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

Thoughts on MNHQ's response to the Spartacus thread

991 replies

OlennasWimple · 30/08/2016 22:23

As the Spartacus thread is about to reach capacity, here's a new thread to discuss MNHQ's response to the issues raised on that thread and in a few other places over the last week or so.

is lesphobic to insist that a lesbian likes penis. Feck off with that shite.
Add message | Report | Message poster KateMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 30-Aug-16 21:08:00
Hello all

Thanks for all your input on this - we've been listening and thinking hard.

Couple of quick points to clear up: it's actually not the case that people have been banned solely for misgendering - it will have been part of a broader discussion here about whether that poster is able to stick to the rules generally.

We must admit to being slightly taken aback at being cast, by some, as the evil slave-baiting Roman republic in this grin - as lots of you have pointed out, Mumsnet remains one of the few places where these issues can be discussed at all. It would have been much, much easier (both in terms of the resource and the toll on our moderators' sanity!) to shut down the debate as others have done, but instead we are working hard to find a realistic balance between free speech and being a space which welcomes everyone.

From our perspective, the whole issue is pretty much covered by our Talk Guidelines. If people are using sex-at-birth pronouns to provoke, inflame, or belittle, then that's against the rules and will usually have to go. If it happens as part of an otherwise broadly respectful (even if heated) discussion, we look at it in that context and take a view.

Some of you have pointed out a disjunct between allowing posts which mirror mainstream scientific thinking, while asking MNers not to describe a trans woman as 'he'. We can see your point on this,and also accept that there is a fair amount of dodgy stuff on the trans side that can rightly be described as anti-feminist and regressive - but what we'd ask you to think about is the impact on the parent who's not an activist, and likely isn't even posting, but whose adult child is transitioning, or who is doing so themselves. Would they feel belittled, mocked or attacked? Would they think Mumsnet was not for them? If so, we're going to have to remove it. It's a fudge, but it's the best we can do at this stage.

In all but the most extreme headline-grabbing cases, we do think it's possible to debate the core principles without referring to individuals in a way which will cause hurt. Most of you have said that when talking to a trans person face-to-face you wouldn't insist on using birth pronouns or names - and generally, on this and other issues, we encourage people to treat others with the same courtesy they'd use in real life. For every MNer who posts on a thread there are likely to be ten who are lurking - statistically, some of those will be trans or love someone who is, and we need to take account of them too.

We hope that makes our thinking a bit clearer overall. Do continue to tell us your thoughts - it's probably unrealistic to think that this issue will be quickly resolved here or across society as a whole, but it would be brilliant if MN could be part of the solution, we think.

MNHQ

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 19:11

I'm not going to have my ability to use sexed language correctly in order to express my position curtailed. The hypothetical situation where is 'does not go my way' meaning I am not able to correctly use pronouns is both absurd and abhorrent.

Blistory · 02/09/2016 19:10

If MNHQ's stance on this matter has allowed us, as women, to have this discussion, to educate and support each other and if it has given us an opening to influence other women, I'd say it's been successful to date.

For all the open criticism aimed at them for not taking the side of women, I would imagine that they've had plenty more off screen criticism from those who refer to posters on these threads as vile and transphobic.

The confirmation that they'll take context into account instead of blanket bans suits my purposes but I appreciate that others want a more definitive statement of support.

Lalsy · 02/09/2016 19:09

I agree that people should be able to use cis to describe themselves (and be challenged politely on what that means for women and for clarity of debate). Given its only meaning in this context, I don't understand why it is ever ok to use it to describe other people (unless they have said it is ok) or a group of people. Seems to me the same as the n word, breeder, tranny etc etc.

Kropotkinator · 02/09/2016 19:07

Kate, why aren't you prepared to say cis is only allowed if a poster is referring to them self? That seems a fairly easy to enforce rule

I would expect (and I'm not defending) that until now they (mumsnet and Kate) haven't really given it proper thought or had the time to digest everything fully. Plus that female socialisation means we must must must come to conclusions slowly, always give the benefit of the doubt, and come to conclusions softly. Then there's juggling a neutral, welcoming, message board and trying to please advertisers (which sex has the money again?).

It took me 18 months to reach the point where I can voice my opinions anonymously, I still don't have the strength to do it publically because I'm afraid of losing IRL friends who work in associated fields. It's a very divisive issue, easy is anonymous, not so if you've got funding (and therefore your job) to lose.

I would softly remind Kate and mumsnet that no oppressed class, including women, have won anything without solidarity. I would like to remind posters that capitalism generally favours the people with money and power as a class (males), mumsnet operates in a capitalist framework and gas very little wiggle room.

Apologies for typos in advance. On phone.

BeyondASpecialSnowflake · 02/09/2016 19:06

Yy. And as with similar words it is okay to use about yourself, but never about others.
I can describe myself as crippled. No one else can.

hazeyjane · 02/09/2016 19:01

Cis to me is similar to retard. A word with a scientific usage, and a history of 'legitimate' use, but one which used now to refer to a person, is nothing but derogatory. If I am a ciswoman I accept that there are categories of women aside from those with female chromosomes and sex organs (ie men who 'identify' as women or who have had surgery) - the term cis, cis woman, cis sexist, cis fucking privilege - all terms designed to keep us in our place as some sort of subset. Fuck that, I am a woman, cis should have no place on mumsnet.

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 02/09/2016 18:59

hermiones point is good

"As a cis woman i believe...." Is fine

"Cis women believe..." Not so fine

"You cis women all think the same..." Really not fine at all

IfTheCapFitsWearIt · 02/09/2016 18:58

Cis is a get in your box! Word

I have never seen it used differently.

Also agree that a couple of posters have referred to themselves as cis. Fair enough but to blanket a hole bunch of other people cis is offensive.

What about breeder? If someone comes on and calls us breeders is that ok? Because I sure breeder was a word full of hate too, although technically could be true as most of us have bred.

WorkingItOutAsIGo · 02/09/2016 18:58

Kate a thank you from me for you rejoining the debate and answering some questions and follow ups.

I get really hurt and offended and incredibly worried by many things which transactivists say and believe. It's clear that the strategy they have been pursuing is that of 'the squeaky wheel gets the most oil'. And it's been successful: I am certainly too scared to debate these topics anywhere outside MN. So, within MN, my strategy now needs to be to follow theirs and I will start complaining and reporting about everything that hurts and offends me. So misgendering - i.e. calling men women when they are not, the use of the word cis, demands for MTT to access women's spaces, recommending early transition for children: all of these are red rags to me now.

But one question if I may: these debates are wrongly named (as so much else is within this sphere) trans issues. They are not - they are all about women's rights being threatened. Can we please make sure that MNHQ don't decide to create a trans section to put them in, as actually, we need to be able to air issues of threats to women's rights to all members of MN?

ErrolTheDragon · 02/09/2016 18:56

its evident from the Spartacus threads that people do learn from MN threads - there are quite a lot of people saying they've changed their stance over the years. Someone may use cis innocently enough, having picked it up uncritically elsewhere. Better to educate than delete in that case? (Ive been on the receiving end of education here and I am grateful for it)

WankingMonkey · 02/09/2016 18:54

However I would support the same kind of 'rule' tbh. Where it is deleted and such if its obvious it is being used as an insult or an attempt to shut down meaningful convo.

WankingMonkey · 02/09/2016 18:52

I've seen posts in which people say they don't mind cis applied to themselves

Followed up by a bunch of 'everyone should be called whatever they want to be called' though, right? Thats honestly the only time I have seen cis mentioned besides insulting. Cis is designed to shut down any discussion by making people think that these 'cis' people just dont 'get it'.

OlennasWimple · 02/09/2016 18:52

I agree that the term can be used in discussion (I've used it that way myself), but the distinction I would draw is in applying it to an individual (either a RL person or a MN pp) which can only IMHO be insulting, derogatory or inflammatory.

Actually, I would also agree that pp can use it without realising that so may of us find it so offensive: when you start dipping your toes into this murky water, it's not hard to come across lots of websites that use that terminology.

OP posts:
HermioneWeasley · 02/09/2016 18:48

Kate, why aren't you prepared to say cis is only allowed if a poster is referring to them self? That seems a fairly easy to enforce rule

ErrolTheDragon · 02/09/2016 18:48

I've seen posts in which people say they don't mind cis applied to themselves - I don't think all of them are intended to be inflammatory. If they lead to a rational discussion about why others find the term (and 'gender' as a whole) problematic, then that would seem to me to be a case where deletion isn't appropriate.

Lalsy · 02/09/2016 18:47

I too appreciate the discussion. I can use he and she in plenty of non-insulting ways. I cannot think of a use of cis (to describe women) that doesn't insult women,, whatever the intention of the speaker. Can you?

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:46

@OscarDeLaYenta

Where do you stand? Because it is only if you renounce biology and embrace 'internal feelings of gender identity' that there can ever be the situation where a man can meaningfully be described as 'she'. I do not understand why this is difficult or confusing for you to comprehend.

The thing is Oscar, that asking us to decide one way or the other means that we'd have to go back to blanket bans, and carries a risk. I really do believe that, for everyone, it is better to leave room, to not have blanket rules, to accept that there are going to be some situations that might not go your way but that ultimately prescriptive rules might also limit one's own ability to express one's position freely.

WankingMonkey · 02/09/2016 18:41

Honestly, I class cis (almost always an insult) as the same as 'tranny'. In these circumstances, not the persons chosen pronouns.

Both insults, both unnecessary. He/she is not an insult in all (or nearly all) cases...whereas both tranny and cis are.

Lalsy · 02/09/2016 18:41

I suspect a lot of people using the word cis do not intend to offend. I agree with Oscar, you need a more objective measure - what words actually mean would also be a good start.

IfTheCapFitsWearIt · 02/09/2016 18:41

Ok Kate on one of these threads a couple of posters did write exactly why cis is equivalent, with the oppression of sexes going back years, tge cis word is only uses to 'other' people. They put it much better tthan I have. (I will see if I can find one)

One was posted by a woman who is also black.

HermioneWeasley · 02/09/2016 18:37

Kate, I appreciate you engaging in discussion

OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 18:35

No, it is not subjective. The use of sexed language is quite clear. It is used correctly when language use accurately describes reality. Hence DM can meaningfully be described as a man, but not as a woman. The pronoun 'he' has meaning when it is applied to him. The pronoun 'she' does not.

It really is quite clear and quite simple.

So, actually, me, you, everyone at MNHQ, and everyone on this thread can state whether there is ever a situation where is it meaningful to call a man 'she' and describe him as a 'woman'. We do all have the expertise. To say we do not is frankly ridiculous.

I say no such situation can exist. Paris Lees says there is such a situation, and that it is meaningful to use the word 'woman' and 'she' to describe MTT.

Where do you stand? Because it is only if you renounce biology and embrace 'internal feelings of gender identity' that there can ever be the situation where a man can meaningfully be described as 'she'. I do not understand why this is difficult or confusing for you to comprehend.

Lalsy · 02/09/2016 18:35

Errol 😀😀

Yes exactly everyone. Kate - that is my issue. They are not equivalent issues and that is the reason I asked. cis is either meaningless or insulting.

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:32

@OlennasWimple

But that response to Lalsy kinda shows that you don't "get it" KateMN Confused It's like saying that it's possible to use the word "n*gger" in a way that isn't insulting or offensive - ie it almost never is, with the exception of clinical discussion of language.

There was an interesting discussion about the n word on one of the other threads - consensus was that it is steeped in, if not born of, a relationship of enslavement between one class and another and has never been used in anything but a denigratory sense. There doesn't yet seem to be a consensus that 'cis' has that history and 'meaning' (inverted commas for the literary theorists), and since we're putting intention and sentiment front and centre, it makes sense to us to be asking on a case by case basis whether the use of the word 'cis' is intended to offend.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 18:30

Their posts remained

Well, well, well...

Swipe left for the next trending thread