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.

This is a very useful extended article (worth reading in full)

50 Shades Of Gaslighting: Disturbing Signs An Abuser Is Twisting Your Reality

By Shahida Arabi
Updated September 29, 2018

"Gaslighting, explained.
How do you convince someone that something they know to be true isn’t? In psychology, what is known as the “illusory truth effect” is a phenomenon in which a listener comes to believe something primarily because it has been repeated so often. When an abuser continually tells you that you are oversensitive or that what you are experiencing is in no way abuse, you begin believing it, even if you know deep down it isn’t true.

In other words, a lie that is repeated long enough eventually can be seen as the truth. (continues)

Gaslighting in Conversations
What does gaslighting look like in day to day conversations? It usually involves some form of the following:

Malignant repetition of falsehoods. As noted previously, repeating a lie frequently enough can become a way to reinforce and cement it as truth. Whether these lies are seemingly innocuous or potentially damaging, they can overwrite existing perceptions.

Projection and generalization – The gaslighter diverts the claim back to the victim, claiming that he or she is the one who “always” creates trouble, when in fact, it is the gaslighter who is perpetually creating chaos and refusing to validate the victim’s claims. The gaslighter then generalizes all of the victim’s claims and assertions as ridiculous or characterizes them as attempts to create conflict, as if conflict did not already exist in the first place.

Withholding information and stonewalling – The abuser is unwilling to engage in the conversation at all and often shuts down the conversation any time a claim is made against him or her about their behavior.

Questioning their memory, emotional stability and/or competence – The abuser avoids accusations and conversations by questioning the victim’s memory or ability to comprehend the situation in an unbiased way.

They may say things like, “I don’t remember that. Are you sure you’re remembering that correctly?” even if the event just happened a few moments ago.

Bringing in a third party/the triangulation maneuver. Triangulation is the act of bringing in another person into the dynamic of a toxic interaction. While we usually talk about triangulation in the context of manufacturing love triangles, when it is used in gaslighting, it can manifest quite differently.

Triangulation (in the context of gaslighting) can be used to confirm the abuser’s version of reality and shame you into believing that you truly are alone in your beliefs and perceptions.

Malignant narcissists are prone to recruiting what the survivor community refers to as “flying monkeys” to agree with their perspective. They may bring these people in physically to confirm their point of view (“Hey Sandra, what do you think? Isn’t Laura being paranoid?”), or even mention them in passing (“Even Sandra agreed with me that you’re being a bit paranoid, Laura”).

Diversions from the topic to assassinate the victim’s character or challenge the validity of the relationship. The gaslighter diverts the focus from his or her behavior onto the perceived character traits of the victim or the stability of the relationship. (continues)

thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/11/50-shades-of-gaslighting-the-disturbing-signs-an-abuser-is-twisting-your-reality/

I've edited down the examples given so as not to create too long a post

Oops, I know R0 isn't the OP. Thanks OP for starting it.

I would be happy to have all words allowed. All of them.

I agree floral. It wouldn't be a problem for me if people want to use it, just would mean lots of tedious "cis doesn't apply to me as feminine gender is not something I identify with" statements being required.

The problem people have with the word transwoman is that it suggests that person is a type of woman. That's not something I believe so it's not a term I am a fan of.

I think people are just trying to find a neutral phrase which they can use while not feeling they are buying in to an ideology they don't believe in.

Many of us have said that words such as 'transwoman' and 'cis' are offensive, and have asked that they aren't used. Why not just accept that and move on?

Well, cis isn't meant to be used on here.

And you can ask for transwoman not to be used to describe you. What you can't say is that it can't be used to describe people who consider themselves transwomen.

You don't have to use that term if you don't want to. No one is making you. What you can't do is to use an offensive term in its place.

Why is this so hard to understand?

You can't use the N word to describe a person of colour and we accept that. We don't then go around using another offensive derogatory term instead of the N word do we?

Your knowledge of coercive control is also extensive. As it is your unerring ability to identify it.

Women who have experienced coercive control / abuse will always identify patterns.

I have been away from the FWR board for a fair while. I totally agree with the concerns about women's spaces being taken over and autogynephilia.

I completed the online GRA feedback (or whatever it was.....the consultation thing) using guidance from here, and managed to "peak trans" most of my family and friends, including the males.

I am also not happy about being called a "cis" woman or "t**t" and think those terms are an oppressive way to try to subdue women and stifle debate.

BUT don't we run the risk of being seen as hypocrites who are unreasonable and want things "all our own way", if we don't call trans women what they want to be called? How can we protest about being "cis" if we don't then respect how other people wish to be known?

Since when has trans woman only meant "had surgery on their bits"? I have always believed it to be someone living permanently as a member of the opposite sex.

If people are confused by what the term "trans woman" means, then we surely just clarify it? Anyone who has enough ability to make some of the extremely eloquent posts here, also has the ability to quickly explain to someone what the term "trans woman" means.

I would be gutted to not call a "trans man" by the appropriate term. We ALL know the person is biologically female (or could with a quick explanation). If a person biologically born female does not wish to be described using terms which highlight this fact, and instead prefers to use a term which renounces their biology and so uses "trans man", then who am I to ramm home their biology to them?

This really does feel like jumping the shark to me. Yes, we have to protect women's rights and hard won recognitions and spaces. Refusing to use the term "trans woman" goes way beyond that.

It isn't the echo chamber of FWR that needs convincing that women have valid fears about trans women in their spaces. It is the general population. Refusing to use the term "trans woman" will be seen as blatant nastiness and "militant". At that point, the very real fears women have about their spaces being eradicated will be dismissed as also being about "nastiness" and "militancy". Because that is what always happens. This is shooting ourselves in the foot in a major way.

I don't expect anyone to agree, but having come back to FWR after so long, it seems that having done sterling work to explain and emphasise reasonable concerns about hard-won women's rights and spaces, there is a real danger of sympathy and support being lost by the extremist nature of some of the voices here.

Not one of us is the gate keeper for words in this world. Not one of us needs to persuade someone else who shares the same view as us.

So what would you rather have? Be taken seriously and have the real concerns, about spaces being taken and women's health and crime statistics being distorted, be recognised? Or have everything dismissed as being "militant nastiness"? As this thread really does show there is a danger of that happening.

It may not feel like it has to be an "either/or" scenario. No, it doesnt have to be. But it will be. Because militant viewpoints which can be interpreted as nastiness ALWAYS results in women's real concerns being dismissed. Why would this be different?

0/10

Can we give a minus score?

No one is making you.

Yes, they are. What other term is acceptable to the Male Rights Activists wishing to colonise women's spaces and erase us as a category?

Male and the N word are in no way comparable. The repetition of that nonsense is instructive given what R0 has just posted.

What every transwoman? Really? Careful, your prejudice is showing there.

Those who insist that TWAW are AGP heterosexual males .. about >75%.

The remaining 25% are homosexual transsexuals [HSTS] who tend not to insist that TWAW and have no interest in being around women since they are oriented sexually to males.

Is militant the new extremist, then?

I'll be honest, I am pretty over being told that if we don't moderate our tone or some such, feminism will fail or whatever.

I'm quite happy to have civilised discussions explaining the reasons I take the positions I do. I'm having a perfectly rational discussion on another thread to that end with someone who disagrees with me.

But I dont know how many times the pronouns/rohypnol analogy can be brought up in response to this drum beat of 'just say the words, just say the words' before women will see that there are very sound reasons not to compromise on the language because compromising the language is what got us here in the first place.

I find myself wondering why would anyone want to prevent women discussing how language is important in order to recognise & combat male violence against women & children.

That the attempted prevention of discussion is on the Feminism & Women's Rights board of a perenting website is telling.

Im still wondering.

Male and the N word are in no way comparable. The repetition of that nonsense is instructive given what R0 has just posted.

Sorry where have I compared male and the N word? I have compared usage of the specific term trans identifying male when it has been deemed offensive and we have been asked not to use it, with using the N word.

As RO said, false allegations and misrepresenting what has happened even minutes ago, is indeed gas lighting and possibly coercive control.

Decomposing lets just agree to disagree on this. I find the fact that other media outlets use the term 'trans identified male' to be accurately descriptive. Since it is acceptable in those places, I have asked MNHQ that we may also use it here.

If factual truths are hurtful to some people, that is quite frankly their issue to deal with, not mine. I will not play along with other peoples wishes if it distorts the truth for women.

Go well.

The n word is always offensive. It is never a neutral term. You keep bringing it up as an equivalence to using the term male about someone who doesn't like being male. They are not equivalent terms.

But I dont know how many times the pronouns/rohypnol analogy can be brought up in response to this drum beat of 'just say the words, just say the words' before women will see that there are very sound reasons not to compromise on the language because compromising the language is what got us here in the first place.

'Pronouns are Rohypnol'
By Barra Kerr

(extract)
I want to be alert. I want others to be alert. I want people to see the real picture, and I want those instinctive reactions that we feel when something is wrong, to be un-blunted, un-dulled by this cheap but effective psychological trick. I feel like I owe this to myself, and I absolutely owe it to other women.

And more than anything, I owe this to girls. I don’t want to play even the tiniest part in grooming them to disregard their natural protective instincts. Those instincts are there for a reason. To keep them safe. They need those instincts intact, and sharp."

fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

see thread where Barracker's excellent analogy was first discussed:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3595379-Can-we-stop-being-obedient-soon-or-will-this-coercion-continue-for-evermore

If anyone thinks this ‘say the words we want you to say’ bollocks would stop with transwoman they are in-fucking-sane

The n word is always offensive. It is never a neutral term. You keep bringing it up as an equivalence to using the term male about someone who doesn't like being male. They are not equivalent terms.

Please show me one instance where I have compared using the term male with the N word?
You can't because I haven't.

Yet you persist with using this false accusation which, RO has explained, is gaslighting.

As someone who’s also been a victim of coercive control, completed the freedom programme and seen an entire police case collapse because it couldn’t be ‘proved’ enough. I am very very offended that you think it’s acceptable To keep trotting it out on here.

Being trapped in your own life, unable to leave your home or speak to family of friends, having my phone stolen from me, having to move miles away from anyone I know. Unable to go to the shops.

You can fuck the fuck off with saying what we are doing is coercive control.

Utter minimisation of real issues woman face on a daily basis that gets laughed out of court, yet you feel happy enough to trot it out when other opinions are posed on a debate

Call yourself feminists? Fucking hell.

happydappy2

Imo, people are entitled to ask that certain words are not used to describe them.

It doesn't matter who they are or what the words are. If someone says that they find a term offensive to continue to use that to describe them knowing that they are offended by it is offensive.

As RO said, false allegations and misrepresenting what has happened even minutes ago, is indeed gas lighting and possibly coercive control.

Interestingly (in my real life) I found that when 'supply' was cut off as part of the escalation of behaviour, he suddenly started bandying around descriptors of abuse.

He was of course using the words without any evidence, because they weren't happening.

It felt a bit like everything but the kitchen sink was being thrown.

Observing it was interesting.
Escalation isn't though.

Those who insist that TWAW are AGP heterosexual males .. about >75%. The remaining 25% are homosexual transsexuals [HSTS] who tend not to insist that TWAW and have no interest in being around women since they are oriented sexually to males.

Where are your figures from?

It felt a bit like everything but the kitchen sink was being thrown.
Observing it was interesting.
Escalation isn't though.

Although of course escalation is always predictable.
Its a pattern.

R0wantrees

Also interesting to observe how some people are happy to bandy about terms until it is pointed out that their own behaviour actually reflects what they are accusing others of doing.

I'll be honest, I am pretty over being told that if we don't moderate our tone or some such, feminism will fail or whatever

Well bully for you. I, for one, WANT women to be taken seriously regarding their concerns about male bodied trans women in their spaces. I don't want us to be dismissed.

But I dont know how many times the pronouns/rohypnol analogy can be brought up in response to this drum beat of 'just say the words, just say the words' before women will see that there are very sound reasons not to compromise on the language because compromising the language is what got us here in the first place

Really? I thought it was people wishing to live as the opposite sex which got us here?

You can use all the analogies you want but they will only work with people who already agree with you. And it is obvious that those people are not the ones you need to persuade.

Having come back to this after a few months away, I can honestly say that, whilst I agree with the point overall, it reads as extreme, militant and downright cruel.

If that's what you honestly think will persuade people to your point of view, then keep going. But if I think this, and I agree with you, what about those who don't.

If language is the hill you want to die on, if that matters more than women actually having protected spaces and fighting this "women just budge up" attitude that we are expected to take, then fine. But you can't die on more than one hill. So surely it's better to pick the one that really matters most, that you are likely to win on, AND that is likely to persuade the most people as to the validity of your opinion.

I am NOT saying "women, be nice". I am saying "be savvy, don't come across as needlessly nasty and vindictive, and risk losing everything we have all worked so fucking hard for and the small amount of support and ground that has been gained"