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.

This may be picky, but I really dislike how its always termed 'trans rights'. As if..its all about trans people. Its alnost TRA framing, to make it all about 'trans' and not about what the query actually was, about using accurate language when discussing WOMENS RIGHTS. Anything about women is anti trans..I know MN don't mean it like that but, its a huge bugbear of mine how its always about trans rights when fr most women here, its about women.

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

Wait, what?

Please put that on the Site Stuff thread, R0.

Good point Bat I agree. Trans rights as a term is obfuscation. The discussion is about whether some males should be included in the sex classification of female and what consequences that has for the female class of people.

I wonder if those who reported did not read the full article.

More importantly, did the person who deleted the post read the full article?

This may be picky, but I really dislike how its always termed 'trans rights'

Its not picky.
Its about centring and framing

Feminists recognised the power of language to reflect & reinforce sexism. When I did Women's Studies / English in 1990's this was a well-developed area of theory.

For complete clarity I personally am not suggesting the latter 2 insults are ok to be used on here, a chat forum for friendly, helpful, female chat (though of course friendly men are also welcome to contribute.) those that argue we must accept the latter 2 are going slightly off topic IMHO.

And so here we see the truth again.

So me posters trying to convince everyone that all banned words should be allowed back but then in creeps the "well, no. Why do we have to accept terms that we consider insults, just because we want to use words that we think are factual (though others consider them offensive)"

It's just so so hypocritical and it was obvious that this is what you've wanted all along.

If that is what you want, then no, I don't agree and MN should not agree to reinstate only the word that you want.

Words are our way to the truths of any matter.

Openess, willingness to discuss, and drill down into what each party in a discussion is meaning with their words.

The few definitive words that make the basis of the discussion clear to enable discussion and progression.

Scientific terms, ime (and that of the scientific institutions i have been affiliated to), are never interchangeable. This is purely based on years of creating scientific definitions for scientific terms, its been 'drilled' into me.

One has to know what one is talking 'about' before one can engage.

In all honesty, it took me a while to learn these terms, and i had to continually check whether id got it right when reading said terms used in others' posts.

I do agree that its the opposite of intuitive, as ive also had to repeatedly relocate others ive been discussing it with, sometimes ending in confusion again myself! Rohypnol = cognitive dissonance.

Im not saying i know how it should be, but i am remembering the pp who inserted the person's [twitter(?)] comment, who didnt care whether they were referred to as he or she, and didnt feel offended by that.

I dont seek to offend, but i have in the past been extremely distressed as a result of someone who then claimed i was at fault, and blamed, for an instinctive reaction, that I could no more be blamed for than instintively stepping back quickly out the way of an oncoming car. It was like the driver got extremely distressed and offended i had jumped out the way, and blamed me for being scared a car at speed could harm me.

I dont know how to speak, as a result, and certainly not here.

Genuinely.

...and yes, of course clarity for safety's sake.

Also with absolute understanding of the complexity for MN around trying to best facilitate reasoned discussion.

I hadnt been aware of the vexatious reporting rule. That is a key tool to an abuser.

It is a good wake up call to everyone, that MN is under so much pressure on this issue, they have to ban terms that certain men find offensive. Even though they have clear evidence that women are confused by the forced language. In real life, I’ll be using the language I need to

How does anyone know that anybody reported anything? There was a post that was deleted within seconds of it being posted yesterday so that looked like mods were actively monitoring this thread and deleting as soon as comments were made.

Just because posts are deleted it doesn't mean they've been reported. And posts are only going to be deleted if they break guidelines so even if someone does report it's ultimately MN who decide to delete the posts.

How can the act of reporting be abusive?

so even if someone does report it's ultimately MN who decide to delete the posts

Exactly, I didn't report for what it's worth but even if someone did, it\s MN who decides whether it stays or goes.

Oh ffs. Yes, if we could have normal non violence inciting, accurate language, without slurs like terf, then yes.

But if the price of accurately identifying a man is accepting that they can call us a slur, they we will have to fucking have it. And let everyone watch.

If you dont want that, ask why.

Yes, they're banning ones that women find offensive too so that's good surely

I think there's been a disproportionate aount of focus on 'banned words' rather than on what 'civilised reasoned debate/discussion means.

There's a great many patterns being demonstrated which are the antithesis of being 'civilised'

civilized
/ˈsɪvəlʌɪzd/

adjective
1.
at an advanced stage of social and cultural development.
"a civilized society"
synonyms: enlightened, educated, advanced, developed, cultured
"a civilized society"

polite and well-mannered.

That was to happy's post not datuns

The actual thread is ABOUT banned words and whether they should be allowed though, so it's not surprising they're getting spoken about

*I think there's been a disproportionate aount of focus on 'banned words' rather than on what 'civilised reasoned debate/discussion means."

Was that not the very point of the 2 threads - to talk about banned words?

Cross post with lime there

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.

Thank you JanesKettle

Deliberate misreading just means I have to copy and paste what was actually said, and I suppose the tactic is to fill the thread up with that until.it reaches the post limit. To reiterate, the issue isn't about whether someone feels uncomfortable or not, it's about safety. I didn't derail by mentioning toilets, I haven't been in a rape crisis centre or a homeless shelter so I can't comment on them. Also as other pointed out, very few transmen pass, and as yet other posters pointed out, if they choose to use the gents toilet, that really isn't our problem at all.
Shame MNHQ took the view they did, but as other mention, there are workarounds.

Very interesting to see that insults are being conflated with biological descriptors.

Things that have been covered on these threads

• why are you talking about abusive behaviour?
• FWR is an echo chamber
• appeals to authority - are they OK
• LOOK AT MY CERTIFICATES (the apex point of the thread for me

I think we might have gone beyond sticking rigidly to the points raised in the OP

How can the act of reporting be abusive?

Surprised you are not aware of that abusive behaviour

April 2018 Times article:

'Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts: Transgender activists try to curb free speech on site'

(extract)
The founder of Mumsnet says transgender “thought police” are pressurising advertisers to withdraw from Britain’s most popular parenting website because it allows the discussion of trans topics.

Justine Roberts said she had been approached by three significant advertisers who had been threatened by trans groups.

“Transgender activists have contacted Mumsnet advertisers and said they will be organising a boycott of their products if they don’t remove their advertising from Mumsnet,” Roberts said.

The website had told the advertisers that it *“works hard to keep the discussions civil” and was determined to let them continue."

“What’s worrying to me is the thought-police action around speech and the shutting down of the right to be able to disagree and immediately labelling it as transphobic,” Roberts said.*

The threats are the latest move in a campaign by transgender activists to inhibit discussion of potential legal changes that would allow people born male to self-identify as women.

Feminists say the plans threaten women’s rights and protected spaces. Trans activists say that to oppose them is bigotry. They have pressurised dozens of venues into cancelling meetings on the subject. (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mumsnet-founder-justine-roberts-transgender-activists-try-to-curb-free-speech-on-site-z3sr3nf6q?shareToken=b2eb62822dd26aecc0f88653978ed23a

It's just so so hypocritical and it was obvious that this is what you've wanted all along.

You as in the one poster that said that, or is this going to be mad out to be the voice of 'the echo chamber' or 'FWR' or whatever?