[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I disagree, but I'll stop saying cis woman on this forum.

The thing is, whilst I think for linguistic/conversational simplicity, It think it would be useful to have a word that can be used in this distinguishing way (when discussing trans issues, specifically) HOWEVER what I do find completely disingenuous is pretending that there isn't a very good reason that women have taken against it even when used in good faith. It was used pointedly/as a slur for years. You understand this, the people doing it understand this, they MUST, given the number of words that have become slurs against them. Using a word pointedly (or knowing it has been used this way) and then insisting "you shouldn't have a problem with this word when it's not being used as a slur " is gaslight. You might as well be saying "Well, breeders is accurate for people with kids, it only means people who have offspring ".

While we are doing a sweep of language that's annoying/can be seen as offensive, please can we start saying "trans woman" instead of "transwoman" as the latter isn't correct and infers a type of othering that removes them as women.

The irony here of course is that it kind of falls under the same thing. There is no meaningful difference between "trans woman" and "transwoman" other than the inference but you can clearly see why that is a problem whilst denying that "cis" is a problem. I get a bit stuck on my answer here because it is used pointedly but it's hard to say that the "space" makes an objective difference beyond intent. But it is -- you have to accept, I'm afraid -- a perfectly legitimate opinion to believe that biologically male trans individuals are not women. You cannot legally discriminate against them for that... but as an individual opinion, yes you are allowed to believe that trans women are not women. Thought-policing is not the vibe. I'm (largely) fine with restrictions on actions and behaviour, but not opinions.

If we could also refrain from calling Imane Khelif a man that would also be great. Regardless of any test results (of which we have no actual evidence) she was born a female, raised a female and identifies as such and it would be great to respect that.

Similar to the above, I think "a man" is pointed however even if you think it's respectful to avoid saying "male" (if proven) or "potentially male" (speculative) I think it does cobble the discussion. How else would you say it if you believe that this individual may actually be biologically male?