical and physiological woman.

This being a FACT, your statement that; "she is a woman, but so is Kellie Malonie" is pure 'horlicks'.

Incidentally, I find the term 'cis' woman very offensive because it has connotations of disease and if I were to hear anyone so describing my wife or daughter in such a way they would be booking an urgent appointment with their dentist.

Kellie Maloney is a woman though.

Kellie Malonie is a trans-woman. She has no X chromosome, she is not biologically a woman. And I'm tired of men telling me she is the same as me. She is not. She's worth as much... but she is different.

I never have to have this argument with female to male transsexuals. That's because they haven't been men all their lives and still think they can dictate to born women. They can't.

If you want to be a trans female, go for it. Live your life, love who you want and be happy. But don't tell me you're the same as me, because you aren't.

Oh, and furthermore, I am not a ciswoman. I refuse to be defined and pigeonholed by people who're weeping about being pigeonholed themselves. If someone needs a new term, it's not me, because I was born a woman.

Of course it's worth drawing a line between women and transwomen. Transwomen are (biologically) male, women are female. "Cis" women are women, transwomen are transwomen. This doesn't mean they should be mistreated in any way, it just means they're transwomen.

How many men tell you Kellie Maloney is exactly the same as you?

Not a single one I would imagine.

Connotations of disease?

No it simply means what you said in your first paragraph biologically female and born as such. Transwoman meaning not biologically or born as such.

Whining that "Omg they are not women!!" Then also moaning about the terms that then differentiate between those born as women and those not is so childish and bordering on transphobic.

Not really.

That was about gender, this is about sex.
There is a difference between the two.

I think it's this new meaning of the word gender that annoys me most, because it seems to undo alot of the work women have fought for, trying to get themselves out of that stereotypical gender based box by now saying that these boxes are what actually makes us men or women, do you get what I mean? Like as a child, and now as well, but as a young girl growing up with 3 brothers, I fought tooth and nail to not be labelled like that or told what I can or cannot do based on what my interests were or what clothes I chose to wear. I don't know how to explain this without people calling me a bigot or a bad mother or whatever. I don't want to grow up in a world where my daughter thinks unless she becomes a nurse and likes make up she must have a mans brain and it seems like after all the work women have done to try and break down these barriers now we're told no actually get back in your boxes otherwise you're a bigot

I don't think it's like that?

Do you mean the genders going back to being stereotypes?

I actually see it as the opposite. Gender becoming more fluid actually breaks down many of the silly "differences" between the two.

However there will always be fundamental differences between genders otherwise there'd be no point between having them both.

Different, however still remaining equal and worth the same.

I don't know maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the meaning of gender then but the way I understood it, it seems to come down to which sex based stereotypes you follow? Can you explain it to me then?

Well I might have the wrong end of the stick myself but it's how a person likes to present themselves or be seen.

So a biological male who wants to be a woman but doesn't actually transition. So remains a biological male but prefers the female gender pronouns because that's how they self identify?

The way youtuber Blaire White describes it is that her "internal sense of self" was always female. Like in kindergarten, the teacher would say "girls, go to this side of the room for this game", or whatever, and Little Robbie would nearly go to that side of the room, and then be like "oh, right, I'm a boy"

Yeah. It's how you identify yourself rather than what you biologically are.

It's why it's normally described as "a man in a woman's body" or a " woman in a man's body".

I have no issues with anyone wanting to be comfortable within themselves and wishing to be referred to as they feel comfortable. I also think that people should try to be respectful of that when interacting them.

I don't think it should be classified as a hate crime when that doesn't happen though, particularly if things aren't obvious as it were. I also think it's completely unnecessary and equally disrespectful to try and force a re-brand on to others using cis or any other descriptor when the people they are referring to consider it disrespectful to them.

Every time one of these arguments comes up I feel obliged to differentiate between a born woman and a transsexual woman with all the biological baggage that entails. We've already heard on this thread that "Kellie Malonie" is a woman. But she's a trans woman. I was born a woman, I don't need to put "cis" or anything else in front of the word woman to differentiate me from her.

There is no re-brand.

Nobody's expecting men or women to start calling themselves anything.

It's merely a descriptive word.

So you're complaining that you want differentiation and then complaining when there's differentiation.

You just want to complain.

A line I've been saying for months, Marshy.

I don't recall saying you haven't.

But I'm a man, so what I say matters even less than a transwoman.

That line you bolded was referring to the genders being equal, not trans and biological.