I am going to ask what is hopefully a very clear question about the new guidelines...

Bowl

I posted this when the new guidelines came out and then reported it to MNHQ to ask if my understanding was correct. They have confirmed that it is

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.

So your scenario would be congruent with that We can still say that transwomen are biologically male

That's my understanding Ally.

Just like how in the hypothetical queue at Sainsbury's situation, on any of the boards a comment like:
Some old bat shoved past my kids to get to the till before me
Would be rightly shot down as being ageist and misogynistic - the sex and age of the till-barger holds little relevance in the context provided.

A post like:
I was in the queue in Sainsbos and a man barged in front past my kids. He could have just been an arse, but his manner around the other customers (men) in the queue suggests that he probably wouldn't have done it if it was my DH who was there and not me.
Would be fine because in that example, the sex of the barger is relevant in the context of their treatment of women in comparison to how they act around other males.

I think.

I would like clarification on this as well.

I understand about the acronyms and I will abide by that. I will not use he to describe a named transwoman either, as per guidelines.

What I’m worried about is a scenario like for example if someone is talking about prisons and I want to point out that transwomen remain male, most remain male bodied and they retain the offending patterns of men. There I’m referring to sex.

I guess what I’m worried about is careful factual language falling foul of the guidelines.

That's my understanding too Ally.

Yes. What Erishkigal said. That's why it's important to us.

No one would give any kind of shit about trans issues, except in wanting everyone to have good happy lives, if we weren't being asked to budge up, make room, centre men.

However, in the feminism section, surely the biology and socialisation of a person will always be relevant? Whether (to nick two examples) the post is about what sex someone providing intimate care is, or whether the post is about how someone behaved in the queue at Sainsbury's.

I think it will very often be relevant to the matters being discussed. If I have understood the new policy correctly (and nb I don't claim to be an authority) it will often be a matter of the way things are phrased.

For example, I believe it would be OK to say something like:

'[X transwoman] has said [Y] on Twitter about [Z]. I do not believe they understand the impact of [Z] on women because [eg they were raised with the benefits of male socialisation/they do not have the same reproductive issues as women/they are likely to be more physically able to defend themself from men compared to women.]'

But it would not be OK for example to say:

'Look at what [X transwoman] has said on Twitter. He is so stupid. Did I mention that he is biologically male and always will be?'

You get the idea...

It's not about "denigrating trans people" it's about challenging the erasure of women as a disadvantaged sex class.

Here's a suggestion.... maybe when discussing feminism people could try holding non-trans men accountable for patriarchy or oppression.

I know it may sound novel, but non-trans males make up ~50% of the population.

Maybe, as many actual feminists in fact do, centre the discussion on non-trans males who benefit most?

There are a plethora of feminist sites that barely mention trans people, yet somehow it seems to long-time mumsnetters feminism discussion is impossible without denigrating trans people.

The discussions of feminism and patriarchy including non-trans men makes up such a tiny fraction of the output on these boards, it feels almost as like it's just a cover for attacking trans people.

Yes, the whole point about feminism is that women are discriminated against and treated differently because of our biological sex. Once you take that out of the equation it will become impossible to talk about any of the issues women face.

My understanding of the guidelines is that they only apply to threads about 'trans folk' not to those of us who are just the boring old cunty type of woman, so it shouldn't present a problem when talking about the checkout at Sainsbos but will prevent us from easily talking about trans issues. Hmm well that's an interesting turn up isn't it?! So the rules are really only for certain types of thread and certain subjects in certain categories. And therefore not really rules at all, hey?