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.

*I call this shouting into the void of the topic."

Still yay for me too

I have a question, if other media outlets can say trans identified Male, then why shouldn’t We be able to say that here on Mumsnet?
Any answers apart from your being mean

Well, I'm assuming for the same reason that I often see cs and t*f mentioned in articles too. For whatever reason MN took the decision to ban words that both sides claimed were offensive.

Well, I'm assuming for the same reason that I often see cs and t*f mentioned in articles too. For whatever reason MN took the decision to ban words that both sides claimed were offensive.

Good point, what you just said too

Limekiwi I have a question, if other media outlets can say trans identified Male, then why shouldn’t We be able to say that here on Mumsnet

They aren't identifying as male though, they identify as women so to me trans identified male is just saying they're still male to make a point.

Yes that is exactly the point-to clarify the sex of the individual concerned.

Still a yay for me too.

In fact, I feel that males who identify as trans should be apologising en masse to women for trying to appropriate our name in the first place. I mean, what a fucking liberty.

I mean, what a fucking liberty

I totally just read that in Catherine Tate's voice, Nan I think it was lol

In fact, I feel that males who identify as trans should be apologising en masse to women
En masse to women? You don't speak for all women.

Decomposing thank you. Going against the grain of the thread though so already the "oooh yes, we must always be nice musnt we" and "trans women are men, that's a fact" have started.

A) Noone has said women should always be nice. I have said if you want to win the war then pick your battles wisely, or there is a real risk of losing ground gained.

B) Of course trans women are biological males. Hence the "trans" part. That's kind of the point of the prefix. But there is a difference between recognising biological reality (which is fine) and then overruling what a group have decided to call themselves. You can accept trans women are biologically male and not born women, without saying that they can't call themselves trans women.

Its like animal farm with the sheep bleating "four legs good, two legs bad" on this thread.

I am not saying "be nice", I am saying IF YOU WANT SUPPORT FOR THE ISSUES THAT REALLY MATTER, BE SAVVY IN HOW YOU GO ABOUT IT TO AVOID LOSING SUPPORT ALTOGETHER (not shouting but on app so can't do emphasis other ways).

It really isn't rocket science. It is common sense. When you start to alienate people who support your overall point, you have NO CHANCE OF CONVERTING HITHERTO UNDECIDED PEOPLE TO YOUR CAUSE.

I am trying to actually help, by saying how this thread comes across to those who have been away from the echochamber for a while.

But hey, as you guys are clearly achieving every single aim you have, easily, with the approach you are taking, then carry on! Working well for you all I see......or not!

2BthatUnnoticed I think it is bloody disgusting that TRAs got those places shut down. Nor would I want to go into a refuge or to a rape crisis centre with biological males who have penises there. I have been raped so it would scare the hell out of me.

What the hell that has to do with calling trans women trans women, I do not know. I don't believe TWAW, but I defend their right to call themselves trans women.

When you start to come across as being needlessly mean in objecting to the term "trans woman" you give TRAs further opportunity to claim victimhood. The trouble is, the general public, whose default is always "be nice" (whether we agree with that or not) will agree with them that women are being "mean and nasty" not to allow trans women to call themselves that.

If you guys actually WANT to do the work of the TRAs for them, give them more claim to victimhood, and therefore reduce all women's valid concerns to "nastiness" in the eyes of the undecided, then crack the fuck on.

....if other media outlets can say trans identified Male, then why shouldn’t We be able to say that here on mumsnet?

The same applies to cis and to TERF too for that matter. Its used elsewhere and not allowed here. So I’m not sure what the point you’re trying to make is exactly.

Some terms are considered offensive in some places.

MNHQ tried to be even handed by acknowledging hurtful terms on both sides of the discussion, in an effort to continue too host a discussion that would pass as civil and not descend constantly into “don’t call women cis women, it’s offensive” “don’t call transwomen TIMs, it’s offensive ”

For whatever reason MN took the decision to ban words that both sides claimed were offensive

The wrong decision IMO

The wrong decision IMO

So you'd want T*f to make a re-appearance on the board then and cs?
Surely if MN are to ban offensive words that means all of them to make it even handed.

They aren't identifying as male though, they identify as women

No they identify as trans and they are male. Hence “trans-identifying male”.

WhoopDeFuckingDo

You can see exactly that happening again if they do reinstate these terms.

SuePerbly completely agree.

oh right

so if we can't point out that people who call themselves trans women are in fact male, how do we explain why it's wrong for them to expect admittance to the ladies toilets, women's hospital wards and other special accommodations put aside to protect women's privacy, safety and dignity?

i think we've fully established that no-one is changing their mind here, although Sue gets bonus points for the sideways 'you'll win more people over by using terms that confuse the hell out of people and hide the facts' approach

happydappy2 it isn't about posters here thinking you are "mean". It is about how if "undecideds" think you are bigoted, they will no longer listen to natal women's valid concerns. You also enable TRAs to claim further "victim" status. As well as losing support from those of us who think this goes to far.

Maybe a better question is, how does refusing to call TWs trans women, gain support for the real, important concerns that natal women have.

This is a battle which has the potential to lose the war, because of how it will be perceived outside of this thread. Language is important, yes, but if you want to convince other people of your views, why would you want to run the risk of having women's concerns perceived as bigoted nastiness?

If you think that will bring others over to GC feminism, then carry on. But it won't. The UK public have never liked men being "picked on" by women (which is wrong and sucks, but is the reality). If THEY (as opposed to those on this thread that already agree with you) can have a mechanism to see TRAs as victims, due to the seemingly (by society at large) "harmless" name of trans women not being used, then all your other points will not be listened to.

This stuff is absolutely smackingly obvious and it blows my mind that people would rather have their real concerns dismissed as views of bigots, than let trans women be referred to as they wish to be.

I didn't realise that all women's safe spaces are no so protected, that we can afford to lose support by being pedantic.

It will be fascinating to see what MNHQ decide. Biological sex matters, words matter, whoever controls the language controls the dynamics of the discussion. We can all see that now. Women need to start saying No.

I’d be happy to see the words “terf” and “cis” on here if it meant we weren’t gagged in terms of speaking the truth.

At least it would flag up the posters to ignore.

Well said again @SuePerbly, everything you've said.

So you'd want T*f to make a re-appearance on the board then and cs?

Yes. They may be offensive, but no-one has a right to not be offended. I think discussion has moved on since these terms were banned, and I think it is important that we are all allowed clarity of language, even if some people do get offended.

for the avoidance of doubt, I'm shouting into the void too

it's strangely soothing

Sue I can smell BS a mile away

so if we can't point out that people who call themselves trans women are in fact male, how do we explain why it's wrong for them to expect admittance to the ladies toilets, women's hospital wards and other special accommodations put aside to protect women's privacy, safety and dignity?

By explaining what you think the risks are, why you object etc etc.

Why does it make any difference explaining your objections if you reference trans women or trans indentifying male?

Everyone on these boards knows trans woman are biologically Male. It does seem like some of you just want to keep jabbing to get a reaction.

It’s just a constant need to invalidate in any way you can.

I see Sue's done another post since I posted my agreeing one but I mostly agree with that one too