Are the terms “trans identifying man” and “TIF” still banned on here?

[CraggyIslandTouristBoard]

Just that really - I had a thread pulled and a slapped wrist for using them on here a while ago, and I got referred to some MN posting guidelines so I could appropriately police my language thereafter.

I think that was pre Forstater and I mentioned the ban to a TERF friend who was surprised. So maybe it’s changed.

And I can’t now easily find the latest posting guidelines. Can anyone shed any light please? Thanks!

I don’t know whether the terms themselves are still banned. I think Mumsnet has eased up a lot.

I should imagine referring to a specific man as a trans identifying man might still be removed, especially if he’s a particularly litigious man, as some of them are.

I found the Talk guidelines by clicking on the link below the text box where you post your comments.

There's a link from that to specific sex and gender guidelines.

It said there isn't a tick box list of banned terms as people pisting in bad faith can try to circumvent that and context is important, which is encouraging.

It does say:

"...most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’. Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely. As we’ve said, context is everything – but our moderation team will most likely delete these expressions if we feel they're being used in a deliberately inflammatory way."

I tried to start a general thread with no specific people using those terms and it was pulled.

The reason that TIM and TIF are so hated, is the acronyms themselves are strangely 'gendered'. So calling a male a TIM triggers the males who don't want to be called a male name, such as Tim.

"our moderation team will most likely delete these expressions if we feel they're being used in a deliberately inflammatory way."

That doesn't sound like too-bad a rule: Any words posted in a 'deliberately inflammatory' way could reasonably be subject to deletion, so specifying the words 'trans-identified male' doesn't actually do anything extra to ban them as such.
I'm all for guidelines that keep things civil. I do sometimes feel sad and embarrassed on MN when I see people on the gender critical side being unnecessarily vitriolic or personal. I don't at all mean that we should "be kind" in the ways commonly understood by that expression. I just mean that we are all harmed by modes of discourse that rile us up into anger.
It is completely understandable when women get so angry on this topic that they express themselves in ways that are inflammatory, but it puts us on the back foot. It is poor strategy as well as being psychologically harmful for all concerned.

it is completely understandable when women get so angry on this topic that they express themselves in ways that are inflammatory, but it puts us on the back foot. It is poor strategy as well as being psychologically harmful for all concerned.

But many of us don't think that calling a man a man is inflammatory. It's certainly not psychologically harmful to me. Forcing me to compel my speech and lie on the other hand, is harmful. And the only reason to do it is to be 'kind'. But not to myself though.

But many of us don't think that calling a man a man is inflammatory.

No, of course not. But that is why I liked the MNHQ rule - that they would delete certain terms if they were being used in a deliberately inflammatory way. That rule acknowledges they can be used in a factual, non-inflammatory way.
I don't know how well the moderation actually sticks to that rule (not saying that they don't - I genuinely just don't know), but it seems like a reasonable one.

The problem is, we will call a man a man as a matter of fact and not to be deliberately inflammatory. A man who doesn't want to be called a man will find it inflammatory, report the post and therefore get it removed. Which can possibly lead to a ban for some posters. Whilst I appreciate that we can do the same with Cis, I don’t think they are comparable. One is fact and the other is a scientific word appropriated and used incorrectly. This is why I don't think the guidelines are fair. But do try to stick to them where I can without compelling my speech.

I used the -fying term a few weeks ago. My post got deleted and I got an email warning.
My post was not geared towards a specific person and it was not inflammatory. Just factual.
I've seen both -fying and -fied used since then and those posts still stand (which is good to see).
I concluded that it depends if a particular poster reports you or not.

That's partly why I like those terms. My brain reads them as Timothy and Tiffany which is nice and clear as to the sex of the person.

Indeed. They can stop us typing it but they can't stop us reading it.

It is completely understandable when women get so angry on this topic that they express themselves in ways that are inflammatory, but it puts us on the back foot.

I have to say there are a few posters on here who are absolute pillars of strength and patience in the face of ignorance and goading. It's impressive to see and serves as inspiration!

"There are some who call me... Tim!"

I am hurt and insulted by the fact that these guys call themselves by our terms. I am hurt by the fact they say they are trans feminists when their ideology is out to damage us and feminism. I am hurt if I am forced to share a hospital room with a pretender. Why don’t out hurt feelings count?

I just write this for clarity :
transwoman (man)
transwomen (men)

Maybe I should start my thread again with those terms then.

So is it ok to write
a man who thinks he is a woman?
I refuse to use transwoman or transman because it is misleading and a lot of the public don’t understand the basis of these terms

I think that's factual and neutral. Or man claiming to be a woman?
Given how many of the population are completely confused by what biology relates to a transman or transwoman, further clarification is evidently needed.
But of course I'm just a random on the internet, not an activist seeking to silence women or MNHQ trying to moderate.

I think it's Helen Joyce who coined or uses "Man who would like to be a woman" (and vice versa). It won't appease the TRAs who say they were always women, but I find it neutral and covers a range of scenarios.

Take those Spanish soldiers, for example. They have self ID'd as women purely in order to access the financial benefits and accommodation benefits mandated for women. They are completely open about the reason for their transition, and continue with the rest of their lives as before.

Surely TIM is the most accurate, most appropriate description for them? They are, they consider themselves to be, Trans Identified Males.

No man actually thinks he is a woman. They know full well they are men.

I prefer to explain it as 'man who says he is a woman'.

I’m fine with that too

Trans identified Male (or TIF) are simply factual and respectful to boot. You're recognising externally observed material reality and ALSO the desires / identification of the person in question. It's witch hunt land / 1984 Orwellian dystopia where that's not allowed.

It's bonkers they were ever banned in the first place.

Something said during the recent series of Silent Witness has stuck with me. A body being examined forensically was described as being "a male who presents as a woman". And I thought, well, if it was good enough for the BBC ...

It's a mouthful but I prefer a man who says he's a woman. It's factual and neutral.