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!

Men who identify as women is acceptable to MNHQ - they confirmed this in an email after I had a post deleted because I used the term trans identifying male.

Cis and terf are also on the banned list.

There isn't a banned list. You've used cis and TERF in your post for example.

If certain words are being used to upset or insult people, to goad / taunt / pile on, or in an aggressive derogatory way (and so on and so forth), then they'll be deleted.

But you won't get a post deleted for a calm, neutral use of a word unless it's something like a racist slur.

The guidelines are here:

That said, it’s clear that 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.

https://www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

Yes, I'm aware of the guidelines. They set this out as follows:

"That said, it’s clear that 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"

They confirmed to me that for extra clarity regarding the use of TIM or TIF: TIM or TIF focuses heavily on natal sex. They don’t wish to prevent anyone from asserting as part of their gender critical position that transwomen are born male, and as ever, there is room for mods to exercise their individual judgment. But they think trans people will feel unwelcome if users habitually use a collective term that defines them by an aspect of their identity that they have explicitly rejected, so they’ll usually delete collective terms for trans people that centre on natal sex.
However, men who identify as women is acceptable.

So - not always used in a derogatory way.

It seems to me that much of the objection to these two terms is precisely because they are so clear and unambiguous. When a third of the population (or whatever) doesn't know what a transwoman is. For some, clarity is the enemy.

Men who want people to call them women while treating them like men as women are a type of subhuman that don't deserve respect?

'Cis' and 'terf' are scattered around like confetti on a daily basis without deletion.

This actually made me LOL, the thought of this triggering someone. Then I realized it was serious; I cannot believe the times we are living in.

I'm not being "deliberately inflammatory" by refusing to use the opposition's terminology. A lot of the time the terminology is literally the point of debate. Saying I can only partake in that debate if I capitulate to the terminology is basically saying the opposition's view is valid and mine is not.

Well said.

They are odd terms to ban as there are plenty of trans people who agree with them.

It's a pushed narrative by some snivelling new age activists that trans people can't also still recognise their biological sex. I watch Buck Angel and a guy called Marcus (he goes by the tongue in cheek name of theoffensivetranny) on YouTube and not only are they happy to tell you that they are bio female, transmasculine, they are also pro jk Rowling for example.

The fact is, trans voices that do not fit the narrative of 'trans women are women' are also being drowned out in the media.

It is rather as the acronymn LGBT is now used. It does not mean 'a highly diverse group of people with homosexuality in common', it means 'a group of people politically compliant to TQ+ lobby political views', with LGBT people not of those views excluded. Some of the nastiest posts I have ever seen on FWR were those of activists directed at a person who self identified on the thread as trans and had other (mild) views that were not in keeping with the political aspirations.

I haven't used the three letter t words for a while, after a couple of posts were deleted, although I didn't get an email.

I know. It is fucking bonkers. But hey ho.

I often wonder though why the 'hurt feelings' only work one way round? I am hurt and offended by others trying to force me to use words which disagree with the evidence of my eyes and my mind. If I took part in sports I would be hurt by the unfairness of not being allowed to have female only participation. Etc etc.

Recently?

That’s disappointing if so, given that the rules say it has to be intentionally inflammatory and is based on the idea someone might be hurt by it. If not aimed at any particular person, it isn’t hurtful.

Recently.
I am a university lecturer and I was asking about parents who say their adult son is now a daughter and why they don't think this might have an impact on other people at the university.

@worstofbothworlds who were you asking?

Edited to say: as this thread is about terminology, do you mean you were asking someone about preferred terms?

My thread wasn't about preferred terms, it was about whether parents think about their adult son affecting women's lives on campus.
I'm not happy with the behaviour of some of these young people, so I said that. Maybe it was reported, maybe MN themselves thought it was inflammatory. I didn't think the way I used the terms was inflammatory, but maybe someone decided the rest of the post was.

There's no way to use "cis" in a neutral way though. You have to buy into the underlying doctrine. Unless of course, like the pp you mentioned, you are using the word in a lexicographic discussion.

Yes indeed. The requirement to use the language of the oppressors skews the conversation in their favour. It's very worrying.