Use of trans identified male as opposed to transwoman No2.

[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.

Then the twisting it around to make you look like the one committing it.

Yep, I'm just like whuh? now.

It’s clear in black and white for all too see
There is this, at least this thread amplifies what happens on here

Coercive Control Bury St Edmunds thread:

(extract)
"One of the most effective ways of assessing whether someone has an abusive personality type is to observe their social media interaction over time, particularly how they respond to criticism.There are significant ‘tells’ which indicate a personality type that needs to be avoided. (continues)

SEALIONING is a form of trolling/harassment consisting of persistent questions or requests for evidence, while maintaining a pretense of civility & feigning ignorance & politeness. If the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the victim.
Often seen in discussions around race, gender and other topics that attract polarised views. Blocking will be seen as a form of aggression by the sealion feigning interest. Sealioning is often a pack activity although can also be conducted by individuals.
What these tactics have in common is the gratification they seek at the expense of another’s annoyance, embarrassment, humiliation and shame" (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1045892739211120641.html

Its bloody obvious to everyone who the sealions are!

Again, sealion, MRA, you're a man etc if you disagree but it never happens apparently

consisting of persistent questions or requests for evidence, while maintaining a pretense of civility

Where did I do that? I might have asked a question but definitely not persistently,and I didn't request any evidence?

SEALIONING is a form of trolling/harassment consisting of persistent questions or requests for evidence, while maintaining a pretense of civility & feigning ignorance & politeness. If the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the victim.

It is very imortant to raise awareness of male-violence against women & children and control pattern behaviours.

Being able to recognise, name & identify abuse of power/attempts to control is crucial.

Its important to recognise how dangerous control is.

'Walking On Eggshells'
Mumsnet survey said 38% of women had been in a abusive or controlling relationship.

This often starts with control of language:

OK, the thread seems to be doing the weird thing like the other night on threads as the post above mine has already been posted saying the same thing

Poster A ...No one except me wants third spaces

Poster B...oh I’ve often said third spaces would be good

Poster C....yes excellent idea third spaces would be great

Poster A....im the only one who wants third spaces

The identifying of control and abuse patterns is crucial to feminist consciousness raising. It is vital to be able to communicate that in clear, accurate and precise language.

It is relevant to this thread specifically - and always, generally - because compelled language is a common feature of control and abuse patterns.

This is why I am still a yay. Every MNer should be able to use the language that accords with their sincerely held beliefs and on-board conflicts should be moderated according to the rules about goadiness and civility which are deemed sufficient in every other case.

It is very imortant to raise awareness of male-violence against women & children and control pattern behaviours

I agree, it is. Somebody disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're automatically a male or male pattern behaviour though.
I'm still a bit [confused[ as to what you mean by that anyway - it's male pattern behaviour to go against the grain and majority and say something else you don't like?
It comes across as we're not posting womanly enough or something.

and on-board conflicts should be moderated according to the rules about goadiness and civility which are deemed sufficient in every other case

Yep

I completely agree. It puts the subjective feeling of not being male firmly back into the head of the person claiming they feel they are not male. (Where it belongs).

It also reinstates a woman's right to choose whether or not to humour them.

Lime you remind me of a dog with a bone....you just can't let go can you.

It comes across as we're not posting womanly enough or something.

Perhaps it looks as if you cannot recognise male pattern behaviour, and have no concerns about men accessing female spaces or something whilst simultaneously being unable to explain how a man stating mere words is automatically 'safer' than a man who doesn't.

Which is confusing for women who naturally think that other women might have some concerns around this. Weird.

Its bloody obvious to everyone who the sealions are!

Ooooh! I know! I know! Is it anyone who questions the hardcore dozen or so regular FWR posters and the holy FWR orthodoxy?

I like to take posters at face value

But im getting very very suspicious

Apologies Rufus that was me (PM s).

I was taking the piss out of people who think that stating they have had an (unprovable) number of PMs somehow bolsters their argument.

As you were...

It is very imortant to raise awareness of male-violence against women & children and control pattern behaviours

I agree, it is. Somebody disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're automatically a male or male pattern behaviour though.

Again, there is a failure in comprehension.
Its telling.

It is very imortant to raise awareness of male-violence against women & children and control pattern behaviours

The use of a conjunction 'and' is fairly standard in english.
So I might say, ' I am concerned about male violence and climate control"
Or I might say, 'I am concerned about male violence. I am also concerned about climate control.

Similarly and for clarity, in my opinion:
It is very imortant to raise awareness of male-violence against women & children
It is also very important to raise awareness about control pattern behaviours

See previous posts when I have made clear that control pattern behaviours may be demonstrated by people of both sexes.

Lime you remind me of a dog with a bone....you just can't let go can you

Ooookay lol.
How come me saying my view has people grey rock recipe sharing sealion MRA and getting the whole thing way off track but other invested in the thread people with a differing viewpoint to mine are unchallenged?
No that's not DARVO before that gets reamed off at me, it's a genuine question.
Others on this thread are always on these threads heavily too so genuine question

itsallgoingtobefine

That is no problem at all

I obviously believe implicitly that you got 83 pms

Im not suspicious of you at all

Its telling

I agree, it is but probably not in the way you mean

Sitting here, I've realised that I don't at all come here for debate!

I come here for the feminist consciousness raising I mentioned above. I come here to converse with other feminists about feminist topics. I come here to learn things from other feminist women and to share the knowledge I have. I come here to build relationships. I come here to get informed. I've made very strong friendships here. I've collaborated with women I know from here on various feminist initiatives. I've found causes and orgs to which and to whom I'm happy to donate my spare cash since deciding that the third sector industrial complex was not to be trusted with it. I've been helped to fill out government consultations by specialists in their field...

... I could go on and on and Ariston.

It's important that these interactions between feminist women are not controlled by external demands.

I don't seek to censor the language of others and I object when others seek to censor mine.

From the other thread..

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.

I do not understand how a couple of posters saying things you do not like would change your stance from being GC.

Also, pretty much every topic has those in the middle ground, those for/against and a couple of extremists. That extremists exist it not a reason to uturn on whatever view you hold, thats risiculous!

(This bit not specifically about the quote)
The fact that people keep claiming they were GC until they saw a GC feminist say something they didn't like, sorry but they were cleatrly not GC to start with. Its a weird argument really.

'I was very concerned about climate change until I saw a protestor drop their litter on the floor during a march, now I don't give a shit about the environment because someone who was on 'my side' did something I disagree with. It just doesn't make any sense. But keeps being said.

Anyway, would still prefer to have no banned terms. I despise the word cis but..thats my issue I guess. I do see terf as a slur, regardless of how many claim it is not, but if people wish to insult me with it, fine, get on with it. I know which posters to avoid, if they start shouting terf to anyone with an opinion differing from their own though, as misogynistic abuse..I cannot be arsed with.

GermaineBunbury

Ooooh! I know! I know! Is it anyone who questions the hardcore dozen or so regular FWR posters and the holy FWR orthodoxy?

Got it in one.

These two threads have been the epitome of gas lighting. But not by those who have disagreed with the majority.

Instead, the gas lighting has been mostly done by one or two posters who feel it is appropriate to deny that things have been said on the threads, despite others being able to post evidence.

The determination of some to constantly try to "identify and highlight" certain behaviours, whilst utterly lacking the self awareness to realise that it is THEY who are the ones engaging in those behaviours, is almost embarrassing to read.

People dislike in others what they tend to dislike in themselves too. It is of no surprise to me, therefore, that the most gas lighting, coercive, hypocritical, protectionist posts on these threads, are by those who pride themselves on being able to spot the same in others.

The cod attempts at conflating the posts of people who disagree with the majority, as being synonymous with domestic abuse, is massively overstating their ability to analyse behaviour.

The irony of some posters being supposedly gender critical, then repeatedly insinuating that those with a dissenting opinion are male or engaging in "male pattern behaviour" (themselves perpetuating the very stereotypes they profess to reject) is so obviously hypocritical, that I cannot believe the posts are anything other than goady.

The constant passing off of feminist theory as "evidence" rather than very educated opinion (but opinion nonetheless) is flawed. There are many dissenting opinions across all the social sciences. Citing a few contributors prolifically does not constitute evidence. Everyone who has studied gender theory knows this. The fact that people are cited on these threads in a manner which mistakes their theoretical opinion and hypotheses for facts, demonstrates exactly who hasn't properly studied social science research.

To return to the OP & being mindful that this is the Feminism & Women's Rights board of MN. Context as ever being important.

Dr Julia Long's speech provides useful to the wider societal issues which impact all women & girls, especially those most vulnerable:

(extract)
"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)

pastebin.com/nGwr3i4U

Posted on the last thread, not on this one but got deleted earlier on another thread for using the label being discussed here which is the mostly preferred label. It includes 'trans' and refers to identity and biological sex. Hope that's clear. Sorry to be vague. Trying to get point across without being deleted again.

Please can someone @ me when a decision has been reached? Would love to know when @MNHQ have updated the guidelines with a decision on what labels we are allowed to use. I'll check back but this thread already has nearly 300 posts, obviously a hot topic.