Council Insists Women Be Called “People With Ovaries”
Bristol City Council has been accused of offending women with “virtue-signalling madness” after insisting that women should be called “people with ovaries” and claiming that defining sex as biological “misgenders trans people”. The Telegraph has the story.
Bristol City Council has been accused of offending women with “virtue-signalling madness” after claiming that legally defining sex as biological “misgenders trans people” and could lead to discrimination.
Officials also argue that the term “maternity” should be scrapped and replaced with “paternity” to avoid offending trans people, despite the latter meaning “the fact of being a father”.
They also demand support for biological men who want to “chestfeed” babies, despite questions about whether the practice is harmful.
The comments were made in a 39-page response to a consultation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on updates to its guidance, following the Supreme Court ruling in April this year that sex in equality laws refers to biological sex.
The guidance, which is waiting final approval by Ministers, is understood to state that trans women cannot be admitted to women’s single sex spaces.
Bristol City Council, whose Green Party leader Tony Dyer has criticised the Supreme Court ruling, raised a number of objections, including urging the EHRC to drop gendered language when referring to pregnancy, maternity and breastfeeding.
They wrote that “not all pregnant individuals would use the pronouns ‘she/her’” and so it could add “emotional and psychological distress” for “trans men, non-binary, gender diverse or intersex individuals”.
“We strongly advise the use of more inclusive language such as using ‘they/them’ to refer to all individuals, or include other identities to reflect the diversity of individuals who access maternity or paternity services,” officials argued.
“This could include ‘people with ovaries’ or the term ‘people who use paternity services’. We also recognise that individuals may not identify with the word maternity and prefer paternity as it is gender neutral.
“Additionally, it is unclear what support will be available to trans people who chestfeed to ensure they are protected from discrimination.”
Protections based on biological sex are “too vague”, the response added, as: “It is unclear whether it refers to anyone capable of pregnancy, or only those who were assigned female at birth.”
Council officials complain that the new guidance implies that “trans women are not ‘really’ women” and risks “creating a hostile environment in public services”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And I insist that the individual that comes up with this nonsense can be called an idiot.
And I would strongly advise any reasonable man and woman to call him that and treat him as such.
If that causes him emotional and psychological distress, then that is his problem.
the individual that comes up with this nonsense can be called an idiot
And his or her pronouns are “dolt” and “fool”.
Or f*ckwit?
Plus have they come up with a term for women who have had to have their ovaries sugically removed? Unlikely.
Eejit says it better
Well if someone decides to invent silly terms and start using them then they seem idiotic to me. But if that person also tries to impose those terms on others then they are Word Fascist.
Great value for money there in Bristol, hope the taxpayers are happy with the vital work being done on their behalf 👍
Presumably their daft guidance is only relevant to their own staff – or are they trying for a creeping roll out to volunteers and charities?
Bristol City Council have been daft for decades. Probably too many students and ex-students in the population.
Are they having a laugh? they are having a laugh. But actually the joke is on us as we the tax payer fund this cretin and its associates, and no doubt furnish it with a massive pension.
Can I suggest we send it, and all its Women who have a Penis to go for a Cervical smear, I am sure the introduction of the metal umbrella instrument being inserted into said Penis and then ‘opened up” mught focus the mind on reality as opposed to magical thinking.
I myself have decided that I can become invisible as and when I want and as such intend to go and listen in to conversations, stay in the homes of , and generallydo what I want as I am inivisible and to deny that I am is taking away my human rights.
I’ve read the case study on that. Be careful. Invisibility can become permanent.
I was invisible to women (sorry, people with ovaries) all through my early twenties!
The funny thing is that the normal words we’ve always used don’t actually offend anyone At the end of the day everyone is free to use the words they want to use. Nobody is stopping someone from saying person with ovaries if that is what they want to say.
But insisting we use different words to the ones we have always used actually does offend a huge number of people because, unlike previously, you are now telling people what to say and how to say it.
They’ve gone from a situation where literally no one is offended to one in which millions are offended by being told to use certain words and not others. Because they say so.
So, in conclusion, these people are lying scumbags. Their actions have nothing to do with causing offence and everything g to do with social engineering and controlling people.
Well sounds like they are actually transphobic because trannies don’t have ovaries therefore they cannot be women
Good point. If the intention is to remove gender-specific terminology from the English lexicon, then you can’t say a trans woman is a woman anymore. How would you say that phrase? A trans “person with ovaries” (magic!) is a person with ovaries? As you say, a trans woman has no ovaries so they can’t be called a “person with ovaries”. So what on earth is a trans woman now?
According to the New Woke Dictionary, a trans woman is actually a “person without ovaries with ovaries”!
Therefore: To translate the sentence “A trans woman is really a woman” into Newspeak Gobbledegook we have “A person with and without ovaries is really a person with ovaries.”
So what about women who have had an oophorectomy? Possibly as a result of ovarian cancer? Are they no longer women because they no longer have ovaries?
And how can “paternity” be seen as gender-neutral when “maternity” isn’t?
These people are speaking through their a****s. (Assuming they have them, of course.)
I wouldn’t even begin to indulge getting into their reasoning. There is no reason or good faith in these sorts of edicts. Rather, the opposite. The purpose is to deconstruct everything and destroy the foundations of our society in order to remake it in their new utopian (dystopian for most of us) image.
It is futile to even entertain the idea of entering into a debate with these people about what they propose. You’d be doing exactly what they want, which is dancing to their demonic tune.
I would agree with what you say, if it were not for the vehement rejection of such proposals by the vast majority of people (with or without ovaries!). No, this is not some grand dastardly NWO plan, it’s just the result of tiresome woke ideology infesting our institutions like a mind virus. Just like a viral outbreak, it starts small with a tiny minority of young and naïve activists trying to be progressive, then it metastasizes into the other organs of society and spreads like a plague. What nobody seems to realize is almost nobody wants this. They are enacting the will of practically nobody, except for the infinitesimally small insane subset of the population who want to deny biological fact.
Idiots are everywhere and idiotic ideas are highly contagious and easily transmitted by the Internet. Unfortunately, the idiots don’t realise they’re idiots and instead project that term onto those who object to this nonsense. Idiots!
They would be idiots except for the fact that they are actually getting what they want which is to have people singing to their tune one way or another.
One way or another they instigate a reaction and so either by compliance or by negative reaction they reaffirm their power.
Off-T
https://youtu.be/ywZb3RSBsmY?si=oix_yp0_j2up9Lnb
Katie Hopkins arrested and interviewed under caution.
I take it these moron councillors were voted in…. The show will continue all the while an audience is present…..
Bristol City Council has no authority to address this matter. Any other business?
Two points to make here:
If you can be a woman just by identifying as such and dressing as such, does this mean a pantomime dame is a woman too?
Secondly, would anybody like to try describing an ovary without using the word “woman” or “female”? All it does is create a language barrier:
I might say the following “It’s pretty obvious that only women have ovaries”. But then I’d have to correct myself: “Sorry, I mean it’s pretty obvious that only people with ovaries have ovaries.”
Clear enough.
Bunch of reactionary bigots. What about those women who don’t identify as people?
Person with testicles – what a load of bollocks.
Can you imagine beginning a speech with… “Persons with ovaries and persons with testacles…”?
Next week…. perhaps…..
‘People with balls’?🤔
It says so much about the intellectual capacity about the people who have managed to blag themselves onto Bristol council. It is also a cautionary tale about tribal voting. It goes without saying that the nonsense that spilled out of their tiny little minds is now defunct in every sense. Even the most fanatical NHS Trust activists are keeping quiet about this nonsense and stepping away from their previous mischief as if to say “Who did that?” But not Bristol Council it seems. If anything, this sort of garbage unlined how important it is that we really give some thought about who we vote for. I wonder how many people voted Greens at the last election only to see the successful candidate shouting “Allu Akbar “ and beginning it seems to be a term focussed on the terrorist led government in Gaza? We really have to gets our heads straight before using that precious vote before we lose the ability to do so again. Starmer/Labour are still going ahead to give sixteen year olds the vote. Anyone having bought up kids knows they are still developing and susceptible to all sorts of influences. They also want to give the vote… Read more »
Presumably then men are referred to as people with testicles!
😁
How are the good people of Bristol electing these morons? The mind boggles.
“new guidance implies that “trans women are not ‘really’ women” “
But this is a fact, an immutable truth. They may be men who have had some parts removed, but that simply makes them castrated men rather than women. Eunuchs.
Whether or not a woman still has one or both of her ovaries, she remains a woman, it is all in the chromosomes. Men have breasts, and men have breast cancer.
For some reason, the location reminds me of rhyming slang.
And I insist Bristol City Councillors be called people without brains.
The term “women” means that sex of species H. Sapiens with ovaries otherwise they would be men.
No ovaries = no oestrogens = no development of the physical and emotional characteristics that make a woman a woman.
This is why Arthur who wants to be Martha gets oestrogen hormone injections, because he lacks ovaries to produce them naturally… because he’s a man with testes.
It’s really like Britain has become a lunatic asylum.