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)

*Kettlepotblackagain

Parenting is not something you 'feel'. You do it. You don't identify with it. You are parents if you parent children!!!*

I think this is an important distinction. They are assuming the role of parenting, taking on all the legal responsibilities. Not just rights, but actionable responsibilities that are objective of feelings.

The trans activist equivalent might be more like a childless person who likes kids and spends a lot of time with them - maybe a teacher or childcare worker - demanding to be legally and socially recognised as 'a parent.' They love kids, mentor some, feel very maternal/paternal, do some parenting-role aspects - even actual parents call them things like 'honourary aunt', sometimes the kids slip and say 'mum' when talking to them. Should they be legally entitled to paid parental leave? Family tax/government benefits? Always use facilities in parents rooms? Should they show up at mother's groups and dominate the conversations? Should they say that mothers day should center them, that they are more of a parent than many who just pop out kids?

Sure, people might just go along with it for a little bit, especially if they were otherwise nice and/or pitiable.
But when parent's groups are full of childless 20 somethings parentsplaining to mothers and fathers, when they demand that parents start calling themselves 'stock parents' because they are parents too, when they start teaching 5 year olds that their true parents are whoever feels parenty and those stock-parents are just parents by an accident of biology, people will get sick of it and push back!

@bd67th. I understand the analogy, and appreciate that you did not express yourself in the way supermatch keeps doing over several threads.

I would have no issue with describing the issuing of another birth certificate as a legal fiction; it is one, and it's a good analogy for the new birth certificates for transexuals upon transition. My problem is with calling adoption itself a legal fiction- it isn't.

Furthermore nothing about the adoption act seeks to redefine language- the definition of parent remains as it always was. It's a bad analogy to the GRA and leads to the implication that adoptive parents are not real parents.

While acknowledging people can do what they like, I'd love it if everyone just ignored Supermatch's constant harping on this.