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.

We are discussing how the term transwoman can be misleading, as people think of a woman who is trans. That’s all.

It’s not raining. Yeah. The sun is shining. Yeah. A bit of fresh air for everyone.

Still a yay from me. Think there's only been one 'no' across the whole two threads?

I have asked MNHQ to comment on the thread, I don’t think anyone has the stamina for a third one

Morning all

Still a yes from me

Astonishing to see the dancing around still going on

When I said, it's good to know that debate is welcome here and thanks to LimeKiwi
I was just following your many examples of twisting other posters words.
In answer to the question in the op, yes I believe that all words should be allowed.

Please keep the threads going, @MNHQ need to stop policing women.

See, I don't think they are - I see it as not "policing women" as you say but trying to encourage civil debate and how the heck can you have that with people slinging cs, tf or tm around?

'Die c*s scum'
'Burn/punch a t**f'
'Trans identified male'

One of these things is not like the other ones.

Astonishing to see the dancing around still going on

Baffling really to see how a few posters have been so dogged-determined & committed to attempting to disrupt discussion.

Women need to be able to use clear accurate terminology to name & identify sex-based risks. This is an important part of saefguarding women, children & vulnerable adults.

Male violence impacts women & children.
There are many other areas where identification is obscured & language (as well as lobby groups) have an influence.

Women on MN & elsewhere are very well aware that #NAMALT
(not all males are like that)

The focus for women needing to discuss the impact of male violence or the men's sexual rights movement will unsurprisingly be women & children

Context is, as always, important this is the feminism & women's rights chat board on a parenting website.

It's yay from me.
I thought I would give my two pennyworth after finally finishing both threads.

We have an update on our moderation of trans rights issues over in Site Stuff.

The problem is that some people experience statements of fact as violence

Of course we are not obliged to accord with their experience

I'm not sure why HQ deleted my post. But I think I've got a fairly good idea why it was reported.

It's accuracy of language. And ongoing attempts stop women raising the issue. The entire point of the thread.

I shall repeat my post and try to remain within the guidelines I'm not aware I have broken.

Girl guides have said that they don't see a safeguarding risk allowing transgirls to share a tent with girls, because transgirls are girls. Supported in this view by the NSPCC, who, we now all realise, have statutory powers.

#transgirls is the name given to a whole swathe of male born individuals, many of whom post pornographic photos of themselves on twitter. One such individual, in women's underwear and using a dildo in their anus, filled the screen of my hairdresser's phone, whose daughter was just about to go to the girl guides.

Oh, it seems I can stay within guidelines, whilst being even more explicit.

No misgendering, no judgement, no sweeping generalisations.

My hairdresser was confronted with the reality of the dual meaning of transgirls when she googled it.

Language matters.

I said in an earlier post that I was deleted for saying that a dress cannot turn a man into a woman.
How is that not policing!!

We are forced to pretend that prominent activists who are attacking women's rights are not the males they are.

Men are angrily telling women how to speak, and MNHQ are actively helping them achieve this.
It's so wrong.

Thanks for the update MNHQ.

Yes, thanks for the update, HQ. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone, but appreciate the detail.

This thread has been incredibly useful.

So after all that... “trans identified male” remains not allowed! Ok, so back to discussing female spaces without alluding to, um, “persons that would make those spaces not female anymore.”

That’s my workaround and I’m sticking to it!

This thread has been incredibly useful.

Yes. Both threads have. Update also. I shall leave it at that.

It’s not raining. Yeah. The sun is shining. Yeah. A bit of fresh air for everyone

Here are you...its pissing down here

Still a yay from me

That was a lot of words said, just to get a 'no' from MN anyway.

I just think about our old friend Orwell: "but if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

My belief - my personal, non-professional belief - is that it is not necessary to control the language of others, unless they are directly inciting violence, and that the current and ongoing attempts to do so forms part of a mass corruption of thought, affecting women, children, teens with ROGD and dysphoric transexuals.

Still a nay from me
We actually have sunshine here, what's going on?! Been flinging it down all week so hurrah for sun

Yeah thank you MNHQ, but, I don't think FWR uses the terms handmaidens or troll to any extent that warrents you using them as examples??

Sun is shining here too Rufusthebewilderedreindeer. [smug emoji]

I had a post on this thread reported & deleted because it linked to a website which 'used the wrong pronouns'

I think the article was a statement by Natasha Chart, Board Chair of WoLF (Women's Liberation Front)
Ive asked for clarification btw since this seems an extraordinary precedent to set.

The article is an important powerful summary of the incredibly serious issues revealed by the sytemic Safeguarding failures in NSPCC & the utter failure of BBC /Guardian etc to provide accurate or balanced reporting which instead provided a platform for a few people to malign and smear women whose sole concerns are for Safeguarding children

The response by Natasha Chart provides this, she concludes:

Owen Jones thinks we at WoLF should be embarrassed over talking to conservatives at the Heritage Foundation? Nothing especially likely to happen could be more embarrassing than being represented in the political sphere by men like Owen Jones and James Makings, who apparently think it’s fine to masturbate at work, at a children’s safeguarding charity, and put it on film, then share this descriptively labeled amateur movie with the entire world.

Though if Jones is genuinely fearful of ordinary conservatives, let alone alt-right extremists, he should be so lucky as for them to think of women who have a care for child welfare, rather than himself, as representative of LGB interests. It’s disgraceful to suggest that aberrant sexual aggression and disregard for child safety is anything to do with same-sex attraction.

So it seems there is a question of priorities. My post did not include those extracts with male pronouns when referring to a prominant transwoman.

I have always respected & posted within MN guidelines & it was shared in good faith because of the content which summarised something which is a key concern of MN members. I have posted consistantly on these two threads about violence/abuse against women & children.

I wonder if those who reported did not read the full article.
I wonder how it has come to be the feelings of adults over the use of pronouns trumps risks to children's welfare.
I've wondered a lot whilst following these threads & thought a lot about patterns of control, how they manifest & how there is a need for better awareness.