Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

Follow on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3276551-Mumsnet-moderation-of-trans-rights-and-gender-critical-issues?pg=40&order=

[loveyouradvice]

to Justine Roberts for allowing us to speak freely for so long.... and for believing women's rights are important....

This is going to get more complicated over the coming months ..... we really really need your help for vibrant open and honest debate about issues that will affect every one of your Mumsnetters.... and especially their children

[BoreOfWhabylon]

I think that anyone should be able wear what they like, 'present' in whatever way they choose, and use whatever name they wish, without fear of discrimination.

But the sudden upsurge in identity politics is a whole new ball game. I have become more and more gender-critical the longer this cultish, anti-science, child-sterilising, all about the feelz, words mean what I say they mean, aggressive, self-absorbed, self-id, multi-gender nonsense goes on.

Mighty Mumsnet has been invaluable for educating me and many many others. More and more journalists, politicians and commentators are now expressing gender-critical views, which they would not have done even a few months ago. The wonderful ManFriday ladies, the Transgender Trenders and other Mumsnetters are getting the message out to the public and the public are sitting up and taking notice. People are seeing that the Emperor has no clothes.

MNHQ has taken a lot of flak for allowing discussion of these issues to take place. Probably a lot more flak than we will ever know. 'More balls than Millwall' JustineMumsnet put her neck on the line and said Mumsnet would continue to host these discussion. That brought hordes more activists to indulge in Transphobe Spotting and gleefully report back to their acolytes via Twitter, with their screenshot trophies.

We have been inundated with goady fuckers, whataboutery merchants, sea lions, blatant trolls and everything in between. I'm pretty sure that some newer posters are agents provocateurs, posting blatantly transphobic views in order to stoke the fires. I also think we have, unfortunately, attracted a few genuine transphobes.

I have no doubt that MNHQ has been overwhelmed with reports every day ever since. It is therefore not surprising that mods have not always made consistent decisions.

So thank you @JustineMumsnet, @KateMumsnet and @MNHQ for the clarification. I don't see this as capitulation to TRAs at all.

We can still say that a man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female, transwomen are biologically male, transmen are biologically female and that a man cannot become a woman, and vice versa. We can still say that autogynephilia is a thing, that a biological male - regardless of how they identified - viciously assaulted a 60 year old woman for wanting to attend a meeting.

We can still say that Ian Huntley is a child-murdering piece of scum who was, is and always will be a man.

We know that those who persistently target and report posters for saying these things will get short shrift now from MNHQ.

So thank you Mighty Mumsnet. We are winning this fight.

Ah, @Datun said it much more succinctly than I have done

They have reiterated that you can discuss biology, and science. Which includes AGP, and the fact that humans cannot change sex.

I can't see them deciding to backtrack on that in the future.

And finally, they have had weeks and weeks to sort this statement out. They have been targeted relentlessly to go large. So I see it as fairly positive, given how negative it could have been.

A few 'work arounds' although irritating will not halt the debate. And the more people who oppose the gender critical viewpoint, the quicker the trans ideology is exposed.

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

Specific words such as 'cis' or 'terf' annoy me but they don't cause me distress.

I am really freaked out by the acronym TIM being banned and later smeared as 'goady' and that if I use it 3 times I will be banned from MN. That is not free speech. That is siding, taking a judgemental position and choking free speech.

What is so offensive about saying someone identifies as trans whilst putting in the essential correct sex marker for feminist discussions about sex inequalities?

Why can't we mention genitals? It's mumsnet - my genitals bumping the genitals of someone of the opposite sex resulted in me visiting this parenting site. Genitals have political significance when you are discussing sex and sex inequality - ie feminism.

What is going on?

[MipMipMip]

We need a glossary of acceptable terms. I don't like saying that, I prefer people being able to choose their own, but it seems a reasonable compromise. And it might at least shut up some of the "you can't use that word!" tangents. Maybe.

Just wanted to wave a gin soaked temporary goodbye to thebewilderness and others who are sticking their necks out and already being targeted (judging by how Swiss cheese the last thread got). You will be missed. Hopefully not for long though.

[Macareaux]

I've been hugely supportive of and grateful to Mumsnet. I've been here 14 years in many guises.

But this is not good.

I've been deleted on the other thread for stating that certain named public figures are men. Which they are.

If I had named a group of women in the public eye - let's say Theresa May, Judi Dench and Justine Roberts for example, and said that they were women, I'm assuming that I would not be deleted.

But if I name some men and say that they are men -whoosh- the post is deleted.

The difference is that the men I named claim that they are women (well actually one of them said on R4 that he wasn't a woman). I would imagine that 80% plus of the public would agree with me.

I find this as scary as hell that we must accept and pander to these delusions. That we cannot be truthful.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories at all but even I am wondering if the Channel 4 link is playing a part.

I also wonder whether this post will go too. If it does I will be inclined to post a goady one and go for the hat trick of deletions and get thrown out. After 14 years.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

You can say those people are transwomen and that transwomen are biological males. You can say that many (most?) transwomen retain their penis and testicles. You can use the medical terms MTT and FTT (male to trans/female to trans).

[Beachcomber]

Yes, it's all good .

I'm fine with not using "TIM" for example. Now I know I can use the biologically and scientifically accurate "male trans person" instead I actually think it will make discussions much clearer.

[Macareaux]

But you can't say "Jane Smith is a man if Jane Smith believes Jane Smith is a woman, contrary to biological reality.

[Beachcomber]

But surely you can say "Jane Smith, a male trans person"?

As that would be biologically and scientifically accurate.

So that's good.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Yes indeed Beachcomber

[CrustyCob]

Pulls up a seat to listen, this is more like it. Thank you.

[TERFragetteCity]

But you can't say "Jane Smith is a man if Jane Smith believes Jane Smith is a woman, contrary to biological reality.

But how does anyone know whether Jane actually believes that or not? So if you call Jane a woman, and Jane doesn't really believe that but it just having a laugh, then you would be in breach of the regulations. Who is going to cross reference everyone's beliefs to ensure the correct judgement call is made?

[Beachcomber]

Don't know about you BoreOfWhabylon but I think it's not a bad idea to discourage people from using all these euphemistic and confusing acronyms!

"male trans person" is clear, accurate and surely cannot break the guidelines.

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

it's not a bad idea to discourage people from using all these euphemistic and confusing acronyms!

That's what MN is all about though isn't it? AIBU?

[GibbertyFlibbert]

"We can still say that a man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female, transwomen are biologically male, transmen are biologically female and that a man cannot become a woman, and vice versa."

I don't think so.

I think there is a gulf between saying that a man cannot become a woman (contradicts the Gender Recognition Act and is therefore transphobic in my view) and saying that a man who becomes a woman remains biologically male (clearly within the editorial policy even if inaccurate). I suspect neither side will be happy. GC members won't like admitting than men can become women other than biologicallly, and trans people won't like that reservation.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

I agree Beachcomber. Or just 'transwoman'/ 'transman' . There's been more than enough newspeak imo.

I've reported my looong post up above to MNHQ, to be sure I haven't broken any guidelines. If I have, I will just retweak.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Frankly, GibbertyFlibbert, having read your many, many, many, posts on other threads, I really don't care what you think and I don't intend to get into any sort of discussion with you. I have observed that this is always futile.

I think you are wrong, so let's leave it there.

[GibbertyFlibbert]

"male trans person" is clear, accurate and surely cannot break the guidelines.

In my view, if applied to a trans woman it is transphobic and in breach guidelines. I guess you could refer to a woman with male biology though. I hate it and I am sure most trans people will too, but it sadly seems to be within the guidelines.

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

I'll never refer to a male as any sort of female, girl or woman. It's the slippery slope we already slid way too far down.

[PlantsArePeopleToo]

I'm a recent name changer but I have been here for years under various nicknames. I'm not really sure what I think of all this tbh. I'm actually currently debating between simply deleting my account or posting three posts which break these new guidelines so they will be deleted and I will have my account suspended.

[PlantsArePeopleToo]

Sod it, I'm just going to say it right here.

Transwomen are men.

Bring on the first deletion.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

A few 'work arounds' although irritating will not halt the debate. And the more people who oppose the gender critical viewpoint, the quicker the trans ideology is exposed.

posted by @Datun earlier today. I agree with her.

[Ucantarguewistupid]

Worried about losing adds due to people who have changed which gender they identify with (I can't be bothered to work out what term I must use so will have to hope this is ok, it is factually true) So why don't those of us who believe that our spaces and identity and sex are under attack also organise and bombard those who advertise here. Why are we always the silent ones? Are our voices worth less than the minority who declare a change in gender identity? Why are people dictating terms and how we may speak? Any term or word can be deemed offensive. As long as terms are factually correct then any attempt to force people to stop using them is an attack on freedom of speech.

[thebewilderness]

I understand I have had a lot of comments deleted today. I do not know why. I usually use the terms transgender identified males or transgender advocates to describe the lobbyists here and elsewhere.
I rarely use acronyms because I struggle with them myself so I have sympathy for lurkers who are suddenly expected to understand that an acronym means something entirely different from what they always thought it meant.

[AngryAttackKittens]

So why don't those of us who believe that our spaces and identity and sex are under attack also organise and bombard those who advertise here.

At this point? That may be exactly what needs to happen.