Hey! We're just "non-trans women" now"!

[HootyMcBooby76]

So I've seen a quite a few numbers of social media videos now, where the increasing trend in the ideology is to describe women (the original type) as "non-trans women".

So, not women.
Not even "biological women".
Not even the revolting "cis" women.

We are now "non-trans women".

Talk about linguistic gymnastics!

SO...trans women are actually women, but WE are "non-trans" women.

Ok, gotcha.

Women are now defined by what they are NOT (ie, men).

My two girls are at an age where they are applying for their first jobs for a bit of extra cash while they study. The remarkable array of choices now that exist for the old "sex" category (instead of the traditional and REALISTIC two) are astounding. I think I counted seven on one form.

I'm not sure how I feel about my new status as a "non-trans|" woman?
Oh actually I do.
Fuck right off.

In theory it's none of my business how adherents of this new religion that's taken hold in the last few years refer to me behind my back, just like it's none of their business what pronouns I use when talking about them. But we've seen how quickly distorted language like this invades our institutions and becomes mainstream. So no thank you. Desist. I reject being defined in this way.

No adjective is needed for actual women, since the noun will do just fine.

Adjectives are only needed to differentiate between things or people of the same kind.

So 'transgender women' and 'non-transgender women' would be needed if the two groups were the same, if transwomen were women. But they aren't.

As you clearly object, what other adjective would you like to use to refer to people who are not transgender?

Women.
Men.

These are nouns. Try again!

Try again. These are nouns.

So do we have then...
Non Trans Girls schools
non Trans womens toilets
non trans womens pants

FFS

Dadjoke, why do the ACTUAL women in your scenario have to be the ones to add extra unnecessary crap to their descriptors? As the minority, the trans women should be the ones needing the additional clarification. They can be the non-woman.
That ok with you?

Hey so-called "ladies", if you object to being described as notmen, it's your own fault for not submitting to being called a subset of your sex. There has to be some way we can label legal womanhood as prior to biological womanhood.

There are people who are transgender, and people who aren’t transgender. I hope you are with me at this point.

So why do you not accept there are transgender people and non-transgender people?

This means exactly the same as my first sentence.

“Transgender” is an adjective which can be used to modify “man” or “woman” (or, tragically, “boy” or “girl”) for individuals who wish to try to appear to be the sex other than their natal sex. Men and women who were born male or female, respectively, do not require an adjective.

Hence, we have “men” and “transmen” (ie women who wish to look like men) and we have “women” and “transwomen” (ie men who wish to look like women).

Notmen - not an adjective. Suggesting a person is not transgender has no bearing on their sex or their beliefs.

@DadJoke

These are nouns. Try again!*
*
Why do you need to use anything other than the nouns? You have women and transwomen which adequately describes the different groups. And men and transmen. What more do you need?

Yeah, except they are specifically referring to us as non trans women, not non trans people.
It's implying by default that they are more womanly than real women, and trans is the default position.
Try again.

Conversely, non-transgender applies to people who don’t fit your criteria to be transgender. Why on earth is that problematic?

Just out of interest, has anyone heard men referred to as "not-trans men"?
Or is this solely reserved for women? (Sorry - the women that are of the non-transwomen variety, to clarify, if it wasn't already fucking obvious )
🧐

Dadjoke

If we're talking about the category "women", and wishing to describe them from the point of view of what they are not (which I'm sure is appropriate sometimes) it could go as follows:

Non athletic women
Non short women
Non blonde women

That works because "athletic women" are women, "short women" are women, etc.

"Trans women" is not a phrase I'd usually use because for me a "trans woman" is a woman described as being trans, better known as a transman or (so as not to exclude anyone) various non binary identities.

So you'd have to say "non transwomen", which as pointed out by another poster, works better to differentiate males who aren't trans. After all it's usually pretty obvious which women aren't transwomen but it's not always obvious with men.

You'd want me to say "non trans woman". But "trans woman" with the space implies the term woman as gender, not sex. Many women don't have a woman gender, so they're not "non trans women" . So all that's happened is you've found another way of saying "cis". I'm sure the privileged few who define themselves thus will be thrilled to find another way to virtue signal their allyship.

Exactly. We are discussing the description "non trans women".

Which starts from a basis of saying that "trans women" and "non trans women" are two kinds of women.

They are not.Trans women are not a kind of women, they are a kind of men.

Saying you are not transgender does not remotely imply you are less of a woman, whatever that means.

Oh, sweet Christ 🤦🏼‍♀️

But IT DOES imply that trans is the DEFAULT.

Thinking about it, when "woman" is used by TRAs as shorthand for "woman gender ID", is "woman" still actually a noun?

Isn't "gender" the noun there and "woman" describes which type of gender? Like lots of the other apparent genders - xeno, cat, etc.

Google tells me nouns can become adjectives (race car is the example given).

Let's see how it hits when men are rebranded non trans men.

“Woman” has a definition: adult human female.

Someone who wishes to live as a woman (whatever that means) but who is
not an adult human female should use a modifying adjective to describe himself. Women who are adult human females (and therefore meet the definition of “woman”) do not need modifying adjectives.

Why on earth is that problematic?

How about 'real' or 'actual'?

No. In the same way as women being referred to as non men by the Green Party and men not being referred to in the same way as non women. In the same way as lesbians being referred to as 'non men attracted to non men' but there being no change to the definition for gay men to make it 'non women attracted to non women' www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/johns-hopkins-pulls-lesbian-definition-uproar-use-non-men-instead-wome-rcna89307

Men, however they identity, are always the default.

In the same way, women are referred to as 'those who have a cervix' by national screening programmes but men are referred to as...men. NHS pages were changed to use 'more inclusive language' and it was pages to do with women's health which were changed. Pages to do with men's health are only now starting to be changed, because women asked questions.