Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

The strategy of relinquishing the word "woman"

218 replies

GratedExposure · 20/10/2020 12:01

This is something I wonder about in a number of contexts (I'm not advocating it, just wondering): is anyone thinking that the best strategy here is to leave the word, and begin to label certain awards/events as "natal female" awards/events?

I know there are many arguments against this (first, why should we be having to start fighting anew for things which should never have been taken?). But at what point do we walk away and start again? The most obvious example is sport, because if there were "wom*n's" events (increasingly colonised by males) and "natal female" events, most of the strong female athletes would surely opt into the latter?

Are any organisations working towards this?

It's basically the same as the third space idea, but we'd be having to be the ones moving to a third space (wrong, but maybe better than the alternative...)...?

Is this crazy talk?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
EdgeOfACoin · 21/10/2020 08:32

The deletions have been explained.

The arguments were fine (probably).

The shortening of MiLadyRenata's name to the first 5 letters only was not. CharlieParley has explained it very well.

EvenSupposing · 21/10/2020 08:32

Is it provocative to name yourself something which is generally a term of respect for a female on a space where that is hotly debated though? No more and no less than the abbreviation surely?

EdgeOfACoin · 21/10/2020 08:33

@ErrolTheDragon

The examples Edge cites are ludicrous, and misleading. I'm sure I've seen 'transgender female' used elsewhere accurately referring to transmen.

Is this the follow-up to the failure of #nodebate? Render all language pertaining to sex muddled and useless for the purpose of communication?Hmm

Unfortunately, yes.
Cocothefirst · 21/10/2020 08:34

@EvenSupposing

Is it provocative to name yourself something which is generally a term of respect for a female on a space where that is hotly debated though? No more and no less than the abbreviation surely?
One would think so. But women's feelings don't mater.
EdgeOfACoin · 21/10/2020 08:37

@EvenSupposing

Is it provocative to name yourself something which is generally a term of respect for a female on a space where that is hotly debated though? No more and no less than the abbreviation surely?
I am worried that getting into a debate about a poster's username may lead this thread into further deletions.
EvenSupposing · 21/10/2020 09:04

Well yes Edge. But we don't have to all piously agree how not OK it was to abbreviate it either.

BasiliskStare · 21/10/2020 09:17

Well just quickly- in case does get deleted

  1. Yes - Crazy Talk- @GratedExposure
  2. not Ok to move away from the word Woman & thanks to @ErrolTheDragon - Render all language pertaining to sex muddled and useless for the purpose of communication?hmm

well thanks to many

Such is my rather straightforward opinion

Winesalot · 21/10/2020 09:40

The deletions have been explained.

Well.... some were. I did not reference anyone else in my post. Just that I wasn’t being kind and relinquishing my words. Maybe I was too strident....

Floisme · 21/10/2020 10:19

It doesn't explain them to me either.
Where are the posts by the person whose name is being discussed? (Christ I don't think I've ever written such a mangled sentence but I'm wary of using the name at all now.) I've just been through the entire thread and I can't see any posts from them.
And even if I have missed some, it wouldn't explain the deletions immediately after the op.

SaucyHorse · 21/10/2020 10:28

Unfortunately, in responding to MiladyRenata, first one, then several posters rendered the username into an abbreviated form that is easily recognised as unkind.

I didn't do that either! I didn't quote or refer to any specific person or poster.

I used the phrase 'feminine gender essence' instead of 'gender identity'. That is the only part I can think that could be considered 'controversial' (with scare quotes) as I see it sort of makes fun of that belief, but people on this site talk about religious people believing in a sky fairy all the time and I don't see those deleted.

ErrolTheDragon · 21/10/2020 10:32

@EvenSupposing

Well yes Edge. But we don't have to all piously agree how not OK it was to abbreviate it either.
I take it more as a matter of mere pragmatism than being 'pious'.

The old school MN style of using initials to refer to posters rather than abbreviations may be useful in some cases.

HPFA · 21/10/2020 10:35

It is tempting to change the word "woman" to "namow" and then watch what happens.

But it wouldn't catch on.

Floisme · 21/10/2020 10:36

Unfortunately, in responding to MiladyRenata, first one, then several posters rendered the username into an abbreviated form that is easily recognised as unkind.
I've been through this thread 3 times and also done a name search and I can't find anything posted on this thread by this person, so I don't understand how it can explain the deletions.

ErrolTheDragon · 21/10/2020 10:45

@Floisme

Unfortunately, in responding to MiladyRenata, first one, then several posters rendered the username into an abbreviated form that is easily recognised as unkind. I've been through this thread 3 times and also done a name search and I can't find anything posted on this thread by this person, so I don't understand how it can explain the deletions.
You don't have to be on a thread to report it. If MLR was being referred to then presumably cited as an example of a TW explicitly claiming, right here on FWR, to be a biological female. I hope it's not considered controversial to state that.
CharlieParley · 21/10/2020 10:52

@Floisme

Unfortunately, in responding to MiladyRenata, first one, then several posters rendered the username into an abbreviated form that is easily recognised as unkind. I've been through this thread 3 times and also done a name search and I can't find anything posted on this thread by this person, so I don't understand how it can explain the deletions.
My apologies, wrong thread! But now I am properly confused as to why these comments were deleted.
Floisme · 21/10/2020 10:56

Thanks Errol. I see what you're saying and I get that it could have been the case with some of the later deleted posts - I guess we'll never know now. However I'm pretty confident that it didn't happen on the first page. I'm careful what I say on here and I very nearly quoted one of the early posts that were deleted.

Floisme · 21/10/2020 10:59

Soz Charlie cross posted. Thanks for confirming.

I'm totally perplexed.

TheClitterati · 21/10/2020 11:03

because whatever new word we adpart the same thing will happen - rinse and repeart. Why don't the people who want to redefine "women" find a new fucking word?

The strategy of relinquishing the word "woman"
The strategy of relinquishing the word "woman"
Miriel · 21/10/2020 11:03

In response to the OP, not a good idea.

""Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man."

We already see individuals claiming not only to be women but to be female, and to have always been so. Give up one word, they'll come for the next.

goldenharvest · 21/10/2020 11:08

Heard on tv. Pregnant individual. Wfaf

CharlieParley · 21/10/2020 11:10

@Floisme

Soz Charlie cross posted. Thanks for confirming.

I'm totally perplexed.

Obviously I should have checked just to make sure before posting that at 4 in the bloody morning! I was just so confused as to why these comments were deleted, remembered seeing that happening and thought that's it, that's why.

I do see comments sometimes and think ooh, that must be for the chop, but more and more often I do not understand. I've learned a few things are not allowed even though they aren't in the rules, and have (very rarely) fallen afoul of the newer part of our special rules. But neither of those things happened here.

Gncq · 21/10/2020 11:15

I'm seriously angry about this.

The discussion about the use of the word woman is one of the most important in the entire history of women's rights. Without the word "woman", people of the sex who give birth to all of the humans on the planet, can't have rights specifically for them.

Women ourselves can't have this discussion, on a feminist chat forum without being deleted, basically told to shut up, for no apparent reason other than our stating feelings and opinions on the matter.

By who? Why?

Gncq · 21/10/2020 11:18

@MNHQ

Do you have a trigger happy intern at the delete button working for you at the moment?

What's going on?

CutToChase · 21/10/2020 11:19

What interests me in this whole debate is why a minute handful of people (TRAs) taking precedence over a huge majority of traditionally vulnerable people? That's not a rhetorical question. Who is funding this movement, what does wider society have to gain?

Original poster
GratedExposure · 21/10/2020 11:24

The responses to this thread have made me see how much stranger things are than I'd realised (and I was already shocked). Obviously I was aware that we weren't allowed to debate the TWAW mantra. But I hadn't know the extent to which the idea was now being forced that TW are "female" and "cis women" too. And to have been born so? Truly, this is the twilight zone.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread