New guidelines - we aren't allowed to refer to natal sex

Section 7 is about gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, not sex. It's a separate characteristic.

Do not @ me in your malicious manner when I am right here on the thread.
Yes, but, is bullshit.

Name the agent
Name our abuser
Name male violence
Name ourselves

Exactly - what is happening here is sexual harassment and targeted stalking of women on the FWR by some defending and elevating the rights of men who cross dress above women's and children's safeguarding

It is bizarre that Mumsnet has rules against being rude but Gibberty repeating the same lie day after day that sex is not a protected characteristic in the 2010 EA is not considered rude.
It takes less than a minute to look up section 4 of the EA.

Yes @thebewilderness but sex is defined by implication is S7 as having multiple aspects and the accompanying example in the Explanatory Notes has an example which is entirely social. So sex is not biological sex.

Let us name the oppressor.

Erm.

Under his eye.

O my days... I've been out all afternoon and evening and this thread still seems to be revolving around what Gibberty thinks is acceptable.

If people really can't bring themselves to,use the term 'transwoman' just use 'transperson
It's not that simple. Absolutely central to feminism is that we must be able to:
Name the agent
Name our abuser
Name male violence
Name ourselves

The last one especially. It is central to feminism that women ourselves must define what it is to be a woman. Male supremacy/patriarchy has never allowed this, men's power to name is at the root of women's oppression and taking back that power is at the root of women's liberation.

Gibberty are you upset and offended by references to sex?

EA 2010 section 4
The following characteristic are protected characteristics---
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

"Besides which since sex is a protected characteristic, you SHOULD be able to refer to natal sex because natal sex is just sex. "

Not in the Equality Act 2010 it isn't

Why does that even need to be clarified?

The whole premises is that the only person who can suffer in this situation is the trans person. I don't (obviously) buy into that. There are plenty of families where this becomes something which harms other family members in a variety of way. Indeed it is sometimes deliberately used as a way to control and abuse others. (See the trans widows).

The whole concept of the most vulnerable / persecuted being about just your identity rather than whether you are heartless tosser who shits on everyone else shouldn't be something we need to debate.

Women of the uk we have brought them out from under the radar. They brought this fight to us and we pushed back and we still are. Nothing will stop us.

We've made them show their colours - now we have everything to win. We got this.

There is something seriously fucked up in Mumsnet asking us not to refer to natal sex when referring to a group of men who are not only engaging both sexism and misogyny in they way they identify themselves, i.e. reducing women to stereotypes/our subjugated status, but who also want to coerce us to not just accept this but to validate them and erase our sex class in the process.

That said, I don't think it means we can't say, for eg, that men who identify as women are male, or talk about the meaning of sex in relation to all this, so long as they don't insist on us using the term transwoman they haven't yet crossed that line of supporting/demanding coerced speech.

So I will use 'men who say they are women'/suchlike unless and until Mumsnet takes issue with it, at which point I will ask them for which terms they will not delete posts for that do not include the words woman/female in relation to men, i.e. for a term that would not be coercive and exclusionary to the feminist women on here.

Also, Mumsnet clearly doesn't find terms 'man' and 'woman' terms for natal sex, hence my view that 'men who identify as women' does not break their guidelines.

Doesn't matter what language we use, it will inevitably be deemed inappropriate, words will be redefined and women will be silenced by men.

Mumsnet becomes Menznet.

That's the plan anyhoo.

@RedToothBrush, I hate to see you so distressed. OF COURSE you have a younger brother.

Please have a look at my previous post in this thread (sorry C&P not working). You will see that MNHQ have confirmed to me that we can state biological and scientific truths. We can say that transwomen are biological males and transmen are biological females. We can say that the word woman means biologically female and that a transwoman can never be a woman because biology.

Journalists, commentators, politicians and the general public are waking up to this and more and more can see all this nonsense for what it is.

Ladies it is. Can they ban lady? Let's see.

You know when kids go quiet and you think oh cripes they stuck their fingers in a socket/found the open wine bottle/are drawing on the wall?

Now I'm thinking: oh here we go they're trawling and comparing notes and reporting

I like 'laydees' for this, to make it more clear. Ladies is a term I dont like but it still refers to women. Laydees is a poorly spelled imitation

^This

I think it is more that Trump and Pence are no friends of LGBTI people. Transgender people in the military, for instance, have been totally silenced and others aren't feeling particularly safe whereas anti-LGBT groups have been emboldened.

No, Gibberty.
It is the baseball bats to beat Lesbians into submission on display at the San Francisco Library and the Baltimore pride celebration including lynching women that is undermining support for transgender persons and the LGBT organizations.

Nelson Mandela said "The true character of a society is revealed in how it treats its children." The children are being drugged and surgically altered in an effort to transition away the Gays & Lesbians.
The children of refugees are being taken away from their parents at the border and held in concentration camps. The US has been on this evil path since Reagan.

Meanwhile, WRT MN rools, I'm sticking to respectful language, like 'ladies', which I would never use for cunty types.

I like 'laydees' for this, to make it more clear. Ladies is a term I dont like but it still refers to women. Laydees is a poorly spelled imitation.

So what makes an identity other than 'I believe this about myself'? Upon what absolute truth does it hang? Beyond belief?

The integrity of the person saying it.

What if they have no integrity?

Seriously though - the absolute truth upon which you're basing someone's assertion that they are a woman is someone's integrity? Nothing tangible? Just something subjectively perceived?

And that's what we should be using as a foundation for making laws?

What could possibly go wrong?!

When I say gender I mean gender expression I guess- gender is a social construct.

what did the Wings Over Scotland poll discover

3:1 against self-ID in both England and Scotland.