Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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 17:25

The thing is as well he/she isn't some sort of value judgement, it's just the correct pronoun applied to a particular sex. It's not really correct to describe it as misgendering as it's about sex not gender. I don't appreciate males appropriating "she"

Am happy to use other pronouns though eg ze and zir would that be acceptable MNHQ?

WankingMonkey · 02/09/2016 17:23

Actually I don't think that's true. We'd definitely delete a post saying you're a child abuser to someone who circumcised their child.

OK this kinda leads me to a question..does your stance mean it is unacceptable to say that willingly leading a child towards a life of endless hormones and surgery..would be against guidelines? Or posters saying using puberty blockers and such is also child abuse? As this is a view shared by every one I know in real life, and everyone I know online alike, including a fair few transsexual people. I cannot see any way which it would NOT be child abuse, when the other solution is allowing your little boy to wear a dress if he wishes so? A parent who opts for hormones and surgery for a phase he may well grow out of, IS abusing said child IMO. Sorry if this offends anyone btw, but it is my very firm opinion that will never change.

OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 17:22

Yeah - I joked about not saying it to PL's face, but given the death and rape threats that TA's routinely make to women who won't play by their warped rules, I think you are being massively unfair in expecting my to (even hypothetically) state that yes, I would say 'he' to a potentially violent MTT's face. Do you want me to say that I would tell Tara Hudson that he is a he? You want me to agree that I would be prepared to put myself at risk like that? Nice. Really nice.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 17:21

Actually I don't think that's true. We'd definitely delete a post saying you're a child abuser to someone who circumcised their child.

I'm pretty sure you let posts saying non-medical circumcision is child abuse stand (not to a specific poster)

Would you let a general statement that transing a child is child abuse stand?

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:18

@HermioneWeasley

Nobody cares if anti vaccine parents or pro circumcision parents get their arses handed to them, get told they're committing child abuse etc.

Why is it this one specific topic where facts can be deleted if "inflammatory" and opinion must be censored ?

Actually I don't think that's true. We'd definitely delete a post saying you're a child abuser to someone who circumcised their child.

Original poster
OlennasWimple · 02/09/2016 17:18

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. Just because someone is prepared to say it in person, doesn't make it part of reasonable discourse (though I appreciate the point about not allowing people to hide behind their keyboards to make offensive statements).

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

OP posts:
OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 17:17

I doubt I'd say it to PL's face, cos I think he'd probably deck me! [wimp emoticon].

I've explained in great detail over these threads why I would say, why I would continue to say it, why I will not say 'she' or 'they' for that matter, and why firstly 'feelings' do not trump accurate use of language, and secondly why I fail to see why it is more important that an MTT's feelings are not hurt through accurate use of language, than my feelings are hurt and my reality is diminished and eroded through the propagation of a lie. If people's feelings are inflamed by the truth, it's actually not down to me to tell a lie to make them happy again.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 17:17

Also, you would never use pronouns to someones face anyway...

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 02/09/2016 17:15

Isn't the 'would you say it to their face?' test a rather dangerous one, given that the more violent and unreasonable someone is likely to be, the less likely you would be to say it to their face? Whereas if they are smaller than you and non-violent you can be as aggressive as you want to them. In other words, it's always going to end up with a tendency to kowtow to men and let people be as rude as they want to women.

HermioneWeasley · 02/09/2016 17:12

I still think the supporting all parents is a fudge. Nobody cares if anti vaccine parents or pro circumcision parents get their arses handed to them, get told they're committing child abuse etc.

Why is it this one specific topic where facts can be deleted if "inflammatory" and opinion must be censored ?

MatildaOfTuscany · 02/09/2016 17:11

Thank you Kate. I do understand how difficult this is for you, and I am sincerely grateful that mumsnet does offer one of the few public spaces on the internet where these issues can be discussed.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/09/2016 17:11

MNHQ I too would like clarification on the examples posed by Oscar

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:10

Oscar, I think we'd take look at all these things the context of the rest of the discussion. We'd be thinking about whether you'd say it to Paris Lee's face were the discussion taking place in real life - and about whether you were saying it over and over again to inflame, or as part of a reasoned calm discussion of why you believe that, and why you believe it's important.

Lalsy · 02/09/2016 17:10

And I agree about pronouns and erosion. Again, there is a difference between private everyday discourse and more serious debate in a public and contested space. I will call most people what ever they like if we are having a friendly chat. But i do want the language to describe a situation clearly and to distinguish between sex and gender.

WankingMonkey · 02/09/2016 17:07

Kate, thanks for the reply. I understand how hard it is to 'lay down the law' as it were on certain sensitive subjects and I do think you have done well to clarify a few positions with that post. I am part of an admin team on another forum and our stance (as decided by site owner) is misgendering is automatically a ban, no matter the circumstances and 'transphobia' (meaning, pointing out biology or refusing to agree that a transwoman IS indeed a woman) also equal a ban. I have to uphold this when moderating and it fucking annoys me as I disagree with it entirely. So I assume that posts made by MNHQ are not necessarily the views of the people behind the posts, if that makes sense. Its just a catchall that has to happen. I also understand the various legal challenges you get as a forum in whole. Our forum is about 1/10th of the size of here and we get requests almost daily to remove stuff and messages about how posts are actually breaking the law. What members often do not realise is that the content you chose to allow to remain CAN actually cause serious issues for the site as a whole. Seeing this from both sides, thanks for allowing discussion to still be had which is unlike the stance of ANY other place I can think of. This is a start.

Same post minus typos and a couple of additions Confused

Lalsy · 02/09/2016 17:02

Thank you for the clarification Kate. I was one of those seeing reassurance about stating facts or discussing evidence and I welcome what you have said. The previous statement suggested reasoned or fact based posts could be deleted if they might upset people or put them off, hence the debate about hypothetical parents. I really value MN and support guidelines that apply equally to all subJects

WankingMonkey · 02/09/2016 17:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 17:00

I disagree that the use of pronouns is a distraction. It is integral to the issue. Language describes the world, and the way people understand and conceptualise the world is through language. If we are to say of MTT that they are 'she', that inevitably impacts, even if it is little by little, as a drip-drip process, on our understanding of trans issues. It is an erosion.

OscarDeLaYenta · 02/09/2016 16:57

So, HQ, if I say:

Alex Drummond is on the board of Stonewall. He uses eyeliner.
Paris Lees is a journalist. He has nice hair.
Anna Lee stood for a position in NUS. He lost.
Danielle Muscato has a beard. I do not like his beard.

Is this OK? Given that all these individuals expect to be called 'she'? If another poster objects to what I have said, asks me to use 'she' and I refuse, is that OK? If they are offended by my refusal, but my refusal is rooted in my commitment to using language accurately, am I OK, or will I be deleted, warned, or banned?

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 02/09/2016 16:56

Sorry MNHQ

Didnt see your post

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 02/09/2016 16:54

micro

Oh he can fuck right off!

fruit

Could you look at the photo at the bottom of the article micro posted please....do you honestly not have a problem with somone like that stating that they are a woman and that anyone who misgenders them is transohobic

Not a trick question honestly and i wont take the conversation any further no matter what your answer is Smile

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 16:51

Hello all

“… 'misgendering' is a useful proxy for deciding whether someone is being respectful or not. I imagine there are a team of mods responding to reports at MNHQ, who I'm sure are time-stressed, and it shouldn't be expected of them to have read widely and have understood all the nuances of this debate. Of course they're going to need clear and simple guidelines, as do we all.”

There's some truth in what Plenty says - misgendering has been a useful shorthand for our community team because in our experience it very often has broken our Talk Guidelines. In other words, it's been used aggressively, to inflame or provoke, to be insulting, or as a personal attack.

In all of this very complex and rapidly evolving stuff, though, we've relied ultimately on our guidelines. We think they make Mumsnet the kind of place that most people want it to be - a place which is tolerant of differences of opinion, and where deliberate rudeness and belittling doesn't stand; fundamentally a place where the rules of civilised debate apply.

The issue of pronouns seems to be derailing progress towards civilised debate here; it's become a bit of a distraction from that overarching aim, rather than a means of achieving it. Our TGs, as we've said often, cover all this, so for now - as they do with all contentious issues - our community team will make decisions on a case by case basis; the guidelines will be front and centre, and the team will use them to decide whether any given post is intended to inflame or provoke, is a personal attack, not in the spirit etc etc without blanket bans on any given phrase or expression.

We hope this reassures those worried about deletion/banning etc and that we can focus on what really counts - that is, ensuring that Mumsnet is a place where all voices can be heard and those who need it can find support.

A quick but sincere thank you to those who've acknowledged the difficulty of our position here - we are doing our very best in rather choppy waters.

Couple of other clarifications:

I have been told that they have staff members and/or sponsors affiliated with the TA movement so that is no doubt why.

This is absolutely not the case.

I do want to know that reasoned posts based on proven scientific facts, or discussing evidence, won't be deleted because those facts or research may upset someone.

TBH this has always been the case, but we're happy to confirm it again. Reasoned posts whose tone is not inflammatory and/or deliberately provocative or goady are within our TGs and won't be deleted.

I do not understand why you seek to prioritise the feelings of parents of those who are transitioning. Why have you ignored the feelings of parents, including adolescent lesbians who are particularly at risk in this world of TA.

What we're trying to do is support all parents. It's difficult, but we're trying.

MNHQ

CoteDAzur · 02/09/2016 16:06

"The child and adolescent brain should not be tested on with hormone therapies and puberty blockers"

Puberty blockers are risky, potentially with very serious consequences such as infertility and increased cancer risk. When DD entered puberty early, her pediatrician said that puberty blockers could be considered but they had risks & consequences and they were avoided in all but a few cases where extreme short stature is feared if puberty is allowed to take place so early.

Unless if the child in question wants to be the other sex, I suppose, in which case all caution to the wind and let's applaud the family's courage Hmm

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 02/09/2016 16:02

So basically She has issues about feeling desired OR she is taking the typical man stance when it comes women who complain about cat calling and unwanted attention 'you'll be too old to get it one day' basically?

As a woman I do not need a man to validate my womanhood. Only men would think that we do.

FRETGNIKCUF · 02/09/2016 15:59

Paris lees validated her transwomanness by prostitution and "men from far and wide would come and fuck her" (her words ish). I