Staying on topic- threads in general

Doodledog

I find it incredible that someone who refuses to understand how women feel when they are told that they are no longer mothers, no longer women, can not breastfeed their babies and so on can insist that women whose husbands have stopped being the men they married may not choose a name for themselves because suddenly language matters!

It is notable that the people suffering in both scenarios are women, not transwomen, isn’t it?

There's the twisting once again no one has said women can't be called breast feeders (I did it. I actually liked it but no way would I be called that!). Just that those who don't want to be can be called chest feeders (which to me is equally as odd).

If your husband leaves you for another woman and you divorce him you are a divorcee and have to fill in all the forms as such. I wonder do these women fill in forms as widows?

It is notable that the people suffering in both scenarios are women, not transwomen, isn’t it?

Ah! That's what makes all the difference Doodledog. Natal women don't have the same feelings of grief, sadness and despair as trans women.

I doubt it because there's no provision to do so but maybe that provision should be made available for those who want it.

What about men whose wives become transmen are they Transwidowers?

trisher

Doodledog

I find it incredible that someone who refuses to understand how women feel when they are told that they are no longer mothers, no longer women, can not breastfeed their babies and so on can insist that women whose husbands have stopped being the men they married may not choose a name for themselves because suddenly language matters!

It is notable that the people suffering in both scenarios are women, not transwomen, isn’t it?

There's the twisting once again no one has said women can't be called breast feeders (I did it. I actually liked it but no way would I be called that!). Just that those who don't want to be can be called chest feeders (which to me is equally as odd).

If your husband leaves you for another woman and you divorce him you are a divorcee and have to fill in all the forms as such. I wonder do these women fill in forms as widows?

As you know, I’m not suggesting that women think breastfeeding is their primary role.. I am talking about the way in which it is ok for transpeople to change the language to include their circumstances, but when women want to do the same it is ‘a bit much’.

I wonder do these women fill in forms as widows?

They probably scour the forms, looking for the bit that says "trans widow", get offended that there's no allocation for their minority demographic, then lobby parliament to demand that the forms are torn up and redone to remove other demographics and have them in the forefront. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I dont know there are so few of them. Transitioning amongst middle aged women is very very rare. It is young women who transition. Whereas men transitioning in middle aged and therefore often when married is something which seems to happen quite a bit.

trisher

What about men whose wives become transmen are they Transwidowers?

If they choose then why not? Using your own logic they wouldn’t be excluding anyone, or taking anything away.

VioletSky you might continue to love the person and some wives do that, possibly even reclassifying themselves as lesbian.
However not all are able to do that and it may not even be wanted by the man.

** "What Is A Trans Widow?

A trans widow is a woman (usually heterosexual) whose male partner or husband believes that they have a gender identity other than “man” or who cross dresses. Often women also report having experienced that their husband or partner has autogynephilia (AGP).

​Women in this situation report feeling like their male partner has died. This is particularly the case if their partner or husband came out as trans' and decided to transition. The transformation is usually so complete that their partner is unrecognisable as the man they married, both in looks and in personality. The woman will be forbidden from calling her husband by his previous “dead name”."

www.transwidowsvoices.org/

If a man identifies as a woman or vice versa, it's acceptance without exception, no debate. If a woman whose husband decides he really has been a woman all his life identifies as a transwidow suddenly she's evil incarnate, appropriating a 'real' widow's grief.
The Tra's want to remove the spousal exit clause from the GRA which allows a woman to be divorced from her husband before he can gain a GRC. Once again the transwoman's wants are paramount and the reluctant spouse would be forced to divorce from a same sex marriage they never willingly or knowingly entered. Biological women count for less than the dogsh*t on your shoe.

Doodledog

trisher

What about men whose wives become transmen are they Transwidowers?

If they choose then why not? Using your own logic they wouldn’t be excluding anyone, or taking anything away.

No but they would be using a word which has another meaning. Their marriage hasn't ended through death. They would have to divorce. Women and men who divorce are divorcees.

So the use of words, and their meanings and how they're used, is important afterall trisher? I wish you'd make your mind up.

Brilliant post @ 23.09 Rosie51

Rosie51

If a man identifies as a woman or vice versa, it's acceptance without exception, no debate. If a woman whose husband decides he really has been a woman all his life identifies as a transwidow suddenly she's evil incarnate, appropriating a 'real' widow's grief.
The Tra's want to remove the spousal exit clause from the GRA which allows a woman to be divorced from her husband before he can gain a GRC. Once again the transwoman's wants are paramount and the reluctant spouse would be forced to divorce from a same sex marriage they never willingly or knowingly entered. Biological women count for less than the dogsh*t on your shoe.

I would apply exactly the same beliefs t a man who claimed to be a transwidower Rosie51 there is no attack on women. Nor is anyone evil incarnate. Nor do I underestimate the damage and the despair that can result from any relationship break up. But as I said there is always the hope of some sort of new relatonship and no widow or widower has that hope.

Can you please clarify, trisher? Is language and definitions important to you or not?

If someone identifies as a transwidow does that not mean that she is one? TWATW?

Am I being accused of mysogyny?

Because I thought we all agreed that that's sort of personal insult is not OK.

It's deeply hurtful.

Chewbacca

So the use of words, and their meanings and how they're used, is important afterall trisher? I wish you'd make your mind up.

Of course the use of words is important Chewbacca which is why they need to become more inclusive.

no one has said women can't be called breast feeders

I think breast-feeding mothers is the term that used to be used, but is now forbidden.

they would be using a word which has another meaning

Just like the word 'woman' now has another meaning, right?

No, VS, I don't think anyone is saying such a thing about you.

OK thank you

So if they need to be more inclusive trisher why do you struggle to allow women, who find themselves in a position beyond their control, whatever they want to call themselves?

I am not the one advocating that words need to be included or they will be abolished. I'm the one saying you can use what you wish but documents and policies need to use inclusive terms. Surely you can see that that means I believe words are important. Just because I don't subscribe to the narrow terms sometimes used doesn't mean I think words are not important. They are but they must be inclusive.

No one has "forbidden" any terms. They can be used to any one personally. They just can't be included in policies because they are not inclusive and inclusivity matters.

I despair?

They also can't be used by medical staff, going by the ones I have heard on the radio recently, talking about people with a cervix etc.