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.

That's a fair point.

EQA needs amended too: remove specific protection for people who identify as trans but make it clear that this is also protected under the beliefs section?

I’ve said for a while that this seems to be moving more and more away from protecting woman’s rights and closer to actually just wanting to alienate transpeople further.

Masks are slipping.

Trans people either have gender dysphoria which can be medically diagnosed, in which case they would be protected.

Or they don't I'm which case they have a strongly held belief,.also protected.

An individual does not cease to exist just because reality does.

EQA needs amended too: remove specific protection for people who identify as trans but make it clear that this is also protected under the beliefs section?

My point proved I think?

I’ve said for a while that this seems to be moving more and more away from protecting woman’s rights and closer to actually just wanting to alienate transpeople further.

Anyone should be able to "present" however they like. Men who wish to "present" in a more stereotypically feminine fashion should be able to do so free from abuse or unfair discrimination. Ditto women.

Stating that a "transwoman" is male and excluding them from female spaces is neither abusive nor unfairly discriminating.

Trans isn’t a protected characteristic and appears nowhere in law or legal terms.

That doesn’t mean trans people don’t exist. Why would you say that?

Masks are slipping.

Yep.

My point proved I think

So how do you know if there gender reassignment protection applies? How would you define it?

What would be problematic about counting it as a strongly held belief like religion?

Stating that a "transwoman" is male and excluding them from female spaces is neither abusive nor unfairly discriminating.

I’ve not disagreed with that at all.

Refusing to use the term transwoman which Does not deny biological reality and instead opting for deliberately and knowingly offensive terms, is both abusive and unfairly discriminating imo.

opting for deliberately and knowingly offensive terms

Man and woman, male and female are offensive terms?

Rachel Dolezal had a strong belief that she was black. Is it wrong and erasing her to point out that she is white?

HumberElla

It's a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Gender reassignment (new definition)
The Act provides protection for transsexual people. A transsexual person is someone who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change his or her gender. The Act no longer requires a person to be under medical supervision to be protected – so a woman who decides to live as a man but does not undergo any medical procedures would be covered.

It is discrimination to treat transsexual people less favourably for being absent from work because they propose to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment than they would be treated if they were absent because they were ill or injured

earlywalker as has previously been said here, the House of Commons allows the use of trans identified male.....many women find the word transwomen offensive, as it appropriates womanhood. So why should a males wishes trump a females wishes?

A transsexual person is someone who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change his or her gender.

How do you change your gender? Bad legislation needs to be rewritten.

So how do you know if there gender reassignment protection applies? How would you define it?

Read the Equality Act.

A transsexual person is someone who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change his or her gender. The Act no longer requires a person to be under medical supervision to be protected – so a woman who decides to live as a man but does not undergo any medical procedures would be covered.

Here we are. Very clear cut.

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

Same. A lot of people have genuine concerns but there are some (note, not all) who it definitely isn't just about defending women's spaces and I can't align myself with anyone like that at all.

Again. What is the process to change your gender?

happydappy2 Right, how fucking dare you? I for one am not a male (check my posting history if you don't believe me).

It is beyond thick to call posters "chaps" because they happen to be able to see the nuance that others lack the intelligence to.

How dare you say that women like me don't want to protect spaces. Is it that tricky to read that yes we want spaces protecting, so we don't want to fuck it up with the general public, who can help us achieve that?

There is a difference between women and trans women. There is a difference between men and women. There is also a huge difference between being gender critical and savvy. Clearly both do not go hand in hand.

You have totally lost my support by accusing those who have a different opinion of being men. It didn't fucking feel like I was a man when I was being raped by a man.

You dont get support for your views by being completely offensive. Clearly though, you are winning all your points, MNHQ will definitely let you use a shitty term that offends others so you make your "point", and all our spaces will be safe forever. Yep, crack the fuck on.

What saddens me is the complete lack of awareness or even care about how you come across. That will be what loses women this battle. It isnt women on this thread who are obsessed with you being nice. For the hard of thinking amongst you, it is the PUBLIC.

When you behave like cunts to even other GC feminists who disagree with this one point, and call them men, I dont really rate your powers of persuasion.

There is a distinct lack of ability to intelligently see nuance on this thread. Such dimness puts women back years.

itsallgoingtobefine
Please don’t tell me you are a GC poster that doesn’t know the difference between gender and sex?

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 sure I'm not the only one still wondering why some posters might be so very committed to this!

Again. What is the process to change your gender?

Again, read the legislation.

If you propose to start the propose, in law, you receive protection from discrimination. You do not need to have "done" anything. That is the law.

Sue Chaps is a gender neutral term, but you sure are showing male pattern rage

I genuinely thought that many of the eloquent posters on this thread were more intelligent than that

Wow, you are really insulting!

It seems to me that this average person you refer to has no real idea what a transwoman is, still thinks tranny is okay to use, and would never allow their daughters to use the same changing rooms/toilets with a fully male-bodied individual.

There’s even a huge misconception that transwomen “chop their dicks off” (the vast majority don’t)

Their opinions and concerns are not taken seriously by the media and reporting tends to be carefully obfuscated to not raise their ire