MNHQ - if you are going to contribute your thoughts to the trans debate, can you use a new thread

Kimmy - I've not known this fingerpointing about comments being deleted before. It's generally known that there are far more lurkers than posters on a thread. Anyone could be reading and anyone could be reporting posts. If MNHQ agree a post has broken the talk guidelines, then off the post goes.

^handmaiden has been used on MN threads too.

The deleted comments on this thread were reported by me.
I wanted to know what MN would do and I also thought the original dig at the OP (which funnily enough has not been deleted) was unnecessary.
So...calling the OP egotistical and accusing them of being a special snowflake was not deemed personal.
.......saying "of course if a man says something it will get done" was not deemed to be a dig at the OP.
But.......the subsequent comments connecting the above comment directly to ego being a man (as opposed to a trans woman) were deleted.

That reddit thread calls mn "infiltrated by trans and monitored by their handmaidens".

That's not even slightly true. Worrying stuff. Interesting that this is all meant to be for the good of womanity, unless you're a woman who disagrees with them, then you're a handmaiden.

I do think the side groups and secret fb groups, etc cause a lot of trouble on here in general (not just trans issues), but that's another story.

Iggi - completely agree, and I don't want that thread to be mislabelled either

I didn't think the Spartacus thread set out to be distressing to transgender people. It set out to take a stand against arses like the one in Edinburgh and others who use their trans status to erode women's rights and sometimes abuse women. I don't know why Ego views this as so upsetting when I strongly suspect she is a person just trying to get on with her life, and is nothing like some of the people cited on that thread. Hitler and I are both vegetarians, but I'm nothing like him.

I agree with ego

MNHQ need to consider this properly and deliver a well thought out response in a place where all can find it.

FWIW Ego is participating on the current "bullshit" threads and is posting in an insightful and thoughtful and self aware manner and not merailing at all...

I agree with ego

Wherever MNHQ post their thoughts it is sure to trigger many other posts

A new thread stating how they wish to move forward would enable posters to comment whether they are comments for or against

That reddit thread calls mn "infiltrated by trans and monitored by their handmaidens". Fuck that.

Sorry about another derail.

I'm not bothered where MNHQ respond as long as they do and as long as their thinking has moved on from:

accidental slip-up - OK but don't do it again
deliberate, malicious 'misgendering' - deleted as PA

Sometimes it's simply necessary to refer to the sex of a person, even when that contrasts with how they see themselves, sometimes even when we have sympathy for them as a distressed human being. It's neither accidental or malicious, there are just some occasions when we need accurate language to describe what is being done to us as women. If we don't have the words to describe what's happening we have no hope of fighting it.

To tell women they are not allowed to identify a man as a man when that man is threatening women's safety or rights is a massive gaslighty headfuck.

Ego

I think it is perfectly reasonable for you to hide the threads you want to hide, same as for any poster.
I also think MNHQ do need to be clear on their views including reiterating the above^ if their policy has not changed of late.
I think unproven accusations of having a whole thread deleted are unfair particularly as MN are accountable for that decision. I am very sorry for the shit thrown at you on reddit, totally unneccessary. I really think MNHQ ought to have reinstated that thread with responses deleted for breaking their guidelines whilst confirming what their guidelines currently now are.
This thread is a reasonable request for all the reasons both you and Oscar stated.

The Mumsnet definition of transphobia is seriously problematic. It reads like ritual feminine submission to MRA demands. I started off happy to respect pronouns etc, but the more I've read and seen the more I've hardened up. I will not be rude, but I'm not going to lie either.

This amazing post, originally from Mumsnet, but found on Reddit/GenderCritical sums it all up for me:

"I think it's an act of submission, to pander to a man's demands that we accept that he can be female one minute, male the next and "non-binary" the next, just because he feels like it (without ever defining what any of t these terms actually mean).

I mean, if the man was nice and a reasonably Good Egg, in personal relationships, I would pander, out of kindness; because I am a woman and I have been socialised to be kind and considerate of someone's feelings, particularly if that someone has a penis and XY chromosomes.

But politically and in public discourse, women being forced to parrot unreality, is fucking Kafkaesque. It's like something out of the Handmaid's Tale. Being forced to refer to people like Ada Wells, Alex Thingummy with a beard and nice scarves and Danielle Muscato, as "she" is an act of real domination by male supremacists.

It is not just a polite nice thing to do. It has massive connotations for society's acceptance of reality. it has massive political implications for women, if any man anywhere, can force us to pretend he's a woman, just because he says so and if we don't we can be fined (in New York state), banned (from social media) and no-platformed from universities and other open forums."

Ego147
I'm not 'demanding' anything, merely asking your opinion. You don't wish to reply, that's fine.

Ego147
Not trying to be difficult, but you're not being very helpful.

Pssst Mumsnet own this place and can post whatever be nice post they feel like wherever they feel like.
Just saying.

Ego147
I was interested in what you consider 'transphobia'.

YY Basil. And I have just realised I have been remiss in not emailing MNHQ myself. I will do so.

On the basis of Mumsnet's definition of transphobia I reckon I'm pretty safe to be able to say that it would be an unconsiable insult to women to give 'Ada J Wells' the courtesy of observing his pronouns. So I will not afford him that respect, as he is an abusive man.

Here we are:

"We don't have a hard and fast 'definition' of what we feel transphobia is. ... So we try to apply common sense and perhaps the way we deal with transphobia develops with the discussions about it on threads. For that reason we have encouraged debate as much as possible and it has often been an informative journey.

...

In terms of misgendering, which often comes up, we again go by the rule of thumb that if, for example, a celebrity who was male had just come out as a (trans)woman, we wouldn't wave the banhammer at everyone who accidentally said 'he' for a while after. But if we felt they were misgendering deliberately in order to cause offence, we would. Same goes for general discussion about the whole issue. Questions about gender and biology, if they are meant in the spirit of polite and interested discussion, we would leave to stand. Comments about 'blokes in dresses' and that sort of thing, we would take issue with.

In general we just think it's nice to be nice, really."

So no real definition there. Just, women, be nice. (It looks dangerously close to "Smile!")

I think MN have a problem because there is no legal or widespreadly (is that a word?) accepted definition of transphobia and they do mention that it changes all the time as MRA's move the goalposts.

Thank you OlennasWimple

Yep, for saying that - at some theoretical point in the future - she would not use the wrong pronouns.