Trans issues and language

[Scrumplestiltskin]

Has anyone suggested using AMAB and AFAB ("assumed/assigned male/female at birth") as neutral and accurate terms on here?
As trans people have often used the terms to describe themselves, they can't complain about it being used by GC feminists. And as it is clear and accurate biologically, GC feminists (like myself,) should find it acceptable too.
Trans people can be indicated by the descriptor "trans" before the amab/afab.
It seems like a solution that everyone should be happy with?

Assigned at birth - it sounds like some doctor wandering down a corridor just randomly sticking pink or blue stickers on hospital cots as if no empirical evidence is involved.

Yes, MNHQ have confirmed that we can use TRAs.

Look, just read the guidelines Justine posted. There are very few 'banned' terms, and even then, they have said that context is important.

I'm sure most transpeople just want to quietly get on with their lives. A vocal, aggressive minority - mostly men - want to shut down any gender-critical views/discussion. MNHQ have said that they will continue to allow these discussions - importantly, including biological and scientific realities - as long as we are polite.

And they will not tolerate vexatious reporting of posters who polite continue to speak the truth.

I have looked at the guidelines - it’s not clear.

Mnhq definitely said we can’t mention genitals but we are allowed to call Ian Huntley a man. They haven’t specified which other male criminals can be called men.

How about
Female sex female gender (FSFG) for any cis women (although many of us who are female sex may not be female gender so this does not apply )
Male sex female gender (MSFG) for transwomen

Also
Male sex male gender for cis men
Female sex male gender for trans men

Female sex can be used to discuss those gender critical feminists (and current dictionaries ) refer to as women. This includes those who identify as any or no gender and can be used when sex is important.

Female gender can be used when gender is important, but it should always be noted excludes many female sexed people who don't identify with the female gender.

Then maybe some arguments can be clearly framed (as to be fair they often are on here) as to whether provisions are appropriate to make on sex or gender.

As context is key, I hope my use of the term 'cis' is acceptable. I believe if someone wants to identify as it they are entitled to, I object to presumptive labeling and the loss of hard fought for women's protections because I do not wish to conform.

Personally I don't want to accept the meaning of 'woman' had changed to be gender not sex, but I understand that is how some see it, and for clear respectful discussions on this matter it will be easiest to avoid using it.

I get the issue is they will come after, female and male next, then ova and sperm, I certainly will dig my heels in at that point. We need a word to unambiguously describe the biological female condition.

The problem is, we're going to think of a nice neutral factual term and then someone's going to come on and say they don't like it in about 5 minutes and we'll have to think up a new term.

Scrumple it's not usually done these days, as a nice paediatrician came on to tell us recently. If any doubt is present this incredible modern invention called DNA testing is used.

There might still be some children in developing countries who were born at home where the midwife took a guess, though.

@sorenipples are you posting sarcastically? If so I apologise but in this brave new make dominated and defined world I can't tell. If you are serious I strongly object I don't need any other definition than woman. If Transwomen need (and i believe very few of them either need or want this) to enforce a new language on us I don't wish.to comply.

So are we allowed to say that a rapist is a man (regardless of what they call themselves)? What if they have a GRC?

The mod said we could call Ian Huntley a man even if he identifies as a woman but for the rest it is no acceptable to call a male a man. If they say they are something else. They like to keep their options open while they close ours.

I am posting in the hope of coming up with language framework which doesn't get banned or offend, as a tool to aid discussion. Assigned female at birth offends me, I was created female at conception.

References to cis are tongue in cheek. When do we really ever care when someone is a FSFG except maybe for hen night planning? But reading on twitter I see some women embrace this identity, and for them womanhood is all about gender.

I am posting in the hope of coming up with language framework which doesn't get banned or offend, as a tool to aid discussion.
That was absolutely my intent too, sorenipples - a suggestion for an alternative term that might work and avoid bans. But from what you and others have said, my suggestions aren't the solution! I'd like to come up with something though - it seems unacceptable that we could be banned for some minor language infraction, and I'd love to avoid that while still speaking clearly on the issues.

Scrumple it's not usually done these days, as a nice paediatrician came on to tell us recently. If any doubt is present this incredible modern invention called DNA testing is used.
Interesting - thanks drspouse. Does this mean that AIS males (people who are XY male, but insensitive to androgen so develop as more female-appearing externally,) are marked as male on their birth certificate these days? I feel out of date now, lol.
I also agree with what you said about some people taking offense to any term that attempts to make note of the difference between females and males when trans issues are involved. It's incredibly frustrating.

I said this on the other thread and I’ll repeat it here: know it’s been said, but I agree with this Maybe we should just keep TIM, TIF, TERF and cis? And everyone can lump it all round?

What we need is a language we all understand so that the actual meaningful conversation can take place.

For that reason I think it’s important to have TIM/TIF or M2T/F or transwoman/man as these are understood. If you just use male/female ie ‘a male messaged me on OLD and I didn’t reply as I’m a lesbian’ (example up thread) you can’t see if this is a man-man or a transwoman so some conversations can’t begin.

Mab or fab would also work.

There’s some inaccuracy on this thread. MN haven’t said you can’t discuss genitals.

My daughter has helped me make a diagram.

I'm beginning to not care at all what anyone else is called, but I'm a woman. I wasn't assigned anything, I don't have a gender, I'm not feminine (or masculine) whatever that means.

I'm a woman. Full fucking stop.

As is everyone born with XX chromosomes. No matter how much they cut off their hair (or their breasts) and what type of hormone cocktail they take.

Euphemisms only work until the mantle of false concession wears too thin to cover the truth underneath.

Male gets cover with: 'the assignation someone else gave me' / 'at a very specific time in my life' as if these somehow alter the enduring fact of 'male' forever.

'Assigned male at birth' works fleetingly until people realise that the 'assignation' event is superfluous, and that 'birth' is just a snapshot in a long timeline of unbreakable continuity, and gradually it's impossible to hide the fact that AMAB is a less accurate euphemism of male.

There aren't any linguistic gymnastics advanced enough to stand the test of time.

The problem is there isn't a euphemism in the world big enough that can obscure a truth so self-evident.

If a person is male he is male. Always will be, no matter the pronouns, the GRC, the fawning affirmations, the euphemisms, the clothes.
There's no word opaque enough to hide that male sex.

Euphemisms I've seen come, and eventually be rejected as the truth peaked through...
MtF
MtT
TiM
TW
transwoman (use the space, bigot)
trans woman (why should we have the prefix? let us be women and you be cis women)
woman (we are female)

There is no end to this, because this is a fight to prevent women from having language that differentiates ourselves from men.

I could call myself ovary-bearer and that would become the next target label, and I don't doubt that ovary would be redefined to fit any man who wanted it.

I don't want to play this degrading linguistic game any longer.

I feel you, Barracker (And yet I keep hoping for the perfect term, like an idiot.)
The problem is, the other side doesn't want to find neutral terms to argue the issues, and let the arguments stand for themselves like we do (and let the best argument win.) The other side wants to make it impossible for us to argue.

And lol, sorenipples, bless! That's great - and I see what you're going for, and think it could work. Maybe a bit complicated, but I think that's just the talking

The other side wants to make it impossible for us to argue

or at least keep us distracted by talking about what language we can use whilst they continue to erase our rights

I don't want to play this degrading linguistic game any longer.

I agree. But this may be a case of just hanging on in there until this reaches critical mass. If so, then I will, under sufferance, do some linguistic juggling.

Are we still able to state biological facts by the way? Such as transwomen being male and humans being unable to change sex? Or is that ban time too?

By the way nobody in the uk is assigned a sex at birth. If there is any ambiguity then DNA testing is done and there are mechanisms for extending registration time. Assigned at birth is medically, scientifically and administratively incorrect. I’m also unhappy with how the intersex community is being co-opted in all of this.

Does this mean that AIS males (people who are XY male, but insensitive to androgen so develop as more female-appearing externally,) are marked as male on their birth certificate these days?

I believe that they would be either a) assumed to be female (in which case the AFAB would be correct) because of the appearance of the genitalia or b) if the genitalia were ambiguous they would indeed be tested.

MN haven’t said you can’t discuss genitals.
They've said that they will almost always delete posts where the genitals of an individual are discussed.
I think we need to take them up on this.
It's appropriate to discuss your own, your child's genitals, your DP's genitals, and the genitals of someone who has abused you or that has abused someone you know well.
It's appropriate to discuss the genitals of the Irish rugby players or indeed anyone that is tried for rape.

It's appropriate to discuss in general terms the operations that individuals undergo in gender reassignment surgery.

Where there's a news report or journal article about this topic, individuals (N=1) are often discussed. For example we were discussing GRS regret recently and one poor woman having surgery to transition to male-type genitalia died from post surgical complications. We have therefore discussed that (non-famous, anonymous, but N=1) individual's genitalia.

Can we post links to actual TV programmes about actual individuals' genitalia? Can we then discuss them?

For example we were told we were "disgusting" for discussing Jazz Jennings' genitalia. Yet Jazz and Jazz's family have discussed this topic many times on a TV show. It's not exactly private. Same for the child of the head of Mermaids. All in public elsewhere.

The good thing here, is that we as females are used to being dealt a shit hand, and achieving what we want to achieve anyway. We can thank millenia of oppression for that talent
Whereas the trans movement as an anti-female movement, is driven by privileged MABs who are used to getting what they want served to them on a platter, aren't good at supporting each other really, and aren't as plain fucking dogged as us.

Like Bowl says, we just need to keep juggling and hanging on, and speaking the truth in whatever pretzel manner we have to, and eventually common sense has to win out. Right?

Thanks for the info, dr
For example we were told we were "disgusting" for discussing Jazz Jennings' genitalia. Yet Jazz and Jazz's family have discussed this topic many times on a TV show. It's not exactly private. Same for the child of the head of Mermaids. All in public elsewhere.
I think if something is in the public domain - with the person's consent to broadcast - then we should be able to discuss it. Posters discuss the details of reality television shows all the time here on MN!
So perhaps we could discuss I Am Jazz as a show, including the info on the show about their genitals. Because that's part of the show!
And we should be able to reference their - public, consented to broadcasting - details on their genitals where relevant too, imo. For example, when talking about the effects of child transition, we should be able to discuss the effects on the genital development of said children, and reference Jazz as an example of the effect of child transition on genitals.
Discussion should not be derogatory or salacious of course, but otherwise I can't see why things broadcast on reality TV can't be discussed here.

"Whereas the trans movement as an anti-female movement, is driven by privileged MABs who are used to getting what they want served to them on a platter, aren't good at supporting each other really, and aren't as plain fucking dogged as us."

Go drinking with them a few times. I think they might surprise you.

Go drinking with them a few times. I think they might surprise you.

No thanks. I've experienced too much of their vitriol to feel safe around trans MABs while not stone cold sober.

Returning poster here. Deleted my account a few months ago after seeing so many MN posts being used as cheap fodder for media companies.

Like a lot of people I lurk everywhere including Twitter. I am in awe of the regular FWR posters on MN who can articulate the issues so well with balanced debate.

Euphemisms only work until the mantle of false concession wears too thin to cover the truth underneath
Absolutely, it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to maintain a lie and cover up truth.
Our word 'Woman' meaning the female sex of a human being means exactly what it says on the tin. We don't need to change our words.
The word Cis isn't necessary and has no relevance to women.

However when the actual meaning of the word woman is stretched to imply something quite different, that difference is a pretence.