The strategy of relinquishing the word "woman"

because whatever new word we adpart the same thing will happen - rinse and repeart. Why don't the people who want to redefine "women" find a new fucking word?

Soz Charlie cross posted. Thanks for confirming.

I'm totally perplexed.

Thanks Errol. I see what you're saying and I get that it could have been the case with some of the later deleted posts - I guess we'll never know now. However I'm pretty confident that it didn't happen on the first page. I'm careful what I say on here and I very nearly quoted one of the early posts that were deleted.

Unfortunately, in responding to MiladyRenata, first one, then several posters rendered the username into an abbreviated form that is easily recognised as unkind.
I've been through this thread 3 times and also done a name search and I can't find anything posted on this thread by this person, so I don't understand how it can explain the deletions.

It is tempting to change the word "woman" to "namow" and then watch what happens.

But it wouldn't catch on.

The old school MN style of using initials to refer to posters rather than abbreviations may be useful in some cases.

Unfortunately, in responding to MiladyRenata, first one, then several posters rendered the username into an abbreviated form that is easily recognised as unkind.

I didn't do that either! I didn't quote or refer to any specific person or poster.

I used the phrase 'feminine gender essence' instead of 'gender identity'. That is the only part I can think that could be considered 'controversial' (with scare quotes) as I see it sort of makes fun of that belief, but people on this site talk about religious people believing in a sky fairy all the time and I don't see those deleted.

It doesn't explain them to me either.
Where are the posts by the person whose name is being discussed? (Christ I don't think I've ever written such a mangled sentence but I'm wary of using the name at all now.) I've just been through the entire thread and I can't see any posts from them.
And even if I have missed some, it wouldn't explain the deletions immediately after the op.

The deletions have been explained.

Well.... some were. I did not reference anyone else in my post. Just that I wasn’t being kind and relinquishing my words. Maybe I was too strident....

Well just quickly- in case does get deleted

1. Yes - Crazy Talk- @GratedExposure
2. not Ok to move away from the word Woman & thanks to @ErrolTheDragon - Render all language pertaining to sex muddled and useless for the purpose of communication?hmm

well thanks to many

Such is my rather straightforward opinion

Well yes Edge. But we don't have to all piously agree how not OK it was to abbreviate it either.

Is it provocative to name yourself something which is generally a term of respect for a female on a space where that is hotly debated though? No more and no less than the abbreviation surely?

The deletions have been explained.

The arguments were fine (probably).

The shortening of MiLadyRenata's name to the first 5 letters only was not. CharlieParley has explained it very well.

The examples Edge cites are ludicrous, and misleading. I'm sure I've seen 'transgender female' used elsewhere accurately referring to transmen.

Is this the follow-up to the failure of #nodebate? Render all language pertaining to sex muddled and useless for the purpose of communication?

I am truly shocked by the deletions on the first page!

I had not twigged when reading them they were at risk of deletion.

I find it rather mysterious as to which posts remain and which have gone.

I was deleted for saying that I used to be kinder but now I am not. Because I noticed that the annexing of the word female was already well underway.

I truly despair a world where the truth is shaped by those too fragile to admit reality.

Sorry, that should read 'Kirsty Blackman', not 'Kristy'.

Oh, that makes sense, CharlieParley. I must admit, I saw that nickname and thought it was unnecessarily provocative.

The points made on this board are strong enough to stand on their own. Taking an unnecessary dig at a username detracts from the arguments, I think.

Anyway, no, we should not relinquish the word 'woman'. It doesn't matter what word we use, it will immediately be appropriated and not just by the TRAs.

I wrote to Rugby Football Union a few days ago regarding the issue of biological males playing for women's teams. I got a reply back talking about 'transgender females'. The reply was referring to sperm-producing, XY-chromosomed people of the male sex. There is no way that a sporting body should use the word 'female' to refer to such a person.

Furthermore, Kirsty Blackman, SNP MP wrote on Twitter on 9th June: 'For the avoidance of doubt, trans women are also adult human females.'

India Willoughby, who is a biological male apparently identifies as a "cis woman".

Please. Whatever we give it will never be enough. 'Woman', 'Girl', 'Female' - these will all become vague synonyms for 'feminine' unless we actively guard against it. I appreciate this may sound entirely overblown, but I refer you back to the RFU, Kristy Blackman and India Willoughby.

It may have been, it certainly often is on forums and message boards, no more than friendly banter. It might even have been one jokester only and others copying the abbreviated name from that poster without going back to check, but it most definitely falls afoul of the rule that we don't go out of our way to be unkind to one another.

Changing the username a poster has given themselves from a term of respect for women to a term for a boy or a young man, especially for a poster who has previously disclosed their trans identity and their desire to be seen as a woman, especially in a thread involving sex and gender, is not (in my view) in the spirit of the site. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be hurtful, but in the interest of keeping valuable contributions safe from being deleted, please consider whether this is one joke we might do without.