"A woman who is trans"

[AllThisFuss]

I've been noticing this terminology creeping in. Just thought I might highlight it, so we can keep up to date with their ever-changing attempts to control language and muddy the waters. Have you seen any in the wild?

IndiaWilloughby
‪@indiawilloughby.bsky.social‬
Not a mention of the woman who’s trans, who did nothing wrong. This ruling is in direct conflict with the Gender Recognition Act. How is this happening? It is wrong on every level, and will be used to push trans people even further out of society and into danger

I'm guessing that many of the people born abroad, with a native language other than English, probably knew 'trans' as in transport or transfer - i.e. having relocated.

Thus a woman who had moved here from abroad - especially from a country where people are plainly one or the other according to their actual sex, and certainly where the authorities would never entertain the idea of asking people to answer factual questions based on contrary feelings - would have seen 'transwoman' and thought "Yes, I'm a woman who has transferred to the UK from abroad, so that must apply to me".

I don't object per se to them including the question - as they do have other questions relating to religious belief and culture/identification - but they should make it very clear and ask something like "Are you a male who prefers to be considered as a woman?" (and vice versa).

Haven't heard this one but the World at One gave us "biological trans woman", referring to the male "Rose" Henderson. Clear as the proverbial. Absolute cowards.

India doesn't even think he's trans anymore. He reckons he's a cis woman the stupid prick.

Careful, he'll get his cervix out if you rile him up enough.

A smattering of jest here i prefer to pretend that IW does not exist and get a strange twitch at the mere mention of this person.

Biological male transwomen 👍 - a BMTw

Transwomen are men, they have no place in female spaces.
Good men stay out, so bad men stand out.

😂

It’s just a different shade of the same nonsense. Nobody is trans as nobody can transition to the opposite sex. In my opinion it’s people pretending, identifying as, believing to be etc.

Even the tiny percentage of those who have gender reassignment surgery, take cross sex hormones etc, they’re medical patients who’ve had plastic surgery and are taking drugs. They still haven’t crossed over or transitioned into the opposite sex.

The sooner the word trans is dropped the better. It wrongly suggests that one sex has magically become at least a subset of the other. Men and women - the only words we need.

They've been doing this for ages. 'A woman with a trans history.' Centres the concept of 'woman' and tries to put the thing that invalidates it, 'male', in the past.

I think the question was do you identify as a gender different to your sex registered at birth then you could put yes, no, or free text into a box

I’m assuming the idea was yes= trans no= cis free text box non binary or one of the multitude other multitude of genders.

Its a really good example of having a non binary answer to a binary question causes confusion. Anyway when they ran the data they found a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities who didn’t have English as a first language had ticked yes box so it called the results into question.

The trans census question was so bad that the ONS withdrew the statistics resulting from it. What a shitshow, all thanks to everyone having to pander to people who want to dress as the opposite, or neither, sex 🙄

Following the first release of census statistics on gender identity in England and Wales, concerns were raised publicly with ONS and with us about the published estimates of the trans population. As additional census data were published, these concerns extended to the relationship between gender identity and proficiency in English.

We consider that there is sufficient evidence that the gender identity question in the census has underperformed, with some groups of people being more likely than others to misunderstand the question.

https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/osr-publishes-its-final-report-on-the-review-of-the-statistics-collected-on-gender-identity-during-the-england-and-wales-census/

@AllThisFuss I really don't understand how the question got into the final version of the census. They are professional data collectors and statisticians FGS. When there is a new question, do they not test it on focus groups? See if there are any anomalies in the results? Or do they just stick it in because some lobby group told them to?

Or do they just stick it in because some lobby group told them to?

I think we all know the answer to that... 🙄

I have been using the terms ‘trans woman’ and ‘trans man’ when in conversation. I had no problem using these terms, but I now see that they actually were not clear at all. Kudos to IW for making this known to me. Because ‘woman who is trans’ really sounds as if you’re referring to a trans man. From now on, I will be using the terms ‘biological male who identifies as female’, ‘biological female who identifies as male’ and ‘biological male/female who identifies as non binary/furry/whatever’.

So good you said it twice 😆

But yes, that at least is clearer language.

Sorry! Wish I could take it down.
Tried editing to delete but it won’t let me

If they genuinely believed that trans women and so-called "cis" women were a previously unrecognised distinct human group:

1. they wouldn't need to hide behind obfusticated language
2. they wouldn't feel this weird compulsion to change the meaning of the word "woman" in preference to coining a new name for this new and different group
3. (Same point as 2 with a different perspective) they wouldn't be so fixated on ensuring there is no word or group name for the female half of the species, because being female isn't supposed to be relevant to whether someone is a "woman" or not.

When you see this, when you ask yourself not "what's the right definition of women" but "why can't these two completely different qualities both be labelled and recognised?", you realise all the TRA rhetoric about diversity, inclusion and being ones true self is bollocks. They want to force all of us to accept trans people as the opppsite sex but still pretend our groups, spaces and conversations are still single sex so the opposite sex lives trans people fantasise about living are still available.

They want to force all of us to accept trans people as the opppsite sex but still pretend our groups, spaces and conversations are still single sex

Exactly.

And that's the sleight of hand.

I was reading about the title IX case in the US. And they kept talking about women's spaces, but whenever asked for a definition of the word woman, they said they had no such definition.

They want spaces belonging to women, but can't define what that is, as it evidently excludes them.

The thing that I will never get over, it's quite how fucking unbelievably stupid this all is.

I i have found the courage to often say “what you mean the bloke” of whatever matter comes up.

i have said the bloke called Rose as well…….

The abortion debate to see smug dishonest idiot "breeders" trying to bullshit the rightwing politicians and the public that men can get pregnant and that it was not a womans rights issue because they had to be allies to the bepenised with bodies who get pregnant.

Seethingly stupid.

This.

Except overselling isn't a concept that's ever dawned on activism. These tricks only work for you until people get wise to them. And then instead of barely noticing the words they start leaping off the page and shouting the reality. Hence politicians tiptoing coyly around the language, and achieving nothing but sounding absolute fuckwits. I read 'trans' anything and mentally substitute 'not a'. 'A women who is not a woman'. A biological not woman. Not women are not women.

Entirely over being willing to be nice about this. Be a man who identifies as something else and have a lovely time. Leave women alone ffs.

It’s making ‘woman’ the primary focus and ‘trans’ as an adjective is second place. A bit like ‘person with autism’ rather than ‘autistic person’. ie focus on the person not on the ‘condition’.

I agree it’s just another attempt at deflection/‘look over there’ in this instance though.