Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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
LimeKiwi · 18/06/2019 08:13

It's a very obvious derail.

Well, if you see other viewpoints as just a derail, no wonder the threads get so bogged down.
I mean, what?!

SuePerbly, give it up Grin I mean, you were asked to provide examples of people saying they didn't come here for debate, you did, and you still get "didn't happen!" "that can be disproved!" Confused Grin
It's just so bizarre, as I said earlier even when it's pointed out it still can't be seen or it's not there and you're imagining things.
Okey dokey then.
I

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 08:15

It's a very obvious derail. This thread is about a specific issue.

DecomposingComposers · 18/06/2019 08:16

It's also interesting to note how the posters who are making a point of saying that they won't use the term trans woman, and keep referring to males or trans indentifying man are happy to use the term transman?

How come? Why aren't you all using trans identifying female? Surely you don't want to confuse people by talking about transmen?

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 08:17

The presence of a vanishingly small amount of both sexes who can pass as the opposite sex doesn't mean that really obvious male people should colonise women's spaces.

LimeKiwi · 18/06/2019 08:18

I don't know. The issue of toilets was introduced I presume because the conversation moved on? I was commenting on their posts

There you go,it isn't a derail if you just comment on posts already there however much you think it is.

BatShite · 18/06/2019 08:18

This 'any male should be able to ise the womens because some transmen might pass' argument has been done to death tbh. If transmen pass and wish to use the mens, thats up to them. And if men don;t like it, thats their argument to have, nothing to do with feminists,. And if they want to use the womens? Well they are female after all and a hell of a lot safer in the womens than the mens.

This does not mean we give a green card to any male who wants in, just because some females look masculine. Thats insane. And the next line of argument tends to be 'who will check genitals at the door?!?!?!?!?!' which obviously wouldn't happen either. And 'what about intersex?!'..also not relevant to male people wishing to use female areas.

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 08:18

I absolutely don't use "transman". I use FTM or I would use the proscribed term.

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 08:18

Exactly Batshite.

LimeKiwi · 18/06/2019 08:19

I wondered that too Decomposers if it's solely about confusing language

DecomposingComposers · 18/06/2019 08:20

I wondered that too Decomposers if it's solely about confusing language

Well, quite.

BatShite · 18/06/2019 08:21

The presence of a vanishingly small amount of both sexes who can pass as the opposite sex doesn't mean that really obvious male people should colonise women's spaces.

Yeah you said it much better than me. Mine will possibly be deleted as the monitors are definitely busy given datuns post from earlier on disappeared. Its apparently a bad thing now, to point out that 'transgirls' tends to mean middle aged males in basques these days. And a quick search of 'transgirls' or 'girlslikeus' will show that, but take some eyebleach if you search them..

GirlDownUnder · 18/06/2019 08:21

Wow. It's really not difficult.

Point of thread - should all terms be allowed (under MN usual modding rules) yes / no

Not point of thread - what words are we allowed to use? What do these words mean? Why are you all so mean.

So again - should all terms be allowed (under MN usual modding rules) yes / no. It's a yes from me

BatShite · 18/06/2019 08:22

Also have said over and over I am not arsed using transwoman. I do just use male though, when the point needs to be clear, such as my post a few mins ago. Given it is males we are talking about, not transsexual people..as 'transwoman' covers a hell of a lot of men, all of them infact, if they say the magic words..

2BthatUnnoticed · 18/06/2019 08:26

Yes from me too.

Ereshkigal · 18/06/2019 08:27

Still a yay from me.

Original poster
happydappy2 · 18/06/2019 08:33

If a parliamentary committee can cope with hearing male bodied people described as such then why would a women and child oriented site like mumsnet continue to be cowed by the demands of anti-women activists?

I think a pp summed it up brilliantly.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 18/06/2019 08:37

Here are my positive reasons for coming to FWR and the neutral view I have of others debating points already settled in my mind. Just, y'know, for clarity!

Me: Sitting here, I've realised that I don't at all come here for debate! I come here for the feminist consciousness raising I mentioned above. I come here to converse with other feminists about feminist topics. I come here to learn things from other feminist women and to share the knowledge I have. I come here to build relationships. I come here to get informed. I've made very strong friendships here. I've collaborated with women I know from here on various feminist initiatives. I've found causes and orgs to which and to whom I'm happy to donate my spare cash since deciding that the third sector industrial complex was not to be trusted with it. I've been helped to fill out government consultations by specialists in their field... I could go on and on and Ariston.

Me: I don't care if other people debate (or have a slanging match, or or or).I mean, I suppose some people might want to spend their time debating, say, if TWAW. I don't. I don't believe they are. Some do believe they are. I don't care if they do. But I'm not interested in spending time debating it.

Another poster: Such a breath of fresh air to see regulars here finally acknowledging that they are not here for debate and that they do not welcome it.

Me: That's a disingenuous reframing of positive comments into negative. I, for example, gave a list of positive experiences that attract me to FWR. I also commented that I'm happy for others to find different attractions in this space. Many other comments along the lines of you do you - that is to say that all should be free to use FWR in the ways they prefer. This may be not having their language policed. Or to share knowledge. Or to debate with those who disagree. I neither welcome nor object to debate. It's just not what I come to FWR for. Those who do come here for it should have at it.

LangCleg · 18/06/2019 08:42

So again - should all terms be allowed (under MN usual modding rules) yes / no. It's a yes from me

Still a yay!

LimeKiwi · 18/06/2019 08:43

Here's another one

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

People were saying it
Now probably going to be told it didn't mean that at all, it means debate's very welcome Confused

JanesKettle · 18/06/2019 08:44

It's so ridiculous the way people pretend not to understand that the situation of transmen and men is different to that of transwomen and women.

Transmen are females who were socialised as females. They do not pose an increased risk to men in men's same sex spaces, especially if they are the kind of transmen who don't take hormones or haven't had surgery.

That's not the case with transwomen, who are males socialised as males. They do pose a risk an increased risk to women in women's same-sex spaces, by virtue of that maleness, especially as most are not post-op.

It's clear that the solution to one isn't the solution to the other.

BatShite · 18/06/2019 08:44

Yes lang, that was rather illuminating and a glimpse into how some read posts..very differently from how most would read them.

Someone a few pages back had an analogy spot on, something along the lines of
'I don't go to the pub to play darts. I go to have fun with my friends and have sunday lunch'
'OMG you want to ban darts, you dont want anyone to play darts, why do you hate darts?!'

Its even more ridiculous when you put it that way.

SpitefulBreasts · 18/06/2019 08:45

LimeKiwi
That's great that you've clarified that debate is very welcome here, thanks

LimeKiwi · 18/06/2019 08:46

very differently from how most would read them.

Wow, that's us told we're reading things wrong to how most (presumably you mean normal?) people would read things then, isn't it.
Just...wow. OK

SpitefulBreasts · 18/06/2019 08:46

Well said Batshite

BatShite · 18/06/2019 08:47

Actually thinking about it, even if these 3/4 posters DID say outright that they do not welcome debate, etc etc, rather than thats not what they come here for..lets assume they outright took a nodebate stance like is being claimed.

Its 3/4 people, in 2 threads spanning 2k posts. Ad this somehow proves that the fwr echochamber does not welcome debate Hmm