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.

What does that actually mean? (To invalidate someone's indentity

I'm assuming she means it seems like you're (general you) invalidating their identity if you like some have said that they will never be women?

Transwoman are the set of people you are discussing. Not just ‘males’

Males don’t want to come into your toilets, transwoman do. I’m not denying that trans woman are biologically Male, but they are the subset of (natal) Male in which the conversation revolves around.

Invalidating their identity in my mind means you’re ignoring their own emotions, thoughts and opinions on who they are and what makes them, them.

invalidating their identity if you like some have said that they will never be women

But that is the truth. People should always be able to state the truth.

Rachel Dolezal identity was black. Was it wrong for people to invalidate that by saying she was white?

I don't want to make this "all about me", but as the only transsexual here willing to stick head above parapet as it were, I'll throw in my bit on a couple of points...

Earlywalker - smugly know you have reduced them to just men
It's not some form of reductionism though. It's simply stating biological fact - which, in relation to subjects such as the Equality Act and single sex spaces NEEDS to be done for clarification. In all my posts on this board (of which there have been a few), I've never been treated in any way that hasn't been curteous or supportive. Yes, some of my opinions may differ, and yes there are some women on this board who are very robust in their views on *trans people. However "smug" is not a word I'd ever use to describe any interaction I've had or discussions I've been in with the women on this board.

Secondly ItsAllGoingToBeFine. I disagree with your statement that it's not possible to identify out of your sex. I don't identify as male OR female. I recognise that I AM male biologically but as a post-op transsexual (with medically diagnosed GD) I identify as "me" - not stereotypes of one gender or another. However that's a discussion for another day so as not to start another set of derailments .

Lastly, I think to say anyone's identity is going to be invalidated by making references to their biological sex is reaching somewhat...

This is simply about women being able to use accurate or descriptive language in relation to issues which are not just important but essential to them... I think it's pretty disengenuous for anyone to say this is is being done to somehow "erase" identities or make fun of *trans people.

I'll get back in my box now....

Transwoman are the set of people you are discussing. Not just ‘males’

Transwomen are males.

Males don’t want to come into your toilets, transwoman do. I’m not denying that trans woman are biologically Male, but they are the subset of (natal) Male in which the conversation revolves around.

You yourself state that transwomen are male and a subset of male. Why should these males be allowed into female spaces (including appropriating the word woman). Why should these males not be allowed to be described as male?

Invalidating their identity in my mind means you’re ignoring their own emotions, thoughts and opinions on who they are and what makes them, them.

Someone's emotions / thoughts / opinions do not alter reality or how others perceive them. While it may be arguably courtesy to call these individuals transwomen and she, this does not mean that clearly stating the factual truth of their sex should be wrong.

Its just all a big word salad.

Males don’t want to come into your toilets, transwoman do

It has been fascinating how vociferously some people are arguing that we must NEVER name certain men as men.

Earlywalker

I'm starting to realise that rather than safeguarding concerns, or concerns about women's spaces, sports and jobs the actual motivation is to erase trans gender people completely.

It's disguised as a desire to "tell the truth" but there is a very sinister undertone going on here.

Hamster thank you

Thanks for coming Hamster

identify as male OR female. I recognise that I AM male biologically

I think perhaps different people use identify differently. You state that you recognise you are male. Many other males who identify as female don't recognise that

I don't presume to know your thoughts but to me it sounds a bit like some women who don't like to be called cis. We recognise our sex, but reject the stereotypes applied to their presumed gender.

there is a very sinister undertone going on here.

By asking to be allowed to correctly identify someone's sex?

Anyhow.....I guess we just have to watch this space to see what MNHQ decide is permissible.

Hamster the key word there was just men, obviously biologically transwowan are men and the term doesn’t deny biological reality.

I’m glad you haven’t experienced any smugness here, I personally do believe some people feel smug at the prospect of using ‘TIM’ as opposed to ‘transwoman’

decomposing I agree, I think it’s gone way beyond safeguarding now.

I'm starting to realise that rather than safeguarding concerns, or concerns about women's spaces, sports and jobs the actual motivation is to erase trans gender people completely.

As has repeatedly been said, no-one is trying to erase trans people.

We are trying to defend single sex spaces, which involves pointing out that trans identifying men, however they identify, remain biologically male. This is not erasure, this is acknowledgement of difference. Which 98% of the time doesn't matter, but the 1% where it does (women's prisons, refuges, sports, places where women get naked) it is biological sex which matters, not sincerely but ultimately subjectively held belief.

Invalidating their identity in my mind means you’re ignoring their own emotions, thoughts and opinions on who they are and what makes them, them

However you're fine, by extension, for these people to invalidate the identity of, ignore the emotions, thoughts, opinions on who they are and what makes them, them for all women. Just by appropriating that language and enforcing its use against those women's protests and pointing out the issues with it for women. So your values are about who matters most, not about a belief that these things are in themselves just and right.

This is about the enforcement of a one way, non reciprocal relationship where only one group of people matter, and it's the people with penises. Quite straight forward male dominance. Not ok with that. Not ok with language that disguises and tries to validate that. Not cooperating nicely with my own oppression. This is like asking the Captain of the Titanic to rush off the sinking ship and check the iceberg is ok.

That doesn't add to 100. I have fat fingers.

Transwoman are the set of people you are discussing. Not just ‘males’ Males don’t want to come into your toilets, transwoman do

I agree
Which is why I've said you do you say what you like and I'm not policing anything - that's what you believe which is your right.
Just if your (general your) stance is they're always males then you surely can understand how that comes across?

By asking to be allowed to correctly identify someone's sex?

It's gone beyond that. You can quite easily discuss safeguarding etc and use terms that aren't offensive. I really don't understand that absolute glee that some posters are demonstrating when they are unnecessarily saying "men" or "male" everytime they talk about a trans woman.

There is a gratuitousness about it that I find really distasteful.

Transwomen are males. With appropriately 80% of them retaining their penises. And it's not just toilets, it's open plan changing rooms, youth hostel dorms, etc.

You can quite easily discuss safeguarding etc and use terms that aren't offensive.

Exactly

Accurate language would avoid undertones. Jus' sayin'.

But I'm not sure where the undertones are, sinister or otherwise. It all seems open enough to me:

Some people regard MTF transpeople as an unusual type of male/man and would like to describe them as such.

Other people regard MTF transpeople as an usual type of female/woman and would like to describe them as such.

The contention is whether MNHQ should allow both, or only the latter.

Sorry, I don't find any other human being as an unusual type of anything.

Accurate language would avoid undertones. Jus' sayin'

That's not what she's talking about, it's not the accurate language, how is it so hard to see?
I genuinely don't get it how people don't.
It's not an undertone of words it's the underlying undertone of they're always males and we'll call the the offensive words regardless that seems sinister.
I think that's what she means anyway [smle]

And this unusual type of language is a perfect example of the undertones that I was talking about.

Saying "unusual type of" dehumanises people.

emoji fail, that was meant to be a smile. Ah well

I don't care if males are offended by being correctly identified as males. I think to expect people to lie or change their behaviour to get what you want by weaponising suicide etc is indeed coercive control, of which I have first hand experience. And TRAs do this all the time.

Are we clear? So no amount of wheedling emotional blackmail and appeals to female socialisation are going to have an effect on me. HTH