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 think that's what she means anyway [smle]

It is exactly what I meant.

It's not gratuitous, it's the whole point of the discussion we're having. Being a woman comes with a whole set of practical and legal consequences. So which people fall under the heading "woman" has to be defined in order for the discussion to take place. One side of the argument wants to use biology as the defining feature, the other side wants to use "anyone who sincerely asserts they are a woman".

The discussion has practical consequences. Does Hannah Mouncey have a right to play Aussie rules women's football? Should Karen White be in a women's prison. Should Maria MacLachlan have been forced to use female pronouns in court when describing her attacker.

We can't even begin to discuss these practical and legal issues if one side is not allowed to use the language necessary to articulate their position, namely that transwomen, however sincerely they wish they had been female, remain male.

So if we're allowed to use the terms we see as truth, can we just call some people transvestites when that is what they are?

It is exactly what I meant

Oh good, as that's the way I see it too. That's the undertone that's sinister to me too and turned me to seeing it.
It's awful when you do but I'm glad the poster that did it for me did so I could see it properly. Kind of like a scales from your eyes for me.

By unusual, I mean small in number with regard to the comparator population, whether that be man or woman. HTH!

Of course transwomen are males. They are men who choose (decide/need/feel compelled/desire/insert appropriate motivation) to present as if they were women.

All power to their elbow. Be as feminine as you like, change your name, live the way that makes you happy (without hurting others, obviously).

But accepting ultra feminine men as a perfectly valid way to live (or ultra masculine women, although that has a more worrying backstory) is an easy part of GC feminism. Surely the point of GC feminism is we see there as many different ways of being male and femal as there are individuals? We acceot and embrace the diversity of presentation?

Sex is immutable, and sex is vitally important. Lifestyles don't erase that, and we need language that recognises that crucial point.

But, as I said before, it shouldn't come at a cost to Mumsnet's viability, so I'll accept restrictions if they are necessary for the wider group to keep going. It must be hard work being a Mumsnet mod.

You can quite easily discuss safeguarding etc and use terms that aren't offensive.
Exactly! This is where the whole GC debate falls apart and loses its merit.

weaponising suicide etc to get what you want is indeed coercive control

Do you mean people pointing out that trans people have high rates of suicide attempts? It is fact that is relevant to the discuss, although I can’t see which post you’re referring to.

You are constantly using facts about woman’s hardship to make your point, is that coercive control?

Do you mean people pointing out that trans people have high rates of suicide attempts?

Yes, when those cited “high rates” are false:

Green claims the lack of such treatment is making children suicidal. She has said patients of the main NHS clinic that treats gender-dysphoric youngsters, the Tavistock Centre in north London, have a “48 per cent suicide attempt risk”. The true rate, says the clinic, is less than 1 per cent.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/parents-anger-as-child-sex-change-charity-puts-private-emails-online-tl0g5hwcg

Do you mean people pointing out that trans people have high rates of suicide attempts?

It's a general point, not about this specific thread, and the validity of those figures is in dispute in any case.

Threatening suicide is a well known abuser tactic and one I have personally experienced. So in my personal perception it is coercive control of women. And I'll say again, you don't get to pronounce on my own experience of DV.

Exactly! This is where the whole GC debate falls apart and loses its merit.

In Your Opinion. Which I'm not hugely interested in.

Exactly! This is where the whole GC debate falls apart and loses its merit

Yep, and I find it's becoming more not just me saying it for once, others are starting to see it too.

We can't even begin to discuss these practical and legal issues if one side is not allowed to use the language necessary to articulate their position, namely that transwomen, however sincerely they wish they had been female, remain male.

Yes.

Males with a trans identity remain male whatever magic words we are made to say. I get that some people find that painful and if there were no repercussions for women and children I would be perfectly happy to go along with a polite untruth.

But there are repercussions and the law (and all the statutory code and guidance built on top of it) is made out of words. We need to be able to speak in clear language.

In Your Opinion. Which I'm not hugely interested in.

When I’m not interested in something, I don’t tend to go out of my way to comment on it. But that’s nice, dear.

Saying transwoman are not woman, is very different from refusing to use the term transwoman.

If the discussion was around not calling transwoman ‘woman’, I’d understand your position 100%.

Why are you continuing to call us men?

When I’m not interested in something, I don’t tend to go out of my way to comment on it.

You flatter yourself that my commenting on this thread in any way means that I'm interested in what you think. Dear.

have put in an awful lot of effort to confuse the conversation.

There are 3 or 4 particular posters who have a lot of form for this.

as the chaps posting

And here we go again.

Cue the posts now saying it doesn't happen or berating us for derailing the thread by complaining about being called men.

Then cue the reams of literature about coercive control and gaslighting followed by the faux wide eyed " who called you men? Chaps is just a generic term for people. I meant no offense, honest guv".

EarlyWalker, limekiwi If you want to use to terms transwomen / transmen no one is stopping you and no one wants to stop you. Not everyone wants to use the terms.

Why are you so invested in controlling other people's speech? No one is stopping you from using terms you want to use. You're free. Please have some human empathy for others.

This thread is almost hypnotic in it's repetition.

Ive heard People refer to women as

Mate, chaps, and guys

Guys especially...fucking hate that

But it seems to be being used in a very sex neutral way nowadays

My friend says ‘ladies’ and that winds me up as well...but she is lovely so i dont say anything

Civil debate please

Oh thats another funny cross post with decomposing

But yeah...sometimes posters on here get called men

Never said they didnt

But it seems to be being used in a very sex neutral way nowadays

I always used to use guys too as a sex neutral term, until it was pointed out on MN that it is defaulting to the male. But that it a whole other discussion

Im assuming that wasnt at me micheal as it was a full 4 seconds later