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
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 18:29

Ok there is never a need to use cis in relation to an individual's sex....

IfTheCapFitsWearIt · 02/09/2016 18:29

Last week I reported posters coming on to a non trans threads, and to kick off there conversation on the threads referred to other posters as cis, one was to slur the people on the thread the other? no idea way they needed to use it. Also someone continually telling the posters who objected to cis to get over it, and stop making a fuss etc (last poster was male but you could have guessed that)

It really was like a white person telling a black person to get over being called N.

Their posts remained.

BeyondASpecialSnowflake · 02/09/2016 18:27

How about

I have been looking at www.cisgroup.co.uk does anyone have experience of them?

PacificDogwod · 02/09/2016 18:24

Yes, that is the meaning of 'cis' that I understand also Grin

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 18:22

Errol Grin

ErrolTheDragon · 02/09/2016 18:21

An ok example of a sentence using cis? Easy. 'Amino acids usually adopt the trans conformation, but a significant proportion of proline residues are cis.'

Its a misappropriated word.

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:20

@OscarDeLaYenta

I just don't get why calling men 'he' needs to be examined on a case by case, or any sort of basis at all. Not unless, you believe that there are situations where men can meaningfully be referred to as 'women' and are therefore entitled be called 'she'.

Oscar, I'm afraid we're not and indeed can't be the judges of that. "Meaningfully', for a start, is pretty subjective, and we don't think we have the expertise to be the ultimate arbiters of a hotly contested philosophical/intellectual/moral/ethical debate. What we feel why can and must do, though, is to make sure that the tone of the debate is something we can all be proud of.

OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 18:17

You keep talking about 'inflaming', offending and hurt feelings. Why are these only important on one side? i.e. why is it only important if 'misgendering' causes hurt? Why is it not important that inaccurate use of pronouns and calling MTT 'she' causes a great deal of hurt and offence? I and others consider such pronoun use to be a grave insult to women and to girls. Why do you only consider the feelings that arise of 'misgendering'?

And you patently cannot account for both. You cannot take into account the hurt on both sides through pronoun use and come up with a wokable policy. I've said this before, and I will sat it again, you need to move away from trying to construct a hierarchy of subjective feelings of hurt and move towards something objective and concrete. How about science and biology?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 18:16

Thinking about it more, there is no good reason to ever use cis. Surely "woman" would suffice...

OlennasWimple · 02/09/2016 18:15

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.

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 18:13

A "butch"woman is called he...

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 18:12

Cis is a recently made up word it only purpose is to suggest that women aren't women, but instead a subset of a group that contains women and transwomen. (And that's assuming a relatively "neutral" usage)

He/she aren't and have well established useage to denote which sex is being spoken about. The only way in which he/she could be used to denigrate is when for e.g. a 'butch' woman is called her, or a feminine man "she" I.e. when used to mis-sex an individual.

IfTheCapFitsWearIt · 02/09/2016 18:11

Katemumsnet

So if someone came on and referred to a load of posters on mumnet as the N word, would that still stand? As it wasn't a personal attack and the rest of the post was innocuous?

OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 18:10

I just don't get why calling men 'he' needs to be examined on a case by case, or any sort of basis at all. Not unless, you believe that there are situations where men can meaningfully be referred to as 'women' and are therefore entitled be called 'she'.

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:08

@Lalsy

Kate, sorry I have asked this before but can you give an example of a sentence using cis that doesn't stereotype, diminish or insult women? I have yet to see one.

I think if we go down that route, Lalsy, we might have to give the same answer to posters who asked a similar question about preferred pronouns.

Bambambini · 02/09/2016 18:07

Aaron Kappel, the writer of that Establisment piece is a horrible narcissistic individual. I saw him hound and bully a woman on Twitter. She had criticised or written something they didn't like. She was going through serious cancer treatment and he publicly sent a letter to her employer outing her as transphobic and demanding she be sacked. Nasty, deluded, bitter individual.

Lalsy · 02/09/2016 18:04

Kate, sorry I have asked this before but can you give an example of a sentence using cis that doesn't stereotype, diminish or insult women? I have yet to see one.

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:01

@CoteDAzur

WHY? I would really like to understand the purpose of asking us to pretend that these people are female, if that is indeed what you want.

Hmm - i think what I was trying to get across in my first post is that we're not making blanket demands about anything. We're going to judge (as tbh we've always done) case by case, looking at the tone and context - ie whether it's intended to inflame or is part of a reasoned discussion about the issue.

CoteDAzur · 02/09/2016 17:51

Kate MNHQ - re Oscar's examples on referring to Ada Wells, Danielle Muscato etc as 'he':

"why you believe that, and why you believe it's important."

"Why" is easy to answer: Because they are male and especially in Danielle's case, because this is as obvious as possibly can be. Because, at least as I have been taught, human males are referred to as 'he' in the English language.

Suspension of disbelief and pretension is extremely difficult for some of us, and not just in this subject. It is positively brainhurty to have to say "her penis" or "her beard", or to refer to someone who is an intact male and prefers to present to the world in a beard, suit, and tie as a "she".

WHY? I would really like to understand the purpose of asking us to pretend that these people are female, if that is indeed what you want.

WankingMonkey · 02/09/2016 17:50

WankingMonkey We'd deffo delete if that were directed at an individual. I think a more general statement is different - but again, it would depend (sorry) on the tone and the context.

OK thank you. I would of course never say TO someone who comes on with their child having gender identity problems who is considering hormones and such that they are abusing their child. That is unnecessary and mean and definitely inflammatory. If this hypothetical person came on though I may show empathy with their position and point them in the direction of some other sites/blogs and such that I would hope would change their decision of going down the surgery route with a preteen. Assuming that would be ok, given guidelines.

I would however make my views clear (harshly if needed) on a general news issue about the matter.

Again, thanks for actually answering. I know how much work it must have taken to reach a 'catchall' decision on something so delicate.

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 02/09/2016 17:42

Fair enough kate

HairyLittlePoet · 02/09/2016 17:34

KateMumsnet
thanks for responding.
⛵

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:32

WankingMonkey We'd deffo delete if that were directed at an individual. I think a more general statement is different - but again, it would depend (sorry) on the tone and the context.

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:28

@OlennasWimple

Ada J Wells would, one presumes from past actions, be happy to tell me to my face that I'm a bigoted, cis-gendered TERF who needs to check my privilege.

Alas, we've got no power or control over how others behave either in real life or elsewhere on the internet, but we can and do try to ensure that Mumsnet is a place where courtesy and reasoned debate is the norm.

@OlennasWimple

Still silence on whether MN understand why so many of us here find the term "cis" so offensive, BTW. Just repeating the talk guidelines on misgendering doesn't show any real consideration of the point we are trying to make

We do understand, I think/hope. And to reassure, we'll be applying the same process to cis - ie passing it through the filter of our TGs, asking about the intention and the sentiment rather than blanket-banning any particular word or expression.

OlennasWimple · 02/09/2016 17:26

I found this report on LGBT/HIV+ violence really interesting in the context of the importance of language to describe - and therefore address - a problem.

One of the major flaws in the data collection (acknowledged by the authors) is that in asking victims of crime their gender identity, they allowed them to select multiple gender identities - so we have the slightly farcical situation where a report designed to analyse hate crime against LGBT/HIV+ individuals is hampered in its ability to do so because of suggesting that it's possible to have multiple gender identities Confused

OP posts: