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:
Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArmchairTraveller · 17/11/2015 18:31

'gender non-conforming people - as most feminists are '

That's why I was puzzled by the idea of living like a woman for a set period of time, and what that actually meant. As a woman who wears trousers, doesn't wear heels or make-up and all the rest of the patriarclal definition of what a woman should be.

ArmchairTraveller · 17/11/2015 18:27

Time for new language?

BuffytheScaryFeministBOO · 17/11/2015 18:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OneMoreCasualty · 17/11/2015 18:22

And every poster on here, along with MNHQ, is clear that using cis about people who are happy it's used about them isn't an issue, so not sure why you made that last point.

Anyway, we are going massively off "site stuff"stuff so I'll leave it there.

ArmchairTraveller · 17/11/2015 18:21

'But isn't the definition of a woman someone who has female genitals and identifies as a woman?'

To me it's someone with XX chromosomes in every cell.

ArmchairTraveller · 17/11/2015 18:20

It's how she describes herself in situations where it's relevant. It's not how I'd describe her. Smile

Queenbean · 17/11/2015 18:20

But isn't the definition of a woman someone who has female genitals and identifies as a woman?

OneMoreCasualty · 17/11/2015 18:20

Fair enough, broaden my point out to some people do not want

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArmchairTraveller · 17/11/2015 18:17

' cis women and transwomen are just two subsets of women.'

That's how DD sees it, and she's a cis woman.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OneMoreCasualty · 17/11/2015 18:14

Queen bean

Some trans women do not want the categories trans women and women to exist. They see themselves as women and so cis women and transwomen are just two subsets of women.

I am speaking generically, not about Ego's own position.

MaudGonneMad · 17/11/2015 18:14

If you know calling me "male" deliberately upsets me, then it's up to you if you describe me as that.

You've changed the premise of my question, again! Why? I can only conclude that you're doing it deliberately to suit your rhetorical position since I stated it clearly twice.

ArmchairTraveller · 17/11/2015 18:13

Perhaps there needs to be an entirely new vocabulary for a third and fourth gender identity. I can see that trans woman might be unacceptable to some in the way that 'half-caste' was to many. As if the individual is somehow lesser.
I'm happy to use the pronoun of choice for the person I'm talking to, and by default I'd assume a transgender person wanted to be called the pronoun they were aiming for. But I still think that a woman is a biological identity.
That discussion yesterday, about what does 'living like a woman' actually entail was very interesting. We never did come to a definite list of things that would classify.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaudGonneMad · 17/11/2015 18:11

And yes, there appears to be conflation/confusion of sex/gender at play here, I agree ChunkyPickle

MaudGonneMad · 17/11/2015 18:10

Er, you haven't. Not at all. You answered a different question to the one I asked.

Again: do you want people to stop using the word 'male' in relation to any/all analysis of transwomen because you find it upsetting?

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChunkyPickle · 17/11/2015 18:09

I think there's some conflating of terms here though - or perhaps misunderstanding of what people are meaning.

To me, male and female are biological terms, relating to sex.

cis is a term about gender (which I personally don't feel - although some people do - therefore cis is mis-gendering me).

very few people are outside the biological categories of male and female, those people are intersex.

lots of people are outside the gender categories - just look at the explosion of terms.

If you see male and female as gender terms, then the confusion is yours, surely you can't deny biology (or what is someone 'trans' from?) what word should we use for biological sex instead? Wouldn't that be more confusing than using the original terms?

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 18:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaudGonneMad · 17/11/2015 18:05

No, my question was specifically about people using 'male' about transwomen in general, not about you as an individual. There's a difference.

Queenbean · 17/11/2015 18:05

No problem - too many Queens!

A genuine question though - why aren't women who are born women and identify just called "women" and those who are biologically male called trans women

Surely that would avoid all the stuff about being cis?

Particularly confusing if they choose not to get rid of their genitals, I struggle to see how someone who doesn't want to get rid of their penis can be labelled a woman. A trans woman yes, a woman, no