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 should absolutely have all the words back. Every last one of them.

The naked desperation to stop women naming abusive men demonstrates why.

This.

Because male socialisation is one hell of a drug, and takes a lifetime to dismantle, and under pressure, it can re-emerge as a very male-patterned anger.

But then I read brilliant bits of info like this and think oh well that's worth sticking with a repeat thread for

Coercive control and policing the words women use is absolutely abhorrent.

Coercive control and policing the words women use is absolutely abhorrent

I agree, nobody should be telling other women what they should or shouldn't be doing if that's what you mean.
We're all different and individual.

So are we agreed that women are women, and that men are men, because of biology and physical reality?

Is everyone seeing the goadiness evident on this topic's thread/s? Its horrible.

This breaks normal TGs

I agree, nobody should be telling other women what they should or shouldn't be doing

So you are anti-compelled speech ? That is good to hear.
I assume you agree that women should not be compelled to call their attackers or rapists 'she', when they are male ?

Honestly, I don't understand why everyday trans people and their supporters aren't disassociating themselves from that kind of thing in their hundreds and thousands.

I do think people can be asked to refrain from terms of abuse - I would not like to see the word trnny used, the same way I don't think others should use dke or qur or fggot or trf about others. But that's very different from compelling people to use particular terms.

Sue not sure if you’ll see this but I’m very sorry for what you experienced

I actually agree with you to an extent- we need to pick our battles.

I used to think TW were all post-operative and genuinely living as women. In fact, the term TW can now mean an actual adult male, zero surgery, zero hormones, just “I identify as a woman” and that person is in the rape centre alongside vulnerable women and even children.

If we can’t use the word “male”, how do we explain the risk to women?

I’m happy for TW to call themselves trans women, women, girls, whatever they want. But when we (not them) are talking about the need for female spaces, I don’t see how we can avoid saying the word “male” somewhere, somehow.

It’s a material reality that is our business if we’re showering and sleeping in common areas.

If trans people want to call people “cis” when discussing trans issues, that’s ok. I reject the term for myself, I find it deeply offensive (and racist actually, because it’s usually white people are trying to impose it on me using their own cultural framework).

But I would not seek to get “cis” banned from a trans forum (can you imagine!?). Because it’s a word trans people find useful. And they, like us, have a right to speak about issues that concern them.

What? Saying that that women are women, and that men are men, because of biology and physical reality?

Is that so very goady, really?

Please explain!

Is everyone seeing the goadiness evident on this topic's thread/s?

I'm posting in good faith. Pretty sure most posters are.

Its a bit disingenuous to not see the links between compelled speech and coercive control, but not everybody gets these things.

FWIW in trying to express why female spaces are needed, while also trying to respect others’ gender identity (and hence avoid an avalanche of death and rape threats), I use the world male but not man.

The rape and death threats are fewer, but they still underline why we have to fight for female spaces. I’m relatively privileged, I’ll never need a refuge (my family network is strong and big, they protected me when I needed it and would do it again).

Some women have nowhere to go. They are the ones who really need female spaces. Use whatever words you want, but don’t stop fighting for those women.

FWIW in trying to express why female spaces are needed, while also trying to respect others’ gender identity (and hence avoid an avalanche of death and rape threats), I use the world male but not man.

This is what I do.

But it still seems unacceptable.

I did not ever think I would see males with a trans identification ever claim female, but they did. So that's a compromise trashed.

Isnt denial of truth goady?

Honestly I don’t see how the word “male” can be avoided, if we’re discussing female spaces. I genuinely do not want to cause anyone distress. I realise that gender dysphoria must be hard - of course we should be compassionate.

But those who need female spaces deserve compassion too. And those women, vulnerable women, are constantly overlooked and further marginalised.

2BthatUnnoticed Thank you.

If we can’t use the word “male”, how do we explain the risk to women?

I tell my daughter that trans people are people who were born as one sex, but now want to live their lives as a member of the other sex. I also tell her that people should never feel they have to do this, just because they like the clothes, hobbies etc which are traditionally associated with the opposite sex to that which they were born into. That you can be a man who likes wearing makeup or a woman who likes fixing cars and has short hair.

But that some people don't feel that is enough and want to live in the stereotypes of the opposite sex all the time. And that's why saying things are "girls toys" or "boys toys" is silly.

She is eight and she gets it. She knows that someone can never change their biological sex, that anyone born with a penis is male. But that they can choose how to live. And some people really believe they are a member of the opposite sex and, sometimes, change the way they look to achieve this and sometimes don't.

She knows someone with a penis was born a man and still is one as far as biology goes. And that growing long hair or having false breasts doesn't make them a women. She knows it makes them a trans woman.

If an eight year old can get it, I don't see why the rest of the population would struggle once it was explained to them.

As for having to use preferred pronouns in court, that is atrocious pressure to put on a woman who has been raped. That I didn't know about. It would be obvious that when reliving trauma, one would say "he" or "his" penis, even though the rest of the time, the victim may refer to someone as a trans woman or Susan or whatever.

But on this thread, we aren't in that situation. We are discussing what words are ok to use on mumsnet threads. Which means one can object to language been censured in an emotional courtroom situation, whilst still believing that it is right to use the terms decided upon by trans people themselves on these boards.

Disagreeing that the term trans woman is harmful to women, does not mean disagreeing that some of the TRA agenda is harmful to women and children. Using someone's preferred name doesn't usually imply agreement with their behaviour. I fail to see the reason why we cannot use the same nuance here.

Anyway, it is clear that attitudes are firmly entrenched and few are willing to even attempt to understand the view of others.

Those who disagree with the OP have been called men, MRAs etc and told there is no point in them contributing as they are wasting the time of most of the posters.

Fair enough. I truly hope that works to persuade those who currently disagree with you, of the validity of the gender critical argument.

I am repelled by the shift from gender critical feminism, which is incredibly valid and important, towards clear transphobia. You can deny the latter until the cows come home, but many of the posts on the previous thread read as being overtly transphobic. If they were not meant to be, then because "language is important", it may be better to phrase things in a way which doesn't read as if there has been a shift on FWR, from being gender critical, towards a barely concealed hatred of trans people. The number of deleted posts reinforces this point.

FWIW, I really do mean it when I say that I want all our safe spaces to be protected. I also truly do hope that refusing to use the term trans woman Will not have the effect that I think it will.

to all.

• And those women, vulnerable women, are constantly overlooked and further marginalised.

Like female prisoners, many of whom (it's an astounding %) have acquired brain injuries. They too are real people, albeit ones whose needs are continually ignored.

. I also truly do hope that refusing to use the term trans woman Will not have the effect that I think it will.

What does this mean ? It sounds like an implied threat - if women are naughty, they'll get punished. Please feel free to correct me if that was not the implied meaning!

What does this mean ? It sounds like an implied threat - if women are naughty, they'll get punished. Please feel free to correct me if that was not the implied meaning!

Not remotely!

I explained on the previous thread that the risk is that by refusing to use the term trans women, there is a danger that all gender critical feminism may get written off as "nasty bigotry" by the public and even other mumsnet posters. Because once anyone is perceived as being a bigot, the validity of their other points tends to be ignored.

That has been my fear throughout this and the previous thread - that we lose validity by choosing this particular hill to die on, which comes across as being bigotry. If it isn't, why risk others having that view. I am a GC feminist and I see the bigotry in refusing to call trans women by their preferred term. If I, and others who are also GC feminists see it, then those people who aren't GC will likely also see it, and refuse to listen or engage to the very valid concerns we have.

It is a concern about losing the war by focusing on the wrong battle. I genuinely hope that I am wrong about that. Because I desperately want and have needed our safe spaces. I am shit scared of losing them. This is more than just theory for me.

But given that women's voices are dismissed most of the time anyway, I object to us giving men even more of a reason to dismiss us, by being able to cry bigotry. And refusal to use the term trans woman can be seen as bigoted.

No threat at all. Massive concern for women retaining their spaces would be more accurate!

I do think that most of us want the same thing. For women and their spaces not to be erased. I have needed those spaces too much to risk losing them by being written off as bigots. Once we are written off as that, we will never be taken seriously again. Those spaces will be gone.

Why fuel the accusations of bigotry that some of us are telling you that we see? If we see it, others will too. Then we lose.

Jesus, I desperately hope I am wrong. It's a bit too upsetting and close to home to contribute any more.

to all.

Thanks for clarifying.

But we're written off as bigots already! Regardless of what word we use. I could use the word 'transwomen' in a discussion around, say, prisons, and be told I was a bigot for questioning transwomen's womanhood.

The push for clear language arises out of boundaries already trampled. It's not the cause.

Oh, and I apologise for being rude about some poster's intelligence on the previous thread. It was rude and out of line. I am sorry.

I know you've left the thread now Sue, so please, if you read this, I'm just riffing off what you've said, rather than directing this at you. So don't feel put on the spot.

This idea, that if we just behave well, be good, and then we might get to keep our safe spaces, is just....well....I'd say I'm speechless but I'm not. I'm sad. It's a dynamic that's really familiar to me after living with a man who verbally and emotionally abused me for years. It's so conditional - if you do want I want, you might get what you want - and it so obviously displays the power disparity at work.

Women deserve the limited same-sex spaces we already have because such spaces acknowledge the reality of living in a female body in a world in which male bodied people rape, assault and murder at a higher rate than female bodied people.

They are not rewards for being good. Nasty, mean women deserve limited same-sex provision, ordinary women who are sometimes stroppy and sometimes lovely deserve it, and good as gold women deserve it.

But we're written off as bigots already! Regardless of what word we use. I could use the word 'transwomen' in a discussion around, say, prisons, and be told I was a bigot for questioning transwomen's womanhood

I know that. But we, and most other people in society, know that we aren't being bigots, even if the TRAs think so. Why would we take a stance which genuinely will be seen as bigotry by people other than TRAs? We surely don't have to give ourselves less chance of being heard, more ways for TRAs to claim victimhood, and more chance of losing the sympathy we have with wider society at present.

I don't see how "being hung for a sheep as well as a lamb" applies, if it tips a whole new raft of people towards thinking ALL gender critical feminism is bigotry.

And it comes over as bigoted to refuse to use the term trans woman. We Will always get further with wider society by seeming moderate and reasonable. It is so much harder to dismiss that. The TRAs will dismiss us no matter what. Why risk alienating potential supporters too?

Anyway, I am out. Nothing left to say and the idea of losing those spaces because of this stance is too upsetting. Take care.

Who is the whole new raft of people who will be tipped over ? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't wish to respond and that's fine.)

Every progressive I know is already on the side of 'GC feminism is bigotry'. They arrive there directly they learn that GC feminists don't literally profess faith that TWAW.

Are conservatives likely to care what terms GC feminists use ? No. The woman/man in the street....maybe? Idk. I'm not sure who the raft is.

So far as I'm concerned, so long as I affirm the right of transexual people to freedom from violence, access to housing, employment and healthcare - you know, the same human rights as other people, I'm no remotely transphobic. That doesn't change, regardless of whether I use the word 'trans woman' or 'male with a trans identity' or 'transfeminine person' or anything else.

They are not rewards for being good. Nasty, mean women deserve limited same-sex provision, ordinary women who are sometimes stroppy and sometimes lovely deserve it, and good as gold women deserve it

Sorry, I just saw what you wrote. I agree wholeheartedly with you. That would be wonderful. But we live in a world where we are oppressed and abused. Repeatedly. Where we are dismissed as being "harridans". Where if we show even a sniff of bigotry, we will lose everything. I don't like it, you don't like it. It is more than sad, it is fucking criminal.

But it is also reality.

We have to play the cards that have been dealt, despite knowing the rules are unfair, and with our ultimate aim to be not having to play the game at all, long term.

I am interested in the reality of how we get to a point where we don't have to play the game. And we do that by getting as much support from wider society as possible.

We cannot afford to alienate people who aren't already on our side. The ones that are already on our side we don't have to worry about. But saying "fuck it, who cares if they think we are bigots" will lose us support from people who can potentially help us.

It shouldn't be the case, but it is. We all know that. We don't live in an ideal world yet. That's why feminism is still needed!