The 'guys' thing to me is that nobody would ever call a group of men or a mixed group 'girls/ladies' etc without being considered rude/tongue in cheek etc. It's yet again that male language is the default. I don't really get too bothered by it but I can see why people do.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I remember being told in school that god (the catholic one, not sure about the rest because back then we didn’t learn about the others 
) was both father & son and that was a mind duck,
if they really want to throw a fox into the chicken coop,
What if he wasn’t actually male.
I’m joking again I’m not taking the puss out of valid genuine…. Struggles.
Just the Wokedom warriors.
I’m gonna get myself reported at this point.
I wouldn’t walk into a mixed room and say “hey boys” either…….
Guys isn’t really exclusively “male”
It’s a word,
so many words trigger people these days because they want something to be triggered by (IMO)
) was both father & son and that was a mind duck,if they really want to throw a fox into the chicken coop,
What if he wasn’t actually male.
I’m joking
again I’m not taking the puss out of valid genuine…. Struggles.Just the Wokedom warriors.
I’m gonna get myself reported at this point.
See, I don’t see “guys” as “male”
I wouldn’t walk into a mixed room and say “hey boys” either…….
Guys isn’t really exclusively “male”
It’s a word,
so many words trigger people these days because they want something to be triggered by (IMO)
There are factions that claim that God is trans, Jesus was trans, so watch it before the creator smites you for misgendering themI remember being told in school that god (the catholic one, not sure about the rest because back then we didn’t learn about the others
One thing I’ve noticed about the HAES* movement is that the definition of “health” is pretty vague. Or at least rock bottom basic levels of health.
Some just define “healthy” as “I had some blood tests recently and they were all good”.
* health at any size
I saw a Tiktok from a trans man this week where they showed their horribly mutilated forearm which had a large tattoo. The skin/tissue graft just mowed right through it. Like your story, I think the initial plan was to take the graft from another location, but for whatever reason it didn’t happen.
So now they have a mutilated arm with a huge chunk of tattoo missing, and a their neo phallus (if that’s even what it’s called) is multicoloured. They were just like “LOL
”
I had a BMI of 33 when I came down with Covid last year. I felt AWFUL. I ended up in hospital for two days (not on ventilator). I'm otherwise fit and healthy. My husband who has a BMI in the healthy range got Covid at the same time and was ok. I know this is just anecdotal, but we know high BMI is a contributing factor in Covid symptom severity. Anyway, it was a real wake-up call. I'm down to a BMI of 26 now. It took me a year and I'm still not quite where I'd like to be, but I feel 100 times better than I did last year.
No need to body shame or tell large people they should stop eating cake, but let's not pretend being obese is healthy or ok from a medical perspective.
I've been seeing more young women(mostly white women-not to be that person but that's usually how it is) in my uni fb groups, like younger then 23/24 in France advocating for our own form of gender neutral language. It's grammatically an eyesore. Probably one of the only ways that the general macho, mocking attitude from men here is useful to squash it. literally the laziest form of activism when women face real problems here. ie: flashers not getting arrested. I'm a bit older from the typical age range found at these unis and I feel very alienated.
Edit: In regards to the Bordeaux les protest, well just to let you know the police are pretty useless when it comes to helping women.
Edit: In regards to the Bordeaux les protest, well just to let you know the police are pretty useless when it comes to helping women.
Last edited:
exactly, I am probably the same having put on loads of weight in lockdown. Obviously I do not agree with shaming people into losing weight (this clearly doesn't work) but there is no point pretending that it is healthy to be obese, no one would accept someone claiming they could be anorexic and healthy, why claim the opposite?
As others have said its not about shaming people - compulsive eating is an underplayed part of the range of eating problems IMO. Have no desire to be horrible to people and its not my business. However, the whole large positivity movement has much in common with the trans ideology - I will reenact my emotional and psychological problems and not only mustn't you mention that it might be problematic in anyway, you MUST celebrate it, otherwise you are a fascist. The same denial of reality. Its so narcissistic, immature and bullying.
Exactly the same for me (it was me who was told this week ‘don’t refer to a group as ‘guys’’) to me I don’t see this as analogous to ‘girls’ either. The problem with ‘girls’ is that you’re infantilising grown women and implying they’re children rather than grown adults, not that ‘girls’ implies anything about the sex of the group. ‘Guys’ says no such thing about the group’s age, and to me also says nothing about the sex, so it seems a lot like making a mountain out of a mole hill to me
Most men will use it for beer belly/food baby jokesI’ve just read there’s going to be pregnant men emojis now
Apols for the long post but I'm quite annoyed.
I've just attended a design in government talk about sex data collection. It was by a person who was involved in creating the 'Register for vaccine' govt service.
She opened with 'sex and gender are not the same' and I thought 'ooh' and then said 'sex is assigned at birth' and I thought 'duck'
She then said a close family member was trans and then went on to describe how they must make services 'inclusive' (I agree).
The talk went rapidly downhill when she said that the back end system uses sex as a marker to match a person to their NHS record (critical as to know who has booked and attended their vaccine apt), and so the online service had to ask for and collect that data. Cue sadface because referring to sex might upset some trans or non-binary people.
As a reminder this is one of the most important and high profile online services ever to exist. The timelines were massively tight. without the sex marker people cant be matched.
She then said they designed the question not to ask the direct 'what is your sex at birth?' but 'How would you describe yourself?'. Now this wont be common knowledge to most people but in govt design questions you ask must be accessible (so if read out loud by a screen reader in isolation of the context of the rest of the page would be clear to a blind person what it means) and this question 'How would you describe yourself?' entirely fails this requirement. (E.G is it asking about my hair colour, my eye colour, my ethnicity, my religion??). The answers were 'female', 'male', 'non binary', 'don't want to say' or 'my answer wont match my GP record'.
More critically If a trans person (male to female) answers 'female' that wont match their record at the GP, so what then? Does this affect their eligibility?
So she says she takes it out for user testing (normal and critical in govt). But she says that despite this question being asked of all people wanting to access a vaccine, she tested 'in particular' with trans and non-binary people (who she says make up 1% of the users).
A MTF trans person in user research even pointed out that they see themselves as female but know that wont match their GP record, and they were worried that this might affect their vaccine apt and didn't know what to put. So even trans people can see the problem.
As the service was also used in a telephony product alongside the digital product the call centre agents started reporting that the question 'How would you describe yourself?' was causing confusion. In normal circs this would be changed immediately, no question, if it isn't working for the user the data it collects is unreliable.
Some call agents reported they felt uncomfortable asking the question. Some call agents were berated by her by assuming peoples sex because of their voices.
So did they take that as a clear indication the question was not fit for purpose? NOPE
So what did they do? They told the call centre that they needed LGBTQ training.
She then said that she was uncomfortable about even asking this question (despite the technological need to match people to GP records) and so she escalated it 'through existing relationships' 'right to to the top'.
As someone who works in govt and is responsible for delivering services I found the talk unbelievable. Its absolutely insidious.
I've just attended a design in government talk about sex data collection. It was by a person who was involved in creating the 'Register for vaccine' govt service.
She opened with 'sex and gender are not the same' and I thought 'ooh' and then said 'sex is assigned at birth' and I thought 'duck'
She then said a close family member was trans and then went on to describe how they must make services 'inclusive' (I agree).
The talk went rapidly downhill when she said that the back end system uses sex as a marker to match a person to their NHS record (critical as to know who has booked and attended their vaccine apt), and so the online service had to ask for and collect that data. Cue sadface because referring to sex might upset some trans or non-binary people.
As a reminder this is one of the most important and high profile online services ever to exist. The timelines were massively tight. without the sex marker people cant be matched.
She then said they designed the question not to ask the direct 'what is your sex at birth?' but 'How would you describe yourself?'. Now this wont be common knowledge to most people but in govt design questions you ask must be accessible (so if read out loud by a screen reader in isolation of the context of the rest of the page would be clear to a blind person what it means) and this question 'How would you describe yourself?' entirely fails this requirement. (E.G is it asking about my hair colour, my eye colour, my ethnicity, my religion??). The answers were 'female', 'male', 'non binary', 'don't want to say' or 'my answer wont match my GP record'.
More critically If a trans person (male to female) answers 'female' that wont match their record at the GP, so what then? Does this affect their eligibility?
So she says she takes it out for user testing (normal and critical in govt). But she says that despite this question being asked of all people wanting to access a vaccine, she tested 'in particular' with trans and non-binary people (who she says make up 1% of the users).
A MTF trans person in user research even pointed out that they see themselves as female but know that wont match their GP record, and they were worried that this might affect their vaccine apt and didn't know what to put. So even trans people can see the problem.
As the service was also used in a telephony product alongside the digital product the call centre agents started reporting that the question 'How would you describe yourself?' was causing confusion. In normal circs this would be changed immediately, no question, if it isn't working for the user the data it collects is unreliable.
Some call agents reported they felt uncomfortable asking the question. Some call agents were berated by her by assuming peoples sex because of their voices.
So did they take that as a clear indication the question was not fit for purpose? NOPE
So what did they do? They told the call centre that they needed LGBTQ training.
She then said that she was uncomfortable about even asking this question (despite the technological need to match people to GP records) and so she escalated it 'through existing relationships' 'right to to the top'.
As someone who works in govt and is responsible for delivering services I found the talk unbelievable. Its absolutely insidious.
remember how long is took to get emojis of different races? how the hell does the trans movement get whatever they want so quickly?!I’ve just read there’s going to be pregnant men emojis now
Hey people perhaps but I'm sure someone would make it their business to be offended by that.Exactly the same for me (it was me who was told this week ‘don’t refer to a group as ‘guys’’) to me I don’t see this as analogous to ‘girls’ either. The problem with ‘girls’ is that you’re infantilising grown women and implying they’re children rather than grown adults, not that ‘girls’ implies anything about the sex of the group. ‘Guys’ says no such thing about the group’s age, and to me also says nothing about the sex, so it seems a lot like making a mountain out of a mole hill to me
I can't stand Angela Haggerty. She's a professional victim who pretends to be a journalist, and now a fool panderer.
Ironic, considering her background image on Twitter has a photo with the caption, "Well behaved women rarely make history."
You might like the "Man who has it all" page on Facebook! It posts funny rebuttals of common tropes like the "guys" thing.
I’ve looked online but a lot of stuff is limited (so you can only read parts of them) but there seems to be a discussion on this and scientists seem open to this idea in a wider context (through Google searches I’ve seen articles where they talk about it and on social media) but for scholarly articles I can’t seem to find anything that agrees or disagrees. Though maybe I don’t really know what I’m looking for.
For the longest time I’ve used gender and sex interchangeably and I have to keep reminding myself that they are different.
Surely though that approach is sexist and misogynistic? Why does it have to be a blanket approach for everyone? If someone doesn’t identify as a female fine, call them what they feel comfortable with but if someone comes in and does identify as a woman and is born a woman it’s insulting not to call them that. The world doesn’t revolve around ‘FatdoctorUK’ and they shouldn’t force their ideology on their patients.
Transgénero is considered the more correct term now in Spanish, but transexual is still far more common, both in conversation and in the press. It's also becoming more and more common to talk about, for example, una mujer trans, which is a phrase that wouldn't have been used a few years ago.
We've had a big debate this year over the recently-passed ley trans (trans law), which will allow self-ID for people over the age of 16. Children of 12 will be able to change their legal sex with judicial approval.
Spain has, in the past, had some unnecessarily tit laws that have affected trans people. For example, legally changing your name is a very long and convoluted process (a friend changed her surname to replace a spanish ñ with a catalan ny...it took two years), and in Spain we have to use our legal names and show ID a LOT. So someone presenting as María with an ID card in the name of Jorge would have an incredibly hard time. That law was long overdue a change...but letting 12-year-olds change their documented sex? No.
(I just checked my ID and yes, we record sexo, not género.)
Can you post the ones you’re referring to? I normally have full access to most journals. I would still be very surprised if they’re talking about ‘proving’ gender to be honest. It might be that they’re using the terms interchangeably instead, I’d be interested to have a look anyway
- Status