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.

Sue - as you have decided to return, would you mind answering a question I asked you on the last thread?

During her evidence to the Women & Equalities Select Committee, Karen Ingala Smith used 'trans identified male' and variations of that throughout her testimony. Do you think she did that to be deliberately cruel or mean?

Here's the link to save you hunting back:

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/enforcing-the-equality-act-the-law-and-the-role-of-the-equality-and-human-rights-commission/oral/102570.html

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

YY, there's a great difference between chat and discussion as opposed to 'debate'
There can be gendered differences between those who prefer the former & those who insist on the latter (not always of course).

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

All good then!
You really can't be surprised that some will say it's transphobic though if you general you were to take the stance they're never women so you'll keep calling them males.

Sue
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.

Indeed, I was once accused of using a thesaurus...As if having an extensive vocabulary were a bad thing.

itsallgoingtobefine yes I agree. I am pointing out that other media platforms are allowed to use several terms to describe males who identify as women.....I feel that transwoman is confusing, (as do many others as has been made clear on this tedious thread) we used to be able to say trans identified Male, I am asking that the ban on this specific term be lifted. Historically the term transvestite might have described males who dress in womens clothing, but that’s no longer allowed. It’s all about taking back control of the language we use. Male to female trans person, trans ID Male, I don’t care which one as long as the emphasis is on the Male!

Yes, I'm here for chat, support, consciousness raising, development of ideas etc. rather than 'debate'.

I don’t understand

You do you

Am I thick?

I'm with Lang on the debate thing. I dunno if I do welcome it.

I don't care if other people debate (or have a slanging match, or or or).

I mean, I suppose some people might want to spend their time debating, say, if TWAW. I don't. I don't believe they are. Some do believe they are. I don't care if they do. But I'm not interested in spending time debating it.

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

Indeed. Also me.

Unless of course you are asking ME to stop posting, which would be rather controlling wouldn't it?

It did come across as right, that's it, we're agreed so everybody stop talking now, we're off to the pub, who's for gin?! I was going to say a pint but though people might say that was too manly of me.

Rules of misogyny:

2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
11th rule of misogyny: Basic pattern recognition skills are cruel and evil when they hurt men's feelings.
14th rule of misogyny: Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

www.reddit.com/r/Gender_Critical/comments/6kkeni/the_rules_of_misogyny/

Long term FWR posters such as thebewilderness who compiled these rules are greatly missed.

MNHQ any chance you can give us some feedback on your thoughts please? (Will report this post)

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

No. Her proposal is that women are allowed to use whichever of those terms they choose.

It's a no policing request.

As has been stated repeatedly over 54 pages.

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.

Its not debate if everyone agrees.

Can't speak for others but I do welcome debate, about any of my opinions. That some think that some others do not want debate and want an echochamber or whatever..well that does not go for the vast majority of FWR posters who actually do want some kind of alternative view to be expressed. The problam that there usually is here, is that those with minority opinions seem to see a few replying to them instead of it being 1 on 1, as hounding or shutting down. Another odd thing, as forums will always be that way, if you have a minority opinion, you will get more replies to if you agree with the majority. Thats just how debate works!

I dislike how, if one or two posters engage in whatever behaviour, people take it as 'FWR' rather than just those couple of posters. Seems really common to do that. A new user joins to post actual transphobia for example (happens a LOT, and it always happens to get straight on twitter, which says to me really that its actually the 'minitors' making the accounts that are transphobic) and this is used to say that FWR is transphobic. Nope, its just a poster. FWR is not a monolith

You really can't be surprised that some will say it's transphobic

Pretty much all of FWR is considered transphobic anyway, so I don't think that's something to be concerned about.

Pretty much all of FWR is considered transphobic anyway, so I don't think that's something to be concerned about.

Indeed. FWR is transphobic because anyone who cares about womens rights is transphobic. Anything to do with supporting women is transphonbic unless you include males of course.

So, now I've read through both threads, everyone is agreeing that it's OK for those who wish to use 'transwoman' or indeed 'trans women' even if they are unclear & inaccurate terms which make other posters roll their eyes (I certainly would).

BUT if others prefer, for clarity & to avoid the Rohypnol effect, 'trans identified male' or 'male who identifies as a woman' or 'male who identifies as trans', then that option should also be acceptable on these boards, as it is in many other media.

All obviously to apply in reverse to women who identify as male.

Oh & no one seems that arsed either way about being 'cissed' or 'terfed', because although most posters see them as offensive, meh, other people are allowed to be rude if they want.

Seems the consensus is a cry for MNHQ to lift the peculiar restrictions on FWR & let us all carefully consider our own individual language like grown ups. Hear bloody hear!

people can say I'm transphobic if they wish. I'm all about people being able to say what they want

depending on the person saying it, I may do some soul searching to see if they are right, or if I have already pegged them as a twerp (a bit mean, but does save time), I'll just go on my merry way and ignore them

yeah, I'm posting from the pub now purple

(I wish)

Pro use of 'transwomen' posters - It never occured to me that when we do lose single sex provisions, other women might turn around and say 'well, that's your fault for not playing the game properly.'

Foolishly, I assumed that blame would accrue to the people actually responsible for dismantling same-sex protections.

The threat of other women turning around and pointing the finger actually makes me more likely to use language I find difficult and upsetting to use, because between using what feels to me like lying language, and knowing that other women don't have your back, the first is the lesser evil.

I don't know if you want to count that as a win. Let's say I now feel intimidated into using the term 'transwoman' (no space, though, sorry.)

R0wantrees

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 have been on Mumsnet for years so I am well aware of those things thank you. However, reading a few books and talking to other women qualifies precisely no one to be able to accurately identify behaviour in others over the internet.

Repeatedly posting the opinion of a couple of feminist theorists is not posting fact. It is posting well educated opinion, with which many social scientists disagree. Presenting the opinion and/or hypothesis of so few scholars is NOT posting peer reviewed, evidence based analysis. It is simply posting educated opinion with no facts to back it up. All social scientists know that if you want to make claims based on opinion, you need to cite lots and lots of academics, who all support each other, and also discuss the flaws in their arguments so that you can demonstrate you have understood the limitations of their argument. That is social science research methods 101.

Stating with conviction that the responses to posters online demonstrates "x, y and a" abusive behaviours, as though it is categorical fact, is totally inappropriate. A professional who is qualified to do that would never do so. So by default, anyone claiming to be able to do so is not a professional. Therefore their opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

It is highly manipulative, and makes a mockery of proper behavioural analysis, to present oneself as able to identify things in others online. If those of us trained specifically in these areas are unable to, and are bound by ethics not to do so, then it makes me question the qualification of others who claim to demonstrate the ability. For clarity, chatting and reading Lundy Bancroft is NOT professional certification.

and I believe that trans identified male and trans identified female are OK, it's just the abbreviations that are a no-no

It would be great if MNHQ could confirm

The other thing I would LOVE is to be able to say 'man' instead of 'male'. It just feels icky in my brain to be using the wrong word!

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

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

I wasnt lecturing you. I have not even noticed you on any threads until you directed a comment at me. Are you important or something?

I'm not trying to stop you sneering SuePerbly, you carry right on, consider your language unpoliced

but your post at 13:29 was horrible

Oh look, more sneering and dismissive language. again Sue, feel free to keep being mean. I'm just pointing it out

Are you important or something?

Yes, she is! To me! Lovely woman, so she is.