Think the way people use the term 'trans widow' is insensitive to actual widows?

[justmaybenot]

The wives of men who have transitioned often use the term 'trans widow' and some of the responses to this letter from an actual widow have expressed some envy for someone whose husband has died rather than transitioned. AIBU to think it's overblown and deeply insensitive to liken the experience of your dh transitioning to the position of someone whose dh has actually died? This is the letter rachelemoss.com/2021/06/24/a-letter-to-trans-widows-from-an-actual-widow/

@everybodysang

you'll get aggression on here, OP, because it simply is not possible to discuss these issues on here without it as there's a very loud group of people who'll shout it down. It's pointless discussing it on here - I imagine someone will be along in a sec to tell me I'm policing how woman use language because they have a virulent belief they speak for all women, when, thank goodness, they don't.

It's funny how it's okay for Rachel, a woman who has no experience of women who's husbands have 'come out' as trans feels she can police other women's words.

Or is it only some women who are allowed a voice? The ones who centre men in their 'feminism'?

Whose ffs

Another little observation (just a general one, really),

It is possible to sympathise with an individual’s emotional difficulties without agreeing with them on everything. It’s even possible to sympathise with an individual’s emotional difficulties when you think they espouse a pretty horrible set of opinions. They might be entitled to their feelings, but that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to dictate to me how I should think/feel/speak.

There is room enough in the world for everyone. But that requires people from all sides - not just one - to live and let live. Which is what tolerance actually means.

@FourTeaFallOut

I really don't care what a load of transphobes think

Don't agree = transphobic
Don't agree = aggression
Don't agree = unkind
Actual rape and death threats = radio silence.

It’s just so telling isn’t it.

🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻

This is what I find compelling in what she says: 'But there are plenty of reasons people can change in a marriage that mean they are no longer compatible, and it’s alright then to say goodbye.' Have you not just split up with your partner? That they've then transitioned would seem to be another story - but it depends on the individuals and their own narrative. Some people who transition DON'T use the terms 'deadname' etc.

I don't know why many of the posters here hate what someone here has described as playing 'word soup' and then use the term 'widow' themselves.

I don't care if Rachel Mosse would or wouldn't be my friend. The poster who said she'd call me a transphobe, so be it. I don't believe I've a fear or hatred of people who have changed gender from what they were assigned at birth. I've a problem with the clamour around this.

It's appalling people have been threatened with rape and violence, absolutely appalling. I don't believe the 'trans community' is uniform in their response to these discussions, and do think they do a disservice to other trans people who are less aggressive in their approach.

I have quite a few friends and a close relative whose children wanted to change gender, some of whom have undergone surgery or hormonal treatment when they've reached adulthood. Some of the parents found it a relief, others were bewildered and hurt but are now accepting, others think it's a phase, others have ostracised that family member.

What is being policed is any calm discussion - (ironically?) this has become completely binary it seems. And that would seem to fly in the face of support for anyone who has been affected.

It's funny how it's okay for Rachel, a woman who has no experience of women who's husbands have 'come out' as trans feels she can police other women's words.

Also limited knowledge of current law and proposed changes, given that the letter is mainly about how trans widows should behave and feel.

OP you would get roasted for voicing an ill informed opinion on many topics on MN. (There is currently a particularly active thread on the topic of conveyancing). Debate on MN, and in particular AIBU has always been ‘vigorous’. If you don’t want strong push back, check you know what you are talking about.

(But the letter actually refers to MN, so your assertion that you didn’t expect this response seems very odd)

Perhaps you should read trans widows' stories before you make up a saccharine narrative @justmaybenot? www.transwidowsvoices.org/

If you can read those and still lack empathy for the women who have been through those decades of abuse, you must be a sociopath. I can only assume Rachel hasn't bothered.

It's appalling people have been threatened with rape and violence, absolutely appalling.

Not as appalling as women using the term "trans widows", though, since you didn't see fit to mention that subject unsolicited.

So some trans people do believe in deadnaming and some women use the term transwidows?

Does the writer of the piece have a problem with the transitioned who ask not to be deadnamed?

Yeah, but no, but, only if golf widow is. Are there widows complaining and campaigning about that? 🤷🏼‍♀️

This is the second thread trying to police the language used by trans widows in as many days, and its telling that while there's lots of antagonism for us, none of the people complaining have suggested a viable alternative.

None of them can explain why its OK for trans people to use the term 'dead name' but not ok for us to name ourselves trans widows.
Or why other uses of the term 'widow' are still socially acceptable, and the people who use them are not being attacked on social media.

duckduckgo.com/?q=widows+and+orphans+graphics&t=opera&ia=web

@justmaybenot

This is what I find compelling in what she says: 'But there are plenty of reasons people can change in a marriage that mean they are no longer compatible, and it’s alright then to say goodbye.' Have you not just split up with your partner? That they've then transitioned would seem to be another story - but it depends on the individuals and their own narrative. Some people who transition DON'T use the terms 'deadname' etc.

I don't know why many of the posters here hate what someone here has described as playing 'word soup' and then use the term 'widow' themselves.

I don't care if Rachel Mosse would or wouldn't be my friend. The poster who said she'd call me a transphobe, so be it. I don't believe I've a fear or hatred of people who have changed gender from what they were assigned at birth. I've a problem with the clamour around this.

It's appalling people have been threatened with rape and violence, absolutely appalling. I don't believe the 'trans community' is uniform in their response to these discussions, and do think they do a disservice to other trans people who are less aggressive in their approach.

I have quite a few friends and a close relative whose children wanted to change gender, some of whom have undergone surgery or hormonal treatment when they've reached adulthood. Some of the parents found it a relief, others were bewildered and hurt but are now accepting, others think it's a phase, others have ostracised that family member.

What is being policed is any calm discussion - (ironically?) this has become completely binary it seems. And that would seem to fly in the face of support for anyone who has been affected.

Did you read the transwidows voices link, op?

Are there going to be mamy more of these?

OP have a look, there is an existing thread on the same topic.

'But there are plenty of reasons people can change in a marriage that mean they are no longer compatible, and it’s alright then to say goodbye.'

Except, no it isn't. We are attacked for not being supportive, and lobby groups are trying to change the law to remove the Spousal exit Clause that allows women to leave.

It also ignores the fact that many of us are subjected to various kinds of abuse before we make the decision to leave, including sexual and financial coercion. After we split, many of our ex partners don't pay child support.
These are common themes that we only know about now we have started to talk to each other.

But there are plenty of reasons people can change in a marriage that mean they are no longer compatible, and it’s alright then to say goodbye.

This is a complete misunderstanding of why this topic is in the news.

This is the current law:

“you are married under the law of England and Wales or under the law of a country or territory outside the UK, then your marriage is considered to be a ‘protected marriage’. Applicants who are in a protected marriage can choose to apply for a full GRC. For this both the applicant and their spouse will each need to complete a statutory declaration confirming their wish to remain married post gender recognition. If a spouse decides not to issue a statutory declaration or withdraws it before the application is dealt with, then the Panel will instead issue an interim GRC, which can be used by the applicant (or their spouse) to end the marriage following which a full GRC will be issued.”

It enables the ‘trans widow’ to end the marriage before the GRC is granted, through divorce or annulment.

It enables them to have some control over a contract.

Stonewall want the transitioning spouse to be given unilateral control over the terms of the marriage without the consent of the other party.

Remember that a GRC makes it illegal in many circumstances to reveal somebody’s trans status, so in effect a veil must be drawn over the trans widow’s life.

How on earth can anyone think that would be anything other than abusuve?

@Carriemac

How is this not in the sex and gender section?

Because we haven't reported it.

Because OP isn't a GC poster

Because trans widows are women

Because the rules aren't coherent?

Because it's Sunday?

MNHQ really have made a large rod for their own back with this change.

I don't know why many of the posters here hate what someone here has described as playing 'word soup' and then use the term 'widow' themselves.

Because that is the subject being discussed here, and because it is a term many women in this situation use because of a breathtakingly arrogant imposition of word soup ideology on their lives and their reality.

If a man can decide to call himself a woman then as a reaction to that it seems only fair that a woman should be able to call herself his widow. If his ‘reality’ matters so much and absolutely should be respected, then by the same token a woman’s lived experience should also be respected, including the freedom to use terminology that seeks to explain and define how she feels. What’s good for the goose and all that...

I didn’t (and don’t) approve of the word soup. But as its carrying on as it wishes, the entity that uses it cannot then legitimately turn around and try to police my or others’ terminology in reacting to its actions or behaviours.

OP, no, I disagree.

Making an analogy with another experience didn't necessarily mean you're pooh-poohing the original, and often it's no real comment on the original at all. It's just a way of people explaining their circumstances to themselves and others in order to make sense of them as best they can.

Intention is everything and I seriously doubt that the aim of people who can themselves transwidows is to upset widows. It may well feel to those women that it would be better and less complicated and so on if their spouse had actually died. That may not be a pretty thing to feel but, as it's the truth of their feeling, I'm not sure that anything is gained by preventing then from expressing it.

I can understand that someone in the throes of grief could potentially take offence but, frankly, grief is a very raw time and in some cases of grief, people are looking for something to lash out at. That's not a criticism, just my experience.

Essentially, both parties have suffered a huge, life-altering shock and varied attendant ripples. I'm not sure that there is any value in trying to compare whose experience is worse (since it will be a fairly rare person who has experienced both) or policing how each of them talk about their experiences.

@everybodysang

you'll get aggression on here, OP, because it simply is not possible to discuss these issues on here without it as there's a very loud group of people who'll shout it down. It's pointless discussing it on here - I imagine someone will be along in a sec to tell me I'm policing how woman use language because they have a virulent belief they speak for all women, when, thank goodness, they don't.

I suspect most posters will just roll their eyes and focus on supporting real life transwidows who have received death threats this week because their plight has reached mainstream media.

Your feelings of offence pale into insignificance.

I've never heard that expression before but have frequently heard Ironman/triathlon/marathon etc widow(er). I know these are meant in a jokey way, but definitely wouldn't use any of those expressions in front of someone whose spouse had died, it would be very insensitive.

When your partner comes out as trans, and says that although he married you and you had children together at the same time he always knew this is who he really was, and that you are now a lesbian

and when lobby groups try to change the law to prevent you from exiting the marriage
and to prevent you from talking about the past using the same legal force as a super injunction even when you are talking to your bank trying to sort out the financial mess that used to be your life

and try to enable one party to retroactively change a legal contract without the consent of the other party,

and as a result of all of this you are the one labelled as abusive and controlling

then you might have some idea of the problems we face.

It really beggars belief that a group of women who have already suffered loss, manipluation and abuse, are being attacked and policed in this way.

Makes you proud of yourself OP?

Two further thoughts:

1. People use terms like "cricket widow" as a descriptor (sometimes looking, sometimes through gritted teeth!) and because the intention is clearly not disrespect to actual widows, I've never seen someone jumped on for that. Different in many ways, I know, but probably more in the way that it should be more offensive than less, since it's a joke.

1. There's something distasteful and approaching hypocritical about telling women they can't use the word "widow" because that word already has a meaning and it's offensive / harmful to try to use it to mean something else when we're in the context of a debate about what the words "woman" and "man" mean (and those arguing against "transwidow" will most likely be on the side of radically expanding or reinventing the meaning of "woman" and "man")

Because we haven't reported it.

I’ve reported posts like this in the ‘wrong’ sections. Always ignored. Funny that.

I don't know why many of the posters here hate what someone here has described as playing 'word soup' and then use the term 'widow' themselves.

The word ‘widow’ is being used metaphorically. ‘Trans women are women’ is meant to be understood literally.

I’m surprised you aren’t aware of this.