Thoughts on MNHQ's response to the Spartacus thread

Agree with Blistory. Think all of this round and round the pronoun mulberry bush isn't helping us achieve progress, although I'm on board with the frustration of it all.

I would add to her post that in RL I've found the most effective things to point out to spread the gender-critical word are the issues surrounding trans kids. I think when people stop thinking "each to their own", "live and let live" "this really doesn't affect my life" etc is mostly when they have to think about how these ideas about gender are impacting on very young children - how children as young as three are now being diagnosed with this "condition". This is certainly what worked for me, especially when I had a non gender-conforming child myself. Transgendertrend and 4thwave now have brilliant information and statistics here for anyone seeking more on this.

My personal feelings - which may not reflect mnhq view, but...

In general conversation or when discussing individuals in the media - I'd include twitter transactivist types in this too - then I think it's reasonable for posters to use the pronouns and terms which reflect the posters view of that individual or group. However when we are talking to or about a specific MN poster then we should afford them the same courtesies as we would face to face. For me personally this means that the majority of the time I would use someone's chosen pronouns to be polite. In MN world that means that for individual posters like Ego, Miranda and Helen I will use the pronouns they request as I'm engaged in a direct conversation with them, albeit virtually, and wish to be polite.

But abstract celebrities and transactivists are a different matter and I will not call Ada Wells she.

Sorry, I am reading with interest, I've done 2 long shifts in a row and have another one tomorrow, I have a raging ear infection and only got 2.5 hours sleep last night so going straight to bed. If I remember I'll respond to some points tomorrow, but what really jumped out at me was questions regarding my sex. I was born a female, and identify as female, but really, why are either of those points important? I already said up thread that I'm quite masculine with short hair, that doesn't make me neither male nor trans, and for a group of people that are arguing against male/female brain or that gender is a social construct, I find these questions of me quite interesting. Anyway, night!

Kate thanks for the answer to my question, and I wish you a great weekend.

Blistory Buffy
I wish there were more of you on MN. I have seen Buffy post before and have seen your recent posts Blistory. I have no desire to silence anyone. I simply hate to see posters piling in on one person.
I am also amazed to see so many threads about trans and not one about other items in the news eg.Nate Parker, despite the similarities with the Ched Evans case.

Lalsy, what I read in Blistory's post, which I really like, is that we can and should politely and respectfully strongly disagree. I think where many of us, including me irl, have gone wrong is in buying the (stereotypical!) assumption that the only way to be polite and respectful to someone is to avoid challenging their opinion, or at least, to do so only diffidently.

That has to change, and it'll be a challenge to do so with the right tone - but if not here, where?

Hearing a range of diverse opinions has enhanced my understanding of feminism

Bad form to quote myself, I know but you're one of them, Buffy. One of those diverse opinions and I thank you for it.

Kate, i think my concern about the case by case approach is that I think it is possible that individual women including me, by being polite and respectful to other individuals, may have inadvertently damaged women's and children's rights. I feel bad about that. The cheery respectful personal can in this case add up to a toxic and confused political. And false balance (as in science journalism is an issue.). My internet has died so I am on my phone and not sure how coherent I am being!

I thought long and hard about whether to post this but I've been where many of you are now, I've been angered and frustrated by the language, I've wanted MNHQ to come out in solidarity. I've followed the transactivists around twitter, tumblr and reddit, I've read blog after blog about how transwomen are better than real women. I've ranted at the Women in Equality party, I've read the papers, puzzled over the notion of science vs feeling and I've been hounded and threated and silenced all over the internet.

What it led me to was a stark realisation that I had immersed myself so deeply in the transactivist world that their tactics had become ones that I was starting to use myself. It felt good to be angry, particularly knowing that I was on the right side. It felt good to shout back and to ridicule or humiliate. Fact won out everytime. Every woman agreeing with me felt like vindication. The reality was that I did nothing to help the cause of women on a larger scale and left others hurt in my wake.

Call me cis and I'll point out that I'd rather not be referred to as that and move on with the conversation. Ask me to misgender a transwoman simply to prove a point and I'll refuse to do it. It gains me nothing. Calling me cis does not hurt me - I refuse to play the TA game of exaggerated hyperbole and claim that it does. It suits the purpose of transactivism if we all focus on the pronoun thing. They are much better at drumming up sympathy, at creating and expanding falsehoods, at manipulating even those they claim to represent. It sucks us in and ties us up in knots . It leaves us focussing on the little stuff whilst the big stuff just passes us by. It gives them all the ammunition they need to point us out to the wider community as being violent, phobic extremists. Concentrating on pronouns makes us look bad, not them We're ignoring that they have handed us the ammunition we need to prove that they are deceitful and dangerous.

We'd achieve so much more IMO by

• pointing out that the suicide stats don't really reflect the true position
• pointing out that there is no definition of transgender and until there is, it is a term that cannot be used in discussion or legislation. Make the transactivists define themselves and in doing so, expose the very inconsistencies that they are taking advantage of.
• pointing out that the stats on violence are not reflective of the experience of the average white, able bodied man who transitions but an appropriation by them of stats relating to poor, transwomen of colour and mainly those involved in sex work. That particular combination of race, poverty, homophobia and sex work are what present the danger.
• refusing to allow those in government and the judiciary to fudge the difference between gender and sex. Make them commit. Our top Law Lords sent a case to Europe recently because they didn't think they could issue a judgement - and in stating this consistently mixed up the terms gender and sex.
• keeping the issue focused on women.
• not using transactivist tactics
• being aware that we're coming across badly - it's possible to be gender critical without being offensive.
• demonstrating why we have genuine concerns - not relying on the notion of the bathroom bogeyman. There is enough to be said about education, welfare, health, reproductive rights, employment and sport and the impact on women becoming invisible before we even get to the issue of physical spaces and separation.
• not demonising individual transwomen - even I have sympathy for someone held up to worldwide scrutiny and ridicule.

I don't expect you all to agree with me and indeed, I wouldn't want you to. Hearing a range of diverse opinions has enhanced my understanding of feminism and I'd wish the same opportunity to every woman. What I would like is for us to use the opportunity that MN gives us to move the discussion on before the discussion gets shut down. Because if we continue in the same vein, that's whats going to happen. We, and I've been as much a part of it as any one else, have alienated a significant portion of MN when we could have had them onside as allies, we could have had their voices supporting us, spreading support throughout their networks. If we carry on fighting about pronouns then it won't be transactivists that finally silence us, it will be other women.

OK. So, if both my immediate and subsequent safety could be guaranteed and I had ovaries of steel enough to get over my gendered socialisation that means I must not make a fuss and must not challenge, and if I could get over any residual shyness and lack of self confidence, then, yes, I would call an MTT 'he' in a face-to-face encounter.

Your post implies that I should extend courtesy to Danielle Muscato, and use the pronoun 'she' in face to face interactions. Really?!?!? I mean, really???

You misunderstand. This is not 'hiding behind the internet in order to be vile and hurtful', in which case the face-to-face test is of use. The fact that I and others may be more open on the internet and may express ourselves more openly and forcefully, is because in real life we may be genuinely scared of reprisal, which may include social exclusion, being sacked, or being physically attacked.

9 times out of 10 I would use the right pronouns face to face simply out of respect and not liking to cause offense when it is not needed. The other 1 time in the 10..I would be tempted to use incorrect pronouns in the face of an obvious misogynistic arsehole capitalizing on the trans-movement but I probably still would for fear of said bloke slapping me down, physically.

Which again, brings me back to womens spaces...

So Oscar just to clarify you have no theoretical issue calling a transwoman "he" within their hearing, but in reality you have very sensible fear if male violence.

I.e. you would not call them "she" out of respect, or belief they are a woman, but out of fear?

A good point I think. In the safe confines of MNHQ I will happily call a TW he, in real life I would be too scared of repercussions, even though I still think it is the correct pronoun.

MNHQ - you still haven't explained the relevance of whether I would 'misgender' an MTT to their face. Nor addressed the risk of violence this may involve and why this is of no account.

Thank you, that is reassuring

Having said that I agree entirely with BeyondASpecialSnowflake. The conclusion I have come to is that cis* is much like retard. Had legitimate usage once-upon-an-epoch but is used mainly as a shut down. "Stay in your place, get back in your box" get-up. It serves to silence, much in the same way as "What are you saying WOMAN?!" of times gone by.

Can I ask - it was sort of hinted at being a possibility - are there any "links" between mn and mermaids (or similar organisations)?

krop while it's true to say that men have more money than women, women are responsible for something like 80% of consumer spending decisions in the UK. That's why advertisers love the site and give products away free for us to try.

Transactivists threatening a boycott would be bad PR for a company. Women and mothers taking their spending away would be a disaster. The US retailer Target has lost market share and their share price has dropped on the back of their support for Trans issues over the women who (used to) shop there.

MN's sponsors and advertisers would want them to back the hundreds of women who signed the Spartacus thread, no question.

Apart from anything else, I would say that banning blanket use of cis for "all of you people" is pro-trans. Because it acknowledges that the audience does not just consist of "cis" women especially those who have done the sage test but of transmen, transwomen, agender/genderfluid and even great big meany TERFs.

??