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.

People moaning about decomposing and I ‘derailing’ we’re not talking to ourselves are we? I never realised how much some people have an undying need to be agreed with and never questioned until I came to FWR, it’s unnerving and worrying that it’s coming from the opposite side to what I expected.

If you go out of your way to use a term known to offend people then yes, I think you are being deliberately provacative.

You're still not getting it.

Some people here think transwoman is a perfectly acceptable and accurate term; others think it sexist, appropriative, reality-denying and utterly offensive.

Some people here think TIM is a perfectly acceptable and accurate term; others think it bigoted, transphobic and utterly offensive.

But we still need to be able to refer to this group of people. So, do we think MNHQ should make a choice and impose it upon all users or do we think they should allow both with users posting according to their sincerely held beliefs?

I think the latter: with the proviso that the usual rules about civility and goadiness still apply.

Earlywalker

This is what shocks me too.

You have to post in complete agreement with the other posters, never deviating, or else you are lying, a TRA, an MRA or a man.

You cannot possibly be a woman who has experienced things differently or has a different opinion.

I'm always puzzled how the line "we don't have a hive mind", or more recently "there's no such thing as a male or female brain" can be trotted out whilst at the same time arguing that you having a different opinion or communicating in a different style is proof that you are a man. How can that be if women are individuals, capable of independent thought? How then can women all hold the same opinion or speak in the same way?

Personally I think it's just a way of trying to no platform people when they know that they can't argue against the points we raise. They realise that they have a weak argument so start aiming insults or posting pictures of rocks etc.

That data also related to individuals serving a longer prison sentence, so the usual prison sentences such as shoplifting, tv licence etc were not counted.

It's highly unlikely that a "vulnerable" MTF trans person would get a prison term for a minor offence where there are alternatives.

MTF trans have got off with non custodial sentences for sex offences before.

I think the latter: with the proviso that the usual rules about civility and goadiness still apply.

Agree.

Meanwhile the N and T words are slurs, not neutral. So banning them - yes I think everyone agrees on that.

Yes, the T word is a slur, so it should be banned. I deeply disagree with "cis" and will say so every time, but happy for it to be allowed. And challenged.

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

You're missing the point, that's not what @DecomposingComposers said at all.
Decomposing said if black people were to say the N word is offensive, who are we to say that it isn't?
Same with transwomen and calling them men/male repeatedly even if they think it's offensive.
We don't get to say what's not offensive to groups of people.
Apologies if I've got that wrong Decomposers but think I have it right

Earlywalker This is what shocks me too. You have to post in complete agreement with the other posters, never deviating, or else you are lying, a TRA, an MRA or a man

Yes, I get that a lot too, I'm not shocked anymore though, I just think "Oookay" and mark it off my card and carry on with my opinion lol

Decomposing I didn’t mean that.

Some people find “trans identified male” offensive.
Some people find “people of colour” offensive.

I don’t think either term should be banned.

Trans people are as valid and authentic as anyone else. I have no problem using their pronouns. They are perfectly lovely, normal people (the ones I know).

But TW are male, and in some contexts it matters (eg refuges, where often there is little privacy and women and children have been traumatised by males).

TRAs want full access to these and all other female spaces. They also want to control the language we use to talk about the impacts on us and children.

Don't really see how you can now argue to allow the words one side is in favour of but uphold the ban on the other side

Sometimes i wonder if we are reading the same threads

The vaaaaaaast majority on here have said they would be happy to see ALL banned words .....errmmmm....unbanned I suppose

Reinstated!!!!

Thats the word i was looking for

BeUpStanding
Oh for goodness sake, please stop banging on and on about how you've been accused of being men... I haven't seen any direct accusation

Here you go, it never happened or happens - oh wait...
Its always interesting to observe males attempting to disrupt women discussing the impact of not being able to correctly identify some males

You have to post in complete agreement with the other posters, never deviating, or else you are lying, a TRA, an MRA or a man

Bollocks

You have to post in complete agreement with the other posters, never deviating, or else you are lying, a TRA, an MRA or a man.

Sorry, I have to say I disagree here. I have disagreed with the majority on many many threads on here and have yet to be 'accused' of being a man, and certainly not a MRA. It takes extremely specific behavior generally to be termed a MRA, MRAs are very easy to spot, especially on a feminist board. I have noticed posters being called men on occasion though and I do disagree with that. On this thread though, there have been many many posts about you 2 being called men, but I have not actually seen anyone call you men?

TRA tends to be used when people start spouting TRA soundbytes. So again, quite specific posting behaviour.

But man..yes I have seen on occasion, but not today.

As for the yay or nay answer, I forget how it was termed but I am against compelled speech and would much rather cis and terf were back, in order to let other women say what they actually mean in a clear way. So whichever answer that was, yay I think but just checking

I should add, my name is semi known at the moment, however I change every few months, so even as a new incarnation, I have yet to be called a MRA or TRA, and I wouldn't ever be if I didn't start posting MRA type opinions. I have not been called a man either, in any carnation.

Bollocks

Erm, no it happens. As I've just shown a few posts ago, it did and does happen frequently even on here when somebody says no, didn't happen. Yes it did.

The transcript is up of Karen Ingala Smith's evidence session on 22/05/19.

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/enforcing-the-equality-act-the-law-and-the-role-of-the-equality-and-human-rights-commission/oral/102570.html

I saw the video at the time but hadn't checked back for the transcript. Her testimony is so much clearer than the other two witnesses' because of her ability to name men as men. It's worth reading the whole thing, or watching the video, but here are a few extracts:

Karen Ingala Smith: I have a case. A women’s organisation that I worked in before I worked at Nia, so going back about 10 years now, recruited a trans-identified male. The person did not say they were a trans-identified male through recruitment.

Q486 Jess Phillips: Were they a trans woman? Just to be clear, they presented as a trans woman.

Karen Ingala Smith: Some people use that language. I do not believe it is accurate language. This organisation employed that person and there were problems. I am going to call him a “he”. He developed an obsession with a female member of staff and sexually harassed her. We also had complaints from two other female members of staff that he flashed at them in the corridor—as you would imagine, a male flasher but he used to lift his skirt. We went down employment procedures with that person and they basically tried to take legal action against the organisation.

--------

Karen Ingala Smith: I am talking about risk assessments. Basically, you are asking somebody to differentiate in terms of transgender people who are born male and have experienced men’s violence, have managed to unpick male socialisation and the sense of male entitlement. They will come into the refuge and not use that position to abuse women. There are transgender people born male who genuinely experience violence but still behave in a male socialised way and bring the trappings of that entitlement with them. There are transgender people who are born male, who are narcissistic perpetrators and have managed to convince themselves they are the victims. We all know that male perpetrators often see themselves as victims. There are transgender people born male who are fetishists of female victimhood. We have delivered services or have been accessed by males to whom that would apply. There are also men who are pretending to be trans and are using a pretend trans status to try to track down women. It is really complicated. It is not just a simple, straightforward risk assessment that is foolproof.

-----------

Diana James: That varies between individuals. You cannot say, “This is the way you should think. This is the way you should speak”. Refuges have to be inclusive of all women or all men within their unit.

Karen Ingala Smith: That is not true. If a refuge admits women and males who identify as transgender, then it is, as a matter of fact, admitting women and men. The Gender Recognition Act has created a legal fiction where a person can, in a range of circumstances, be treated as if they were a person born in the opposite sex. That does not mean that they have actually changed sex. They will always remain of the sex that they were born. If you are saying you have inclusive refuges, then you have refuges where men and women are housed together.

I also want to talk about the issue of proportionality. I agree with what Diana said, that we are talking about small numbers—please do not laugh while I am talking—of men who identify as transgender, but we are talking about huge numbers of women in the refuges and they may be affected by that one transgender person in the refuge.

-----------

Karen Ingala Smith: It is for good reason, though. We talked about women being, by far, the greatest majority of victims of sexual and domestic violence, but it is males who are committing that violence. Males commit 78% of violent crime, 88% of intimate partner homicides, 90% of all murders and 98% of recorded sexual offences. Those crimes are committed by males. There is absolutely zero credible evidence to suggest that males who identify as transgender have any different rates of offending from males who do not. It is not based on a willy‑nilly conception of biology; it is about keeping women safe.

Personally I think it's just a way of trying to no platform people when they know that they can't argue against the points we raise. They realise that they have a weak argument so start aiming insults or posting pictures of rocks etc.

And sorry but this is hilarious.

Most women on here love debate. Unfortunately, many on the 'opposing side' take getting many replies as 'shouting down' or 'hounding'. and oddly enough, this tends to come when the posters here ask a question that genderists struggle to answer without outing that they think stereotypes matter more than material reality.

Which points do you think you have made that you think people here cannot argue against, out of curiosity?

I do think the rock posting is getting out of hand, I agreed with it when it was dealing with a very specific type of poster but it seems to be all over now, but meh, its easy to ignore if I disagree with it. Not here to police other posters opinions. I have NEVER seen the rock thing being posted because feminist arguments are weak though, thats new to me.

For the love of all that is Holy. TW finding male offensive can in no way be compared to Black people finding the n-word is offensive. FFS.

The racism in transactivism is awful.

BatShite I went back to find specific posts but MN have deleted them. These two are still standing. These were the two easiest to find for me, they are by no means the only ones. Just for the ‘it never happens’ crew.

Calling a trans woman a "trans identifying male" doesn't accurately describe what a trans women is, though. Indeed, it only references the precise aspect of themselves that they reject they are. Which is just a cruel thing to do to someone who rejects their own biology.

Given that some people believe they are trans SPECIES now (don't get me started on that!), or trans racial, the term TIM could refer to a person who is biologically male but identifies as another species or race to that they were born with.

All TIM says is how the biological male doesn't identify, not how he does.

Describing trans women by what they are not I.e. as a TIM, without saying what type of trans person the male identifies as, is very ironic considering the uproar on here when a political party used men and "non-men" to define a woman. We didn't like being described by what we are not. Or is that different somehow?

Language is important, and as a society we have always allowed new groups to self define. Heterosexuals don't have the right to define how non-heterosexual people define themselves. And anyone who called a gay or bi person by a term they found offensive would rightly be taken a dim view of.

Any white person who decided they had the right to decide how others racially identify, would also be vilified.

We define these groups how THEY wish to be identified. We don't (or shouldn't) oppose definitions upon them, or reference them by what they are not. Otherwise we would have "non-whites" and "non-heterosexuals". That may be factually true, but we know fine that that is not all that matters. It is also about not marginalizing others be deciding how they "deserve" to be defined.

President Obama has mixed raced parentage, and that is a fact, but identifies as black. I don't see anyone challenging his right to do so, largely because they would be seen to be a massive bigot.

So what gives natal women or men the right to think that they get a say in how a trans man or trans woman choose to describe themselves? The trans group as a whole have adopted these terms. Who are we to tell them that they cannot?

There is a fine line between protecting the language of what "woman" means, and using it to deliberately hurt others by insisting they are not allowed to use the term "trans woman" which obviously refers to a person who doesn't identify as their biological sex. Even if people do get confused by which sex they are talking about, since when has bowing to ignorance been the way forwards? Educate people as to what the term "trans woman" means and move on.

There is also a fine line between protecting the rights of various groups. This thread, with the exception of a few posters, really does smack of not only wanting to protect "women" but also hit out at trans women. I don't believe TWAW but I do believe they are TW.

The hypocrisy of objecting to some words which offend, whilst not letting a much smaller group self define, is pretty nauseating. If trans women wanted to just be called "women", then there would be a valid argument for distinctions to be made. The use of the word "trans" in front, clearly makes that distinction.

I am really, really sad about this thread. I have given time and money to the anti TRA voices and websites out there. But if this is truly the prevalent attitude of GC feminists, that they are so unwilling to let trans women even be defined by what they believe they are, rather than are not (rather than the access to spaces and crime stats that matter), then I can no longer stand with you.

I would be interested to know how many people you have manage to "peak trans" with your arguments re the words trans woman, and how many GC feminists like me you have managed to alienate? The echo chamber here means many of you feel the same, which would be great, except non of you needed bringing over the GC feminism as you are already there.

However, you have certainly lost some GC feminists support on this thread alone. Extrapolate that across society and if the attitudes on this thread repel some GC feminists, I would be highly surprised if you managed to adopt many non-GC feminists to the views here.

The shark has officially been jumped. The crossing of the line between protecting rights and downright cruelty under the guise of "protecting language" is obvious.

However, given the level of back patting here, I doubt that any of you CARE that you will lose support. Still, we all know that societal change and women's rights have always been advanced in echo chambers don't we?..oh, wait!...

For the love of all that is Holy. TW finding male offensive can in no way be compared to Black people finding the n-word is offensive. FFS.

Well said. It's more like white people being offended if it is pointed out that they are white - during a discussion about race.

Maybe someone should ask Rachel Dolezal what she reckons.

However, you have certainly lost some GC feminists support on this thread alone

I agree, threads like this come along every now and again and make people go WTF and question what they're reading.
I know I did a while back now on a similar type thread that was nothing to do with rights and everything to do with why should they get that or do that? (The Trans Remembrance Day one)

The shark has officially been jumped. The crossing of the line between protecting rights and downright cruelty under the guise of "protecting language" is obvious
Also agree with this bit, well said.

I have huge issue with being called half cast, it’s not classed as a racist term in general in the sense that the N word is.

If someone says it without knowing many find it offensive, that’s one thing. To keep saying it when you’ve been told the person you’re referring to finds it offensive, is another.

When a white person tells me that the term is not offensive, that’s when it pisses me off the most.

Free speech should of course always exist but when people take advantage of free speech in order to belittle others there is a problem.

People’s identity is such a sensitive topic because it’s what makes them who they are. When someone thinks they can decide what you’re allowed to find offensive over your own identity, it’s not nice.