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.

It's really not. People are not trying to agree on a particular term. They are trying to persuade MN to allow them to use the term of their choice.

Can't be said enough times.

I was just reflecting on names some are used by both males & females.

So a hypothetical everyday (civilised) conversation about two Alex Smith's & Safeguarding might go (to use earlywalker's definition)

"I was shocked to see Alex Smith applying for the female rape counsellor's role in our organisation"

"Why, she's great I worked with her last year"

"No not that Alex Smith, she's a woman. The other Alex Smith who is a male who believes he's a woman"

OK, if all words are "allowed" again, that means cs and tf if some people like using those (I don't btw, don't like either of them).
Surely it'd just descend back into "don't call me cs" arguments?
You'd get to use tm but they'd get to use theirs that they use and call people cs etc.

I find the "preferred terminology" stuff absolutely mind blowing. I know I hate "cis" and reject it being applied to me. By that standard I should respect the terminology others request for themselves. But I find that difficult when it obscures the truth in ways that potentially put (biological) women and girls at risk of harm.

All the time we trip up over the language, we aren't concentrating on the real needs of the debate, so maybe it's all a battle strategy to distract us?

Anyway, I got to thinking that I object to MTF because Female refers to biology, and the biology doesn't change.

So if I'm Wo-man, perhaps someone who is biologically male but living with feminine stereotypes might be Fem-man?

Just my unfiltered thoughts while I grapple with the subject, please don't ban me.

Again, there are rules about civility and goadiness which are used to manage conversation on every other contentious topic on the board. To think they should not suffice on FWR is ridiculous.

"No not that Alex Smith, she's a woman. The other Alex Smith who is a male who believes he's a woman

See, why would that even be a quandary? Why the latter part of the sentence, it's really not so confusing!
I mean, you'd surely just say something like no, not Alex Smith with the blonde hair and glasses, the brunette one" or whatever.
They'd still know who you meant.

To me “cs” requires both (a) certain belief system and (b) a certain level of privilege to even apply - for thousands of baby girls killed at birth every year, “cs” privilege simply does not exist.

Male/female is a biological reality. As I said upthread, if our right to female spaces was respected I wouldn’t need to mention TW being male at all.

A friend of mine says transwo man.

Back to the practical consequences: do we want to live in a society where a rape victim is forced to lie in court and refer to her attacker as "she" even though that attacker raped her using his penis. And where, if she fails to comply she can find her attacker freed on appeal on a legal technicality, or face a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court.

Is that really the sort of society the supporters of coerced speech want to live in?

Because I find it a terrifying thought.

Not if the other person didn't know Alex Smith and therefore wouldn't understand your issue with it.

"Don't call me a cs women. I am a woman no prefix needed"*

I really don’t understand the problem

If you said cis women do A

I can’t say anything, you are not mis identifying anyone and its within the guidelines

If you say that i am a cis woman and i say please dont call me that obviously you’ll have the manners not to do it...or you are breaking talk guidelines and will be deleted in future

I think thats fair enough

And obviously the same for anyone who identifies a certain way

If a transman came on and i called her she and they confirmed thats not how they identify could i not call them she in future then i wouldn't

Or they said please dont call me a trans identified female then mumsnet would delete moving forward

It's really not. People are not trying to agree on a particular term. They are trying to persuade MN to allow them to use the term of their choice. Some people will always use transwomen. Some will use trans women. Some will use trans identifying male. Some will use male who identifies as a women etc etc

Absolutely

All the time we trip up over the language, we aren't concentrating on the real needs of the debate, so maybe it's all a battle strategy to distract us?

There are definitely some people whose strategy is to use up women's energies online
Also some people who wish to disrupt women discussing key aspects on the FWR board & MN site. Some identify as 'monitors'

Some have gone to considerable efforts to do so.

December 2018 VICe article byEve Livingstone, 'How an Online Forum for Moms Became a Toxic Hotbed of Transphobia'

(extract)
"...a trans woman who is part of a sizable trans community that monitors and discusses Mumsnet regularly. “The whole of the Feminism board was like a spectre hanging over the daily trans discourse.”
Prior points to the now partially-deleted but notorious 2016 “I Am Spartacus” thread in which a user asserted that “men cannot become women, ever. Women cannot become men, ever” and went on to misgender a number of trans men and women, including high-profile campaigners Paris Lees and Danielle Muscato. The post sparked thousands of supportive comments and is consistently referenced in up-to-date threads, with “I am Spartacus” acting as a shorthand rallying call for anti-trans feminists. Attempts have even been made to organize campaigning activity around the phrase.

“It’s a core group of a few hundred hardcore trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), a tiny percentage of overall users,” says Christine, the mother of a trans child and also part of the network that regularly monitors Mumsnet. (Christine’s name has been changed for privacy reasons.) “Yet the Feminism board is just 90 percent discussions about trans people on any given day.” (continues)
www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/a3mn9k/mumsnet-uk-mom-forum-terf-transphobia-feminism

see also explanation of the use of 'flying monkeys' (another pattern of coercive/narcissitic control pattern behaviours)

medium.com/@OwnYourReality/flying-monkeys-the-narcissists-tool-for-the-smear-campaign-798daf7a59c0

I mean, you'd surely just say something like no, not Alex Smith with the blonde hair and glasses, the brunette one" or whatever.
They'd still know who you meant.

LimeKiwi its interesting that you have missed the key point which is the context & relates to Safeguarding.

I wrote (deliberately because my focus is Safeguarding!)"

So a hypothetical everyday (civilised) conversation about two Alex Smith's & Safeguarding might go (to use earlywalker's definition)

"I was shocked to see Alex Smith applying for the female rape counsellor's role in our organisation"

That you cant see this is telling.

*I had 83

Just a few, probably muddled thoughts as I read all of these posts but find it very hard to be articulate on these issues. Those saying that the term trans woman should be used - have you seen the progression of terms over time and what that might mean for women? We used to say transsexual and transvestite, then we had transgender, next came transwoman and transman. Now we have to put a space in between: trans woman. We are beginning to see trans people using woman and man now, also female and male.

What comes next? If we concede more and more terms, will we be left with anything to define ourselves or will everything be taken away?

I agree that women must be able to use clear and accurate language, especially on these boards. This is not being “mean”. Were the suffragettes peaceful and quiet in their activism? No they weren’t and they eventually reached their goals.

If we are quiet and meek no-one will hear us. We have made huge strides in the last year and there is room for all kinds of activism if we are aiming for the same thing in the end.

Phew! I think that is the most I have ever written on FWR. Oh, and I have had over 100 PMs and I hadn’t even posted on this thread, so ner, ner .

I am discussing the exact topic the thread is about though. Which everyone else is doing.
Why a link straight after a differing viewpoint to yours going on about flying monkeys and monitors instead?
Then you say you don't do it.

What’s this “core group” of a hundred or whatever? Doesn’t this board have 175k unique visitors a month? Surely there can’t be 174,900 are monitors!

I can't remember if this aspect was on the first thread (it got so repetitive and unproductive in the end, I only skimmed) - but I think accurate language with regard to material reality also encourages men to take responsibility for the vulnerabilities of their non-conforming brethren. This, surely, would be a key feminist aim: to liberate women from having society-wide caretaking obligations imposed on them.

Sorry, just seen you've posted again so will reply to that one.

"I was shocked to see Alex Smith applying for the female rape counsellor's role in our organisation

See, you're moving the goalposts as you never said that originally.
You never mentioned safeguarding, you just said how you'd have difficulty differentiating saying "not that Alex Smith, The other Alex Smith who is a male who believes he's a woman*

I like to take posters at face value

But im getting very very suspicious

Identifying patterned behaviour again Rufus?

^See, you're moving the goalposts as you never said that originally.
You never mentioned safeguarding, you just said how you'd have difficulty differentiating saying "not that Alex Smith, The other Alex Smith who is a male who believes he's a woman*^

Yes she did. It's not her fault you fail to read things properly.

And we're back to insinuating people with differing viewpoints are male.
It's bizarre.

R0's post:

So a hypothetical everyday (civilised) conversation about two Alex Smith's & Safeguarding might go (to use earlywalker's definition)

"I was shocked to see Alex Smith applying for the female rape counsellor's role in our organisation"

"Why, she's great I worked with her last year"

"No not that Alex Smith, she's a woman. The other Alex Smith who is a male who believes he's a woman"

So a hypothetical everyday (civilised) conversation about two Alex Smith's & Safeguarding might go (to use earlywalker's definition)

OK, apologies, missed that bit.