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.

Here we are FamilyOfAliens

Transwomen should be allowed in female spaces.

Vs

Men should be allowed in female spaces.

See the difference?

Rather than use "trans women" we should use "men". Many other posts in the same vein, including a couple just now saying call trans men women and trans women men.

Oh I see, it's the word shouting that you have the problem with?

No it’s the exaggeration I have a problem with.

Oh I see, it's the word shouting that you have the problem with?

Personally, yes. I cannot see anything wrong with telling a man that you are unable to call them a woman. Do you?

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?

Yes this is a very good question. Not only media outlets, the House of Commons has accepted this descriptor. Karen Ingala Smith was not flung into the gutter by HoC security or arrested or anything when she gave evidence.

The popular narrative assumes that either we are coming from a place of ignorance ('if you make a mistake, just apologise and move on') or a place of deliberate malice ('DIAF T**F').

In fact we're coming from a position of simply needing clear language to describe what's happening to the rights and wellbeing of women and children.

No malice, no ignorance, just a commitment to women and children's rights, and to naming reality where it matters.

Thanks Pencils you sum it up better than me

happydappy2

Sue I can smell BS a mile away

That's fine if you think so. Keep going with fighting the side battles, which the public have zero interest in, and lose the overall war for our safe spaces.

As I said, if everyone on this thread is right about what a biological male who identifies as a woman calls themselves - that that is more important than getting support for women's spaces being protected, then carry on.

Sadly, I genuinely thought that many of the eloquent posters on this thread were more intelligent than that. And would play the long gane so that GC feminists win. If ultimately winning isn't important, then carry on the way you are going. Anyone who has ever worked in politics, PR or the media, would tell you that this is not the right time to be concerned about the term "trans woman". The public would ALWAYS rather learn what a term means, than take part in what they perceive to be "nastiness".

GC feminists would gain far more ground by campaigning for the public to understand the dictionary definitions of "trans woman" and "trans man" than we will by saying "Waaah, I shan't call you that, I shan't". Which is how this thread comes over to even me who is a GC feminist.

Like I say, I didn't realise that we were doing so well in the battle for our concerns to be taken seriously, that we can afford to lose public support.

Silly me!

Many other posts in the same vein, including a couple just now saying call trans men women and trans women men.

You have an issue with facts? An issue with the truth?

Yeps

Waaah, I shan't call you that, I shan't".

Again, who’s saying that?

GC feminists would gain far more ground by campaigning for the public to understand the dictionary definitions of "trans woman" and "trans man" than we will by saying "Waaah, I shan't call you that, I shan't". Which is how this thread comes over to even me who is a GC feminist.

Totally agree with this.

GC feminists would gain far more ground by campaigning for the public to understand the dictionary definitions of "trans woman" and "trans man"

Why is that the responsibility of women?

GC feminists would gain far more ground by campaigning for the public to understand the dictionary definitions of "trans woman" and "trans man"

Are you for real?

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

Because telling the truth and using clear language for avoidance of doubt and confusion is important. Now more than ever. Women didn’t want to defend our own named class until TRAs demanded we concede or else be named bigots.

That in itself is a real, important concern of women.

Again, who’s saying that?

Um..... again, it's actually on the thread. "Not calling them that, I shan't" is an accurate description of exactly what is going on.
Interesting that somebody GC is saying that, I've said exactly the same in the past that I've been GC and had eyes opened by some on other threads (Trans Remembrance one for me)
Others are saying it now too and not just me.
It is exactly how it comes across.

I’d be happy to see the words “terf” and “cis” on here ....At least it would flag up the posters to ignore

True, it would add to the list of word and phrases that can be used to dismiss the posts you don’t want to engage with.

So handy to be able to quickly and easily identify those within and without the echo chamber. Winner!

It is refreshing that there is less pretence nowadays that FWR welcomes non GC perspectives.

Incidentally, trans identifying male is just as confusing as transwoman is alleged to be to the general populace. Neither one is clear unless you’ve been told which way round it goes.

The government in the UK, and others globally, and the much treasured and revered dictionary, have plumped for transwoman, so arguing that going against the established and defined language will help more people understand is just plain wrong-headed.

Um..... again, it's actually on the thread.
"Not calling them that, I shan't" is an accurate description of exactly what is going on

No, it’s your description, and a pretty childish one tbh.

SuePerbly

I am honestly starting to think that the argument about defending women's spaces is only a smoke screen and that the real objection is to the very existence of trans gender people full stop. Nothing that I see on this board is doing anything to convince me otherwise and that is a view that I have only formed since reading threads on here.

I used to be more GC than I am now but the nature of these threads is really making me question myself - my own beliefs simply do not align with much of what I see expressed on these boards, so where do my views fit in? I just cannot agree with these more extreme views.

Incidentally, trans identifying male is just as confusing as transwoman is alleged to be to the general populace. Neither one is clear unless you’ve been told which way round it goes.

Definitely.

More votes for simply "man" or "woman" then?

The constant directive that women should be nice and not appear mean, in order to be listened to is trope as old as time.

Be nice, don’t argue, don’t shout, and maybe one day, probably some time in the future (the long game?) we’ll listen. Maybe.

the real objection is to the very existence of trans gender people full stop.

Oh give over.

More votes for simply "man" or "woman" then?

If your aim is to erase the very existence of trans men and trans women. Which actually causes a problem with regards the Equality Act, people with a GNC, people with the protected characteristic of trans...

Yeah you a man then man it is
You a women then women it is

No need for owt else

FamilyOfAliens and yet the poster ItsAllGoingToBeFine is asking that we revert to simply "man" and "woman" thus entirely eliminating trans.