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.

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

I agree, but you do it every time after someone says something you disagree with - insinuating they're abusers.
That's not DARVO before you say, it's literally what happens,

No Sue Im disinclined to respond to any of your demands

Nah, I don't care enough to DEMAND anything of you. I merely asked a question. I am not even that interested in the answer to be honest. You replied exactly as I expected.

I did do a double take Pencils but not clicking a link, that's almost as risk taking as self doxxing

MNHQ if you are able to post any decision on here for everyone to see that would be great-the discussion is becoming quite circular. Thanks

We've removed the spammer (sigh).

It does not require or represent diagnosis of an individual

That's right. It requires a shitload more information than could ever be gained from these threads, though.

To think anyone could begin to assess risk with any accuracy online, unless someone outright threatened violence, is mind boggling.

In risk assessment, context is everything. The internet lacks any context as to the personal life of the poster. Judging words without facial expression, body language etc is not assessing risk. If the content of the language is explicitly risky, then fine. Otherwise, it's throwing assumptions at a wall and hoping it sticks.

That's why people spend hours on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults courses. But even they don't fully teach you how to identify risk. They focus lots on what to do once it has been established.

Identifying risk involves looking beyond the obvious, to the context, previous behaviours, identifying known risk indicators etc and using the relevant profiling tools.

None of that can be done online with any accuracy on a chat forum.

Michael I can still see one of 'his' posts from 14 mins ago...

@GirlDownUnder - could you report it - and we'll zap asap.

@happydappy2

MNHQ if you are able to post any decision on here for everyone to see that would be great-the discussion is becoming quite circular. Thanks

We tend not to allow TIM to be used on the boards.
Please check our guidelines here.

I'm still a yay for reasons on previous thread. As a transsexual I'm suddenly not going to start pearl clutching because someone calls me "male". I've got better things to worry about and if some archaeologist digs me up in 500 years, what difference is it going to make. Biology doesn't lie - that's it really.

At the end of the day, women's speech should not be curtailed when describing someone. It's opressive, it's policing language, and distinctions between sexes DO need to be made for the million reasons I won't go into (because everyone knows).

I really do hope MNHQ lifts this rules, or at least eases it - and if the blue fringe brigade don't like it, well that's tough really. Women's freedom of speech needs to be protected.

I agree, but you do it every time after someone says something you disagree with - insinuating they're abusers.
That's not DARVO before you say, it's literally what happens

Totally agree. It is the epitome of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". It also comes across IMO as behaviour which would constitute gas lighting if a man (or someone else who was disagreed with) did it.

I still cannot say that it is abusive though, due to lack of knowledge of the poster and their motivations. I could make wild assumptions and throw spurious allegations about but they wouldn't be fact.

We tend not to allow TIM to be used on the boards. Please check our guidelines here.

We know that, Michael. The request is that you remove restrictions of terms. MNHQ posted on the previous thread (sorry, can't remember who it was) that you were watching the topic closely and intended to have an office discussion about it.

OP was asking if that had so far occurred.

Lang I genuinely face palmed, then saw Hamsters superb and deliciously timed response and just (hollow) laughed.

Oh.

On the last thread, @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet posted:

Hello everyone - thanks for your comments - as we've said in a mail to the OP, we need to have a further discussion about the points raised here next week.

Is that no longer the case?

It seems strange to allow two long threads full of the phrase in question if it's not going to be discussed.

@LangCleg Yes, we're discussing the threads, please bear with us.
But the Talk guidelines are still in place and we're continuing to moderate using them.

Thank you for the clarification.

But the Talk guidelines are still in place and we're continuing to moderate using them.

Like I say, we know that.

Yes, we're discussing the threads, please bear with us.

Thank you. Will do.

hamster thank you for your honesty & understanding of this,

you can call males who feel compelled to comply with some feminine stereotypes transwomen, or indeed trans women, with no objection from me (although I'll probably do an internal eye roll). I'll continue to describe them in ways that acknowledge their sex.

in this way nobodies language is being policed - do you see?

No BernardBlacksWineIcelolly. You are wrong. Read the title of the thread. It doesn't say let's use this as well as this, it says use this instead of this. So yes, the OP is seeking to police language.

Do you see?

So I got discharged today so have been out of bed! Woohoo, but have read through so will sum up my findings.

Reasons against using transwoman-

Implies a ‘type’ of woman
Woman need to be able to point out peoples sex
Language shouldn’t be policed
Some people may think it’s a female
Words are rohypnal

Reasons for using transwoman-
It is the dictionary definition
It doesn’t deny biological reality
Some people may not understand TIM either
It’s better to educate rather than change words
The people you are referring to find it offensive
It makes it more hostile for others to engage

Reasons the thread is heated -

Some posters don’t welcome debate
Opposers are called ‘male, TRA’ to shut down discussions
GC posters think we’re here just to goad and abuse them or maybe spy on them
Some people can’t understand why you want to deliberately offend
Random bits of text highlighting abuse and gaslighting as if you’re talking in code.
‘Is this the hill you really want to die on’
#NoDebate

As opposed to. As in instead of. Exactly Decomposers but even though we're saying you do you it's us policing language
Use what you like.

But the Talk guidelines are still in place and we're continuing to moderate using them

I think this is the most problematic aspect of the guidelines as they stand: "we’ll usually delete collective terms for trans people which centre on natal sex."

So yes, the OP is seeking to police language.

I think thats just the way the OP is worded. Fairly sure they do not wish for 'transwoman' to be banned, but for other options to be available. Same as the last board about this.

And if they do mean ban the word transwoman, then obviously am against that. But one would assume its the same as the last thread, just worded in a way that people can read it if they want to as..ban the word transwoman and make everyone use trans identified male instead

Totally agree. It is the epitome of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". It also comes across IMO as behaviour which would constitute gas lighting if a man (or someone else who was disagreed with) did it.

There's a lot of misrepresentation of 'gaslightling' DARVO & other patterns of control/absue.

These are interesting useful articles (in my opinion) which may be helpful to many people (of both sexes) who are not actually aware of the specifics:
thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/11/50-shades-of-gaslighting-the-disturbing-signs-an-abuser-is-twisting-your-reality/

www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting