Women+

[JetsetJetlaggedJaded]

Having followed this board quietly for about 3 years, I have learned a lot from the wise writers here about women's rights v trans acceptance, and I would say that my views fully align with those of JKR and many on this board... so I wanted to throw out a question to gather some opinions.

Like JKR, I have a massive issue with changes to language, changing the word "women" to dehumanising and unclear things like "menstruatrors" or "cervix havers"... frankly I think it's also a bit ridiculous when we have a perfectly suitable word; women

However, the trans argument on this would be that the word "women" is not inclusive of transmen and non-binary people in these types of contexts (period products, smear tests etc)

I was pondering over this yesterday and thought about the LGBTQIA+ acronym. If it is possible to have a "+" at the end of that acronym without offending anyone, would it also be possible to write "women+" meaning that it refers to women + transmen + NB people

For my part, I would find that much more preferable than the alternative of reducing me to my reproductive organs, and felt it could be a good compromise (- could be wishful thinking in the current climate! -) but I just wondered whether anyone more intelligent than me might have any other opinions on it, or know whether it has been suggested before?

What do you think?

the trans argument on this would be that the word "women" is not inclusive of transmen and non-binary people in these types of contexts (period products, smear tests etc)

but that's not really what the TRAs care about - Damian Radcliffe didnt object to JK by declaring that "men can gave periods too". It's all about transwomen are women.

The end goal is women not being able to talk about any female only bodily functions because it upsets some men's feelings - because - you know - misogyny.

@FFSFFSFFS oh believe me I know what the TRA argument is! My twitter feed is full of it! (Heaven help me!) I don't expect to win any hearts and minds on the TRA front!

But could companies logically argue against this suggestion, bearing in mind that there's already a "+" used without drama in LGBTQIA+?

Isn't the problem with that that trans women would then be known as Men+, which isn't what the TRAs want at all.

No

Isn't the problem with that that trans women would then be known as Men+, which isn't what the TRAs want at all.

Yes, it's a nice idea but I can see it going down with them like a cup of cold sick.

@Xanthangum that's a good point

I suppose what I'm saying is that TRAs are a very small but very loud section of the population, and that most rational people don't actually believe that "transwomen are women and transmen are men".

It could be a subtle way to reclaim the notion that men and women are distinct from transmen and transwomen, while still giving a nod to inclusivity

There is no compromise though. They're not looking for accurate language.

Some men say they're women, and it doesn't matter that they're not or even if they really believe it or not - because saying that they are is an act of power. Some of them don't even want to win, they just want a fight, so even capitulation isn't enough.

(And also being clear that "transpeople exist" which is something else that we apparently need to acknowledge on a daily basis)

Trans people need to stop being ashamed to be trans. They need to own their identity.

Homosexuals didn't demand to be part of the heterosexual category to be treated with equal rights and respect in society. That is the point of Pride. They took pride in being different and distinct from the heterosexual orientation, and asked for recognition and respect and fair treatment.

Black people and other minorities don't demand to be classed as white to be treated with equal rights and respect in society. They assert that although they are not white they still deserve recognition and respect and fair treatment as human beings.

Women didn't demand to be classed as men to gain the right to vote or education. They asserted that they are a distinct category but still deserve fair treatment and opportunities as human beings.

Trans people need to ask for recognition as trans people. Not hiding behind other groups. They should be recognised as distinct from men and women - they are trans women and trans men after all. They can take pride in their own distinct identity and advocate for respect and fair treatment as human beings.

Although in the UK, what rights don't trans people have that others do? That's the question that is never answered.

@NonnyMouse1337 couldn't agree more, but it makes press releases and tweets quite verbose to say, for example "women and transmen and non-binary people who have periods". I just thought it might be a neater way of saying it, while acknowledging that there are different groups

Sadly with the way things are going, I think more and more companies are going to end up using "menstruators" because there isn't currently an alternative shorthand way to appear "inclusive"

Maybe "women and others who have periods" covers all bases?

Trans men and some non-binary women don't want to be part of the women category. Hence the Woman+ would be unappealing to them I guess, but I understand where you're coming from. Women shouldn't be erased as a category to appease a miniscule number who have issues with womanhood.

The way I see this, I am ok with certain things, like medical pamphlets, being directed to "women and people with cervixes". It's ugly and clumsy, but if the people putting together the pamphlet think the people they are trying to reach need that second description, that is fine. Or, maybe they could do two pamphlets in some cases. It's about focusing the message to the people you are looking to reach.

I guess from that perspective "+"could fit in too but I think it's not terribly clear TBH.

I think the real solution though is that people need to get a grip on gender ideology. It shouldn't be necessary to explain that pap smears are for women and people with cervixes, and transmen or transwomen should be honest enough with themselves about their biology to know how to read a medical pamphlet or box of sanitary napkins and understand whether it applies to them or not.

So you mean to include all females? So the word is still either women, or females, if they insist on equating 'woman' to gender identity.

No. I have lost all patience with this.

Interesting point, op, and similar to what I've been thinking about recently. I'm not against calling trans men exactly that and specifying them where relevant in things that are for biological female. But then obv you have nb and agender... so in theory it's a good proposition! Won't be accepted though...

No. Give an inch and they'll grab a mile.

Woman is not up for grabs. Nor for modification. Woman is complete of itself.

Woman includes all females, whether or not they menstruate/have ovaries/perform femininity or perform masculinity. Woman, like feminisim, includes "...all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who used to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with anymore. It doesn't matter who the individual women are. They all have the same vulnerability to rape, to battery, as children to incest. " Andrea Dworkin

Unfortunately it looks like you either fully submit to the demands of the trans mob or you're the enemy. As previous posters said, it's probably more to do with trans-identified men not feeling 'woman' enough and being 'triggered'. Remember the 'Adult human female' poster?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

'Yes, it's a nice idea but I can see it going down with them like a cup of cold sick.'

My thoughts too...

I don't think there will ever be a term that satisfies two binary, polar opposite sides of this argument.

The language take-over started with 'woman' but has expanded to include the words, mother and female etc. India Willoughby claims to be a 'c*s' woman now. We know about the lady-cocks of course and I've seen men claiming that their whole bodies are female, rather than just one part (it's always their dicks anyway, no man ever says, my right hand is female, or my left toe is female...)

The Green party tried non-men, which I think was worse than menustrator in a way...I only use the word transwomen when I can't call a spade a spade anyway.

Your idea comes from a good place OP but I don't think it will catch on.

Some excellent points - glad I asked! Thanks all x

What we need is for transwoman to mean 'female who is trans'. Which is what the general public think it does, anyway. (For complete clarity: Stephen Whittle would be a trans woman and Mumroe Bergdorf would be a trans man.)

No! The word Woman to mean people with ovaries, wombs and vaginas is fine because:

A) trans men and non binary people know that their sex is female so are perfectly aware that period products apply to them

B) in any large group there will always be some who don’t exactly fit the box, there are so few trans men compared to the number of women that by trying to include 0.15% of the population you end up excluding 51% of the population.

C) Where will it end?