New guidelines - we aren't allowed to refer to natal sex

[Maryz]

According to KateMumsnet:

"We also thought it might be useful to clarify our thinking about general terms for trans people. Having said that TIM is not okay, it seems a bit illogical to allow other terms which hang upon natal sex."

Well that's that really, isn't it.

We are all being told to pretend that men have become women.

Am I going to be deleted/banned for this post?

Of course feminism is for trans women particularly if they are legally female. But even if not many trans women are subject to some of the same discrimination that any woman can face - by the fact that she is perceived as a woman by those around her (despite the fact she can't get pregnant).

Here we have an analogy - Man Becomes Woman; Subject Verb Object.
I am not an object.

You were able to collect your child from school on time.

You = subject
to collect = verb
child = object.

Does that mean children are 'objects'? You have attempted to twist basic grammar into a bizarre argument of false equivalence.

I understand your argument Bore but I think it is dangerously misguided.

Transwoman was the accepted term by trans activists only a decade or so ago. They pushed, hard, for that space, claiming they were being dehumanised by the lack of it. They said that transwoman made them seem like a different species, then when they got their way and the space was generally enforced/accepted, they began to claim it was an adjective, that they were women 'just like black women or disabled women or short women' (I'm sure you have heard this argument?). And hence, as they were trans women, so therefore we must be cis women. That phrasing directly stole from us the right to just continue to being women, it stole our right to even talk about being a woman and sharing history, culture or political goals with other women. Now abortion is not about women, fgm is not about women, etc. Cis women are the worst.

From that point I have seen the evolution of trans ideology further into claiming they are actually female. We see men transition late in life and be elevated to taking awards and political positions and opportunities to represent women, that were all intended for women. They are eligible because "trans women are women".

All this in around a decade. I believe we must resist any framing that suggests or accepts that men can transition to become women. They will not accept a little, they will always push further. This is colonisation.

Oh feminism is definitively for transgender females, because feminism is rooted in biological sex. Transgender males seem to hate feminism very much indeed.

This is from a decade ago so this argument has raged on for longer:
takesupspace.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/put-the-goddamn-space-in-transwoman-transfeminism-transmasculine-etc-language-politics-1

If I am unable to refer to someone as the sex that they actually are, I am certainly not going to be referring to them as the sex that they are not.

MNHQ's new guidelines clarified that for me.

Although I don't think that was their intention.

I do understand about the space thing Joan and the very powerful points you make.

I'm prepared to continue using transwoman/transman/transperson if it will allow me to continue to post on MN. Because more and more people are waking up to what is going on and saying 'No, this gender-stuff is bollocks'. And that's in no small part due to Mumsnet, which is just about the only public place where these discussions are still happening.

More and more people are coming here after having seen things like the ManFriday chaps in MSM and they get it. They get what we are saying. I do think the tide has turned and that is why it's so important that these discussions continue out in the open.

The was a terrific post from a delurker last night, don't know if you seen it? It was by JohnSmith7777 on this thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3278608-Before-you-rush-off-to-a-private-chat-forum-and-before-you-post-in-Feminism-chat

PS I won't use the space though!

you've seen it

we must resist any framing that suggests or accepts that men can transition to become women.

People can transition from having been assigned male to become women. That is already happening. It is legislated for. To state that it can't or doesn't happen is denying reality.

I'm on the fence about women's rights including transwomen. Obviously they cannot have children or periods and so are exempt from a lot of the sexism that women face, but if they look like a woman then they may be subject to catcalling, increased chance of sexual assault, etc. I have a friend who is a transwoman and has had her arse grabbed, catcalled in the street on a regular basis. These things have been a result of her looking like a woman (before people jump in with their 'oh I can always tell' she 'passes' very well, I didn't even notice for a while when I met her, she's had voice surgery as well) so on that basis shouldn't she be included in the parts of feminism that tackle things like sexual assault against women?

You keep saying this word, "reality"... I don't think you have a very firm grasp on it.

I'm prepared to continue using transwoman/transman/transperson if it will allow me to continue to post on MN.

I do see your argument and I think it is terrible that women are being forced to express a belief they do not have or be punished by isolation.

It's just madness

What i would like to know and have never seen answered is why so-called supporters of transpeople are allowed to post whatever they like in the way of criticisms and lies.

There are posters on here who consistently refer to XY people (generalisations or specific names) who call them women, who say they are female - even biologically female. Who say that people who are male-bodied and have had no treatment whatsoever are not boys/men, but girls/women.

I saw someone yesterday continuously (over dozens of posts0 allege that a specific person who has XY chromosomes is female, has always been female, has female anatomy and is a woman, identical in every way as all women.

Seemingly we can no longer say "you are talking utter bollocks" to such a poster.

That same poster made no secret of the fact that they were reporting dozens of posts.

How come this is allowed? Surely that is deliberately targeting women in general, and individual posters in particular, in a way that the rest of us aren't allowed to target anyone in particular, and even not allowed to say anything critical of the group that is transpeople in general.

It's double standards.

Well I do hope the site mods are at least consistent on this and will apply it to all the transphobic posts on the trying to conceive board

No "looking like a woman" doesn't cut it.

The dividing line is men (XY) and women (XX), not "looks feminine" (whatever that means) and "looks less feminine" with no definitive definition of how "like a woman" you have to look to make it into women's spaces. That's ridiculous.

Unless you want tall women who have big feet and like wearing jeans and doc martens to be excluded from women's spaces

I get your position, Bore, and I too was reasonably ok with saying transwomen until yesterday.

When more than once I saw it stated that "transwomen" without a space is transphobic, and I've finally realised that no concessions are going to be enough. As soon as we put in the space, the next demand will be to leave out the trans altogether.

I've been pushed far enough. I'm stopping here.

Bore - I have felt forced to use 'trans person/people' today, with the meaningfully shitty space, in order to engage with said people on this place without being deleted.

Given the mess of arguments that were made I'm wondering if it's worth it. Maybe it would be easier to just ignore posts from people who would pick up on and be offended by non-use of these terms. Mumsnet can't force us to engage, after all. That would be a weird product of the new rules, eh

I did read the post and have been mulling over it. I don't entirely agree or disagree with it, I think it is important that women are able to make their own decisions about how to proceed though.

And yes I'm totally aware of my hypocrisy. It seems inescapable. We absolutely are not being allowed our dignity at this point.

I would like to present as a king Charles Spaniel.
I have a pair of long floppy ears I made in the Easter holidays.
I am really hoping, infact I am convinced, that MNHQ will make sure that you all refer to me as Bob the King Charles Spaniel from now on. I am entering crufts next year and I piss up trees.

Proper lavs - do you mean the dog equivalent of like those 'cat people', you know the ones that have tattoos and piercings and surgery to make them look like they are cats?

They try to look like a cat, act like a cat and see themselves as a cat. They are, therefore cats.

Joan I hope so much that you will continue to post. I have learned so much from you and others over the years of mostly lurking on the Feminist boards.

Maryz the batshit poster you referred to and her successor, who posted in a very similar manner, have been conspicuously absent today. I hope they've been banned. I know I reported the hell out of both of them.

This has hit the mainstream now. People are waking up to what has been going on on and saying 'this is madness'. Just look at the comments under every article in MSM. TRAs thought they could sneak their agenda in before anyone noticed. Encouraged by politicians keen to gain 'inclusive' credentials. Thanks in no small part to the efforts of Mumsnetters, that hasn't happened.

I really believe we are winning this. That's why it's important you all continue to post.

Yeah, kind of, but I reckon I don't actually need to go that far. I could just wear the ears and piss up trees.
I believe it is my right to present in whatever way I choose.
After my predicted success in the specific breed category at Crufts( I am expected to win btw) I am going to paint myself green and present as a parakeet.

Maybe it would be easier to just ignore posts from people who would pick up on and be offended by non-use of these terms.

Repeating myself but today really has me leaning towards this. I want to talk with women, not be dragged into using excruciatingly dishonest language in order to engage with people who really do not appear to have a real argument and have even less empathy with us or our point of view.

It's just a waste of time.

As soon as we put in the space, the next demand will be to leave out the trans altogether.

That will only happen if they can downgrade us so they can occupy "women" alone.

Glosswitch expressed brilliantly what this might look like:

No-tails – our closest relative?
A fascinating look at the lives of those primates who many say are our closest relatives: the no-tails. Born into human communities, but without penises, the no-tails possess an incredible ability to emulate human behaviour, even acquiring language and, some claim, having thoughts. Most of us are familiar with the ways in which no-tails help us in our daily lives: washing underpants, making sandwiches, even gestating and bearing human children with real, human penises. But what else can no-tails teach us about ourselves? What is it that makes us, so close in so many ways, so much more special than them? And how could this help us to get even more out of human-no-tail relations in years to come? Join us for an amazing exploration of the lives of what some scientists have affectionately called “the lesser humans.”

glosswatch.com/2016/09/14/the-science-museum-forthcoming-exhibitions/

No "looking like a woman" doesn't cut it.

It doesn't, for a start what does a woman look like.

Also, so much of the misogyny we face is from people we know. Parents, teachers, doctors employers and colleagues. Someone being mistaken for female in certain situations doesn't come close to the misogyny faced by many women and girls.

It's also how we are socialised to deal with it and accept it.