*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*
Totally agree with all that is written here.
I DO object to the use of the term "TIM" here. I accept I am in the minority and that is fine. But I object because:
A) this is one of the only places online where GC issues can be discussed. Using the "TIM" term gives so much fuel for TRAs to be able to shout "bigot" in addition the fuelling their bile towards people they sometimes describe as "t@rfs". For whatever reason, the media is listening to these people more than GC feminists. Having GC feminism conflated with bigotry in the media, means the wider public are less likely to listen to valid points made by GC feminists.
B) As one of the few places online allowed to discuss this stuff, if the advertisers decide they agree that describing trans women as "TIM"s is bigotry, we risk losing the ability to discuss this even to the extent we are able to now.
Mumsnet is not a public service. It is a business. To expect Mumsnet to possibly take a hit on their advertising revenue, and impact their own profit margins, simply because people chose this hill to die on, is both utterly selfish to those who make a living from this site, and runs the risk of us losing the ability to discuss this stuff here at all.
C) I have yet to hear a reason which makes coherent sense, about why we cannot discuss safeguarding using the term trans women. Funnily enough, people who safeguard as part of their profession manage to do this every day as part of their jobs.
D) It is both massively offensive (which will possibly lose public sympathy), inaccurate and demeaning to define someone by what they are not as opposed to what they are. A "Trans Identifying Male" may relate to someone who identifies as "other kin" or as trans race. It is not specific enough.
"TIM"s also sounds like a person who was born a biological woman, but identifies as male. So equally as "confusing" as the term trans woman.
E) The vast majority of other organisations accept the definitions of trans woman and trans men. Going against these terms will surely create more confusion, not less.
F) Finally, this is in no way just about protecting women's spaces and rights. If it was, concerns would be regularly expressed about trans men, who may pass incredibly well, scaring natal women in public spaces. As natal women could reasonably believe that the trans man possesses a penis, if he "passes" well. Yet concerns about the impact of trans men in women's spaces is never raised.
Yes, there is the fact that trans men commit crime at the same rate as natal women, but when presented by what appears to be a natal male in a loo, women may not realise that he is a trans man, so they would experience the same fear as if a male bodied person was in there.
This is seldom mentionned. If this is REALLY about natal women being scared, why isn't it?
It strongly comes across that whilst many posters have genuinely held concerns, that there is an awful undercurrent of glee at being able to hurt those individuals who self refer as "Trans women" by ramming home the point that they are male.
It is totally unfair and out of line to make transwomen the only marginalised group unable to have their preferred terms respected, when FWR would go apeshit at oppressed women not being allowed to describe themselves how they choose - hence the furore over the term "c1s".
On the one hand, even if that term was allowed on mumsnet, posters would still renounce the description of themselves as "c1s" yet it is ok to impose YOUR preferences on another group.
That smacks of hypocrisy and bigotry. It definitely comes across as hatred of trans women, and so it is likely to lose support for GC feminism.
These threads have been the most openly transphobic I have ever seen. And I have never viewed FWR as transphobic until now. As others have said, this shark jumping has taken the scales from my eyes.
Bottom line, I don't want male bodied people in women's spaces. I don't want to lose ground because of attitudes that can be perceived as bigotry and transphobia.
And if I have to choose between following this thinly veiled hatred, and supporting trans women's right to their own terminology, then I will support the latter more. And I will not be the only one. So you will lose support because you already are. And from GC feminists at that.