Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Transgenderism: the MNHQ position

389 replies

SarahMumsnet · 17/11/2015 11:12

Morning, everyone.

Given the number of threads about transgenderism on MN over recent weeks – and the fact that these threads tend to be strongly polarized – we thought it might be useful for us to come on and reiterate/clarify our position.

First and foremost, we’d like to remind everyone that Mumsnet is a site built on the values of tolerance, supportiveness and respect. We’re sure you’re all aware of our Talk guidelines by now, but for anyone new, do have a look: the key points in terms of transgenderism are, firstly, that we aim to keep intervention to a minimum and let the conversation flow, but that secondly, we will delete posts that we consider to be transphobic.

The obvious question, and one that’s been the subject of debate and a large number of reports over the last week, is what exactly we, as a site, consider to be transphobic. We’ve posted on this in the past – you can read the full post here, but in summary, we think it’s paramount to consider context, so rather than coming up with a “Mumsnet” definition of exactly what does and what doesn’t count as transphobia in our book, we think it’s sensible to ask users to adhere to principles of mutual respect and courtesy.

We think by and large this works well, but over recent weeks, some of you have been unhappy with the way in which we’ve dealt with the question of pronouns. Generally we delete posts in which people persistently refuse to refer to people by the pronoun (he/she; him/her) by which they’ve asked to be referred, out of respect for that individual’s wishes. Again, this isn’t something we’ve been rigid about; there are many instances (for example, on a recent thread about Jack Monroe) where we’ve felt that given the context/recency of the individual’s transition, deletion wasn’t appropriate - but broadly we tend to take the view that folk should refer to people by the name and pronoun those people choose.

There has been a question raised about whether or not we would delete the term “cis” when applied to posters on threads, on the grounds that some posters feel that being identified as a “ciswoman” rather than a woman is just as offensive as being addressed by the “wrong” pronoun.

We can see where these posters are coming from, so are of a mind to use the same rule of thumb when it comes to the term “cis” as we do for pronouns - i.e. we won’t necessarily delete every use of it, but if it’s applied pointedly to a poster who doesn’t identify as a ciswoman, we would delete that.

Transgenderism is a complex issue and one which has really only been discussed widely in the last couple of years. We are aware that there is a debate to be had about the differences between biological sex and gender, and how pronouns figure in this, and we’re glad that Mumsnet is a place where people feel able to have that debate.

But we are keen to make sure it takes place in a way that’s as civil and constructive as possible - and, frankly, in a way that means the threads on which it’s taking place don’t descend into a series of personal attacks which result in us having to delete lots of posts. We hope you’ll agree with us that the best way to achieve this is to start from a position of mutual respect - it’s only then that a productive discussion can take place. Essentially we’d hope that everyone could stick to criticising the argument(s), not the person.

We do think that by acknowledging posters’ rights to self-identification, we’re giving everyone the best chance of making their arguments heard.

Hope this makes sense. We’ll be keeping an eye on this thread, so do post your thoughts/questions below.

OP posts:
Modestine · 17/11/2015 22:03

That's your job , Brenda. Do it.

BrendaandEddie · 17/11/2015 22:02

Bat bat bat

MaudGonneMad · 17/11/2015 22:01

I can remember in the early 80s as a feminist being shouted down by fascistic Trots and Sparts (there'll never be women's liberation without the liberation of the workers blah blah blah) - this is the 21st century equivalent. Similarly entitled young men shouting down women ...

That's really interesting Multi. The patriarchy morphing and adapting into a pseudo-progressive stance.

BrendaandEddie · 17/11/2015 21:55

Christ this is boring and self absorbed. SOMEONE POST THE BAT

Heebiejeebie · 17/11/2015 21:49

This is like a religious debate.

Transwomen are the believers - with a female soul, something that cannot be changed, female before birth and beyond death.

Gender critics are the athiests - there's no 'cis', no female soul, just chromosomes and genitals and societal pressure, nature and nurture.

And like all debates between religious and athiest fundamentalists, there's no solution or middle ground. Just mutual incomprehension, offence and anger, round and round

MultishirkingAgain · 17/11/2015 21:48

My take on it is that younger generation feminists supporting the whole cis women labelling (which I also find offensive) actually believe men and women have equality. I think, rightly or wrongly, it is a particular demographic who have yet to get married, have children and experience the many ways discrimination operates

Yes, I think this is part of what's going on. When I teach undergrads on these sorts of topics, some of them are very resistant to seeing the structural inequalities & oppression of women. I can sort of see where they're coming from: they don't want to think of themselves as oppressed or weak or victims - they're the children of neo-liberalism.

But I try to give them the analytical tools so that in 10 years time, when they realise they're being paid 15 or 20% less than the young man sitting next to them, they will have some broader, larger grasp on what is at the root of tis: patriarchy.

And those who do try to get involved in political battles find that this trans*activism/ rooting out of intersectional privilege/ etc etc offers an exciting new frontier. And the lucky ones (Laurie Penny and the like) make money out of being the most right opn, the coolest,. the most "advanced" politically.

I can remember in the early 80s as a feminist being shouted down by fascistic Trots and Sparts (there'll never be women's liberation without the liberation of the workers blah blah blah) - this is the 21st century equivalent. Similarly entitled young men shouting down women ...

BrendaandEddie · 17/11/2015 21:44

nah
fuck em

Modestine · 17/11/2015 21:41

Grin Brenda. Are women meant to be nice? Grin

OneMoreCasualty · 17/11/2015 21:39

I explained it upthread, Brenda.

Moo, fantastic name! I will just flag that many transactivists on twitter etc are exceptionally unkind ie making threats and doxxing to anyone they perceive to be radfem (and sometimes that's women who don't consider themselves radfems). The same group can also be unkind to more moderate trans voices like Ego's. Truscum and TERF come from the same barrel of vitriol there.

MooPointCowsOpinion · 17/11/2015 21:38

Thanks Buffy I'm understanding you more clearly now.

From my vantage point here it feels like there are a lot of similar issues and this shouldn't be an argument, more an alliance.

BrendaandEddie · 17/11/2015 21:32

what does cis mean

It doesnt sound nice

EDisFunny · 17/11/2015 21:31

Another view is that MTT are a subset of men and FTT are a subset of women; gender is about thoughts and feelings not facts.

BuffytheScaryFeministBOO · 17/11/2015 21:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MooPointCowsOpinion · 17/11/2015 21:17

I'm hoping this discussion will continue because I'm finding it interesting!

I don't mind being called cis, I'm not one to be offended easily, and I agree that cis and trans to me are just two subsections of woman as pp said above. I hesitate to add, that insisting that there are women and then trans-women, feels similar to me to white men saying they are 'men' and any one else can will called black men, Asian men etc.

I also don't agree with traditional gender binary. So I wonder what exactly is the ultimate goal of identifying with a different gender, considering that gender is a construct.

So I feel like I agree with both sides, but I will always favour the side who is more considerate and gentle in their approach, and I find here that the 'radfem' approach feels unkind, if it causes hurt by mis gendering folks.

I wonder if the ultimate goal should be to deconstruct gender entirely so that everyone is as gender fluid as they would like to be.

Waffle waffle. As you were.

BeyondThirty · 17/11/2015 21:12

I would say that , if we're creating topics, it would surely make sense to have two - a gender critical trans theory topic and a pro-trans/support topic. So long as no-one crosses the line in the sand, everyone can be happy :)

RomiiRoo · 17/11/2015 20:55

I think Buffy makes a great point about longer term historical perspective. Point is this issue has arisen at a particular point of time, and the agenda and vocal debate is coming from a particular group (transwomen mostly and younger generation feminists)

My take on it is that younger generation feminists supporting the whole cis women labelling (which I also find offensive) actually believe men and women have equality. I think, rightly or wrongly, it is a particular demographic who have yet to get married, have children and experience the many ways discrimination operates.

The Radfem arguments come from second wave feminism where arguments about oppression because of reproductive biology were key; fourth wavers are sufficiently young for these things not to be an issue yet. Abortion and contraception are accessible; so I am guessing they don't see oppression on biological grounds in their experience.

If a transwoman does not wish to be called male, fine, I will not call them male. But being not a male does not make someone a woman. Having surgery and changing genitals does not make someone a woman; it possibly makes them not a man as commonly understood - so they occupy a space which is not man and not woman. That space is no less worthy of protection and respect, but it is neither male space nor female space, it is a space not defined by either.

Why is it not possible to advocate for this third space to be recognised, or to dissolve the gender binary? Because then male/female hierarchies would also dissolve? What does the insistence that transwomen be recognised as women uphold? Because it upholds rather than challenges existing structures, it seems to me, whilst negating woman as a biological category and everything that means for women's day to day lives.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 20:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MissFitt68 · 17/11/2015 20:44

Yes, another vote here for its own topic!!

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 20:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EDisFunny · 17/11/2015 20:37

Thanks, MNHQ, I think your stance is as fair and balanced as it can be.

yy to Blistory, I agree with your post at 20:04

Sparklingbrook · 17/11/2015 20:37

Anyone who didn't want to read or comment could just hide the topic, and anyone interested in debating it (possibly endlessly) would know where to look. Seems straight forward.

WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeG0es · 17/11/2015 20:30

I think a separate topic is a good idea too, all the recent threads will disappear if they are in Chat, or get lost in the sheer volume of traffic if they are in AIBU. With a separate topic anyone wanting to find out more about Trans issues would be able to find them more easily.

Synyster · 17/11/2015 20:28

Agrre spakly

Sparklingbrook · 17/11/2015 20:27

I still think a topic would be a great idea.

Modestine · 17/11/2015 20:25

The most important words are these:

Mumsnet is a site built on the values of tolerance, supportiveness and respect

Anything which increases respect for other posters - in all Topics - is a bloody good thing.

Swipe left for the next trending thread