Why I can no longer use the term transwoman...

[loveyouradvice]

... this actually makes me sad.

It is a term I have used for ages, comfortable with the compromise it encapsulated .... seeing it as a word much like seahorse - not horses, but sharing some characteristics ... and wanting to be generous to those who had had a tough time being able to express themselves and be accepted by society

But now - thanks to this board and especially to the MRAs - I can no longer use it.

I realise that it is a strategic move on their part - so that eventually there will be two groups of people:

transwomen and women ... i.e. the class of women
men and transmen ... i.e. the class of men... though I'm not sure the transmen get much of a look in

And yes, every time I now read the term trans woman with that all important gap signifying no greater difference than "tall woman" or "Asian woman" .... it makes me truly frightened for our future and for our daughters

I will follow mumsnet guidance on the new language we must all use... this forum is too important in enabling the world to see what is happening: I love the fact that the media and politicians take a peak here to see what women are saying.... so yes, I will play the strange new game of verbal linguistics.... while recognising that my own position is shifting (and continues to do so)

You’re all a bunch of transphobes, if you don’t use a space. 😠

There you go. transwo space man. 😇

But wouldn't the parallel be like an adoptive mother changing the birth certificate to say she is a biological mother?

And to add, say the law was to change to say an adoptive parent is the biological parent, does that somehow change reality?

Presumably smg thought that it was right that women in Ireland were criminalised for having abortions up until recently, cos it was the law....

Jesus how do people still not understand that the law rarely ever treats women fairly, is rarely ever feminist, and as long as we live under patriarchy it will likely remain so and regularly need challenged. I mean how could you possibly miss that fighting the law in a patriarchal society is an ongoing feminist battle on many fronts(?!)

The EA speaks of 'woman' as a gender when gender is femininity and masculinity, so the idea that men with a GRC are the same as women on the basis of the EA is idiotic, the EA has nothing meaningful to say about what a woman is or indeed what gender is. And the exemptions are extensive, because men are not women and there are lots of ways pretending otherwise can be problematic.

The EA, while it does recognise sex (and no, men with a GRC do not have the protected characteristic of being female, it is still gender reassignment) is not fit for purpose, not least because the impact on women and girls of the inclusion of men with a GRC has not been assessed.

So 'it's the law' is no argument at all.

Transwoman brings a red underline when I post. I hate red underlines.

Adoptive mothers don't pretend to be biological mothers and demand that mothers are no longer allowed to be mothers but must be birth mothers (bm's for short). Just look at the reaction to the term on the step boards and you'll see how that goes down

Also, no-one is demanding adoption certs are changed to show the adoptive parents as the birth parents, no-one is pretending children aren't adopted or demanding their "pre-adoption" names are erased from history. Quite the contrary, in fact. Adoptive parents spend a lot of time making sure their children know their history, there is a clear path of getting to where they are now. No-one pretends that lies are truth.

Comparing adoption and transition is just appalling. I'm VERY upset by the analogy

Just to say to the OP, I am totally the same, will not use the term transwoman now, I won't be coerced into using terms that men tell me to. Men who say they are women works for me.

@Maryz I agree with everything you said, and I find it upsetting too...

I came to this decision at the beginning of last year OP. I feel so much better being true to my beliefs that they are not any kind of women.

The irony is that the average person on the street probably thinks 'transwoman' is the term for a woman who thinks she is a man.

Many of them do. Those familiar with the lingo forget that.

Transwo man made me giggle though. Won't use it as that would be goading, but nice one!

But is there objective reality when it comes to right and wrong? Or just opinions? The law sets out what is objectively right and wrong because it puts it into black and white.

I agree there is an element of context to law. But I think context is also important when talking about sex, gender and trans people. You cannot change chromosomes and no one is claiming you can.

You can change legal category, a person's hormones and various other aspects through surgery to bring their body and face closer to who they feel they are. It isn't about literally changing every aspect of biological sex, that is impossible.

Re context, going into a toilet they can simply be classed as the sex they are presenting as. Cubicles are private. Open changing rooms if they still had the original genitalia would be a different context and not acceptable to most people.

No SMG, the law does not state what is right and wrong, black and white. Absolutely not.

But if it says 'becomes for all purposes' is that not the same and would you not agree they start off legally one sex and then become the opposite?

No. Or there wouldn't be any exemptions allowed. You can't just magic them away SMG. To use one not in the EA but the GRA a first born daughter who gets a GRC can't claim the next youngest boy child's inheritance by primogeniture. There is a specific exemption.

Are we allowed to say ‘person with only X chromosomes’ and ‘person who doesn’t only have X chromosomes’?

You cannot change chromosomes and no one is claiming you can.

No they say that they're completely irrelevant and don't mean anything and no one knows what sex people are.

But wouldn't the parallel be like an adoptive mother changing the birth certificate to say she is a biological mother?

When a person changes their birth certificate to reflect their new sex they are issued with a new one. The original one is still there unchanged, but just not visible to the public.

I didn't say they were identical. But illustrates there are other examples where biological categories and definitions change by law to include that which was not biological.

Law is a social construct

"Comparing adoption and transition is just appalling. I'm VERY upset by the analogy angry"

Everyone always is whenever transgender issues are compared to something that affects them personally.

Others might think it's an apt comparison regarding the legal status. In fact, supermatch seems to have been pointing out a parallel. You being upset about it is fair enough, but it's still a parallel to some people.

I remember lots of black people were very upset about comparing the LGB rights movement to the Civil Rights movement back in the 90s and early 00s. I remember a fair few comments during that struggle stating how different it was, and being offended that their struggle for rights was being compared to LGB people's struggle for rights (and these comments usually came from people who disagreed with the "lifestyle" as it was referred to back then). Doesn't mean that the parallel isn't apt or that there are no similarities. I remember arguing that battle online a lot during that period.

Maryz - implying that trans people and transition pretends that lies are truth. is offensive and trivialising. I am also VERY upset by that attempt to delegitimise a minority group

agree the law confuses the terms sex and gender and woman/ female. However it doesn't change the intention of the law

which is to give people the right to be treated as if they were the opposite 'gender'

that's what 'becomes for all purposes' means

It means all purposes under the law- otherwise it would just say 'becomes'.

The law can't change your sex. That's ridiculous. This is so easy to understand.

But if transwomem wanted to be counted as full on women then would insist on being called women and forcing use of cis woman as a distinguisher.

I know right, supermatch?

It's like the phrase "legal fiction" constantly gets trotted out here as a way to delegitimise transpeople. Yet you point out the pretty much standard example of a legal fiction - adoption - and suddenly "HOW DARE YOU!!"

I accept both legal fictions and would never discriminate against anyone with either.

Having your cake and eating it is a common goal around here.

But Maryz if I have upset or triggered you in anyway sorry for that

I am very upset by the attempt to delegitimise women. I'm fucking devastated tbh.