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.

PencilsInSpace - no, I don't think Karen or any other feminist is necessarily trying to be mean. She is too bright for that.

Really though, it amuses me when people reference her as if she is God. Along with Dr Long. They have respected opinions. They are not infallible. Nor are their opinions fact.

This thread was about whether MN should allow posters to use the term TIM. I personally think we have too much to lose by doing so. Others may disagree.

I really don't like appeals to authority :(

It's a something we WC mums have to hear a lot of, and it's normally used by MC professionals to undermine our own understanding and instincts. I'm not saying anyone here is trying to do that, just sharing why posts that function that way might make some women uncomfortable.

but your post at 13:29 was horrible

I know how this conjugates:

"You are tone-policing"
"I am engaged in robust debate"

I personally think we have too much to lose by doing so

Oh look, forced teaming

and lang, you're very kind

You aren't the original SuePurblyBuilt are you?

Are you important or something?

Oh dear.

I'm mentally referring to Bernard's useful post above about 'twerps' now .

I don't think it's against the TGs to categorise someone's behaviour as both sneery & twerpish.

but your post at 13:29 was horrible

I thought women didn't have to be nice though?

Personal attacks on other posters are a bit much though Lime, and that's how Sue's post read to me

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

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

How interesting. By the arguments proffered on these very threads, how can facts be mean?

If someone is going to repeatedly profess an ability to identify and name behaviour in others, over the internet, that is at best totally unprofessional. At worst, the poster is making claims about others without the qualification to do so. That is not sneering or being mean. That is fact.

As has also been pointed out repeatedly on these threads, offence is taken, not given. So if my comments did not apply to any posters here, and it was simply a professionally qualified person being unprofessional, chances are that they would have known that what I am saying is true. Therefore wouldn't have seen my post as being "mean" either.

Its not "mean" if someone is professing to be able to identify behaviours and accurately espouse and disseminate feminist theory in the proper way, and then gets called out on either being unprofessional or unqualified. It is simply fact.

It isn't my fault that some posters make claims they have no right to. Indeed, it is manipulative and gas lighting of them to do so. Identifying that is not being mean. It is being truthful.

And the reason I know that I am being truthful rather than mean, is because the posters on this thread have repeatedly said so. Facts are not mean.

Such a breath of fresh air to see regulars here finally acknowledging that they are not here for debate and that they do not welcome it.

Next step: redefine this board as GC feminist chat

OK, little bit lost now as to how Sue's comment at 13.29 was a personal attack against Bernard

Such a breath of fresh air to see regulars here finally acknowledging that they are not here for debate and that they do not welcome it

Agree, I mean it's always been clear but to have it actually said "out loud" by some means it couldn't be even clearer!

Ugh. I'm out. I've landed in some sort of over my head sniper territory.

But honestly, my take on the professional thing is that professionals are bound in ways ordinary women aren't.

Ordinary (WC) women can still speak out though, about what they experience, what they see...can't they ? I don't think it's the role of professionals to shut ordinary women down, only to monitor their own professional boundaries and maintain an ethical practice for themselves....

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

No personal attack meant at all, Bernard. Describing behaviour and facts is not a personal attack. That's what you guys keep saying. Pointing out the truth is not a personal attack. Nor is it mean.

It is hypocritical to say otherwise, given the vehemence with which these points have been argued here.

Pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes On is not mean or a personal attack. I have merely stated facts.

Ordinary (WC) women can still speak out though, about what they experience, what they see...can't they ? I don't think it's the role of professionals to shut ordinary women down, only to monitor their own professional boundaries and maintain an ethical practice for themselves....

Sure, but when they present their opinion as fact, and use that opinion to try and imply that posters are abusive, that crosses a line. Stating emphatically that they "see" behaviour, is factually incorrect. It has been demonstrated time and time again that it is not possible to analyse someone online. Especially by someone not qualified to do so in the first place.

If People don't like me pointing that out, then they shouldn't present their opinion as factual and with a level of pseudo-authority which in itself displays a lack of qualification.

Oh man, why would women want to debate women and girls' rights ? isn't that a premise of feminism, that we have them ? Not something really up for debate ? And feminism IS gender critical, there's no such thing as gender-approving feminism! Really, truly out now. I do not understand, even if you are pro-gender, why you wouldn't come into female space and try to understand and empathise with females. If I went into trans spaces, that's what I'd be doing - I wouldn't be going in there telling them all how horrible and stupid they are. Double standards.

If this is such an echo chamber, why are you standing shouting at the regulars, that they should use terminology that they don’t agree with? Do you actually think that you are going to change the minds of GC women that are aware of what females have to lose, by having our speech controlled? Not.going.to.happen.

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.

I agree with its important to be able to differentiate between personal attack, describing behaviours & being factual.

Its also important to observe what people are doing rather than focussing on their claims.

If People don't like me pointing that out, then they shouldn't present their opinion as factual and with a level of pseudo-authority which in itself displays a lack of qualification.

Its always interesting to observe to who has claimed /presented their qualifications.

It tends to rather stand out on FWR as most people in discussion don't do so.
I remember the reluctance of BowlofBabelFish to share her (considerable) scientific qualifications when being goaded.

A few do though, presumably for leverage.
Its often interesting to observe.

no, I don't think Karen or any other feminist is necessarily trying to be mean.

Well that's good because I seem to remember you calling us some horrible names on the last thread.

Really though, it amuses me when people reference her as if she is God.

You've missed the point.

May 2018 - Trans Media Watch submit evidence to the hate speech inquiry saying that mumsnet is very problematic (or similar term, I don't have the PDF to hand) and that 'trans identified male' should be considered hate speech.

June 2018 - MNHQ bring in the new special rules for FWR, specifically banning 'trans identified male'. If you were around during the lead up to the new rules you might remember there was a very fraught atmosphere. We were continuously being exhorted to 'TGLWGH' and never quite told what the problem was with our posts, but if we couldn't see the problem then maybe it was us. I got the strong impression that MNHQ were doing everything they could to keep the discussion open while not being sued.

May 2019 - Karen Ingala Smith demonstrates beautifully how 'trans identified male' can be used respectfully during a serious discussion on women's rights in the House of Commons. As far as I know there has been no legal comeback for this.

So I'm referencing Karen Ingala Smith because her evidence shows that things have changed and also because it shows how using clear language makes it much easier to describe what's happening and what the problems are.

Such a breath of fresh air to see regulars here finally acknowledging that they are not here for debate and that they do not welcome it.

That's a disingenuous reframing of positive comments into negative.

I, for example, gave a list of positive experiences that attract me to FWR. I also commented that I'm happy for others to find different attractions in this space. Many other comments along the lines of you do you - that is to say that all should be free to use FWR in the ways they prefer. This may be not having their language policed. Or to share knowledge. Or to debate with those who disagree.

I neither welcome nor object to debate. It's just not what I come to FWR for. Those who do come here for it should have at it.

I'm still a yay.

Well, this is nice. I'm sure that all the lurkers are enjoying this little tantrum immensely.

But of course, women don't have to be nice.

Stating emphatically that they "see" behaviour

So I can't say, for example, that a transperson reads male to me in the way they are communicating online ? I can't say that being made to espouse the view that men are women makes me feel gaslit ?

I'm not a professional, so I'm not bound by a professional code of ethics. So long as I say 'here is what I see', how can that possibly not be OK ?

I'm sure that all the lurkers are enjoying this little tantrum immensely.

See, I don't even understand why someone would come here and say that.

I don't think I'm nasty enough. I wouldn't go into a trans space, spend time riling them up, and then gloat that the GC feminists were enjoying the show. Who does/thinks that sort of thing ?

Bottom line, it's a board for women to talk about feminism and women's rights. Can women use language freely is a valid question. Why would other women not take it seriously, and treat GC women as having valid, genuine pov's on the question ?

So confused.

Forgot I was going to bed, lol. Curious to see if this thread gets zapped...wonder if that's the point of derailing it (yeah, I get there, but I'm slow sometimes).

Next step: redefine this board as GC feminist chat

Okkkaaayyy.....