Use of trans identified male as opposed to transwoman.

[happydappy2]

MNHQ There has been much written recently about how the controlling of the words we use, is very misleading. Many women reject the word transwoman as it can be misunderstood. In light of this, would you reconsider yr guidelines that Trans Identified Male can not be used? It would seem a more factually accurate description of a human male who presents in a stereotypically female way. Thank you.

So what are you objecting to exactly?

Being born female is a profound reality that shapes every aspect of one's life. I find it deeply offensive if I'm honest, for a man to claim he is a woman - no matter what he imagines. I find it insulting and demeaning of my life and my experience - and of the lives and experiences of women around the world, some of whom are still locked in their homes and forbidden to leave; or who suffer from FGM as small children; who are told their lives don't matter; the eight year old girl gang raped by four men in the Punjab, and then tortured to death; the baby girls suffocated or abandoned at birth; the women called 'bitch' as they are beaten or burned; the women whose life and potential is constrained because their education is not considered important; the women who are expected to move over so that men can take their place at the table......the women who have died in childbirth; the mothers who have no legal say over their own children.......

I don't like the word transwoman because my brain really does pick up on the woman part and try to convince me I am talking about a female.

Language is very powerful & impacts our thoughts, feelings & actions often in ways we are not always aware of.

That's why the impact of control of language is so important to consider & discuss..... freely.

So the term transwoman is the correct language to describe a male to female transsexual, careless of whether you like it or not

Once upon a time I would not have much issue with that - when it came to the small handful of fully transitioned male to female transexuals. Now it is a different matter altogether. The issue has become deeply toxic because of the forced imposition or transgender ideology; so much so that most of us balk at the idea of even using the word woman at all in connection with the word trans.

We balk because it feels like an invasion; we balk because it is an invasion and a colonisation; we balk because we reject, instinctively, that definition. Yes, words are important - because they shape the world we live in.

Returning to the OP for a moment...

I'm not offended by the term Transwomen.

I don't like it because it is (deliberately IMHO) confusing.

Males who identify as trans (MWIT) works for me.

earlywalker would you agree that currently there are several options to use when describing a transexual person? This whole thread is about the fact that MNHQ do not allow us to describe a male born trans person as a trans identified Male , but forces us to use the term transwoman. Other media outlets such as newspapers freely allow the use of male born trans person-I am simply asking for us to be able to use the same language here.

So far the only explanation is that some people don’t understand what a transwoman is

Seriously selective reading there then earlywalker

Hello everyone - thanks for your comments - as we've said in a mail to the OP, we need to have a further discussion about the points raised here next week.

Our reasoning thus far, as most of you are no doubt aware from our guidelines posted last year, is to assume that terms focusing heavily on natal sex would not encourage transgender people to participate in a discussion - and we do want to facilitate reasoned debate. It’s the same reasoning behind why we will usually delete terms that many gender critical feminists find offensive. We should point out that the guidelines also apply to this thread - and while we appreciate this is a discussion about language and are looking at it in that context, we do ask that you keep things civil, especially if referring to individuals.

Thanks.

We should point out that the guidelines also apply to this thread - and while we appreciate this is a discussion about language and are looking at it in that context, we do ask that you keep things civil, especially if referring to individuals.

I hope MN will also request that posters refrain from being goady, /manipulative as per the standard guidelines of the site and the intent that we are all able to have civilised discussion.

I think transgender identifying as woman / man - abbreviated version could be:

trans ID:woman
trans ID:man

It makes it clear what they identify as, that this is their gender identification not biological sex and the fact that the identification is due to transition.

@R0wantrees

I hope MN will also request that posters refrain from being goady, /manipulative as per the standard guidelines of the site and the intent that we are all able to have civilised discussion.

Of course.

we appreciate this is a discussion about language and are looking at it in that context

I would suggest that you alter the rules to allow people to use the terms that fit with their sincerely held views - whichever side of the queer theory vs material reality those sincerely held views fall on.

You have rules about civility and goading behaviour. I do not see why they should not suffice.

I don't like transwoman because it disguises the fact the person being referred to is a male.

I like trans woman even less because it implies that trans is a subset of woman, when in fact a transwoman is in a subset of men.

Declaring biological sex as a descriptor (the only factual statement) is key to giving clarity.

thank you YetAnotherBecky

Natal sex is the only one that has any material meaning.

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I’d also hope that MN would speak to posters who insist on referring to posters on FWR as men as a go too if they don’t agree with them. It’s troll hunting if nothing else and happens far too often. Thanks.

tinylittlebird, a male who identifies as trans, also does that without using a descriptor that doesn’t actually belong to their sex. They should not be hiding the trans bit, as if it’s something to be ashamed of. At the same time, they should also not try to force the rest of us to lie about their sex. That’s wrong and misogynistic bullying.

The general terms I would personally like to use were they allowed are men who transgender and women who transgender. Or, alternatively MTF trans people and FTM trans people.

I avoid commenting on individuals where possible, going for a play the ball, not the (wo)man principle. However, I would wish to be able to refer to violent or sexually abusive behaviour by all individuals using sex-based terms so that I can accurately depict the sex-based disparities involved.

Provided I can use the terms that seem appropriate for me and my sincerely held beliefs, then I care not one whit if others show up here banging on about cis and TERF and trans woman or whatever. They can use whatever language they please.

So that would be what I would like to see.

I also realise this is whistling in the prevailing wind!

earlywalker did you see my question to you? Up thread, outlining that the term trans identified Male, is used in some media outlets, yet we are not allowed to use it here. As there are more than one way to describe a man who is transsexual I am asking MNHQ if we can also use Male identifying as trans, not just transwoman. (As many people feel transwoman focuses too much on the word woman.) can you justify why we shouldn’t be able to use it?

Ask for what you want, say what you want. I’m debating the reasons as to why you don’t want to use transwoman.

Lang, I think you have it! MTF trans and FTM trans is an informative, clear, and concise solution

Our reasoning thus far, as most of you are no doubt aware from our guidelines posted last year, is to assume that terms focusing heavily on natal sex would not encourage transgender people to participate in a discussion - and we do want to facilitate reasoned debate

Aren't terms which are clear more likely to enable reasoned discussion.

People may bandy any terms around as insults which would certainly not be conducive to civilised debate. The standard rules prohibiting 'goady fuckery' should cover deliberate attempts to insult or belittle.

However as a forum populated by adults surely accuracy of expression is key to reasoned discussion?

Maria Miller MP & other MPs in Westminster had no issue with Karen Ingala-Smith's use of language & thanked her for clarifying many of the key issues. Given that the discussion relates to the provision of refuge services for women fleeing abuse & violence, clarity is essential.

MN FWR board has many women concerned, involved with the provision and/or needing supportive women's services.

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3592260-Karen-Ingala-Smith-in-Parliament-now-on-single-sex-refuges

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I’d also hope that MN would speak to posters who insist on referring to posters on FWR as men as a go too if they don’t agree with them. It’s troll hunting if nothing else and happens far too often. Thanks.

Yes I agree. It's troll hunting and goady too.

I am very interested in both English language & literature (its my degree)

Like most who do, I love Shakespeare who has a quote for many human behaviours.

guidelines posted last year, is to assume that terms focusing heavily on natal sex would not encourage transgender people to participate in a discussion - and we do want to facilitate reasoned debate

Would MTF trans and FTM trans focus too much on natal sex? In terms of debate surely it is informative and communicates the lived experience of the poster which would be relevant to reasoned debate.

But then if you wanted to avoid focussing on natal sex you could always say trans identifying as ...(trans ID:...) which is still factual but references what they identify as and not natal sex but this is clearly inferred by the descriptor 'trans'.