To think that calling transwomen Male terms is against guidelines?

[ChilledBee]

That said, it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’. Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely. As we’ve said, context is everything – but it’s likely that going forward our moderation team will delete these expressions

So this is what Mumsnet say yet they allow threads which refer to the possibility of trans women using a changing room as "blokes". If I were a Trans woman considering giving my opinion around my presence in female changing rooms, hearing everyone refer to people like me as a man or a bloke would "hurtful" and "I'd struggle to engage". Why is this allowed, Mumsnet?

Because that is an accurate picture of the journey a family of a trans child has gone through

Funny that parents of "trans children" always seem to mention this exact scenario at the beginning of their journey, then isn't it?

Going back to the OP - sorry if it's 'hurtful' but we won't be shutting up.

The transactivists' agenda and the way they are pursuing it is hurtful, harmful and downright dangerous to women and girls.

This happened a couple of days ago:

'I doubt there are any people who readily identify as both a transwoman and male.'

Not at the same time I imagine, perhaps if they are non binary, or identify as a trans woman and later reject that identity and identify as Male.

Of course there are many people in the world who take issue with the notion of identifying yourself as something that you biologically are not and actually don't intend to ever try to 'become' through gender reconstructive surgery. And can you really take issue with that? People taking about facts? It might not seem kind but it often genuinely stems from concern for women and children. Women should be allowed safe spaces, children should be allowed to explore gender as a construct that has been foisted upon them without being inappropriately medicated.

I think the middle ground really is to allow us to explain to our children that sometimes people feel that they should be a boy when really they are a girl, and we don't know the reason why but let's be kind and call them what they want to be called. I draw the line at telling my son that a boy is a girl when he clearly isn't.

I'm not sure what the answer is to changing rooms. Individual cubicles for all children possibly.

'I doubt there are any people who readily identify as both a transwoman and male.'

There certainly are transwomen who accept they're still males. These are people who've transitioned to alleviate their dysphoria, but are rational and mature enough to know they haven't actually changed sex. Maybe they're past the stage of 'identifying'.

These people have posted on MN and written elsewhere, it's a matter of public record.

Being weaker physically doesn’t mean you are a lesser human being. Or does it hooves

I also don’t support pushing women into the military unless they have a more technical expertise as the military is not there to be equal opportunity employers.

However women as firefighters can be useful in squeezing into small places and dealing with members of the public who for cultural reasons cannot interact with unrelated men.

do you think it's bigoted to describe a trans-woman as male, or biologically male?
In most cases, yes, it is wholly unnecessary

Blaire White says she is a trans woman and biologically male. OP I'd love to see you telling Blaire White you are offended on her behalf.

Trans child’

See also

Vegan cat

A point frequently made by Blaire White- an actual trans woman.

Of course being weaker doesn't make.you lesser. It's just the discussion.on here - people insisting that there are biological differences between men and women and that these are fact and can't be changed - made me think that for a long time we've been arguing that the differences between men and women aren't significant and that women are just as capable as men at doing all jobs. I'm just trying to figure how both of these opposing views can be true.

I can't see a justification for women being firefighters that they can fit into small spaces or help.people who can't interact with men tbh. What if women are on a team of firefighters and there are no small spaces or other women that need rescuing? Do they not need to be able to do all aspects of the job? Same with the police - if women are patrolling on their own surely they need to be able to overpower someone just as well as a male officer for their own safety and the safety of the public?

Blaire White says she is a trans woman and biologically male

There really shouldn’t be the need to qualify male with the word “biologically”. It’s a tautology. The definition of male is biological. This is part of the erosion of language. There is a subtle but definite push to make the word “female” include males now, rather than just the word “woman”. Many trans women describe themselves as female, so we now have to say “biologically female” and “biologically male” to clarify.

It needs to stop.

women are just as capable as men at doing all jobs

I don't think anyone has said all women are just as capable as all men for all jobs. People are recruited individually according to their abilities.

Of course there are biological physical differences between men and women, as classes statistically. But there an overlap, and for most roles with physical requirements that will allow some women to perform them perfectly well - and better than some men.

For one absolutely vital (albeit undervalued) function in society, men are completely and utterly useless.

Some individuals are better than others at particular jobs. However, anyone with the right qualifications and experience should be able to apply on an equal basis. That doesn't mean everyone's the same, just that equal opportunities should exist.

made me think that for a long time we've been arguing that the differences between men and women aren't significant and that women are just as capable as men at doing all jobs

Physical differences are very significant, you’d be a fool to think it doesn’t matter. I think you’ve missed the part where we have fought to be seen as just as capable when it comes to intelligence and work ethic.

As for firefighters/police, I don’t think many advocate lowering standards, only those paper-pushers who want total equality in everything.

Women who apply to the police force/fire brigade are a necessarily small, self-selecting bunch. And they usually do, when they pass the exams, bring something unique to the team. When you insist on 50-50 representation (don’t know why anyone would) physical standards necessarily fall.

Not at the same time I imagine, perhaps if they are non binary, or identify as a trans woman and later reject that identity and identify as Male.

Yes, at the same time.

I'm just trying to figure how both of these opposing views can be true.

Probably best to start another thread about it rather than irrelevantly derailing this one.

^There really shouldn’t be the need to qualify male with the word “biologically”. It’s a tautology. The definition of male is biological. This is part of the erosion of language. There is a subtle but definite push to make the word “female” include males now, rather than just the word “woman”. Many trans women describe themselves as female, so we now have to say “biologically female” and “biologically male” to clarify.
^^
^It needs to stop.

Yes I agree and while I don't use "trans woman" I am guilty of this one. It's just that many people are disingenuous and many others are obtuse.

I'm just trying to figure how both of these opposing views can be true.

Biological differences are a matter of physical fact. Equality of opportunity is a social issue. In general, women historically having been prevented from having the latter is down to men, as the oppressive class, making assumptions that the former make all women incapable of /unsuitable for certain activities. That's not to deny the biological differences; it's to say that those differences should not automatically prevent any woman from having the opportunity to carry out the same jobs as men if they so choose and if they meet the job requirements.

(I worked that out in high school; I'm actually slightly embarrassed for you that you didn't.)

Thank you for the concern.

So are you saying that men and women pass the same fitness tests for the police and fire brigade?

There's no allowances made for women not being as strong as men for example?

I mean, if you have a willy....... Your probably a boy.

So are you saying that men and women pass the same fitness tests for the police and fire brigade?

There's no allowances made for women not being as strong as men for example?

Yes and no. If you don't believe me, this is from the police's own careers information page:

"The Test is based on what is expected of Police officers in the course of their normal duty and now is described as a 'job related fitness test' (JRFT) This JRFT makes no distinction between gender or age of the candidate, it is what is reasonably expected of every Police officer doing their duty."

I would think the right thing to do is ask the person how they would like to be referred to.

Not only should self identifying transgender males with anatomy still intact not be called a blokes, but doing so should be banned?? It is people pushing this day is night and night is day lie on something so fundamental that is sending us down the path of facism;, because when the liberals won't call it & the fascists surely will, the day will come when ordinary people will have had enough. How utterly frightening.

They're entitled to respect but not to the rest of us self blinding.

See today's article in the Wall Street Journal on exactly this
www.wsj.com/articles/the-transgender-war-on-women-11553640683

Blaire White says she is a trans woman and biologically male

There really shouldn’t be the need to qualify male with the word “biologically”. It’s a tautology. The definition of male is biological. This is part of the erosion of language. There is a subtle but definite push to make the word “female” include males now, rather than just the word “woman”. Many trans women describe themselves as female, so we now have to say “biologically female” and “biologically male” to clarify

To be fair to Blaire White when I saw her saying this it was in response to trans activists claiming trans women were biologically female.

Even if a transwoman has surgery to remove body parts, they still have Y chromosomes and are still male.

Yes, I’m not saying there wasn’t a context, I just mean generally. Trans women are now claiming the word “female” and “biologically female” and White has to respond “biologically male”. But generally it’s unnecessary and a symptom of how trans activists want language to change to suit them rather than reflect accuracy.

A us firefighter has to be able to do a firemans lift of a male. It doesnt matter whether that male wears a dress and lippy, but to be able to lift a male body, heavier due to larger mass, muscle mass, greater bone density, larger organs, etc.

She has to be able to carry a male body, regardless of attire down a ladder.

Thats the same as a man has to do, and it would exclude certain women who don't have the physicality for that.

Only recently have women got spaces to change in as firefighters who are out there saving lives yet being assaulted when they get changed on and out of their uniform!