The Sunday Times using language that would...

[JellySaurus]

...bring the ban hammer crashing down on us here.

So clear and unambiguous that, after years of interpreting inaccurate language that is an attempt to deliberately gaslight everyone, I had to double-check that it meant what it appeared to mean. And it did.

Of course I can't quote it!

*I disagree. I think (probably deliberately) these terms are confusing.

Lots of people would think a transgender man, was a female presenting as a man.

Equally lots of people think that a transwoman is a female presenting as man.

I think to be really clear descriptors need to start with the individuals sex at birth, otherwise it is very open to interpretation and confusion. That is probably why we have special rules here about describing a person's sex.*

A few years ago 'man' Clarke referred to an adult human male, just as 'woman' clearly referred to an adult human female. There was nothing contentious about this.

The trans ideology deliberately queers language, deliberately sets out to confuse people in order to destabilise established meanings and practices.

If an English speaker thinks that 'transgender man' refers to a transman, rather than to a man who is transgender - ie an adult human male with a transgender identity - it demonstrates the success of this language-queering movement.

Clarke was meant to be clearly.

Can someone link to the Queering of Motherhood please?

@ArabellaScott

I can just about get a reading in which it’s implied that the person is identifying as male (and is therefore not, given that trans is there too).

Exactly, that's how I first read it. With a silent 'as' between 2nd and 3rd letters.

Needs a hyphen between the first and second letters (words). The first word is the descriptor (adjective?). The third word is the noun, what the person referred to is, rather than what they describe themselves as. Eg A-SM = Arsenal-Supporting Man.

@HBGKC

Can someone link to the Queering of Motherhood please?

It’s in the opening post here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4377013-queering-of-motherhood-warning

Honestly! I can't type today.

The first two words are the descriptor etc.

After Maya judgement Mumsnet should allow us to speak accurately and stop asking us to lie in order to make a tiny percentage of the population feel better about themselves.

This, 100%.

Also, this is probably the best forum on the Internet to discuss child safeguarding and organise to defend children. Surely this should not be limited by the restrictions of compelled speech?

Why do we object to the term 'trans woman'? Because it means "woman who is trans", just like black/Muslim/left-handed woman means woman who is black/Muslim/left-handed. The term woman is being colonised and appropriated. The expression used by the Times can only be considered to refer to a female with a trans identity if you accept that the term man has been colonised and appropriated.

Men with a transgender identity. Women with a transgender identity.
We definitely need to move away from TW/ TM, it lacks clarity and truth.

@Alektopteryx

Men with a transgender identity. Women with a transgender identity. We definitely need to move away from TW/ TM, it lacks clarity and truth.

Totally agree.

Although ‘with a transgender identity’ almost implies something quite formal - like they have a GRC.

‘Men who claim to be women’ works for me.

Also re ‘born male’. I’m not sure ‘born’ adds anything. If you’re born male then you are male. Unless perhaps you have a GRC and in which case you could say ‘legally (assigned as) female’ even though you are still male.

I think the word we should get rid of is transphobe.

Phobia is a fear - surely. Transphobe would mean fear of trans.
Phobias - NHS
A phobia is an overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal. Phobias are more pronounced than fears.
But transphobe is used as if you hate all trans people and anything connected with them, which is ridiculous, certainly not as if you fear them. It is a crafty use of the term by the pro trans lobby (plus a few misogynists) to stir up anger and offence and put the opposition on the defensive.

I don't hate or fear trans people - I just don't want anyone trans or anything else removing the word woman from the english language. I dont' have a phobia of trans people.

I think when using terms which are confusing, and sometimes misunderstood, it's always useful to provide definitions.

There will always be people who use terms differently (either because there isn't a complete consensus on terminology, or some are ill-informed, or trying to deliberately cause confusion). When alternative terminology exists, or words used have multiple meanings, what you say can always be misunderstood and misquoted. But providing definitions helps to minimise these problems. It may facilitate the emergence of a consensus of what terminology to use. It should also minimise the amount of misunderstanding.

Given that the Forstatter judgment granted legal protection to freedom of expression for GC beliefs, is Mumsnet opening itself to the risk of prosecution for censoring us on this board when we try to exercise our legal right?
And if so, would the moderators be well advised to follow the law and allow us to correctly sex trans people, in accordance with our protected beliefs?

@MamsellMarie

I think the word we should get rid of is transphobe.

Phobia is a fear - surely. Transphobe would mean fear of trans.
Phobias - NHS
A phobia is an overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal. Phobias are more pronounced than fears.
But transphobe is used as if you hate all trans people and anything connected with them, which is ridiculous, certainly not as if you fear them. It is a crafty use of the term by the pro trans lobby (plus a few misogynists) to stir up anger and offence and put the opposition on the defensive.

I don't hate or fear trans people - I just don't want anyone trans or anything else removing the word woman from the english language. I dont' have a phobia of trans people.

I think transphobia is a legitimate term. I think the pro trans lobby have framed transphobia as an irrational, bigoted hatred. Whereas it could equally be considered a rational fear (not necessarily a fear of all trans but a fear of the consequences of giving them rights of the sex they identify with).

I think a small minority who oppose the trans activists are motivated by hate. Most seem to be motivated by justified fears. But the framing lumps the two together, making anyone who opposes them seem hateful to many onlookers. Wouldn't it be better to try to claim the term transphobe and reframe it?

@Babdoc

Given that the Forstatter judgment granted legal protection to freedom of expression for GC beliefs, is Mumsnet opening itself to the risk of prosecution for censoring us on this board when we try to exercise our legal right? And if so, would the moderators be well advised to follow the law and allow us to correctly sex trans people, in accordance with our protected beliefs?

I'm not sure that applies to a SM platform run by a company. I think they can decide what they will and won't allow on it. Consider the big platforms such as Twitter - an American company, free speech is more protected in the US than U.K. but they can censor quite mild GC statements with impunity.

Also re ‘born male’. I’m not sure ‘born’ adds anything. If you’re born male then you are male.

Indeed, but I think that makes it as clear as is possible to those who would try to claim a woman can become 'male'. Because we know they are out there. (Or that a male can become female).

Maybe this is why everyone is going with 'uterus-haver'.

No mistake of what sex a uterus-haver is.

@MidsomerMurmurs

What would be even clearer would be a nice short phrase that clearly communicates that the person is male (anyone born male is of course always male) and, furthermore, that they identify as trans. I mean, we’re told over and over again that how people identify is the only relevant thing.

Such a phrase could even be abbreviated to an initialism comprising a set of three letters.

So we need something that makes clear the person’s sex (male), the fact that “trans” is important, and that “identifying” is also important.

Using such a phrase would indeed make it much easier to discuss these issues. If only we could use such a phrase....

I am loss-of-sex-based-rights-phobic
I am male-violence-phobic
I am loss-of-academic-freedom-phobic
I am unsafe-wards-hostels-and-prisons-phobic
I am insufficient-safeguarding-for-children-phobic
I am unfair-advantage-in-womens-sports-phobic

I am people-uncomfortable-with-gender-stereotypes-even-if-they-cope-by-being-trans-compassionate.

Feminist is more concise though.

"Trans-identifying male"?
"Trans-identifying female"?

Clear enough, surely.

Thanks @Leafstamp.