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.

*R0wantrees

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

No, we are saying how your comment read. It sounded doubtful. If it wasn't meant to be, it should have been written differently. Those words were words. I don't care what your thoughts were. The only evidence I have of those is your words. They are what I have an issue with.

By the way, love how this has moved from doubt about certification to " well professionals fail people anyway"

Opps sorry! To answer the point of the thread

In light of this, would you reconsider yr guidelines that Trans Identified Male can not be used?

I also agree that I would prefer no banned terms, just the usual robust moderation around civility.

If a man tried to say he hadn't implied I was lying, FWR would be saying he was gas lighting.

Good point!

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

Yes, good call Michael.

Thread topic:

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

I'm still a yay on this. I'm still against banning language that enables anyone - be they feminist or queer theorist or whatever - from communicating their views with as much clarity as possible. I still hold the opinion that forum rules on goadiness and civility suffice.

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.

How is it bigoted if I tell the truth when it was you that said you only dealt in facts? Why are your facts good but mine bad?

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.

When you redefine men as women, then of course language matters.

No, we are saying how your comment read.

Is is a committee/team/collective decision?

I'm still a yay on this. I'm still against banning language that enables anyone - be they feminist or queer theorist or whatever - from communicating their views with as much clarity as possible. I still hold the opinion that forum rules on goadiness and civility suffice.

Im still a yes and truly perplexed by those who seem passionately determined to derail, obfuscate & fog up discussion about the need for clarity of language which impacts Safeguarding.

I have only read the first few pages.

I am treading carefully as I am just coming back from a MN vacation after using the terms “trans identified male” (which is what is used on the Gender Critical subreddit) and calling a known XY person a man.

MN FWR is one of only a couple online locales where we have have some discourse about issues affecting women without being shut down. If using the term “trans woman” is what is required to do that...fine. But it will always remain a bee in my bonnet that we need to deny our own language, that it is an advancing line: TRAs are no longer happy with “trans woman”, they have come after “woman” and “female” now too.

Is is a committee/team/collective decision

I reckon its the royal we..like Queen Victoria...or thatcher

I'm still a yay on this. I'm still against banning language that enables anyone - be they feminist or queer theorist or whatever - from communicating their views with as much clarity as possible. I still hold the opinion that forum rules on goadiness and civility suffice.

Im still a yes and truly perplexed by those who seem passionately determined to derail, obfuscate & fog up discussion about the need for clarity of language which impacts Safeguarding.

I’m still a yes too, and the thrashing about to change the subject has been frankly

Rowantrees. Where is your evidence please that professionals are failing women when it comes to abuse? Whats the data on that, I am interested to know?

You ARE right that this was never about playing qualification top trumps. It was, for me, about saying how can you state as fact that other posters are being abusive? How have you assessed it? What is your qualification to say that with such vehemence repeatedly? Why does academic opinion keep being posted as "proof" when it is simply academic opinion?

If you aren't qualified to assess online (and noone is) then your claims are opinion not fact. If you were qualified to assess, you would no not to.

It is a weird situation when someone has read Lundy Bancroft and then states with vehemence that other posters display abusive behaviour, in such a factual manner, using "evidence" which is simply opinion as "proof".

I was intrigued because allegations of abuse are so horrible, that I have never seen anyone bandy about those accusations so freely before.

I am sorry that you object to me questioning this. I am sorry that I read your post as casting doubt on my own qualifications (which I only referenced so that you knew I wasn't just talking out of my arse about not being able to assess people online. Certainly not for any top trumps reason. Lets be real, if someone wanted to play qualification top trumps, they would make damn sure their qualifications are impressive. Mine self evidently are not. Therefore I would be idiotic to try and trump anyone with them. I was more embarrassed about mentionning them to be honest, but felt it important that you knew why I had an issue with people assessing others online).

I just want the insinuations towards people who disagree with you to stop. The insinuation that they are men, that they are abusive, that they may well not be truthful. Insinuations which are written with integrated plausible deniability are still insinuations. Those of us who have been on the end of them can see it. Holding the validity of those insinuations to the light, together with examining the competence of the person making those insinuations is not mean.

If using the term “trans woman” is what is required to do that...fine.

Never never never will I surrender. just realised I have Paisley’s voice in my head

Trans person is absolutely fine, but I still say male who identifies as trans. That is their biological sex and that can’t be changed.

Ps welcome back. 👏🏻

Is is a committee/team/collective decision?

Erm, no just that there's more than one person saying how it comes across.
So it obviously did read that you were insinuating she was a liar and especially when you were on about certificates.

No Sue Im disinclined to respond to any of your demands.

There are many threads running demonstrating the consequences of systemic Safeguarding failures which impact children, vulnerable adults & women.

see:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

this thread (of 2) is specifically about ending the control of women's language. It impacts the safeguarding of women & girls.

So it obviously did read that you were insinuating she was a liar

that some people drew inference where there was none, speaks only of them.

Perhaps confirmation bias, shared perspective? I dont know by the way, its speculation.

No Sue Im disinclined to respond to any of your demands

It's really interesting it's a demand when it's a question you don't like but repeatedly being told to define woman or whatever is a question
She hasn't demanded anything, she literally asked a question. Which people do on here. I'd see your point if she'd "demanded" it repeatedly but she hasn't.

I’m still a yes too, and the thrashing about to change the subject has been frankly confused

Cue question: So why do you think its ok to BAN the word transwomen but not terf? Or some similar question that's been answered a zillion times at least on this thread and the previous one.

Cue another attempt to derail by focusing on some presumed insult about lack of certificates or other that 'should have been written differently'.

(goes off to find 'recognising goadiness when you see it' certificate....)

that some people drew inference where there was none, speaks only of them

That people can't see accusing others of abuse is wrong as well speaks only of them

I'm still a yay on this. I'm still against banning language that enables anyone - be they feminist or queer theorist or whatever - from communicating their views with as much clarity as possible. I still hold the opinion that forum rules on goadiness and civility suffice.

Yes.

I really do think the usual MN guidelines should cover FWR, I don't see why there are additional ones here, nor the three strikes rule that applies nowhere else. On AIBU I see the same posters making, for example, disablist posts over and over. Their comments are deleted, but they still persist and seem not to get banned. S I don't really get why feminists get banned for 3 deletions in 6 months (or whatever it is.)

NO ONE CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE BTW

I do kind of get why they were brought in though, everything was still a bit uncertain and TRAs were hammering MN. They probably still are however the discussion has moved on considerably since then, and it seems very important to be able to use the words we chose these days, more than ever. I would still use transwoman personally, but those who do not wish to, shouldn't be made to.

Identifying potential patterns of harmful behaviour is key to managing risk both to self and others. It does not require or represent diagnosis of an individual. It is a key aspect of Safeguarding which is concerned with managing risk to people who are vulnerable.

Oh look, some social science research!