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.

I appreciate the statement needs to be punchy, but I think it's even worse than that. I don't think society even does believe he is a women. The reality is more like:

"The fact that society believes playing along with a man's desire to be accepted as a woman is more important than the reality that he is not is not is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman"

I suppose the likes of the Green Party with their positions for 'non-men' aren't exactly the 'real world'.

(IIRC, They used to have paired positions, one for a man and one for a woman. I think they first changed the latter to a 'non-man' and then they went to non-woman and non-man. No idea what they're doing now.)

During the height of the trans delusion (2020-2021) there were a number of self-appointed trans health gurus and their handmaidens making tik toks and yt vids recommending that the word 'vagina' should only be used to refer to 'neovaginas' as the latter term was transphobic and alienating. Cis vaginas should be called front holes instead. So, no, not about women. It was about making men with surgically created vaginas feel happier.

It stuck with me, because as a migrant whose first language is not English, I migrated very young and am very fluent in English now, so I understand the trans-preferred terminology. However a number of my older female relatives would not. They would not understand the term front hole at all. They would also not understand the term menstruator, or uterus-haver, although they do of course understand the word woman. I remmeber thinking how racist and exclusionary trans-friendly language is to immigrant women and women whose first language is not english. Using such exclusionary language has the effect of excluding immigrant women from access to healthcare.

You say: "I don't give a toss what each refers to their own as, each to their own". This statement is a very anglocentric statement to make and you may wish to reflect on your privilege that enables you to take such a laissez faire attitude. In truth, we need consistency and universality in language, as far as possible, especially in important topics such as healthcare. Because not everyone has the same level of fluency and understanding as you do. Those who don't, like immigrant women, are already at risk of exclusion from access to healthcare. Therefore there is a need for commonly agreed upon consistency of language in healthcare provision, and not "each to their own".

In terms of language in healthcare provision, in addition to immigrant women, we should be considering those with lower levels of literacy and those with additional learning needs.

Literacy: in 2015 an OECD survey known as PIAAC (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) found that 16.4% (or 1 in 6) of adults in England, and 17.4% (or 1 in 5) adults in Northern Ireland, have literacy levels at or below Level 1, which is considered to be 'very poor literacy skills'.

Equality and equity should consider all groups, not just one.

Yes that's very true. I have both groups in my family and friendship circle.

Womb and woman would be understandable if seen on a poster urging women to get their smears done for example. Uterus-haver, menstruator, front hole? Not in the slightest.

Also, when compiling medical reports and notes, it's vital to use universally accepted language. The standard is notes that are clear, concise and can be read and absorbed by another health professional quickly in an emergency. And, of course, medically accurate terminology! So, vagine is correct. Front hole, or 'whatever term the patient wants to use', as @SuperNewMe suggested, would not be acceptable and could place a patient in danger.

Equality and equity should consider all groups, not just one.

This.

Demanding exceptionally sensitive, caring and sensitive treatment for one group by throwing out every other vulnerable group and telling them to sort themselves out and 'reframe their trauma' and other needs is not inclusion.

Which makes it very clear: this is not about any interest in the value of inclusion, equality or tolerance those words have been merely appropriated as tools for leverage and to cover up what is actually happening. Which is trying to belittle, deride, deny or bully anyone with any need that gets in the way of a male person doing exactly what they want in women's spaces, to use women. That's it. That's all.

I can't edit my post above, but by "not just one group" I meant trans / gender identified people, who currently demand the changing of language.

For the avoidance of doubt.

I was just wondering if you knew that trans men exist, and may still need smears for example - as they're the ones that may want to feel included, safe, looked after when going for a check up, they're the ones the terminology might be used for

So a group who need female health care, because they are women, who actively choose to self exclude from our category, then expect the other 99.99% of women to alter their own language to accommodate them, so they don't get upset by the fact they are actually women?

It's the same contradictory batshit as the rest of gender ideology. Wanting us to pretend they are not women whilst simultaneously demanding to be included.

If they want to pretend to be something other than a woman, and are apparently mature enough to make life altering decisions, then surely they are more than capable of asking their own personal GP or other health professionals to refer to them however they choose and leave the rest of the women alone.

When I use the words woman or women, I naturally exclude all men, because no man is ever a woman, or female.

To make it easier we could alphabetsoup your excellent phrase

Men who identifying themselves as women - MITAW

Fantastically well written 👍.

@SuperNewMe you need to read this a couple of times to get it straight in your head before commenting , it is important that you do 😉

@viques

It’s a great suggestion and would be a real test of how far Mumsnet will allow trans discussions to move on. Years ago we used the term “Trans Identifying Males” or “Trans Identifying Females” with the appropriate acronym but as per usual the identity police had a strop and posts were deleted. The term was banned after that, IIRC around the time the talk guidelines of what we can/can’t say came in.

Remember the Challenor-led proposed amendments to the Green Party constitution?

At the same Spring 18 conference Aimee #Challenor (with Molly Arthurs, NB, and Teresa Ravenshaw, trans) put forward motions to remove the word 'female' from Green Party constitution, turning mechanisms created to tackle sexism into trans promoting mechanisms

https://twitter.com/PocketHanky/status/1036605561104728064

And at same Spring 18 conference the words 'women and girls' were removed from text about female genital mutilation and changed to 'a person maybe subject to FGM', to hide the fact that this is crime that happens to women and girls because of our SEX.

https://twitter.com/Justloo79304166/status/1036607053308067841

(That's steam, I'm not misty-eyed.)

I'm not sure this is true though. I attended a talk at the weekend where the TW speaker referred to trans-women and cis-which-just-means-that-you-arent-trans-women
It was very annoying. Mind you they also claimed that gender is coercively assigned at birth.

“Gender is coercively assigned at birth” . I always thought it was sex that was arbitrarily forced on the tiny defenceless infant.

Sounds like something out of Sleeping Beauty where the Fairy Godmothers bestow their gifts of kindness, a good sense of humour, the ability to always find parking spaces ( I got that one!) , straight teeth, mathematical acuity, and finally sexual identity after a quick peep in the royal nappy. Then out from the shadows steps the Rainbow Fairy who before anyone can say a word says “But at the age of ten the baby will watch an episode of Drag Race, prick their finger on a unicorn and bravely discover their true self. So ner ner ner you Terfy bigots.”

And thenceforth the rest of the Kingdom will fall under a magical spell that means they forget that there are two sexes, and that any Prince who declares himself to be a Princess, actually IS a Princess.

Until he tries to cram his size 11s into the glass slipper that is.

A survey done in England or the UK (can't remember which but I have the link somewhere) by a charity found that roughly 40 percent of the women who were surveyed did not know if they had a cervix. A different survey done in the US found that many women didn't know where their vaginas were (they probably confused vulvas with vaginas as this is commonly done).

So I believe the lack of medical information is not just a problem with women and men who don't speak English as their first language or those with less schooling, but a far wider one. Given this, those altering the language for the sake of 'inclusion' are excluding many, many times more people than they are including (a very tiny group).

This is a consequence of some of the many misinterpretations of intersectionality and the oppression pyramid I keep seeing on feminist sites and in social media by women who self-identify as feminists. Also might be a consequence of the statistical illiteracy which I also often notice in social media (it matters when we make changes which benefit 0.5% of people if those changes hurt 50% of people vs. 0.0005%; yet many activists ignore this)

I want to use the proper words: man/men and woman/women. What else would you use? There are only two sexes and they are immutable.

UK survey -

www.jostrust.org.uk/node/666780#:~:text=Almost%20half%20of%20women%20(44.2,of%20the%20womb%20(uterus)

American survey -

metro.co.uk/2020/11/09/almost-50-of-women-dont-know-where-their-cervix-is-finds-study-13561743/

I’ll just use simple language…

1. Woman
2. Man
3. Transperson

I have never in my life been referred to as a ‘non-trans woman’ or heard anyone be called that. Where is this happening?

Cis gendered and all that hoo has yes - but never ‘non-trans woman.’ 🤷🏽‍♀️

Oh my god what next!! If trans women want to be a woman it’s a shame they can’t put up with painful fucking periods, endometriosis and to top it all menopause. They really wouldn’t want a sex change if this was the case. Sex change, what am I saying, over 90% keep their cocks. What’s all that about, really, talk about wanting it all, sick of all this shit it’s getting worse.