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

Oh and I'm also autistic.

This is utter bullshit and I'm probably going to leave Mumsnet now.

Right.
I'm back to females and males, women and men.

I won't mention trans, and they will need to infer from the very clear definitions I give the above terms which group they belong in.

I won't be referencing peoples identities in conversations that relate to material sex.

I can't distinguish linguistically between the two sex categories of trans people because naming their sex as a collective is now forbidden by MNHQ.

So.

Maybe every thread should start with the dictionary definitions of those four terms in the OP, and subsequent posts can just refer back to it.

eg I am a woman (see OP for definition) and I will not be categorised the same as men (see OP)

Actually I think my days here are numbered.
This is ridiculous.

If I say I identify as male and think that women should still be able to refer to the biological reality of my body as female, would my concerns be taken seriously for the "identity" of male?

Or does that only work if I actually am male (like, literally male)... hmm, wonder why that could be...?

It appears only the distress of males, matters.

So it doesn’t matter if I find NOT referring to my bio sex distressing then Mumsnet?

This is what Kate said:

Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex.

So, how do I say I don't want [this group of people and we all know who I mean] to be administering smear tests to women without using either a term that refers to their male sex or a term that appropriates my female sex? Because I'm not talking about all trans people when I say that, am I? I'm talking about a subset of trans people [and we all know what subset that is].

See? Ridiculous.

I can't actually believe MN are bowing down to a very tiny minority. So fucking what if some people are so mentally fragile that they can't handle biological truth so throw their toys out of the pram. These people are only on MN to look for ammo. They don't give a shit about the site and it's users, they just want us to shut up and stop making a fuss.

It is gaslighting and abusive and why the fuck are they, on a site started for women, by women, aren't they saying no?!!!
Sick of all the fake suicide stat bullshit being used as emotional blackmail.

Surely they have the money to fight this bullshit and stand up for those millions of biological women who make them all that fucking money in the first place.

We see you

@Emerencealwayshopeful

I hope you feel better ASAP, pneumonia does suck and a regime of wrongthink won't be helping.

So I think my interpretation is correct. I'm allowed to say that DH is an adult human male because DH "identifies" as one. I should be allowed to refer to him that way because he is one.

not the same.

This is the question I asked and their response
"Will I be deleted for saying 'male women' or 'male transperson' or 'male person'? Or by simply including them as part of the male population?
We'll continue to make decisions by taking tone and context into account. We'd be unlikely to delete if it's said in the context of a civil discussion of biology. If it's said with the apparent intention of belittling an individual, or if it's used repetitively and aggressively, we'd probably delete it on the basis that it undermines civil debate."

So I take that is being able to say male transperson, when discussing biology or when biology is relevant? I'm not sure what 'repetitively' could mean.

I repeat, MNHQ has confirmed to me that we can still say that a man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female, transwomen are biologically male, transmen are biologically female and that a man cannot become a woman, and vice versa.

Not the point. I'm happy to talk about trans people when I'm referring to the whole trans population of both sexes. I refuse to use any terminology for the female sex when referring to human beings of the male sex, whether they are trans or not. So how do I speak of trans people of the male sex generally when the only permitted word for this group has women in it? How?

I’m feeling sad. (And tired and sick because it’s almost midnight and I have pneumonia and that sucks).

I have just read a magnificent thread started by a science teacher who is aware that the school policy on inclusion might not actually be compatible with teaching the biology curriculum. I saw intelligent, interesting women continue to respond to pseudoscience politely but firmly.

I’ve just read Justine’s note. I don’t know how to interpret it. I want to believe the straight meaning of the words, but my brain keeps coming up with contradictory ideas.

This is the feminism board on a site built for, and by, women. And there are men who get their jollies from thwarting women because they can. And these men are somehow powerful and important enough that women’s voices are being shushed.

Without words to make sense of the world we may as well give up now.

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

Follow up from @KateMumsnet on the two threads in Site Stuff further clarifying.

We can still speak the truth. We must continue to do so. The tide is turning, more and more people are seeing that the Emperor has no clothes.

There are references in the new and old Testament. I don't know what type of Christian you are, most of us try to practice not telling lies.

Luke 18:19-21 New International Version (NIV)
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”

As a learning disabled, gender critical feminist, female sexed, Christian, I am not happy about being told to tell lies. The 2010 equality act should protect me in several ways.

The only thing Orwell seems to have been wrong about was the date. Remove the language to discuss things and you remove the ability to discuss them.

A little off-topic, but whilst he nailed the authoritarian control of language and dissent, there was another dystopian novel released a few years before by a man named Aldous Huxley, entitled Brave New World. It proposed that rather than be enslaved by government, Man would enslave himself - through hedonism and group-think.

Scarily, it seems both may be right.

Maybe MN would be kind enough to publish which words we are allowed to use?

I repeat, MNHQ has confirmed to me that we can still say that a man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female, transwomen are biologically male, transmen are biologically female and that a man cannot become a woman, and vice versa.

We can still say that autogynephilia is a thing, that a biological male - regardless of how they identified - viciously assaulted a 60 year old woman for wanting to attend a meeting.

We can still say that Ian Huntley is a child-murdering piece of scum who was, is and always will be a man.

I'm pretty horrified by this. Last time I checked sex was a protected characteristic. Yet now mums net, and the feminism board have been told they cannot discuss the role of sex in the biggest threat to women's rights for a very long time.

What about the hurt and fear women feel at having to lie about reality?

@KateMumsnet sorry I’ve missed this memo - genuinely not clear on this.
Why is TIM ‘not OK’?
And what other acronyms or descriptions are not OK?

"So I take it we can’t refer to our children as sons and daughters anymore, cos those terms are all about natal sex?"

Only if your newborn tells you that they are of those genders! Otherwise you're imposing your views on them.

The only thing Orwell seems to have been wrong about was the date. Remove the language to discuss things and you remove the ability to discuss them.

I was always sceptical when Justine was hailed the hero standing up to the TRA bullies... looks like on that one I was right. They really are just tying themselves up in linguistic knots trying to figure out how the fuck to control this and keep one side happy... and they can't do it. They can't allow discussion while restricting the language used to be satisfactory to the TRA lobby... which is the whole intention of it - to make it a subject unable to be discussed or questioned.

I mean “CAN discuss that we cannot name “ . Typo

So I take it we can’t refer to our children as sons and daughters anymore, cos those terms are all about natal sex?