Why should we be made to lie?

[spontaneousgiventime]

Before the guidelines we, biological women, were free to tell the truth about people who present as the opposite sex.

Now we can't. Even if we abide by the rules and not use the acronyms listed we can still get a strike, three strikes and we are out.

I will NOT refer to people who present as the opposite sex as trans wo/men. That steals my sex and I won't do it. I tried to use another name I thought was reasonable - nope, not acceptable and got a strike.

MN, why do you want your members to lie. I along with millions like me were brought up always to tell the truth, yet here on MN that's looked down on. Why?

Exactly Elen.

transwoman used to confuse me. i thought it meant a woman who didn't id as a woman. I think others are similarly not understanding the terminology. All you have to do is read newspaper comments about Man Friday and its clear many are getting the wrong end of the stick regarding much of the debate.

Words and meaning need to be clear. Semantics regarding a space or not doesn't clarify meaning for those outwith the critical thinking of FWR etc.

Best stick to facts. Woman, is adult human female.

As far as I'm concerned, saying 'it's in the dictionary' is the same territory as 'but I have a GRC!! So it must be true that I'm a woman!'

Both have no objective meaning whatsoever

Just looked. Oxford states the meaning of transwoman to be a male to female transexual
The meaning of transexual according to Oxford is A person who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex.

So I may just ditch the transwoman/man and say transexual. Or is that a banned word too?

No, transsexual is not offensive. Nor is trans people or transgender people. Nor I presume is male to female trans person.

Although some people make a distinction between transsexual as being someone who has had surgery and transgender as someone who has not necessarily undergone a physical transition.

So pleased to see you're behind the new guidelines peak and they suit you and your agenda!

Oops - no rat - you see science still doesn't agree that they are women

Transwoman is a word in its own right. Do you think a seahorse is a type of horse?

You know oppression is to do with plundering the fruits of someone's labour and restricting their access to resources don't you? Okay, I'll stop it.

As far as I'm concerned, saying 'it's in the dictionary' is the same territory as 'but I have a GRC!! So it must be true that I'm a woman!'

Both have no objective meaning whatsoever

What about "woman definitely and ONLY means adult human female because that's what it says in the dictionary", when quite clearly that isn't what it means to a good many people?

Also nonsense?

Then we agree.

Although some people make a distinction between transsexual as being someone who has had surgery and transgender as someone who has not necessarily undergone a physical transition.

Ahh stuff it then. Will stick to calling people male and female. Nice and easy seen as humans cannot change sex.

Graham Linehan was challenged on twitter as to whether he believed that transwomen are women. He responded that in order to answer the question there would have to a definitions of the words transwomen and women on which both parties agreed.

I suspect MNHQ does not want to get sued as a result of posters saying the Joanne Bloggs is a man.
But surely if we had an agreed definition of certain words and posted subject to that definition a lawsuit would go nowhere.

So if I say that a famous person who considers themselves to be a woman is actually male, and I am using the agreed-in-advance definition of male as being of the sex class that produces sperm, then how could I or MNHQ be sued when it is objective fact?

spontaneous thanks!

I'm still to be convinced we can post legal fact or if that's a banning offence too.

Okay....

Exscuse MNHQ.

Is it ok when talking about a person to use the terms male and female instead of man and woman?

Asking for a friend.

Jesse Singal - interesting

'a good many people' rat ?

ie the people who want it to apply to them, regardless of whether in reality it does?

Those who are aggressively taking over the original definition of female, 'cos they've 'worked very hard'?

If someone worked very, very hard to identify themselves as black, when they were indeed white, should we defend them because they've worked 'very hard on those fruits of labour' and 'restrict their access to resources' because of all that hard, hard work, they're black?

If I invent a new category of humanseahorse and work very very hard in getting other people to accept I'm a humanseahorse, is it fair that humans restrict my access to human resources because I worked very hard.? (Daily Mail sad-face as a humanseahorse)

Orwellian Newspeak?

Rat - what you seem to have been saying is that it 'being in the dictionary' somehow 'validates' fact.

No, it doesn't. The meaning of woman in the dictionary is validated by the fact an adult human being biologically has female dna.

It's the same as the GRC argument. Like having a GRC 'validates' biology. No it doesn't.

Would the mods of a Man United supporters group force members to say "Spurs is the best team" because Spurs supporters told them to?

To be honest I don't even understand what I am allowed to say and not to say anymore. I carefully avoided all the acronyms and that but still got a strike.

Just leaving this here...

I am not going to lie either, a person cannot change their biological makeup and I will not be forced to take part in the pretence. It is worrying for us all that we must police our use of descriptive words while debating this issue but so be it. We will not be silenced

Can you imagine Justine tolerating someone standing in front of her and bare faced lying to her. Yet this is what she expects us to do here.

Our choices seem to be - perjury or purge the board