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.

Chips anyone? I hear they have them with mayonnaise in Holland-delicious

Any advance on peeps

My old boss used to call us kids.

The young people I used to work with called their peers cunts in a non-sexed, non-aggressive, non-insulting way. (In Glasgow cunt is often used as a neutral term to denote people)

And just to add for 'allies', nonsense like 'it's valid to identify, as a male, as a female' is part of why my kids are struggling. You think you are heroic for being allies, the decent people, but actually you are of ZERO help to me or my kids. So don't call yourselves allies of this family with two trans IDed people in it. You'd rather waste your time cutting mothers down and tellling lies to our kids that only set them up for emotional turmoil down the track. Not kind. Not nice.

'they are male, but they are extremely uncomfortable in their male body, and wish that they had been female. That's not possible, but for some people with this condition (gender dysphoria) as adults they can make changes to their body that helps them live as more feminine people.'

That would have worked a while back, when trans meant transsexual. These days, it literally means anyone who claims the label. Hence..the issues arising recently now that trans means anyone who says they are, rather than those with dysphoria. Hell its even classed as hugely transphobic to describe transwomen/transmen in the way you just did, even though that would be the laypersons understanding of what a trans person was. Hence, the wailing to make us continue using 'transwoman/transman'..as they are massively misunderstood by any in the general public, which is the point of such confusing language.

I have them with mayonnaise here

Only some chips though

And i do like tartare sauce with my chips as well, i didnt eat fish for a long time...but i still had the sauce

Chips anyone? I hear they have them with mayonnaise in Holland-delicious

Chips, cheese and mayo is far superior...

Im sorry janes it must be so difficult

A friend of mine is going through similar

stopthisnow thank you, this has been going on since Friday evening & we are all quite tired, but you articulated the situation so well x

And peeps makes me rage. I have only had that once or twice, and that was more than enough

So.

Some posters think that 'transwoman' is a good way to refer to male people who identify as women. No one objects to this & they are welcome to crack on.

Other posters think that it is more accurate to be clear that these people are male & would prefer to use terms such as 'trans identified male'.

Nobody wants to compel anyone else's language, so everyone is cool with MN re-thinking their guidelines.

Some people think that others' language choices are problematic, but we all agree that everyone should use the language that works for them. Responsibly.

No? Am I misreading?

Then there's a separate bodge if frankly sealioning over chaps/guys/dudes & whether these are objectionable.

Back to 'some posters want to use transwoman & some prefer trans identified male' to discuss womens' rights & the impact on them of some men wanting to be included in those rights.

Is anyone arguing that EITHER of these should be banned by MN, or have I misunderstood that we are all agreed that neither should be, & normal chat TG should apply?

My main issues with the calling transwoman, men instead are as follows-

The term transwoman, by definition is factual and does not deny biological reality.

You are not talking about ‘males’ in a generic sense, but a ‘subset’ of males. When you talk about a subset of people you don’t need to address the whole group.

If someone does not understand the term, it is better to educate than change a word.

Transwoman is not a ‘woman’ prefixed with ‘trans’ any more than ‘man’ is prefixed with ‘wo’ to provide woman. They are separate things.

But most importantly, using a knowingly offensive term, that does not infringe on your rights or affect your ability to discuss your concerns is uncalled for imo.

I respect your right to say what you want but I’m entitled to not agree with it and question it as much as I see fit.

Stopthisnow brilliant post, just brilliant.

If you even set up your own free speech online forum let me know I'm in.

I respect your right to say what you want but I’m entitled to not agree with it and question it as much as I see fit.

That is completely reasonable.

My issue, as always is the huge huge umbrella of what constitutes trans. It was so much easier when it did mean transsexual. Now it means everyone from post operative transsexuals to the guy next door. Literally just the guy next door ,no changes at all. Just because he says he is a woman. With no changes or dysphoria. Just because he wants into female spaces, or to be a tit for whatever other reason. I am sure Edward Lord calls himself a 'non binary transwoman'?

I am against compelled speech and think the restritive guidelines should be removed. Though personally I will keep using transwoman for..well transsexual male people..I would like the option to refer to the pisstaker next door as a 'trans identified male', as he claims to be trans/a woman yet is clearly a pisstaker. I believe it does noone any good to lump transsexuals in with the likes of him. And forcing women to refer to all male people who claim the trans label as transwomen..is wrong.

*he is fiction, just an example.

I respect your right to say what you want but I’m entitled to not agree with it and question it as much as I see fit

You are and i although i dont agree with everything you say i do pay attention to them

And on that note im off...this book isnt going to read itself

The guy next door is fiction. Not Edward Lord, sadly.

Oh and, it does noone any good, except for predators and pisstakers. Those people it absolutely benefits and is who TRAs seem to want to help, not transsexuals.

Earlywalker I hear what you are saying. I disagree. We could go into the nuances of why disagree but that's been done to death, frankly.

I do not oppose you using whatever terms you like on this or any forum.

Are you willing to agree that I, & others, should be free to use our chosen terms, in line with those used widely in the press & general discussion?

I respect your right to say what you want but I’m entitled to not agree with it and question it as much as I see fit.

Same here Early let's just agree to disagree on the use of our chosen and preferred labels and respect each other's choice of words. Question the language, sure but don't police it.

Can we move on now? @MNHQ can you clarify your position? We've had two threads on this now, I haven't kept up with the second one today - is there an update about what can be said which respects the talk guidelines? Forgive me if this has been covered, there's a lot to catch up on on this thread.

Stopthisnow brilliant post, just brilliant.

I agree.

Let's have all the terms back.

If people don't like terms like cis and terf but they get repeated in the teeth of objection, let's have it.

If people don't like the terms men, male or tans identified male, but they get repeated, let's also hear why.

I have absolutely zero problem with all the terms being unbanned. And all the objections being repeated when they are used, and if those objections are ignored, I have ZERO problem with that either.

Let's see it.

Well let's not go mad. You only say that if they are.

I'm gawjus too. Agree that's subjective lol but I am

Are you willing to agree that I, & others, should be free to use our chosen terms, in line with those used widely in the press & general discussion?

Not sure about others but I've said yes, you do you but don't be surprised if a site deems the phrases offensive and your comment deleted, or if people deem what you're saying as offensive or intolerant.

Ok, I'm fine with being considered 'offensive or intolerant'.

I'm good with others expressing views which offend me.

The question was (actually, the question has always been): would you support MN allowing people to use the language discussed, or would you prefer existing restrictions retained?

The question mumsnet needs to ask itself is who does it benefit to ban women from naming males as men, and who does it harm?

Exactly Stopthisnow.

Earlywalker, I addressed your argument a while ago. I think the problem is your definition isn't right. You say that "transwoman is not a ‘woman’ prefixed with ‘trans’ any more than ‘man’ is prefixed with ‘wo’ to provide woman. They are separate things." But that's not how many trans people see it. In fact, most press guidelines now say that the correct term is 'trans woman' with trans being an adjective that modifies the word 'woman'. They regard themselves as women, first and foremost, who are trans. The term 'trans woman' is akin to 'black woman', or 'disabled woman', or 'fat woman'. They are literally claiming to be a sub set of women.

Also, your original dictionary definition says that trans women are 'males who believe/feel they are female' (or something like that.) Again, according to current trans theory that definition is out of date and transphobic. Rather, Stonewall, for example would say that trans women were assigned male at birth but are in fact female, because they have a female gender identity.

So I'm engaging with your argument, but it's just not persuasive because it's out of date with the current debate.