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.

Got it in one.

Just what I was thinking.

I got deleted.

Sigh.

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.

"Definition of DARVO
DARVO refers to a reaction perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim or the whistle blower into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of "falsely accused" and attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

Institutional DARVO occurs when the DARVO is committed by an institution (or with institutional complicity) as when police charge rape victims with lying. Institutional DARVO is a pernicious form of institutional betrayal." (continues)
dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

Why are you trying to police our language

What is the very title of this thread, that you started?

Your proposal is to use trans identified male instead of trans woman - so you yourself OP, are trying to police language by requesting that trans woman is replaced with another word.

Then you accuse others of trying to police language??????

Can you really not see that you are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of?

I have an issue with Earlywalker's definition. Earlywalker says that 'transwoman' is just the dictionary definition, and it means 'a male who emotionally/psychologically feels like he is a female' (or something like that, can't remember the precise definition.) So we should use the proper dictionary term, which is 'transwoman', and which has no connotations of transwomen actually being woman.

There's two problems. First, the terminology has moved on. Trans people don't use the term 'transwoman' - in fact, to use 'transwoman' as a noun is transphobic. Rather, they use the term 'trans woman'. 'Trans' is an adjective modifier of 'woman'. The current terminology literally requires us to accept that 'trans women' are a subset of women. Earlywalker's definition is out of date, and transphobic by the current press guidelines. I appreciate her point - you could regard the term 'transwoman' to be a word like 'seahorse', (where there's no connotation that seahorses are a kind of horse, just like there's no requirement that transwomen are a kind of women). But this isn't the current accepted terminology. The current terminology requires us to accept that 'trans women' are a type of woman.

The second problem is that I don't think very many trans people would accept the dictionary definition. There's a huge amount of pushback against any suggestion that 'trans women' are male, in any significant sense. The current theory, which has been in place for some time now, is that trans women are literally women and they have always been women. They would reject as transphobic any suggestion that they are males who 'feel' like women, or who 'believe' they are women. Again, I sympathise. I think the dictionary definition is reasonable. But it's just not the definition that is used now. The new definition is something more like 'a trans woman is a person who was mistakenly assigned male at birth, but really they are female because they have a female gender identity.'

DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim or the whistle blower into an alleged offender.

Omigod, I'm sorry but
Didn't I say DARVO would be reamed off instead of answering the question?
It's script like!

WeeBisom apologies for cross post.

Oh and please at least be honest, those of you who say you welcome debate. You may do, but only if it agrees with you. I am disappointed that eloquent women descend into "identifying male pattern behaviour" rather than debating the points being raised. I get that it is easier though.

Sure, identifying behaviour is important (if you are trained to do so, and no professional worth their salt does this over the internet), but using it to attempt to silence debate by "shaming" those with dissenting views, strongly suggests an inability to engage with the actual points being discussed. Labelling isn't debating.

The cries of "why are you trying to police our language" are also disingenuous. The thread is about precisely that. Disagreeing with a term being espoused is not policing language. It is simply engaging with the OP.

Then you accuse others of trying to police language?????? Can you really not see that you are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of?

Exactly, and I've specifically said "you do you" to someone saying they wouldn't say woman as well which is the opposite of saying "you must call them this"

Your proposal is to use trans identified male instead of trans woman

Thread titles lack nuance. I'm happy for the OP to correct me but I believe the title should be interpreted as "Allowed to additionally use trans-identified male (and other similar descriptors) instead of being required to use transwomen?"

That's a bit wordy though.

Oh and please at least be honest, those of you who say you welcome debate. You may do, but only if it agrees with you.

This with bells on.

Your proposal is to use trans identified male instead of trans woman - so you yourself OP, are trying to police language by requesting that trans woman is replaced with another word.

no decomposing, you're wrong

you can call males who feel compelled to comply with some feminine stereotypes transwomen, or indeed trans women, with no objection from me (although I'll probably do an internal eye roll). I'll continue to describe them in ways that acknowledge their sex.

in this way nobodies language is being policed - do you see?

Disagreeing with a term being espoused is not policing language

fine Sue. so I'll keep referring to males as males, you can use what ever tersm you like.

I think we're done here, right?

When I disagree with someone and state my opinion I'm usually a bit disappointed if they don't change their opinion and agree with mine.

When they don't, I usually give it another go, state my arguments and reasonings in a bit more detail, pull out all the persuasive info I have. I really, really want them to agree with me after all!

When they still don't agree, despite my best efforts to explain why I think I'm right, I usually just say f*ck it, we're just not going to agree on this right now and I change the subject.

Or get the scones out

If I continued to go on and on about it without offering any more arguments I'd agree that was me being goady and controlling.

Didn't I say DARVO would be reamed off instead of answering the question?
It's script like!

I totally agree Lime. It has now tipped over into being humorous for me. My background is a Sociology degree, an MA in Social Research Methods and I then trained as a Mental Health Nurse. I studied abuse, social theory etc for years, and still would in no way profess to speak with the authority that some poster's here seemto believe they possess.

The well intentioned but totally misguided and amateur way that posters are citing feminist theory as gospel, and claiming to be able to identify abusive behaviours in others over the internet (by which they mean disagreement), actually has me cringing for them.

Sure, identifying behaviour is important (if you are trained to do so, and no professional worth their salt does this over the internet)

Mumsnet Relationship, AIBU, FWR boards have a long important history in supporting women to identifing controlling abusive patterns, identify risk, access information & support.

Thanks to MN, many women have been empowered to recognise perniscious patterns of abusive behaviour by men as well as parental abuse, workplace bullying etc.
Many have been signposted to Freedom Project, Lundy Bancroft, 'Why Does He Do That, Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men etc

I'm really not [trying to control what people say], people must be missing the post where I said you do you which is the opposite of what you're accusing me of doing, policing

that's great Kiwi

I certainly could not care less how you refer to males who feel compelled to comply with some feminine stereotypes. I assume that you'll extend the same courtesy to me?

you do you, I'll do me, everyone else will do them

everyone gets to use the terms that suit them, that they believe to be accurate. no-ones language is policed

right, I think we've still got time for a quick half before lunch time is finished now we've got this sorted - all down the pub?

Oh and please at least be honest, those of you who say you welcome debate. You may do, but only if it agrees with you

Although 'we' consistently ask those disagreeing with 'us' upon what basis they believe what they believe, ask how it works and ask them to explain it to us.

It never is explained, no matter how many times it is asked.

I love learning new stuff, so if someone could actually explain it to me, I'd be over the moon.

I'll buy you a pint for that Bernard!

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

I think we're done here, right?

You feel free to stop contributing at any time you like Bernard, you don't need my permission. Unless of course you are asking ME to stop posting, which would be rather controlling wouldn't it?

I'm with Lang on the debate thing. I dunno if I do welcome it. All too often it descends into tedious brow beating and the desire to win

This board bills itself as feminist chat, and that's what I come here for

No Sue, but I am asking you to not try to stop me using the terms that I deem appropriate to describe certain males. if you could not lecture me about how me being mean to men stops women being feminists, that would also be much appreciated.