"female identifying"

dcsarge · 7 Feb 2019 at 15:00

Dyson said:
The question would bother me also - it’s pathetic to even ask. That’s where the annoyance comes from.

I am going to assume you identify as bagless.

dowie · 7 Feb 2019 at 15:49

NVP said:
On 1xtra yesterday during my drive home Mr Jam was talking about Valentines day or whatever and kept asking for people to text in their opinion if they were "female identifying".

Surely he can simply say "female" though, right? The whole thing of someone who identifies as female is about them saying "I am female" (regardless of whether they actually are) when identifying themselves, not "I am female identifying" - at one point he even said "male identifying"... Is the world getting stupider?

That's a fair point, I guess if someone used something like "real women and trans women" then people would kick off "trans women are real women" etc... yet in using "female identifying" they imply they're referring to a superset of which "female" is a part of.

LabR@t · 7 Feb 2019 at 16:11

dowie said:
That's a fair point, I guess if someone used something like "real women and trans women" then people would kick off "trans women are real women" etc... yet in using "female identifying" they imply they're referring to a superset of which "female" is a part of.

nob or no nob

ttaskmaster · 7 Feb 2019 at 16:36

NVP · 7 Feb 2019 at 17:41

dowie said:
That's a fair point, I guess if someone used something like "real women and trans women" then people would kick off "trans women are real women" etc... yet in using "female identifying" they imply they're referring to a superset of which "female" is a part of.

No, not a subset, the requirement was all females regardless which is why he could have simply said "females" instead of "female identifying" which, as a category of selection, is redundant.

dowie · 7 Feb 2019 at 17:48

NVP said:
No, not a subset, the requirement was all females regardless which is why he could have simply said "females" instead of "female identifying" which, as a category of selection, is redundant.

So what do you think "female identifying" implies if they chose to use it instead of "females"?

If they meant the same thing by it then wouldn't it be easier to just say "females".

NVP · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:01

dowie said:
So what do you think "female identifying" implies if they chose to use it instead of "females"?

If they meant the same thing by it then wouldn't it be easier to just say "females".

Exactly my point!

I think they mean it to include all and be "modern & inclusive" without realising it was unnecessary.

LabR@t · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:21

Pathetic pandering to this crap makes me think perhaps Islam isn't quite so bad after all, at least these idiots would no longer be a problem after taking a walk off a 10 story building.

Dyson · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:24

wingman said:
FWIW I also feel the question is pathetic and don't understand the requirement, but I'd just answer the question and move on with my day, I think..

Similarly, what if your child actually wanted a say in this, and did identify as a gender different from their biological sex? Would you tell them it was pathetic?

I ask you as I ask myself, by the way - I'm simply not sure how I'd approach this.

I'm merely asking why the question bothers people/myself so much.

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be ranting and raving, likewise I’d just answer, but also inform them it was a stupid and pathetic question.

With your second question, If they were two, I would not in anyway encourage or support such a notion. If they were older, much older, I’d treat it differently.

dowie · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:26

NVP said:
Exactly my point!

I think they mean it to include all and be "modern & inclusive" without realising it was unnecessary.

Well yeah it is potentially unnecessary, I agree and the potential implication with regards to "female identifying" being an include all term/superset is that highlighted in my previous post. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with there tbh..

Dyson · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:35

dcsarge said:
I am going to assume you identify as bagless.

dcsarge · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:38

I see a quote but nothing else?

Dyson · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:39

dcsarge said:
I see a quote but nothing else?

Much like your post.

dcsarge · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:41

Purely tongue in cheek based on your username. The whole identify assumption thing.

Resident · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:50

Remember when we had mental health institutions and non of this nonsense ....

Resident · 7 Feb 2019 at 18:53

ttaskmaster said:
Surely you just include this link:

It's a lot less sweary than what they'd get from me in response, at any rate...!

I was expecting this from your link tbh

CREATIVE!11 · 7 Feb 2019 at 21:34

Malevolence said:
It's pathetic ain't it? It's got so ******* ridiculous that a friend of mine was asked what his little boy identifies as when he enrolled him at nursery school, he's two.

That's pretty sketchy tbh....

FoxEye · 7 Feb 2019 at 21:36

What happens if someone identifies as a fish, and is subsequently drowned by well-intentioned people believing that person should be put back into the sea?

arknor · 7 Feb 2019 at 21:57

Nurse : congratulations it's a boy !
Birth Giver: How dare you assume my childs gender!
hospital gets lawsuit.

How long until something stupid like this happens?

Django x2 · 7 Feb 2019 at 22:15

NVP said:
On 1xtra yesterday during my drive home Mr Jam was talking about Valentines day or whatever and kept asking for people to text in their opinion if they were "female identifying".

Surely he can simply say "female" though, right? The whole thing of someone who identifies as female is about them saying "I am female" (regardless of whether they actually are) when identifying themselves, not "I am female identifying" - at one point he even said "male identifying"... Is the world getting stupider?

That's what you get for listening to 1XTRA. Probably used the word "mandem" too.