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.

"Transsexual male" a possibility?
But who would you use that for? Transsexual means surgery, hormones, having the works done, which applies to less than 5% of trans people. Also, how would you know? "Do you still have your dick" isn't a polite question.

I think trans identified/identifying is far more inclusive.

Transgender person who identifies as a woman.

I’m happy with transwomen so long as I am a woman, not a cis woman.

And actually isn't the transgender bit rather important in terms of the identity of a transgender person arguing for transgender rights? It emphasises the transgender bit as an important part of their lived experience.

I prefer trans woman personally but transwoman is fine too. I'd be the last person to argue over being grammatically correct lol.

I think trans identified/identifying is far more inclusive.

These are adjectives and don't address the the problem raised on page 1 of this thread: what noun?

If you say transwoman, laypeople are likely to think it's a female.

I prefer trans woman personally but transwoman is fine too. I'd be the last person to argue over being grammatically correct lol.

It is vitally important to be able to name and identify male violence.

Feminists have long recognised this.

That some males are preventing this is rather the point of the thread no?

Dr Julia Long explained the importance of naming and why this is a core issue for feminism & women's rights in her speech at the first 'We Need To Talk' meeting in 2017. Dr Long discussed feminist analysis about the history and importance of women being able to name men as men, identify male behaviours and patriarchal power.

This meeting followed the assault of a woman, Maria Maclaclan at Speakers corner by a male (T Wolf).
When T Wolf was tried (& convicted) Maria Maclaclan was compelled to use female pronouns by the court. THis impacted her ability to testify & she was also rebuked by the judge.

Speech transcript here:
pastebin.com/nGwr3i4U

transcribed by PencilsinSpace

A man with gender dysphoria, is still a man. Why should they be called any ‘type’ of woman? Ie transwoman. My question to MNHQ is asking them to stop policing our language on this particular issue.

I think trans identified/identifying is far more inclusive.

These are adjectives and don't address the the problem raised on page 1 of this thread: what noun?

Male or female, obviously

the issue was if you don't want terf on here then people using tim as a slur also ment that there was a contradiction.

Why should they be called any ‘type’ of woman

The ‘trans’ in transwoman is not a pronoun any more than the ‘wo’ in woman.

Woman and transwoman are individual nouns, identifying different meanings.

By definition, The word transwoman identifies a male who emotionally and psychologically believes they belong to the female sex.

Dr Julia Long (feminist academic who has worked against Violence Against Women for many yearss) comment:

"Well, you probably know as much as I do that what we are told if we attempt to name these men as men, that - well, we're told it's quite a circular argument that transwomen are women. Kind of ... that's it. We're just told that. And if you suggest that maybe they're not then you get told you're bang out of order, as I was told. But I think to say transwomen are women, it kind of leaves a little bit to be desired, it's not really saying anything, it's a kind of meaningless statement. But you're also subjected to various sorts of name-calling such as you're transphobic, you're a TERF, you're a bigot, you're hateful, you're a faschist, you know, all these kinds of things. Certainly there's been plenty of that in relation to this event tonight.

We're also told, and I think these are things we really need to think about, when we're told that by simply naming a man as a man that we are making young people kill themselves. Because that is some of the worst emotional blackmail that I have heard, but for any of us who work in the women's sector and have heard the way that abusive men try to control their partners, then threats to kill themselves come as no surprise. But this has taken on a bit of a different slant because we are being told that if we name men as men, if we assert our right to name reality, that we are contributing to children's suicide, is a particularly pernicious rhetorical strategy and manipulative rhetorical strategy of transgender activists, so I think we need to really think about what's going on when they do that." continues

(link previous post)

My question to MNHQ is asking them to stop policing our language on this particular issue.

But there are other words that MNHQ have also banned because the FWR board requested it. So are you also calling for those words to be allowed too?

the issue was if you don't want terf on here then people using tim as a slur also ment that there was a contradiction.

The only people lobbying Mumsnet to make certain words forbidden were TRAs.

MN rules then sought to be even-handed to enable civilised debate.

The terms work in very different ways.
Its a false equivilence.

We use the plural, “terves’ frequently, bespin - you are behind the times!

so you have no issue with t**f being used on here then? I'd rather stick at where we are as I do remeber before these rules came in how out of hand it was getting on both sides on here.

Dr Julia Long explained further:

"So why then is it important to make this distinction between sex and gender and why is it important to name men as men? Naming men as man was such a vital part of the women's liberation movement and feminist scholarship back in those early days. There were lots of books that had 'silence' in the title or essays that had 'silence' in the title because it was about women breaking the silences of our own lives and naming who was doing what to whom, and then seeing that there were patterns of this and that is how feminist theory emerged. So it's really crucial to name men as men because that is how we develop an understanding and an analysis of patriarchy. That's how. If we can't name men as men then we can't name patterns of male violence, we can't name who is in control.

So naming men as men, then, enables us to answer these kinds of questions: Who controls economic, social, political and cultural systems and institutions? In whose hands does this kind of economic and social and political power lay? Well, if we can name men as men then we can see exactly where it lies. And it also helps us to answer the question, who's doing what to whom? And so again, over decades, feminists have answered that question in terms of looking at what we know women are subjected to under patriarchal power relations between women and men: femicide, female infanticide, sex-selective abortion, female genital mutilation, rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, poverty, economic disadvantage, prostitution, pornography, discrimination, objectification" (continues)

This is key feminist theory.
This is the FWR board
(& for the monitors, yes there are permissions from both Dr Long & the transcriber to reproduce extracts of the speech. Ive also chunked it as I know sometimes they also complain about 'wall of text' .... though only when its about certain things)

“My question to MNHQ is asking them to stop policing our language on this particular issue.”

Except I want them to police the use of “cis”. I am much more bothered about being called a ciswoman than I am about using “transwoman”.

so you have no issue with tf being used on here then? I'd rather stick at where we are as I do remeber before these rules came in how out of hand it was getting on both sides on here.

No you are misrepresenting.

MN came under increased pressure externally from TRAs
Women trying to discuss things are able to do so civilly throughout the site. Some males (who were uncivil) sought to disrupt women speaking here.... that has been a feature of the site for a long time with men who are MRA, angry or with fetish etc joining various threads throughout the site.

but R0wantrees said only tra had a issue with language. so you must be ok with cis woman?

also some gender critical posters were also uncivil the noted misgendering of a mass shooter was a perticular low point. things I hope have improved on both sides

But the OP has an issue with MN policing words, except that there are some terms that regular posters don't want used and so those are also banned. Which is also policing language.

So if you don't want language to be policed then you have to accept the use of the terms cis and t**f don't you?

Careful bert you’ll be called all sorts having opinions like that

Its always interesting to observe males attempting to disrupt women discussing the impact of not being able to correctly identify some males.

interesting patterns of behaviour.

No doubt there will be other males attempting to have the thread pulled in its entirety.

(especially as Dr Julia Long's feminist analysis is shared)

R0wantrees

are you insinuating that some mumsnet posters are men? I thought that was found upon lol