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/

Tbf, that might explain a lot of his rampant homophobia... 🤣

I can now add the diagram.

Not only does the word ‘cis’ include people that were erroneously included in the sex category. It is also meaningless from a philosophical belief point of view. The prefix ‘cis’ involves the user actively categorising other people’s philosophical beliefs without knowing what they are.

Because it also implies that someone who is ‘cis’ actively identifies with their ‘gender identity’ as it aligns with the sex they were ‘assigned’ at birth.

Ergo, everyone according to the term believes in gender identity.

But few people believe in gender identity as a concept. So, the reality is that ‘cis’ is a grouping that has a tiny fraction of the world’s population.

‘Cis’ is not a neutral term, it is forces everyone to have a gender identity.

’Cis’ assumes everyone is a believer. Yet, there are large swathes of the population, who if you sat down and explained the concept of gender identity, reject it.

So, how meaningful is the word ‘cis’ again?

Firstly, it forces female people to be grouped with male people who were mistakenly described as female at birth.

Secondly, it actively mischaracterises people as being believers in the concept of gender identity.

But, hey apparently if you explain it in just the right way, everyone thinks it makes sense!

Accurately: it's an adjective to denote a person who isn't trans.

It isn't just that, otherwise a "trans woman" would be a biologically female human being who identifies as a man.

Absent your ideological belief, which many people do not share, @snekkes it makes zero sense.

Yep

Which is why I suspect the BBC added in a line to explain that the elected offical yelling 'NAZI' at women was not a man but a woman.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkj5j3631do

The councillor, who is a transgender man – somebody who is born female but identifies as male – declined to comment.

Source MN post
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267813-vigil-for-afghan-women-girls-disrupted-by-abuse-hurling-from-a-city-councillor?page=3&reply=142129760

With you on this one.

I think it's more confusing if people say trans identifying men. I think of that as someone identifying as a man - which is a trans man.
Trans woman much less confusing imo.

How can trans-identifying men be more confusing? It's literally the noun 'man' with the adjective 'trans-identifying'. A man is what's being described.

Trans woman suggests some kind of woman, which logically cannot be the case.

So why do you classify yourself into a mixed sex group?

Do you think that adding men assists an employer determine what rights you should be given over and above those given to men?
Eg do you think that men should be given pregnacy related protection if their sperm has fused and inplanted in or neat a uterus?

Am I guilty of Harassment?

No.

Having stood in various streets talking to random passers-by about Gender ideology and transgenderism for some years I know that still, despite everything, there are a lot of people who think a transwoman is a woman who thinks she's a man and a transman is a man who thinks he's a woman. It seems to be really difficult for a lot of people. I'm not actually sure trans-identified man helps a lot. Instead I tend to say 'a man who thinks/ says he's a woman'. It's unambiguous and anyone can understand it.

I also never type trans woman, because that's what they want: they say it means they're a woman who just happens to be trans. But transwoman is something separate, not woman.

MWCW. Man who claims he is a woman. "Transwoman" is so deceptive, and tends to trip people up. And why use a word that tries to suggest he is a 'type' of woman?

I have to admit, it did take me a bit to get my head straight remembering whether a transwoman was a man or woman who had transitioned. I've got it now though, so it tells me all I need to know. I tend to view trans people as their own category anyway. Maybe a clearer term needs to be adopted so it's obvious from the outset, but you know the trans community won't accept your descriptor.

Two reflections: just because now, after being confused for a while, you get it doesn't mean the people you're talking to about this subject will get it. Much easier to use language that someone new to the topic can understand immediately. And secondly, do I care what the trans community think of women's adoption of clear, unambiguous language to describe them? No.

I don't like using the word woman to describe any man, it really sticks in my craw. Also many people are mixed up by transwoman/man. Trans identified male/female would be clearer IMO.

I have been thinking about this. I think 'trans' is often enough. It's shortened in a friendly way like a nick name. It explains that the person is personally in conflict between their sex and their gender presentation.
I can also use friend, cousin, colleague, to identify their relationship to me.

And for people not within this relatively niche community it signals beware.

I also think most people will generally assume a trans colleague is a man.
' our trans colleague, has requested to use the woman's changing area'

Does that work most of the time?

It would work where I feel constrained in my speech and might be sanctioned for "misgendering", such as in the workplace, but I personally prefer to be clearer.

I tend to say 'man who identifies as a woman' for clarity, or if I'm talking about men and transwomen as a class, I'll say 'men (however they identify)'.

So for example, "over 70% of men who identify as women who are currently incarcerated in the UK have committed sex crimes or other violent crime."

Or "Men (however they identify) are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes than women."

More than 70 per cent of transgender prisoners are in for sex offences or violent crimes

A few years back there was often men on these boards arrogantly asking “what is a woman” and dictating how we referred to them. I used to refer to them as TIMS (trans identifying males) and was regularly deleted for it.

We should never have started calling them transwomen and we should stop doing so now. We all know why they so badly want to be referred to as women.

The more I'm reading the less I want to use the term trans w. Trans identified male is more factual.

Although "trans" itself is misleading. Or at best unhelpful. What is trans, anyway? (is he transexual, a transvestite, a Tuesday/Thursday cross dresser, AGP, confused teen, predator who likes the camouflage). And I want to spit every time I hear the word "identifies" now.

Man claiming womanhood, man who says he is a woman, that sort of thing-- of course it doesn't pin down anything either or roll off the tongue exactly but it means I haven't swallowed their jargon, their religion.

But yes, "transwomen" creates a disruption of normal, confusion and an upside down land (Queer Theory, anyone?) and that was the plan.

Since the Sc ruling has given clarity to the definition of woman, and as a consequence man, the trans-identifying community are at a bit of a loss. Men want to be women and dont’t want to identify as men but are restricted from using single sex spaces. I like the term “tran-identifying community” because it creates boundaries. Men are not any form of woman neither can they be and I would prefer not to use women as a descriptor. I like using TWAM as an Acronym. Trans wannabes?