Thoughts on MNHQ's response to the Spartacus thread

The issue is that you say your friend Natasha, for want of a better phrase, passes as a woman. So, realistically, Natasha could go to a woman's refuge and probably not cause significant distress simply because she passes so the women there would not know she is trans. But, the majority of transwomen don't pass fully and would be recognised as a man and so would cause distress. So does it then become a case of "only if you pass?" But then that is hideously subjective and judging people purely on looks.

You then have to factor in that something like 80% of transwomem are still fully intact males from a biological perspective. They have male strength and male penises. How do we tell the difference between a fully transitioned transwomem, a transwomam in the prices of transition ie on hormones and awaiting surgery, a gender non conforming male who dresses as a woman, and a "man in a dress"? And then you have those who identify as women but have entirely male appearance - a la Danielle Muscado.

Who do you let in to a woman's refuge which doesn't allow men? Because current transactivist thinking and campaigning says it is all of them. If the only action required to enter a safe space is to say I am a woman then that space is no longer safe.

She is a woman in every way possible

Thats just not true Fruit is it?

The only possible way to be a women is to be born with xx chromosome and female genitals.

But in the past few days all I've seen is racism against anyone who was born a woman by genetic males who want to become women.

Your really haven't, Amalfi. The weight of opinion on these threads is, very obviously, the other way by a ratio of at least 500:1.

I saw on thread tonight by someone demanding that the mods put up a separate thread to answer their demands as they had hidden the thread the demands were about.

No, you saw a polite suggestion that, when MN commented as they had indicated they would, it would makes sense to put it on a separate thread rather than bury it at the end of the Spartacus thread. Most people seem to agree that that was entirely sensible, as indeed is demonstrated by the existence of this thread.

And if you had read these threads properly, you would know that the individual in question has repeatedly answered questions - generally to be met with an accusation that she was making it all about her.

I'm not her, I don't know her, but frankly I hate the outright bullying I have seen on these threads.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2469565-What-is-going-on-with-the-Feminist-Library-in-London

This was when I realised, something was wrong. Before this^ thread I hadn't opened anything on trans because y' know live and let live. Transexuals were just people trying to get on with there lives. I only opened this thread as it had no reference to trans and was about a feminist library.

I now realise that Transexual have become the catch all under the trans umbrella. When talking of transgender I would hazzard a guess that most people see a transgender reference and automatically assume we are talking about somebody with debilitating body dysphobia(sp?)

so 1000+ eloquent and educated women on the Spartacus threads are all bigots who hate people who are MTF transgender and want to exclude, upset and discriminate against them?. Seems unlikely to me. or is it easier to just say that rather than accepting that they disagree with you about the biological basis of being a woman.

I also don't want to be a part of mumstransnet, after 15 years on here discussing pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and PMT, amongst other things. The wishy-washy, pandering, trans lobby PR friendly response from MN to the, frankly astonishing and inspiring, Spartacus threads is the first time I have ever actually considered leaving MN. Can I have a link to the FB page as well please.

IMO it would be ridiculous if they banned 'cis' as lots of us use it to describe ourselves - and yes, that includes men!

We already have words to describe ourselves: women and men.

It's not trans-exclusionary to call myself a woman and talk about periods, childbirth and breasts (for example).

Someone up thread said comparing cis to 'the N word' is offensive.

Well. I'm black (mixed) and a woman and I'm telling you that I find cis just as offensive as ngger. Yes, I typed the whole word sans * because I can type cis so why shouldn't I?

Because it's laughable that you say the word hasn't got the same history.

The history of the oppression of women goes back to biblical times, as do race issues.

And just because the word itself hasn't been used an oppressive buzz word until recently, doesn't mean the intent behind it is not the same bullshit story that women have suffered since forever.

It is a stick to beat women with; to oppress, belittle and silence us. And I'm not having it.

So, HQ, if you are so on about the N word, let's extend the same common decency and respect to your posters about the C word.

"What about the case of Tara Hudson who was forced to go to a male prison?"

Tara Hudson had a functioning penis which she enjoyed boasting about, and was convicted for a violent crime. She is not a great example for your purposes. (UK law means that trans people who have gone through transition and got a gender reassignment certificate will automatically be sent to the prison of the sex which they now identify with. Tara was not in this group.)

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.

I think this is slight progress. Until now, 'misgendering' has been seen by MNHQ as either an 'accidental slip-up' or deliberate and 'malicious'. This seems to be acknowledgement that there are occasions when stating a trans person's sex is neither accidental nor malicious, but is done simply to make it possible to name and describe what is happening. If I have read this correctly then thank you MNHQ.

I'm less happy about this:

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.

There are all sorts of parents, hypothetical and real, who feel 'belittled, mocked or attacked' by debate on MN. Others have given some examples. My own particular bugbear is pregnant women who are struggling to quit smoking. Over 10% of women are still smoking at the time of delivery. Have you seen what happens when they come on MN looking for support to quit? Am I now OK to report every nasty comment I see about pregnant smokers? I would love to because those comments all add up and lead to MN letting down over 10% of pregnant women. Actual women, who are pregnant - your core market.

This could be seen as 'whataboutery' but the point is this: why are trans parents and parents of trans being given special treatment? Must they be 'centred' on MN as they are in so many other spaces which used to be ours?

I'm a woman and I don't have a curvy waist

Interesting question for you though - if my post op friend was raped, why should she be denied access to a women's rape crisis centre? If she experiences DV, why should she be denied access to a refuge?

Because those spaces are for WOMEN who have expegienced violence at the hands of men. They have lived their whole life as women and have only female experiences of how violence/sexual violence affects them. They are told that the space they are in is a male free enviroment and that they can share and confide in other women their experiences.

A trans women will never know what it feels life to be a women ( whatever that means) as they were born male. This makes dealing with such situations totally different.

You have come on yo this thread spouting hate of trans people is what the threads are about but have you read them?
If you think stating biological fact is hateful then you may need to go back to your dictionary and look it up.

I am pleased to see that only a handful of posters have come on to the threads in an attempt to shut them down by calling us vile/disgusting/hateful. It appears the majority believe in what we are doing.

I asked this on the other thread but - can anyone, MNHQ or those saying they use the term - provide a sentence in which cis is used that doesn't diminish, belittle or stereotype women? ie, one in which its use doesn't rely on assumptions/beliefs about women's behaviour, dress, brains, hobbies or attitudes? Those assumptions diminish all humans, and again, because this space is public and contested, I think such language has political force.

I'm not going to trawl MN and c+p comments, that's a ridiculous suggestion. What I will say though, is that denying that trans is a real thing, or insisting on calling trans people "they" or by their former gender is in my mind bigotry.

By denying the experience of trans people it is marginalising them further.

I get that there is a small minority of MTT whose behaviour is vile towards women. I think that crying that talking about breast cancer is TERF is ridiculous. The vast majority of trans people do not see these things as an issue.

Interesting question for you though - if my post op friend was raped, why should she be denied access to a women's rape crisis centre? If she experiences DV, why should she be denied access to a refuge?

What about the case of Tara Hudson who was forced to go to a male prison?

She had breasts, a high pitched voice, a curvy waist, every feature you would expect of the female sex. I was absolutely gobsmacked, I didn't believe her until she showed me her passport, in which she was called Nathan. To call her anything but female just feels awfully disrespectful and rude. She is a woman in every way possible

I want to be Einstein. I'very had surgery to look like him, I actually like him, dress like him and talk like him.

But I am not Einstein. I can never be. Genetics won't permit it.

Your friends do natasha can feel, act, dress and talk like a woman but she will always be male biologically speaking

Bollocks, I missed an "every"

"She is a woman in every way possible"

Apart from in every single nucleus of single cell of the entire body, yes.

FruitCider - I for one have no problem with people like your friend Natasha who transition, as long as they show respect to women and understand that, not having grown up as a woman, they have a lot to learn about what it means to be a woman in today's society.

I have no idea if such people have a undiscovered neurological abnormality that means that they feel like women despite being biological men, or whether they are reacting to the narrow gender norms of our society. Who knows.

However, the extraordinary, massive increase recently in the number of trans-identifying people (many of whom don't actually want to undergo physical transition, but do want access to spaces reserved for the other sex) is another matter. Their arguments are grounded in self-righteous nonsense and the more extreme transactivists do represent a threat to women's rights (and indeed a threat to the many confused and unhappy people who sign up for their cause and make their own lives much harder in the process).

"She had breasts, a high pitched voice, a curvy waist, every feature you would expect of the female sex. I was absolutely gobsmacked, I didn't believe her until she showed me her passport, in which she was called Nathan. To call her anything but female just feels awfully disrespectful and rude."

Biological descriptions such as male or female are not value judgements. They are objective truths and cannot be disrespective or rude when used correctly.

You can call Natasha the Queen of Sheba if you like, but Natasha with the Y-chromosome and artificial hormones is not female. That is another word you might like to look up in the dictionary:

Female: Of the sex that can bear young or make eggs.

Zing

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2716595-TransAgenda-BullShit-The-I-am-Spartacus-Thread

This is the Spartacus thread. It is full now, and it would probably be an idea to start Spartacus#2 because, this one is now discussing mnhq's response. (honestly we are disappearing u our own arses with all these threads).

I think Mumsnet has gone to the same PR school as Edinburgh University.

Sorry FruitCider but i see no hate on these threads.
If possible could you c&p any posts that declare hate of trans people?

What i do see are women speakinh biological fact. I see women supporting other women to speak out about womens rights that are being squashed in to oblivion by SOME very vocal and it appears influential trans people.
This does not mean i or any other posters hate trans people it just means we wont be told to shut up and put up anymore by men.

I personally believe that men and women are inherently different, I don't believe in a male/female brain, but do believe that generally women are more feminine than men, and I believe this is down to your mix of hormones. I for example am quite a masculine female. I have my hair cut short, I lift big weights at the gym and have no interest in wearing make up apart from to cover up my bags from motherhood.

I lived with a woman called Natasha for 9 months before she told me she was trans and pre op. I had no clue. She had breasts, a high pitched voice, a curvy waist, every feature you would expect of the female sex. I was absolutely gobsmacked, I didn't believe her until she showed me her passport, in which she was called Nathan. To call her anything but female just feels awfully disrespectful and rude. She is a woman in every way possible. I met her 10 years ago and she is very glad she had gender reassignment surgery, she waited 8 years to make sure it was the right decision. And for her it absolutely was.

I get the worry about blocking natural hormones in children, but to have this view of consenting adults, well, it's just abhorrent in my mind.

However the train of thought on trans people is trans exclusionary

There is a serious problem with this kind of sentiment because it denies any possibility of discussion or examination of gender and sex other than the line chosen by trans activism.

And the standard liberal argument that those affected should be allowed to determine the situation for themselves doesn't work in this case because everyone is affected by sex and gender and women are discriminated against and disadvantaged because of both.

It is actually a good thing for everyone to be gender critical.

Why are transwomen trying to invade our spaces anyway?

Why are they not demanding their own spaces instead of telling us to surrender ours?