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.

Yes. Your opinion of preference can only be based on the fact of tea and the fact of coffee. Two separate sets of drink with a clear shared meaning on each one.

Well, no, because I could say "neither". Or I could say that I don't like tea but like fruit tea or green tea etc.

Or, rather than offer a choice of two, the question could be "what drink do you like". They are only opinions, not facts.

Abusive manner? Stating opinions different from your own is not abuse

I guess people are wondering why anyone would want to come onto this section of mumsnet and engage in lengthy, extended dialogue and disagreement; especially when they must surely know that this forum is a meeting place for GC people who want to share, discuss and organise?

And why just on this thread and not any number of others? Why do you have so much invested in this particular debate around language?

You surely know that this forum is regularly trolled by people who've been " told all about it" and wanted to experience the " hate" for themselves. And so many new forumers in recent times...it is understandable why people can get suspicious about motives of some posters.

EarlyWalker you're still here, I thought you "left us to our hate" last night. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you're still posting, I hope you're finding this thread is a reasonable discussion and not hateful at all.

Just seen your post mentioning the two transwomen (using your label) you know. Without getting personal I wondered if they both possessed a GRC and are recognised as legally female?

I hope you're finding this thread is a reasonable discussion and not hateful at all.

Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?

Justhadathought

You do realise that this is an open forum on a public site, not a private member's club don't you?

If I saw someone using the term cis on here I would comment on it because I know that it isn't allowed. I would take a dim view if they persisted using it despite being told that people found it offensive

I would comment on it too - but because I would be suspicious about that person's motives on this forum. I also never post on trans forums, nor chide them about their conversations with each other. and I am 100% sure that they will never honour the language codes that you seem so keen to enforce here.

EarlyWalker you're still here, I thought you "left us to our hate

That wasn’t me that said that. I don’t know their legal position.

I’ve posted on sooo many FWR threads, sometimes in support, sometimes not. I stopped posting in February ish because I was viciously personally attacked on here and it actually affected me personally for a while. Came back as I’ve got lots of time on my hands and saw this thread. I can post where I want though without needing to explain.

I use, and have pretty much always used, MTF or FTM trans. It's about five or ten years out of date, which is fine by me, but it serves its purpose.

I have found myself using the term transwoman or even trans woman since I joined Mumsnet. I think I've been brainwashed by the rules.

More from Julia Long on gender:

So, as Lierre Keith says, it is a real mistake, and this is such a kind of foundational point of the whole transactivist narrative, that gender is a binary, or gender is a spectrum and then you can be non-binary or anywhere along the spectrum. Gender is certainly not a binary it is a hierarchy because it's cementing those power relations with men on top and women on the bottom and it is the means by which those power relations are naturalised, institutionalised and eroticised. So it seems to be natural, through things like religious or scientific texts, it's institutionalised in all these institutions that we can think about, and it's eroticised because it is key to heterosexuality as well, that this relationship with subordination and domination is seen to be somehow sort of intrinsically linked to sexual desire and - yes, it's seen as desireable in that sense.

So as I say then, what gender is, is a political system of male domination and female subordination. That's what it is. I don't think we should use the term gender, I think it would be good to just abandon it and when we're talking about patriarchy, which is what we are talking about, we need to talk about male domination and female subordination. Gender is just a very unhelpful word that serves to obscure the reality of what's going on and to set up other kinds of really meaningless categories. So it's a means of institutionalising, naturalising and eroticising male supremacy and what I'm arguing here is that what gender is not is some kind of innate property of the individual, as in terms like gender identity or gender expression.

I don't want 'gender' to be a banned term either btw, I think it's important to discuss its various meanings:

1. a polite euphemism for sex

2. a set of sex roles, rules and stereotypes that perpetually reinforce male domination of women and girls

3. an identity some people believe in - akin to souls and not something we should base laws on

Says who? Read that article that you linked to. Even that doesn't agree with what you are saying.

So what is a "transwoman" then? Please explain.

I don't like the term "trans identified males". It smacks of the verbal gymnastics women have to put ourselves through in order to take part in a conversation which about the erasure of our very existence.

The term we need to use is "man", but I imagine that won't happen in a million years on Mumsnet.

Naming men as men changes the conversation from trans and back to what is really going on. Only when our thoughts aren't being constrained by using awkward and inaccurate language can we have the conversations and do the analysis we need to do to set women and girls free.

If I could use the term "man" I would be saying the following (self-censored obviously because it hurts to have posts deleteed, number of asterisks don't relate to numbers of letters in a name)

* is a man
* * is a man
* is a man
* * is a man
* is a man

Using the correct words changes things. Using the incorrect ones does too.

I will say this one though. Alex Drummond is a man. Why anybody would say or think otherwise is beyond me, including him.

Jacky - Ha ha! Yes: Mermaids training.

Have you seen this

I hadn't. I can't keep up any more. There seems to be some sort of atrocity about twice a day now.

I'll go and look.

So what is a "transwoman" then? Please explain.

Earlywalker has provided definitions several times on this thread.

That wasn’t me that said that. I don’t know their legal position.

UK law is clear: if someone does not have a GRC they are to be treated as their natural sex.

See: forwomen.scot/30/03/2019/tie-letter-legal-response/

Beyond that, the UK GRA 2004 is explicit that no human can change sex and that it acknowledges this law creates a Legal Fiction, primarily intended to permit people of the same-sex to marry.

... especially when they must surely know that this forum is a meeting place for GC people who want to share, discuss and organise?

Well, at least this board has stopped pretending to welcome debate.

Although someone should probably mention that to the handful of regulars still hoping for anything that isn’t an echo chamber.

They pop up in AIBU now and again asking for people who disagree with them to have polite discussion with around these issues. It seems cruel to encourage non GC loyalists to come to this board when they’re actively not welcome.

Perhaps MNHQ will acknowledge that, rename this as GC chat, and start over again with a feminist chat board that isn’t so hostile to non GC viewpoints.

I mean we've had someone here who wants us to use the term "transwoman" argue that a woman is an adult human female.

Well follow that logic through - an adult human male is a man. He can't be anything else.

I stopped posting in February ish because I was viciously personally attacked on here
What on earth did you say?

Fwr is too strictly moderated to let any personal viciousness stand.

Correct.

An adult human male who psychologicaly and emotionally believes he is an adult human female is a Transwoman.

He can't be anything else. A belief doesn't make a man a woman, of any sort.

I'm still yay.

On the topic of the thread, which is: should MN keep the Special Rules for Trans.

Jus' sayin'.

Fwr is too strictly moderated to let any personal viciousness stand.

It might not be left to stand. Doesn't stop it being said though does it?

What on earth did you say?

That sounds suspiciously like victim blaming.

Using the correct words changes things. Using the incorrect ones does too.

I agree. 'Trans identified males' is already a concession and already obfuscates who is doing what to whom.

I would prefer to use 'men who say they are women' but I know that won't fly with the current rules.

It would be good if MNHQ could acknowledge that women here are already compromising massively in order to be allowed this discussion.

An adult human male who psychologicaly and emotionally believes he is an adult human female is a Transwoman

The key word here is believes

He believes he is an adult human female.

He.
Believes.