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.

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 ?

Someone who is less worried about what TRAs think than wondering how other women feel who might, under different circumstances, join the debate,

I'm not putting my marriage cert up though as it has too much personal info on. Happy to post it to R0wantrees who implied I was lying about it though.

I await an apology for that

Or are you suggesting that only the right sort of feminist can comment here?

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

Well, there is that lol
I can see it being as a ha in your face here's my qualifications you wanted ackshully way

I'm not putting my marriage cert up though as it has too much personal info on

Definitely don't do that (I know you said you're not going to but just saying!)
Far too massive a site to put stuff like that on

I'm not putting my marriage cert up though as it has too much personal info on. Happy to post it to R0wantrees who implied I was lying about it though.

I implied nothing of the sort.
Please stop making false allegation sue it doesn't do your profession any credit.

I remember the reluctance of BowlofBabelFish to share her (considerable) scientific qualifications when being goaded

You kind of did hint at wanting them when you came out with this though.
Bowl (not sure who that poster is but has been referenced in a "I miss bowl type way on the thread by people)

That was Bewilderness re the rules of Misogyny.

There do seem to be some comprehension issues.

Its not about having the qualification, its the implied demand that one's comments are held in higher status by implication

I don't think my comments should be held in higher status. What I do think, is that others who make repeated claims about other poster's behaviour being abusive, as if it is fact, and cite lots of supposed evidence to support it, should not be surprised when someone says "no, not even professionally qualified people can assess that online. And if you aren't professionally qualified then you can't speak with authority anyway. And the stuff you are citing as support for your claims is opinion not fact".

That I am qualified to say, is only relevant in that I can drive a bus through the holes in someone else's claims to be able to make such sweeping judgements of people.

When it is then implied that I am a liar, I will prove I am not.

My qualifications DO NOT make my opinion more valid than anyone else's. They do enable me to critique the claims and evidence of others though.

Therefore their opinion is no more valid than anyone else's

Therefore their opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

There, fixed that for you!

(goes off to find 'fix it' certificate to prove credentials)

That was Bewilderness re the rules of Misogyny

Sorry, what? Yes I know Bewildnerness made up a list, you've said.
What's that got to do with what's just been posted though?

Here you go. Copies of my first degree and then my psychiatric nursing qualification

No offence. This is the internet. Those pictures could have come from anywhere. I'm not saying they did, I'm pointing out that here anything can say they are anything they like.

Everyone's words should be (and generally are ) taken on their own merit, they are not accorded higher importance because the poster claims to have qualifications, or that they have had PMs supporting them.

My qualifications DO NOT make my opinion more valid than anyone else's. They do enable me to critique the claims and evidence of others though

We are all able to engage with others posts.
Dont think MN threads need an onthread monitor.

Also (& to be very clear Sue this is not directed at you) there's a whole host of people who've qualified & worked in health, social care, education etc who have poor judgement, breach Safeguarding & have serious gaps in their professional practice.

Im sure that everyone who has worked in these areas is aware of individuals who are worse than incompetatnt but a risk to the children & vulnerable adults they were employed to support.

R0 has not implied or hinted at anything of the sort.

Posting pictures of your certificates on a MN thread is really strange behaviour.

Oops sorry, I may have posted that rather slowly

My qualifications DO NOT make my opinion more valid than anyone else's. They do enable me to critique the claims and evidence of others though

Yes, the same as anyone else on this thread is able to critique claims and evidence, and make claims of their own.

We've just withdrawn the post with personal details in it.
Flowers. Peace and love etc.

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

What you actually said, no reference to Bewildnerness.

No offence. This is the internet. Those pictures could have come from anywhere. I'm not saying they did, I'm pointing out that here anything can say they are anything they like
Then when you do, you get this. Can't win whatever you do lol
You insinuated that Bowl was reluctant to share her qualifications when goaded , Bowl being a poster that you presumably agree with.
Which comes across as show us your qualifications or you're lying.

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

That reads as implying that people lie about their qualifications on this board. As it was me that had been discussed in light of my certification, the implication is that I may also be lying and would try to evade like BowlofBabelFish did.

Stop being disingenuous Rowan. If you did not wish to suggest that you thought I may be lying, you could have worded it a different way to remove the implication. If a man tried to say he hadn't implied I was lying, FWR would be saying he was gas lighting.

Your post read as doubting my honesty.

That reads as implying that people lie about their qualifications on this board. As it was me that had been discussed in light of my certification, the implication is that I may also be lying and would try to evade like BowlofBabelFish did

Exactly, it really did

Blimey theres a lot of folk who now seem to know my intentions.

It would be a shame to start policing thoughts now as well as language.

Lets not do that.

Yes, the same as anyone else on this thread is able to critique claims and evidence, and make claims of their own

Absolutely they are. But noone had. The claims themselves had been challenged. But accusing others of being abusive is seriously offensive. So I will question the validity of someone making those claims in a factual tone, using evidence which is opinion, to reinforce their point.

Posting pictures of your certificates on a MN thread is really strange behaviour.

And spectacularly naive (or risk taking)! But I guess if you want to doxx yourself, you can
I'm v glad MN removed them.

I cannot see where the info was asked for, or where lying was implied. Seems a reach.

My qualifications DO NOT make my opinion more valid than anyone else's. They do enable me to critique the claims and evidence of others though.

Just saying, you can critique the claims and evidence of others with or without certificates. I do it all the time and so does everyone else. It's called using your brain and life experience to work things out.

(goes off to find 'life experience' certificate...)

the implication is that I may also be lying and would try to evade like BowlofBabelFish did

No bowl did not wish to disclose her qualifications despite having them. I won't speculate too much on her motivations but have observed her to be a very intelligent, well-balanced, secure, funny woman.
Her posts were factual & evidence based.
She was targetted by a goady TRA troll hence the eventual disclosure.
The TRA was attempting to shame, smear & discredit her.

(apologies for the slight diversion but it seems some folk are very keen I be scrutinised. HTH)

But accusing others of being abusive is seriously offensive

Agree, it is. You post an opinion and straight after get a wall of text accusing you of being a gaslighter, an abuser, or a male.
It's not DARVO to point this out, or mean, it's an actual statement of fact.