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

Can someone explain to me how we cannot discuss what we cannot name ?
How can we discuss how the wants and demands of trans identified men impinge on the rights and safeties of women if we have to refer to them as “women” , thereby semantically erasing the difference ?
It makes it nonsensical , surely ?

“Trans identied” refers to actual , biological , fact .

“Cis” and “TERF” are - in contrast - composed purely to silence women , as is this imposed omertà on naming things for what they factually are .

Capitulating to those who would have the crimes of Ian Huntley slowly identified out of existence, quite frankly , boils my piss .

#IAmSpartacus .

Bite me.

Don't give up on MN. Needs must when the devil drives. Non desistas.

this is how GIRES, a trans rights campaign group identifies the group of individuals who identify as the opposite sex - as trans and trans-identified (and loads of other trans people and groups, too).

CharliePaley ... interesting... this does indeed look as if Mumsnet have been poorly advised....

Mumsnet please please do get yourself advised up to the hilt by both lawyers and people within the debate who prioritise women, especially as mothers...... I totally understand your desire to be seen as non-goady.... but if many trans people are describing themselves as Trans-identifying or TIMs this would seem an inappropriate one to exclude.... Have you by any chance had the wrong advice? It is very very important that you do not exclude transpeople who are not TRAs... as you know we have the lovely Truscum and Miranda and others posting on this board, as a safe haven

We see you mumsnet. We wont forget!

Wow. Looks like the rot is setting in. What a shame

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 posted the above, as part of a longer post, on one of the other threads last night.

Gibbery poster told me I had misinterpreted the rules. I therefore reported my post to MNHQ asking them to confirm whether or not my interpretation was correct.

I have heard back from MNHQ, confirming that I am indeed correct in my interpretation. I'll use the terms transwoman/transman, clarify my meaning if necessary and will continue to refer to any biological male convicted of murdering or assaulting any woman or child as a man.

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
--George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

"Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
--George Orwell, 1984

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
--George Orwell, 1984

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
--George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm

"There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language"
--George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

This battle is not new. There have always been attempts to control thought by controlling words. To deny concepts by denying the words necessary to conceive them. And those attempts, today as yesterday, must be opposed. Orwell knew this well.

Appeasement won't work, the boundaries will always shift with these gender cultists.

Could we use - Person with prominent Adam's apple?

Please don't present yourself as speaking for Christians in general because as a Christian I for one totally disagree with you.

On what?

God is TRUTH? The commandments about lies?

Love it, *beyondsceptical"
Or "gyno" and "andro"?

Men, women, pink-brained people and blue-brained people?

I am pretty disgusted that mn has basically sold women down the river. Has Justine actually read 1984? Seems not to have.

If we can use the terms woman, man, transwoman and transman and male-sexed body and female-sexed body I think we should be able to discuss all angles of the debate

Afaik, prostate and ovaries are part of male and female reproductive systems, but not genitals.
I'm sure that wouldn't stop people complaining they are too personal or some silly shite though.

Narrow pelvis and widened pelvis wouldn't refer to genitals...?

"people generally don't identify as trans"

Ah yes, that explains why there wasn't a T tacked onto the end of LGB...
Doh.

There is only one way I will be happy to use "woman" (m) alongside woman (f), and that is if it is in those exact air-quotes. I might even italicise it too.

Not my chosen word, so it is clear that I am not tacitly approving its use by quoting it.

How on earth is me, as a Christian, saying that the poster doesn't speak for all Christians 'policing discussions'?

^ The issue with identity politics summed up in one post.

Why are MN banning the use of the term 'trans-identified male" - when one of their own registered members, who is trans, refers to himself (his choice of pronoun) as a "trans-identified male" ?

This is why we have to be very very careful about banning and censoring language. It's Authoritarian.

"Trans-identified' seems pretty goady - people generally don't identify as trans but as the opposite sex"

Respectfully, I disagree. I looked around trans rights and trans issue related websites yesterday and the overwhelming majority of people living and identifying as trans disagree with you as well. This is indeed how they identify themselves: as trans.

A large number of terms like trans-identified man or trans-identified male abounded in positive descriptions of such individuals by themselves as well as other authors on a large number of these websites. It is clearly NOT seen as a derogatory term within most parts of the trans community.

Indeed, the only places where I have found it discussed as a derogatory term were those dedicated to campaigning against TERFs. The logical conclusion therefore is that amongst the wider trans community* this is a neutral term to define an individual, but an extreme fringe group consisting mostly of males sees it as an insult.

Why is a community which serves the needs of 20 million users, the vast majority of whom are females, having its language policed to this degree for the sake of less than a few thousand, incredibly hostile, males?

I understand you are aiming for a policy that will save you from the trans activists and their complaints, but once our language is cleansed in accordance with your new rules, they will move onto the language we use to talk about the things that matter to us: pregnant woman, breastfeeding, nursing mother, female reproductive organs, women's troubles, female genital mutilation etc etc

Because that is exactly what is happening right now on Twitter and Facebook and IRL - the language women need to describe their uniquely female experiences is being attacked - this also includes trans inclusive groups that accept the claim that transwomen are actual women. Even the mere fact that we wish to discuss our uniquely female experiences is being attacked.

And for those groups btw, it always started with this kind of appeasement.

*this is how GIRES, a trans rights campaign group identifies the group of individuals who identify as the opposite sex - as trans and trans-identified (and loads of other trans people and groups, too).

Right.

In that case, I suggest playing the pronoun game; if a person's sex is not in dispute, call them her/him as appropriate. If it is, then use they/them.

Perhaps we can also ask if the individual has ever been known by another name.

Gibb you have really got to try being less defensive. It can't be easy going through life taking offence at every perceived slight. It's not all about YOU, you know!

@marys

What about person with a prostate?

GibbertyFlibbert
I wasn't referring to this particular comment in isolation.