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.

Feminism's always been grassroots hasn't it? Consciousness raising is all about ordinary women coming together and sharing their real life experiences and realising there are patterns to what's going on, that it's not just us. That's what the personal is political means.

That's always been my impression but I will admit I don't have any social science degrees. I did transcribe Sally Hines's interview on Woman's Hour though and I learnt a LOT from that

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

Apologies as I wasn't on the other thread, allotmenting in the rain at the weekend and all that.

But I can't grasp what your actual point is. Or is it that only people who have qualifications are allowed a point?

We were continuously being exhorted to 'TGLWGH

Is that they go low we go high?

and never quite told what the problem was with our posts
I obviously can't speak for MN mods if that's who you mean, but I have seen people say exactly why for posts to some for them to say "nope, nothing wrong with it."

I miss bowl she is obviously busy with litlle ramekin

I obviously can't speak for MN mods if that's who you mean, but I have seen people say exactly why for posts to some for them to say "nope, nothing wrong with it."

They used to have to discuss points at meetings to decide whether it was or wasn't 'allowed'. So if they don't know, how the fuck are we supposed to?

But I can't grasp what your actual point is. Or is it that only people who have qualifications are allowed a point

No, Sue said (this is how I read it anyway) that stating facts isn't mean or a personal attack as we're constantly told by others. Like when you or others saying Pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes On is not mean or a personal attack you say that's factual not mean or a personal attack.
What Sue said in her post was fact so by your definition, that's not mean or personal.

Thank you for dragging over a comment from a previous thread, where I had just been accused of being a man, despite having just explained that I was raped.

Yes, I think to factually accuse me of being a man was a cunty thing for a poster to do, in light of my disclosure.

I apologised unreservedly at the very start of this thread for the comment regarding intelligence, but please, continue to quote me without context to try to "prove" your point.

If it is important to differentiate between personal attack, describing behaviours and fact, then I think the full facts is the context is necessary. You don't, clearly, that's fine.

I agree regarding describing the behaviour not just what is said. Hence why you obviously wont be in the slightest bit offended by anything I wrote.

If you are not qualified to be able to identify behaviour in others online, it crosses the line to accuse them of using abusive behaviours and to insinuate that they are men.

If you ARE qualified to do so, by more than a Lundy Bancroft book and some chats with other women (as the plural of anecdote is not data), then you would surely agree that it is woefully unprofessional to attempt to, as it cannot be done effectively.

It is also factually incorrect to present feminist opinion (albeit highly esteemed) as fact to reinforce your argument. It is highly educated opinion. And, as such, cannot be seen as definitive.

To present such information as definitive to reinforce your opinion, is disingenuous. That is not how social science research works. Julia Long herself knows that.

I have no problem with your opinions. I have a problem with opinions presented as facts, reinforced by further opinion, deployed in the guise of evidence.

I have a problem with someone feeling comfortable to make very offensive claims, that posters disagreeing with prevailing opinion are being abusive. Despite this being pointed out many times.

I am sorry if you do not like this being highlighted. But someone finally taking issue and describing what is wrong with this behaviour is not mean. It is just factual.

When you behave like cunts

Wait

I missed this

Awesome

for them to say "nope, nothing wrong with it

for them being the posters asking, not the MN mods just to be clear as reading that back could be taken that way!

Who does/thinks that sort of thing ?

Who indeed.

Rowan, I have no issue with emailing you copies of my certification. I will even copy you my marriagr license which shows the name change between my first and second degrees if you doubt me.

Oh goodness

Honest apologies sue

Dreadful crosspost

Thank you for dragging over a comment from a previous thread, where I had just been accused of being a man, despite having just explained that I was raped.

Who are you talking to?

This is more random than cake recipes, I'll give it that.

By the way, I have a Food Hygiene certificate, in case anyone is interested.

Thank you for dragging over a comment from a previous thread, where I had just been accused of being a man, despite having just explained that I was raped.
That was a particularly low blow I agree, I read it like OMG.
I don't like the C word used but I totally agree context is everything and it was a disgusting response from someone.

I found my o level certificates the other day..that was a bonus

Not that anyone has ever asked for them...the teachers lied

By the way, I have a Food Hygiene certificate, in case anyone is interested

That's nice?

No, Sue said (this is how I read it anyway) that stating facts isn't mean or a personal attack as we're constantly told by others. Like when you or others saying Pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes On is not mean or a personal attack you say that's factual not mean or a personal attack.
What Sue said in her post was fact so by your definition, that's not mean or personal

That's exactly it Lime. Do I remember rightly that I said people were behaving like cunts when they called me a man after I said I was raped? Or was it when the OP said that I was certainly displaying male pattern rage when I was annoyed as a result of effectively being called a liar about being a woman who was raped?

I can't remember which it was, but anyone who uses a woman of being a man after they have discussed their rape, I feel is behaving in a cuntish manner. Which won't gather people to you who disagree.

No, Sue said (this is how I read it anyway) that stating facts isn't mean or a personal attack as we're constantly told by others. Like when you or others saying Pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes On is not mean or a personal attack you say that's factual not mean or a personal attack.

So stating that men are men and cannot change to become women, is not mean or personal, it's just facts and so we can just carry on calling men men?

That is indeed fantastic news as that's what I was going to do anyway.

I've read the approximately 1400 messages so far. my thoughts are this:

In an ideal world I'd like us to be free to use the terms we saw fit, However, I think Mumsnet have done a marvellous job of keeping FWR as a place where GC feminists can talk without fear of being shut down, bullied or threatened. If opening up the language would mean Justine and the team are innundating with TRA complaints and still further pressure... It's not worth it.

Pragmatically, having FWR is far too important for me to put at risk for several terms I can work around anyway. I think Mumsnet Towers have been extremely brave in defending our right to speak. I want to show my appreciation for that bravery by accepting the accomodations that make their lives slightly easier.

You shouldn't feel the need to justify yourself

So stating that men are men and cannot change to become women, is not mean or personal, it's just facts and so we can just carry on calling men men?

Noone has said you can't. Some of us have said that if you do, you risk sounding like bigots and if the wider public agree that you sound bigoted, you run the risk of losing the ground everyone has worked hard to gain so far.

Depends whether it is more important to have female spaces that are for women only, or whether language is the hill you want to die on IMHO.

That is indeed fantastic news as that's what I was going to do anyway

Fab. Crack on. Its up to MNHQ in the end. It's their site. You say what you want. If it is against their rules, don't bleat if you are banned.

You shouldn't feel the need to justify yourself

Yeah, but it's kinda fun when someone has implied you are a liar

I think you miss the point.
Its not about having the qualification, its the implied demand that one's comments are held in higher status by implication.

Most people arent interested in playing top trumps with their qualifications & experience.

The Women's sector grew from grassroots up. Women sharing their experiences with other women so that patterns of behaviour were recognised. Women supported.

Women are often failed by professionals who don't have an uptodate understanding of abuse patterns etc.

Hence the growing awareness raising about coercive control etc.