Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Use of trans identified male as opposed to transwoman No2.

999 replies

happydappy2 · 16/06/2019 22:21

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 01:19

The use of the term "trans girl" makes it obvious that biologically the child is male. That's the point of the "trans" prefix.

No it doesn't.

FlyingOink · 18/06/2019 01:19

I thought that the Scouts had since rescinded this policy?
Guides, not Scouts. Wrong word

FlyingOink · 18/06/2019 01:20

It's almost as if using the wrong word confuses things

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 01:20

A female child who is transgender, is what many people think "trans girl" means. Because they aren't versed in TRA newspeak.

FlyingOink · 18/06/2019 01:22

It's almost as if a mental lumping-together of things in one's head as a result of language results in inaccuracies in output

In this case the Guides were referred to in the previous post. Where did Scouts come from? Some mental association. Do we perhaps have those associations when we use the word girl or woman?
Or is that a trope?

SuePerbly · 18/06/2019 01:28

Langcleg said "I don't come here for debate"

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly said I'm with Lang on the debate thing. I dunno if I do welcome it

Ereshkigal has told me to "give it up"

Datun · 18/06/2019 01:28

Anyway, I get the point you are making. I don't think the term "trans girl" here prevented safeguarding

My hairdresser thought transgirls at guides were girls identifying as boys.

I suggested she type #transgirls into twitter. She swiftly understood why language matters.

SuePerbly · 18/06/2019 01:29

Flying Oink those examples were for you.

I might not have agreed wirh all your long post but I thought you show lovely compassion to others.

Please do not say "that did not happen" though when I point out that posters have said they don't want or welcome debate. They have.

FlyingOink · 18/06/2019 01:33

Langcleg said "I don't come here for debate"

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly said I'm with Lang on the debate thing. I dunno if I do welcome it

Ereshkigal has told me to "give it up"

Good effort! But the below is not disproved:
Posters mentioned that they come here for discussion and chat, not a protracted battle with entrenched views. You are insinuating that posters have pulled the #nodebate card and that is disingenuous.

The "give it up" is probably the closest, if you choose to interpret one women's frustration as an advocation of censorship.

You are/were being disingenuous.

SuePerbly · 18/06/2019 01:34

Guides, not Scouts. Wrong word

No, I thought the shit had hit the fan in both organisations and that the Scouts had withdrawn their stance after the Guides did. But......try and make a point with any old thing you can....Confused

FlyingOink · 18/06/2019 01:34

when I point out that posters have said they don't want or welcome debate
That literally did not happen though

BeUpStanding · 18/06/2019 01:36

Am a few pages back but just got to this by Sue

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

In a few thousand years' time, you would have a valid point. In 2019 however this is disingenuous nonsense

FlyingOink · 18/06/2019 01:37

try and make a point with any old thing you can
Thanks, I will.
Language is important. If that had been a news report and the reference was to Scouts and not Guides then that report would be factually inaccurate.
Can you think of other scenarios in which accurate and factually correct information is important?
Can you think of other situations in which you have inadvertently associated one thing with another based on the language used?

Datun · 18/06/2019 01:39

Can you think of other situations in which you have inadvertently associated one thing with another based on the language used?

#transgirls

Seriously, her jaw hit the floor. Almost followed by her lunch.

PurpleCrowbar · 18/06/2019 01:42

There's never a straight answer.

I'd like to be able to use terms like 'trans identified male' & I think it's perfectly ok if other posters prefer to use 'transwoman'.

The OP was asking for this.

Anyone objecting to reviewing the specific FWR TG in line with this?

SuePerbly · 18/06/2019 01:59

You are/were being disingenuous In your opinion. Which you are fully entitled to have.

Funny how when evidence is provided on request it is no longer "that didn't happen" (cos obviously that isnt true), it then becomes about the quality of what was said rather than its existence. Which was what was actually denied.

You will no doubt be pleased to know that I am pissing off to bed.

Even better news, I won't be back! So that's one less poster spoiling the ambience of the echo chamber.

I have learned so much from these threads. Mostly, that some posters are so busy scrabbling to deny trans women their chosen name, that they genuinely don't realise that they come across as raging bigots, who aren't just gender critical but actively trans phobic.

That if some GC feminists come over elsewhere how they come over on here, then the aim of GC feminism is doomed to failure.

That many posters care an awful lot more about the opinion of those who already agree with them and pat them on the back, than they do about how to get the public onside with the GC aims.

That many posters place that ego massaging within the echo chamber ahead of changing things for women.

And that there are few people more disingenuous and gas lighting than those who perpetually try to accuse others of it online. I pity them. If they hate the behaviour they describe, they must hate themselves.

And that any disagreement on FWR means those disagreeing are men, TRAs, handmaidens or other lovely perjorative terms.

That the irony of some posters maintaining that those who disagree must be men as they are using "male pattern language", whilst trying to claim they are gender critical, would be hilarious if it wasn't so fucking tragic.

Mostly, that lots of posters are far more committed to obtaining the freedom to use language which marginalises, than actually protecting women.

I would say "I see you" as people on here often parrot. But it gives me no satisfaction to do so. Posters have jumped the shark so far that they simply cannot see what they have become. Sadly, a less violent mirror to the TRAs. Same level of hatred comes across. Same refusal to listen to anyone outside your own comfort zone. And the same failure to realise that the valid concerns have long been left behind, as scoring points against those who disagree matters much more.

Still, at least noone here is telling people to "die in a fire" so you have that moral high ground. Sadly, I hoped that you had a bit more than just that though. But the scales have dropped, and for most of you, it is clear that your debate increasingly mirrors that which you profess to oppose. Winner!

SuePerbly · 18/06/2019 02:00

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

Wasn't me that said that, but don't let facts get in your way..

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 02:03

Mostly, that some posters are so busy scrabbling to deny trans women their chosen name

I don't agree that males have any entitlement to be called women. It's very simple. And you can tut and scold all you like. I don't think they're terribly hard done by because people won't lie.

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 02:09

Your argument, all of it, essentially boils down to "you're sooo mean". It's not compelling. It's not all about what MTF trans people think, astounding though that concept doubtlessly is to you. I will not lie against my own interests to prop up a misogynistic ideology. And prop it up it does. You are enabling it.

TruthOnTrial · 18/06/2019 02:12

I am so grossed out and sick of being called transphobic Sue. I certainly am not, and neither are others.

You are completely wrong, and completely out of order accusing me [et al] of this.

You need to stop such continued and false accusations, its slanderous, not to mention dangerous inciteful talk in the current climate.

Not to mention beyond 'uncivil'!!!

raging bigots indeed!!

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 02:15

The TRAs would consider us raging bigots for much much less. Funny how the language is the same. So much GC.

FlyingOink · 18/06/2019 02:20

Funny how when evidence is provided on request it is no longer "that didn't happen" (cos obviously that isnt true), it then becomes about the quality of what was said rather than its existence. Which was what was actually denied.
"I don't come to the pub to play darts. I come here for the beer and conversation. Oh and the roasts on a Sunday."
You: "You want to ban darts!"
This is being disingenuous. "The quality of what was said" I presume refers to basic comprehension skills and the fact you choose to misrepresent others?

That many posters care an awful lot more about the opinion of those who already agree with them and pat them on the back, than they do about how to get the public onside with the GC aims.

That many posters place that ego massaging within the echo chamber ahead of changing things for women.

Thing is, you've failed to make the argument that using certain language will win over public opinion, and you've failed to make the argument that using a different set of words will ostracise bystanders who were wavering.
You've said that you believe these two things to be true, but you've offered no proof as to why you might be right.
You've been countered by posters who have pointed out that acquiescing means the goalposts change, and by posters who point out the man in the street doesn't understand these terms anyway. Both points directly refute yours. I am not convinced by your arguments on either point.

Night all

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 02:24

^Thing is, you've failed to make the argument that using certain language will win over public opinion, and you've failed to make the argument that using a different set of words will ostracise bystanders who were wavering.
You've said that you believe these two things to be true, but you've offered no proof as to why you might be right.^

Indeed. And a fair amount of back patting and high fiving going on with the posters Sue agrees with.

2BthatUnnoticed · 18/06/2019 02:34

I haven’t read the whole thread and am a bit bewildered by all this.

Sue I’ve taken a different view from you on some things but not been (I hope) antagonistic. I think differing perspectives are valuable.

I know you are passionate about female spaces. Can’t we agree on that, and agree to disagree on preferred terminology?

As I said I’ve been called (by TRAs) all sorts - black c*unt, fucking bitch, “stupid terf who nobody wants to rape” etc. I’ve managed to live, and I keep on engaging. I don’t try to control the terms others use about me.

But we have 2000 posts discussing whether we’re “allowed” to say the world “male”? Because it might upset the people making rape and death threats against us (and sometimes our kids)? Who call MN a cesspit and avoid it, so presumably won’t see this horrific term in use?

Datun · 18/06/2019 02:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Swipe left for the next trending thread