The strategy of relinquishing the word "woman"

[GratedExposure]

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?

@EdgeOfACoin

Is it okay to use the term TRA? (Trans' Rights Activist.)

I use it to refer to anyone (trans or not) who is pushing this ideology at a cost to women. I do not classify all trans people as TRAs. My use of 'they' is a reference to TRAs.

I checked the guidelines - there is no explicit prohibition on that. The guideline re generalisation is perhaps worth pondering.

Sweeping negative generalisations about any group, including trans people and gender-critical feminists, won’t be tolerated.

Not 'generalisation', the prohibition is 'sweeping negative generalisation'

Did the deleted posts actually contain that sort of generalisation? In this discussion of language, we may well see the appropriation of 'woman' and 'female' as negative - but the people who are doing it don't. So what exactly is the complaint?

(I mean we could draw the conclusion that the mods view the appropriation of language as being an Undesirable Thing. But presumably whoever reported such posts didn't.)

How curious that such intensive reporting should happen on a day when this forum was being discussed on the BBC, thereby leading, I imagine, to a lot of new visitors. I have some further thoughts about this but I think I will keep them to myself for the time being.

So we're not allowed to use 'they' when the correct word is 'they' but we are required to use 'they' when the correct word is 'he' or 'she'?

My ironometer just broke.

I will be sure to report any sweeping negative generalisations about gender critical feminists in future. I doubt I'll have to wait long.

We are already on the edge of losing "woman" - some would say it is lost, since we talk about "trans women" (I believe the MN rules require two words?). One of Fair Play For Women's areas of focus this year has been complaining to the media any time they report "female" incorrectly. They've had a few wins but the IPSO guidelines are a problem here, as is the Equal Treatment Bench Book which tells judges etc to use the pronouns the defendant wants, and then that is usually what is reported in the media. So people could genuinely believe women are suddenly being convicted of porn offences or child abuse or whatever. We have to keep pushing and supporting this work or we will never make progress. It was brilliant to see a surge in support for Fair Play For Women yesterday after the Woman's Hour debacle.

Well I've just read a whole article on a pack that has been made for sale (charity) for women and girls to keep their tampons etc - its all around the stigma of periods and how in some parts of the world women and grs are treated terribly as a result.

But being The Indy, the only references to the words 'wome/an 'and 'girl/s' werei n direct quotes by women involved.

I believe the MN rules require two words?

I don't think they do (nor should they) because of the distinction between compound noun (seahorse) and noun-adjective pairing (brown horse).

Funnily enough, the example that springs to mind on seeing your username is one a lovely Irish boyfriend of mine came up with at the height of the Troubles: "There is no neutral language - as soon as you've referred to a particular city as Derry or Londonderry, you've picked a side."

What you say about no neutral language during the height of the Troubles, Cara, is really interesting and very pertinent I think.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Comments along the lines of 'they're doing this' - make it look like a whole group of people are being represented as doing something undesirable

I'm confused. If there is a whole group of people doing something undesirable we are not allowed to use the pronoun they to refer to that group?

Apparently we are not allowed to make generalisations nor are we allowed to talk about individuals.

@CaraDuneRedux

I believe the MN rules require two words?

I don't think they do (nor should they) because of the distinction between compound noun (seahorse) and noun-adjective pairing (brown horse).

Funnily enough, the example that springs to mind on seeing your username is one a lovely Irish boyfriend of mine came up with at the height of the Troubles: "There is no neutral language - as soon as you've referred to a particular city as Derry or Londonderry, you've picked a side."

Fraid that is so! Impossible to be neutral though there was a popular radio presenter on Radio Foyle (that’s the river there y’know) who abbreviated “Derry-stroke-Londonderry” to “Stroke City” 😊

Stroke City Brilliant.

Is there anywhere left online where Women can go to discuss their concerns, in factual words, without being censored?

Can we change thread title to 'the strategy of relinquishing the words "woman" and "they"?'

I believe the MN rules require two words?

No, they don't. 'Transwoman' is explicitly permitted.

^ Can I use the expression ‘trans woman’ or ‘transwoman’?
Yes.^

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

@Impatiens

Is there anywhere left online where Women can go to discuss their concerns, in factual words, without being censored?

Spinster is a great place. I haven't gotten on Ovarit yet but that's the spot where the former mods of r/GenderCritical and some of that community have re-congregated.

Nevertheless it's valuable to stay on Mumsnet, too, alongside those spaces.

I'll have a look at Spinster, ta Grinitch. Currently on my second suspension from twitter for so-called 'hate speech' and it's clear they're on a purge - i'm losing patience for tip-toeing around this issue, constantly self-censoring, just to stay online.

Anyway in answer to the OP - yes, it's crazy talk and would never work.

It's important to stay on Mumsnet, as this is the place that generates traffic.

No one is going to go to Spinster or Ovarit or Gender Critical saidit unless they already know about what's going on and is interested in feminism more widely. Mumsnet is targeted precisely because of the reach it has. However, I agree it is possible to speak less cryptically on those other platforms!

Oh, and while I'm here I will apologise for getting confused about the reason for the early deletions. I understand the reason was due to generalising, not nicknaming.

So we're not allowed to use 'they' when the correct word is 'they' but we are required to use 'they' when the correct word is 'he' or 'she'?

The 'they' in this context is 'the people who are doing this thing which is wholly unscientific and contrary to the interests of women

Yet it seems MNHQ read "they" and substitute "trans people" if the context is negative which seems a tad transphobic to me

Mind. Blown.

Oh, and while I'm here I will apologise for getting confused about the reason for the early deletions. I understand the reason was due to generalising, not nicknaming.

That was my fault. I'm sorry. Should have double checked before posting.

So...

Let me get this right.

The word "woman" has been taken away from women.

We are here discussing possibly using other words so we can actually have a word or words for all the people who gave birth to every human being on the planet, so laws and rights can be clearly built pertaining to them.

We are not allowed to refer to the people who took the word woman away from women as "they". We have to specify who they are? Is that better?

But there is not one specific group of people is it?

Most people would see "they" as TRAs, but it isn't just them. It's the woke crowd. It's academics. It's journalists. It's gender ideologists. It's their handmaids.
Seriously. This IS a group who have generally done a very bad thing for women.

"They" won't stop at the word woman either. You can see all over social media, that "they" (the people redefining "woman") have already redefined the word female to refer to non-female people, and a huge plethora of other offensive things not limited to claiming "PMT" symptoms in people with penises.

How can the use of the word "they", when referring to the huge varied group of people responsible for destroying the definition of the word woman, be deletable, when it's impossible to list every single person/group in every single post.

Someone, somewhere is desperate to misconstrue and take comments out of context in order to silence women.

We are already on the edge of losing "woman" - some would say it is lost,

Some would be wrong to say that. If you have a conversation with anyone about this and say things like "women's prisons are for women only" or "women's sports are for women only" absolutely no-one is confused about your meaning.

Some people say that they believe a female gender identity means someone is actually a woman, but apparently people say stuff they don't really mean.

I am sticking to saying things I do mean, it's a lot more straightforward and people do understand my meaning.

The desperation to silence women is astounding.

Over my dead body will I relinquish the word woman.

Especially as it's not about the word anyway, it's the concept that is coveted.

Hence transactivists calling themselves cis women.

(HQ, no generalisations, no naming names, no attributing The Undesirable Thing to a specific cohort).