Thoughts on MNHQ's response to the Spartacus thread

(sorry - conflating two trains of thoughts, I know hypo's DD wasnt prepubescent. Older children shouldn't be forced into genderised boxes either but with access to the internet they may apply 'trans' to themselves so its a lot less simple than with little kids where it should all be irrelevant.)

NonHypothetical, thank you for your post - I hope MNHQ see it and take it to heart.

The idea of 'trans' being applied to prepubescent children ... just stop forcing kids into genderised boxes FFS. Support them to be themselves. Let Kids be Kids.

It's probably a case by case basis. The few transwomen I have come across personally have basically lived as women and don't benefit from any male privilege; rather the contrary.

Problem is, you can't legislate on a case by case basis (other than for eg referring to a GRC)

Someone on another thread said they would refer to someone like Jan Morris as "she" to her face but not if they were talking about her on here. This is someone who has been living as a woman for around 60 years and is generally known in that persona. Describing her as "he" would be scientifically accurate but what does it achieve other than being unnecessarily rude and offensive?

Unless you speak very oddly you would not use pronouns when talking to a person, and I have no issue in using a persons chosen name.

It is possible to talk about a transperson accurately and inoffensively without mangling the English language or ignoring basic facts by simply using "they" or the persons name...

Somewhat off-topic, but the reason the 'Bathroom Bill' was such a big deal in the US is because of the lack of privacy in US toilet cubicles. There are normally huge gaps under, over and to the sides which mean people outside are pretty well visible to those inside, and vice versa. There's even a Buzzfeed article about it.

So in the UK where toilet cubicles are generally more private, you get people walking around saying 'I don't get what the big deal is'.

It could be argued that as transwomen were socialized as men, with all that male privilege brings that they can't really avoid it. How on earth do separate out transwomen who use their penis and male privilege, and those who don't?

It's probably a case by case basis. The few transwomen I have come across personally have basically lived as women and don't benefit from any male privilege; rather the contrary.

MN have never for one moment suggested they would do this, and indeed there is no trend in wider society to stop women talking about exclusively female issues

Actually NotMe there is. A quick google or search on Twitter and you will find transactivists saying that exclusively female discussion topics are discriminatory because it is 'trans-exclusionary'.

This is dangerous rhetoric and the last place I would expect to find it is MN but so far MNHQ have provided no reassurance that transactivism is unwelcome on MN.

This is what is cult like and pretty terrifying - children and young people questioning themselves, as is entirely natural and normal, being pushed into being trans by adults who should know better

I actually came across a person selling packers (basically fake penises to put in your pants to have a male looking bulge for those who don't know)

These were made in various sizes for children from age 4 and over. Some are designed to allow girls to 'pee like a boy'.

I don't know what planet everyone else is living in but this for me is wrong its encouraging shame in girls because their anatomy is different and needs a device to change it :(

I'm not going to post the link because tracking will light up mumsnet and we'll get the TRAs hijacking in their droves like the last time I shared a link to similar items. the link is available through 4twavenow though 4thwavenow.com/2015/09/26/san-francisco-company-selling-packers-for-trans-boys-ages-4-and-up/

I will add - If you are an adult over 18 and choose to use this sort of item for yourself. I have no problem with it.

So working ourselves up into a frenzy about something that isn't happening and which no-one has suggested will happen within MN really takes away our own credibility.

Just a couple of examples that I was aware of, I'm sure that there are more...

"In 2014, with little consultation, MANA decided that being a woman was not a necessary or relevant factor for being a mother. They edited their core competencies document, and in effect ordered practitioners to stop referring to clients as “women” and “mothers” demanding they say “pregnant people” and “birthing individuals” instead."
www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/29/transphobic-midwives-must-say-birthing-individuals-not-offend-breastfeeding-transgender-dad/

"Students at the all-female liberal arts school Mount Holyoke College have decided to break with a decade-long tradition of putting the play on at Valentine’s Day, arguing that it does not do enough to include transgender people and people of colour."

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/vagina-monologues-eve-ensler-rejects-mount-holyoke-college-claims-reductionist-exclusive

Maybe not banned, but certainly deleted. Also it was my understanding that users had been banned for "persistent misgendering"...

At least one was banned for outright bullying.

So free speech is not allowed where it may cause offence or hurt to someone?

MN's rules have always been that personal attacks, deliberate provocation and discrimination aren't allowed. If you view that as a restriction on free speech, so be it.

You are saying that the entire body of science is less important than maintaining the fiction that a transwoman is a woman.

Actually, in normal everyday conversation I don't really think that total scientific accuracy is more important than ordinary human courtesy. Science is not going to crumble into dust because I call Jan Morris "she", and no woman is going to be harmed if I do so.

Someone on another thread said they would refer to someone like Jan Morris as "she" to her face but not if they were talking about her on here. This is someone who has been living as a woman for around 60 years and is generally known in that persona. Describing her as "he" would be scientifically accurate but what does it achieve other than being unnecessarily rude and offensive?

Notme, I don't think there is an insistence on that - can you point to a post?Several people have said that although we would usually used preferred pronouns in private, everyday conversation, we may object to being forced to do so in a public, contested, political space, or similar. A range of views on this have been expressed on this and other threads.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent - thank you so much for sharing your experience. I'm really pleased to hear that your daughter is now more at peace with herself, it sounds like you handled the situation incredibly well and she is lucky to have you.

I'm in a cubicle, no-one is going to see anything, and I strongly suspect I wouldn't even notice if a trans woman came in.

You might if the transwoman presented as a male. You are also obviously lucky enough to have no reason to fear males, and like and trust those you live and work with.

The exception would be transwomen who expect to have penetrative sex with women or who are hanging on to the advantages of male power in other ways.

It could be argued that as transwomen were socialized as men, with all that male privilege brings that they can't really avoid it. How on earth do separate out transwomen who use their penis and male privilege, and those who don't?

The posts on this thread and the others are by and large not saying we shouldn't employ trans people or that trans people should not be utterly free to live their lives as they want to. What the majority of posts are saying is that trans people should be free to live how they want but that they are not the opposite sex and where there are safe spaces or positive discrimination in favour of that opposite sex then the trans person probably should not be entitled to access it.

On the whole, this reflects my views. The one exception is that, frankly, I can't get too worked up about transwomen using Ladies' toilets. I already share the use of toilets with men both at work and at home, I'm in a cubicle, no-one is going to see anything, and I strongly suspect I wouldn't even notice if a trans woman came in.

But I don't see how this leads to an insistence that we call transwomen "he". So far as I'm concerned, it takes nothing away from me to refer to them as she; it doesn't make me feel in any way insecure about my identity, and I think generally it is simple human consideration. The exception would be transwomen who expect to have penetrative sex with women or who are hanging on to the advantages of male power in other ways.

But where I think these threads become faintly ridiculous is when it throws up posts like this:

Will mumsnet become like this? Where we can't talk about post birth bleeding, leaking nipples, abortion, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, vulvas, vaginas, PCOS, endometriosis, IBS that is really affected by our oestrogen levels rising and falling, pre menstural migraines all because it might be triggering to a MtF trans person.

MN have never for one moment suggested they would do this, and indeed there is no trend in wider society to stop women talking about exclusively female issues - objections to that are within an extremely limited group who simply have no credibility or support outside their own very very small circle. So working ourselves up into a frenzy about something that isn't happening and which no-one has suggested will happen within MN really takes away our own credibility.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent your daughter is so so lucky to have you there supporting and questioning the ethics behind it all and pushing aside the activism and agendas.

Its is the exact same experience my friend had. The 'you're a woman!' was forced upon him when he questioned whether he was a he or a she so much so that he had breast implants in a hope to make it better. It was only with a fully qualified, unbiased and experienced therapist he was able to explore his identity and came to the conclusion he was in fact a man. Thankfully for him his procedure was reversible leaving only scars.

It makes me so sad that there are boys and girls who feel so much shame in their bodies they want to change and I can't help feeling feminism has failed them :(

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent, your daughter is lucky to have such a clever and caring mother.

If I say that I believe that, for instance, a trans woman who is simply getting on with living her life should be called "she", how on earth can that possibly equate to putting trans people at the "very top of the agenda for everything"?

Because they are not a "she" (pronoun used for females). You are saying that the entire body of science is less important than maintaining the fiction that a transwoman is a woman.

Ok I have read through thread now and have a couple more thoughts:

"Woman" is shorter and more concise than "cis-woman"

A transwoman is not a woman so we don't need the woman category split into cis and trans, there are not two types of woman.

Transwomen are real people. As such they deserve the same kindness, respect etc as anyone else. However they are not women, and it is untruthful to say that they are.

With regards to what NonHypothetical said - that is exactly why people need forums like MN to be able to dispute the trans cult.

Before you rush to report I am not saying that all trans people are cult like - many suffer from very real dysphoria. However there is a trans cult whereby if a child or young person is at all uncomfortable with their "gender" they are positively encouraged to come out as trans. This is positively celebrated and confirmed on boards where there can be no dissent and by counsellor s /NHS/ various charities etc. If you go onto the transgender subreddit they will happily coach you in what to say to get faster access to puberty blockers etc. This is what is cult like and pretty terrifying - children and young people questioning themselves, as is entirely natural and normal, being pushed into being trans by adults who should know better.

'A way which will cause hurt' appears to be..pointing out biology or refusing to fall into line and agree that trans people should be at the very top of the agenda for everything

But how can that conceivably be correct? If I say that I believe that, for instance, a trans woman who is simply getting on with living her life should be called "she", how on earth can that possibly equate to putting trans people at the "very top of the agenda for everything"?

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent, I have a lump in my throat....great post, thank you. This site is something to be proud of, MNHQ.

I am parent who's not an activist, and isn't even posting, but whose NON-ADULT child is transitioning.

I have found Mumsnet invaluable over the last few years. My daughter came as transgender to us in 2012. It was a very isolating confusing time. It came out of the blue after quite a turbulent time in the family.

At the time (as I do now) I had the opinion that you fundamentally can not change your sex. There's nothing wrong with men presenting as a woman or a woman as a man. It was an opinion I kept to myself amongst my liberal friends. When I told one liberal friend about my daughter, her reaction was blind acceptance and she actually said 'How cool'. It was not cool.

A few months after my daughter came out to us www.mumsnet.com/Talk/teenagers/1464511-My-14-Old-Daughter-Says-She-Wants-to-be-a-Boy?pg=1this thread popped up. I was not alone. There were woman who were being sensible, asking questions, having valid concerns about the same things I was.

This line on the tread struck home, I would say that if you opt for counselling, be very very careful in the counsellor that you select. If they don't know what they're doing in this delicate area, they could do more harm than good.

My daughter was very fragile, she was getting a lot of her information from the internet and and any dissension from us would result in us being being called transphobic bigots, given suicide rates, etc. She was being fed rhetoric and was gobbling it up. At the time the TA movement was gaining a louder voice, I could see the future and I didn't like it. My view was that any counsellor we saw would validate her feelings of dysphoria and not question them. She had very valid reasons to want to change herself and the situation, though it's a very common teenage feeling, to want to be someone else, but this was not explored. I was so glad that thread was not high-jacked by TAs and was allowed to stay. Though towards the end a private space was created where mums in a similar position could discuss it in private without being attacked.

As gender dysphoria is not classified as a mental health condition (a whole other issue - why is the only dysphoria not classed as a mental health issue?) we had to first be referred to the local children's services, who recommended the local LGBT youth club, however, I knew some of the people there were also transgender and knew they feeding her the same rhetoric. Thankfully, I had the posters on Mumsnet who were saying the things I was thinking. After a disastrous CAMHS appointment where they spouted the wonky science of hormonal washes in the womb and lady/man brains and given forums such as Mermaids to explore. Ultimately, we were referred to the Tavistock clinic. Now some may think this is child abuse, but I delayed our referral as I didn't trust the clinicians not to indoctrinate her further.

All the information out there at the time spun the line that if you feel like a boy you are a boy, no questions, full stop. If you disagree with your child they will kill themselves. Through Mumsnet I discovered more and more people who thought like me:

4thwavenow.com/

www.transgendertrend.com/

gendercriticaldad.blogspot.co.uk/

There's a lot I've missed out, but now, 4 years later, she's happier in herself, accepts herself and can see that by wanting to be a boy/man she's hurting women. Without the voices on Mumsnet I'm not sure I could have stayed strong in my conviction. So please MNHQ do not silence the debate because it may hurt some hypothetical person. You could argue that the majority of posts on here could be perceived as offensive to someone somewhere.

The I am Spartacus Thread - moved me to tears. There were woman standing up for me and my family.

I am NonHypotheticalLurkingParent and I am Spartacus.

I would also like reassurance that MNHQ will not be deleting posts or banning people for stating biological facts and making rational arguments based on them.The same policy as applies to discussions about god, vaxx, homeopathy etc etc. If people take offence from that, or feel unwelcome, then I regret that but this site is what it is partly because of its informed, articulate posters and the expertise they offer in well-reasoned debate.

C&Pd from bullshit thread:

Just read MNs response to this, and TBH I am shock (MNHQ in bold)

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.

Maybe not banned, but certainly deleted. Also it was my understanding that users had been banned for "persistent misgendering"...

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.

So free speech is not allowed where it may cause offence or hurt to someone? This is not consistent with how other topic are moderated where views that others may be uncomfortable with are left to stand; politics, religion, homeopathy, anti vaxxers etc

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.

"Sex at birth" pronouns? shock So MNHQ believes that sex can be changed? A belief that most on these threads (and basic science!) opposes. Furthermore people may feel inflamed or belittled when the correct pronoun was used, when the intention was to be truthful and accurate. I am however happy that you see pronouns as being used to describe sex rather than gender, even though that kind of makes misgendering an impossibility.

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.

I'm sorry MNHQ but it is a shit fudge. There are plenty of forums available where the groups you mention above can go to have their views/opinions/feelings validated. MNHQ has always been a place for robust debate where common sense and science tend to prevail. This is again not the stance you take on other topics, I'm not quite sure why trans issues is a special case? I am also a bit shock that you seem to be suggestions that we should ignore mainstream scientific thinking in case we hurt someone's feelings?

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.

So we are allowed to use the correct pronouns in a headline grabbing case? I'm sorry MNHQ but I will not accept that a transwoman is a "she" .

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.

Er no. Your policy seems to be to ignore and fudge rather than coming out clearly with a useful statement. I am interested to know what MNHQ thinks the issues are and how they can be solved though.

MNHQ also posted saying that suggesting autogynephila was a prime motivator for transitioning would be deleted - MirandaYardley replied to this over on the Spartacus thread.

Will go back and read rest of thread now.

We are getting diverted here by semantics, pronouns and personal issues.

The real question I want MNHQ to answer is this:

Is MN a place where transactivism, that is harmful to women and girls, is unwelcome?

Will posters who speak up against transactivism that is harmful to women and girls be supported by MNHQ, or not?

Please answer these questions MNHQ.

This is the crux of so many of the posts on this and other recent threads. This is categorically not about making parents of young people who may be considering transitioning feel excluded. That is a diversion and a red herring.