Mridul Wadhwa - Male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

Chewbacca and Doodledog - I agree with everything you have written. Some people have very strange ideas about their own sex!

Are you suggesting a term for transmen as well Doodledog aren't they the ones wanting to be "chest feeders" or "people who menstruate"? Aren't they just exampkles of how language changes?

trisher I have encountered some trans people, but not recently.
I have also encountered very few people who are not white, although they are a much bigger minority in the UK than trans people are.
That's just the way it's happened to be.

GagaJo

I always thought s/he would be good for non-binary individuals. NOT trans who pick one side of the binary, but for those who exist inbetween.

So by your logic would that not be 'deeply unkind to the vast majority of people' on the principle that it would set them apart? It seems odd to give non-binary people a special name when the vast majority of people are probably non-binary.

trisher, we are not 'stuck with' anything - new words are introduced to the language all the time, and there is nothing to stop us developing them now. I don't know why a term (new or repurposed) that distinguishes between transwomen and women needs to be seen as offensive. There is a difference, and the refusal of TRAs to acknowledge it is at the root of a lot of the concerns of GCFs. It would remove the need for frankly ludicrous terms like 'chest feeders' or 'people who menstruate', which would, in itself be excellent for the trans cause's PR.

Crossed posts Gagajo but that's so true, Boats are she as well, but not transwomen!

GagaJo

Socially, we call CARS she. No one cares about that.

??? I don’t. Does that make me carphobic?

I always thought s/he would be good for non-binary individuals. NOT trans who pick one side of the binary, but for those who exist inbetween.

Galaxyyou have two terms ciswomen and natal women, both of which you apparently object to, so come up with one you find acceptable.
Gender is nothing to do with sex or even men and women. That's something I learned with "O"level French when even a chair was referred to as "she".

Socially, we call CARS she. No one cares about that.

Deeply unkind to ascribe a specific pronoun to a trans person, to the vast majority of people who also use it?

Really? I call my cat she. I could call my boy cat she and no one cares. It is a small word. And I speak as a person whose job is working with words, all day, every day. What's in a name? A rose, is a rose, is a rose. You don't stop being a she, just because a trans person is a she too.

Unfortunately Doodledog we are stuck with "he", "she" and "they" for people. I suppose you could introduce "it" but I don't think there would be much take up.

Galaxy

I think the pronouns thing is utterly.pointless to be honest and asking women to be kind nearly always results in bad outcomes for women. The reason I think that it is pointless is that those who use the pronouns requested always demonstrate that they dont see transwomen as women in a thousand other ways, it's happened on this thread. I think it is deeply unkind to say that women are not allowed a word to describe themselves that excludes men. I also think that it leads to dangerous situations for women so saying she wants to go to a female prison is very different to he wants to go to a female prison, and therefore impacts on safeguarding.

I agree with that, too, Galaxy. A separate vocabulary wouldn't solve the problem of what to do about the prison situation, but at least everyone would be clear about what people were saying, and misunderstandings would be avoided.

I also agree that be kind, when used to women (or anyone over the age of about 6), is nearly always a way of silencing us, or reinforcing female socialisation.

So let's get this straight now (this is for those misgendering MW) because you wouldn't use the pronoun "she" when you met her, although you might regard her as a woman, you wouldn't need to use a pronoun face to face, that justifies you using the pronoun "he" when you talk about her because her trans status has been revealed. And you really believe you're not transphobic???

FarNorth If I met a transwoman in real life
I might have gone with the 'be kind' idea some years ago, when trans people genuinely were a tiny minority of the population.

If they are no longer a tiny minority shouldn't you have encountered some by now?

trisher

Doodledog if you are not using "he" how can I be addressing you?

Because you followed my post, saying 'you', and I could see that there was no danger that we had cross posted because of the time lag.

It's interesting that that's the bit of my post you've picked up on though, and not the much more important question about vocabulary. Are you ignoring that, or are you going to answer?

I think the pronouns thing is utterly.pointless to be honest and asking women to be kind nearly always results in bad outcomes for women. The reason I think that it is pointless is that those who use the pronouns requested always demonstrate that they dont see transwomen as women in a thousand other ways, it's happened on this thread. I think it is deeply unkind to say that women are not allowed a word to describe themselves that excludes men. I also think that it leads to dangerous situations for women so saying she wants to go to a female prison is very different to he wants to go to a female prison, and therefore impacts on safeguarding.

'confused notions about what gender identity is'

I agree with this. I think the ideas around sex and gender are in flux now. We are in a time where these things are being redefined and when we emerge, attitudes/opinions will be different.

Young people are far more accepting of non binary identities than we are because they are growing up in a time with more possibilities.

Doodledog if you are not using "he" how can I be addressing you?

trisher

So if you had met MW in real life where she is seen as a woman you would have referred to her as "she" because when using pronouns we mostly go by appearance. By misgendering her, because her trans status has been revealed, you graphically illustrate why transpeople prefer not to tell people about it.

It's not clear whether you are addressing me there, but as my post is directly above yours, and hours passed between our posts, I am assuming so. I have referred to MW as 'she' all along, so I don't understand your point, though.

This sort of thing is why I would rather have a more nuanced vocabulary. I resent the terms 'natal women' and 'CIS', and I think that there is a difference between transwomen and women (although it is likely to be only in rare instances that this would need to be emphasised).

The stubborn insistence from some people that transwomen are women is a big part of the problem for those who disagree, so why not have women, men, transwomen and transmen? That way, everyone knows where we are, confusion can be avoided, and there would be at least a chance to arrest the rise in the safeguarding issues that FarNorth mentions.

For the majority of trans, and they don’t even have to be ‘softly spoken and very kind’, it isn’t a problem and there is no need to mention it any more than I need to walk round saying, “Hi, I’m heterosexual.”

The actions of MW ‘graphically illustrates’ that there are those who don’t mention it for deceitful purposes.
MW as an unaltered male is a man. He can call himself what he wants but it doesn’t make it true. I’m unlikely to meet him and even less likely to refer to him in the third person in his presence. In conversation people tend to say ‘you’ which is gender neutral enough even for Stonewall.

* contributes, not continues

The 'trans agenda' covers so much of our lives, although many people don't yet realise it.
Being kind to an individual seems fine, but not if it continues to people having confused notions about what gender identity is and to abandoning safeguarding of children and traumatised women - which is happening.

I might have gone with the 'be kind' idea some years ago, when trans people genuinely were a tiny minority of the population.
The situation has changed and we need to be clear about what we are saying.

If I met a transwoman in real life,I probably wouldn't be using 3rd person pronouns in their presence.
Whether they were present or not, tho, if I knew they were trans I would use they/them/their if I couldn't avoid using pronouns altogether.

It's not that I'm obsessed with stating people's sex. I'd be perfectly happy to use 'they' or some other universal pronoun for everyone. 'She' and 'he', tho, do have actual meanings.

It costs us nothing to be kind. Those little words mean so much to someone who has had a life of turmoil and take nothing away from cis people who are secure in a normative gender and sexuality.

So if you had met MW in real life where she is seen as a woman you would have referred to her as "she" because when using pronouns we mostly go by appearance. By misgendering her, because her trans status has been revealed, you graphically illustrate why transpeople prefer not to tell people about it.