I refuse to use the term Trans Woman? Am I guilty of Harassment?

[eulittleb831]

I read this brilliant piece by Josephine Bartosch who properly avoided the use of the misrepresentative term "Trans Woman" in the article and instead opted for "trans-identified male" to describe a.......... male identifying as trans. In doing so is she, like myself, guilty of "harassment" for not feeding into the trans-activist narrative and refusing to refer to a man as a woman, or any form of woman which might upset "Beth/Brian/Frank" whatever his name is?

thecritic.co.uk/describing-reality-is-not-harassment/

Really? At work you don't ever have to say something like "I was in a meeting with Beth yesterday and she asked me to arrange for you and Tom to help with this project, could you check when he's available" etc. How on earth would you speak normally without including the words he and she?

If you are losing your nerve over trans-identied male, or are likely to be hauled over the coals for the word male, just go with 'trans-identified person or individual.' No-one can surely ohject to that? Well the trans identified male might, because they want to hear you say the word woman and are annoyed that you won't. But technically it's correct and accurate to say 'person' or 'individual' without being forced to use the word woman, or banned from using man/male.

I hate the term cis-woman.
Does anyone use the term 'non-cis woman'?

Maybe we should call them laaw-men?
(Living As A Woman-men)

Well obviously not because the opposite of cos is trans. We learned that in chemistry at school.

And what do chemistry terms have to do with human biology?

Using cis to include men is just a poor effort to reclassify woman to mean generic human.

So if cis is the woman without a penis non-cis is the woman with a penis.

So just call them male.

😂 that made me laugh. Must do so else I'll cry

The wait to get these cases through court is awful. It must dominate your day to day life. What an impact.

I use 'trans' - trans friend, trans colleague, trans person. That's my effort at meeting my brother's dislike of his born sex. It's kind enough to acknowledge his wish to change but whilst he's in his apprentice stage with all his birth DNA it would be cruel, I feel, to mock him with the inaccurate use of the word 'woman.
It's a mid life sexual kick thing with him, every changing room, every NHS letter, every brave and stunning. So let's not feed the trans trolls.

With the trans issue, I treat it just like I do when people have other mental health related disorders (before the hate, it's in the DS5 and needs to stay in there so people can qualify for treatment, so not me being mean).
I'll happily agree with an anorexic person that they "probably are holding more weight than they should". I also don't hide the pills or sharp objects from people who are suicidal.

It's 2025 and we have to be progressive and let anyone identify as they may like. I may not be 6'5" but if anyone challenges me, I make sure to put them in their place and call them a bigot or a nazi and if that doesn't work I phone up their HR department at work. That's the best way to stop people from having an opinion different to your own.

Whereas you only speak for your unsubstantiated majority:

Very few have a problem with it.

But they're men.

They can receive the mantle of being a true woman when they’ve experienced periods, childbirth, menopause and struggling with the likes of endometriosis, fibroids, and any other shit we have to put up with, they can fuck right off, sick of the ridiculous demands from them., and keep out of my toilets and changing rooms! 😡

Another funny as fuck ideology circle is the toilet argument.

Men are violent.
So some men need to use the womens toilet for safety.
Women cant object and ask for mixed sex provision as these men cant use a mixed sex toilet because that would be outing.
Women who still object are violent and should be removed from the womens toilet for mens safety.
Therefore women who want women only toilets should be forced to use women only toilets.

@AnSolas I'm actually rolling on the floor at that one

I don't think it can be can it?

If we're allowed to redefine words for ourselves, and pick our own descriptors then how can that possibly work long term.

Besides which, if that happens, I choose 'actual' or 'real' woman. Cis is just inaccurate as I positively rail against the gendered expectations put upon women.

If you mean non-cis as in trans (it already has its own word you really don't need to call it non-cis) then yes, that is trans women, i.e. women who were born male and may or may not still have a penis. Because thats what trans means, different than/opposite to. So opposite gender from birth is trans gender.

Cis means same, so cis gender is same gender as at birth. Calling women cis women doesn't reclassify women at all, it just means always was woman. So real woman. Biological woman. Whatever you want to call it woman. It just describes something that's always existed. Nothing new there, it's not harmful in anyway to call a woman someone who was always a woman and born a woman is it. People just object to it for some silly anti woke reason.

Cis means same, so cis gender is same gender as at birth

That requires a belief in gender ideology. My gender at birth was undetermined - my sex however was determined months previously.

Not being predatory men is irrelevant (and who can categorically say such a thing anyway?)
They’re still men.

Then women gets wiped off the lexicon as it has no meaning we dont say woman human for a reason

Redefining women is happening eg your "pregnant actual woman" has been redefined a birthing body.

The problem with that is the term is being used by US medical doctors who have concerns around maternal death rates birthing bodies death rates where a consistent factor was not seeing the woman but rather a number of medical problems with various medical solutions. So womens health becomes women and birthing bodies health.

In a similar case charity replaced mother and woman with pregnant person the father remained the father in a document about dealing the mothers death.

It’s only “non harmful” if you believe that these men have actually become women.
I don’t. So I don’t need any prefix to clarify that I was always a woman, it goes without saying.

Yes agree

You've really confused yourself there. Women is our sex. We are all the sex we were at birth, trans women included. They are still men, in the same way you are a woman.

Gender doesn't mean anything. Women are women,men are men. Nobody is ever not what they were born.

Then women gets wiped off the lexicon as it has no meaning we dont say woman human for a reason

We're agreeing - I meant that refusing to use the term trans woman can't be harassment, and if someone tells me it is, then I similarly declare it harassment to describe me as cis, as I'm not, and will use 'actual'

Also - the cis/trans definition thing - trans woman - literally means 'across from woman' ie. not a woman, ie a man. - and that doesn't even matter what your definition of woman is - if it's the normal one: 'adult, human, female' or the nebulous indefinable one. So it's stupid to say that anything that's 'across from' a woman is a woman, because that's just not what trans means.

Inconsistency and poor definitions are a built-in feature of the ideology it seems.