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
ErrolTheDragon · 05/09/2016 15:52

So ... mostly young rather insecure people maybe?

FloraFox · 05/09/2016 15:32

What is the actual difference (other than trendiness) between someone who is 'genderqueer' and someone who simply refuses to be defined by 'gender' and just has biological sex, sexual orientation and an individual personality?

The person who is genderqueer believes everyone who is not trans or genderqueer buys into gender and is happily content with their gender roles (ie cis).

LauraRoslin · 05/09/2016 15:31

Almondpudding The thing about bringing up the term "heterosexual" is that you're only going to use it of yourself if you have some awareness of homosexuality - it wasn't commonly used before the gay rights movement started gaining traction.

Similarly, people who think "I am a man and I was born a man" or "I am a woman and I was born a woman" are not normally going to use "cis" to describe themselves unless they have some awareness of the concept of being transgender - it's not a concept you would think of unless you were aware that there were people to whom it didn't apply. That doesn't mean they wouldn't say "oh yes, that term describes me" if asked about it.

almondpudding · 05/09/2016 15:13

Laura, the difference is that heterosexual means a person who is solely attracted to the opposite sex. There are huge numbers of people who state they are solely attratced to the opposite sex, so it is an accurate description.

There are not huge numbers of people who believe that the concept of a gender identity describes anything accurate about them.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 05/09/2016 15:13

That 'special snowflake' concept might be a thing. Just look at tumblr/twitter bios and all the variations people list

'Lesbian, feminist, genderqueer, transactivist' was one. Others were much lengthier and clearly it's just a way to put themselves in to neat little boxes that grow ever smaller. There's certainly a need to be defined and to be 'something'.

Is there anything inherently wrong in that? I'm not sure.

The only think I can link it to personally is the goth scene that I was/sorta still am in and how people defined themselves by more and more niches 'goth, punk industrial Bauhaus inspired, 80s vamp chic' (my friends on Twitter now) and ' 'industrial, death metal, hairy Viking goth' (her OH). Some of the descriptors are bizarre in the goth scene when it wasn't that long ago jus 'goth' fit the bill.

Certainly there is a very big need to belong and to define and I wonder, in the trans movement, if that has something to do with the dysphoria many suffer from. I notice the older generation of transwomen (can't find many tranmen) who have been living as transwomen for decades don't feel the need. Most are still describing themselves as transexual or just trans.

Is it a modern phenomena in the age of social media to want to stand out from the crowd but also desperately needing to belong people tie themselves to so many niches? I'm not talking specifically about trans here. It happens across a lot of groups inc feminist, MRAs, Eco/green groups, vegans and even mothers!

(Waffling again. Sorry)

venusinscorpio · 05/09/2016 15:09

The "genderqueer" think their individual personalities are just that little bit more special than everyone else's. Who wants to be a boring cis person?

ErrolTheDragon · 05/09/2016 14:55

Bloody hell. What is the actual difference (other than trendiness) between someone who is 'genderqueer' and someone who simply refuses to be defined by 'gender' and just has biological sex, sexual orientation and an individual personality? Every human being is a 'special snowflake'.

Trans and cis...forget the trite analogy with chemistry where these are discrete states. Think instead of their use in geography eg transpennine and cispennine. The reality is everyone is wending their own way somewhere in the hills. (And note also that in this context only the former is commonplace and the latter really not needed)

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 05/09/2016 14:51

I don't think cis is really anything to gender. It always comes with an implicit "privilege" attached and is used solely to denote folk who are so incredibly lucky to have not gone through the experience of transitioning.

DropYourSword · 05/09/2016 14:31

But how on earth is 'cis' even measured.
I change my brake pads, spark plugs and headlights.
My best subject at school was maths.
I have no issues with parallel parking
I rarely wear makeup
I live in cargo pants
I have long hair
I am logical rather than emotional
I hate Star Trek
I enjoyed the olympics
I'm madly in love with my son
I empty the bins

The list could go on and on and on. I don't 'identify' as a woman. I 'identify' purely as me. I am a woman.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 05/09/2016 14:30

Indeed. I'm never described as a 'woman' just cis. It's dehumanising in a way to make their experiences more valid. That's my feelings anyway.

venusinscorpio · 05/09/2016 14:25

Transactivists couldn't care less whether you're comfortable with it or not. They decide who gets to be "cis" according to their own arbitrary rules, and if you're not actively claiming to be trans or genderqueer or whatever, that's you.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 05/09/2016 14:13

And yes. The only time I've ever been called cis it has been loaded with venom and hatred for something i have no control over - being comfortable with the fact I am a biological woman.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 05/09/2016 14:09

To me, and I may be off the mark here, stating you were 'assigned Xx/XY' and it was 'wrong' implies someone is to blame for a perceived mistake.

venusinscorpio · 05/09/2016 14:00

The vast majority of people aren't going to discuss it with any regularity. Just like they don't discuss having a lack of any other health condition unless it affects them. So they don't need a special word for that lack. And for other people who might want to discuss it, cis is not a neutral term. If you call people "cis" on mumsnet, a lot of them will get mightily pissed off. Because it is loaded, and used against women.

DropYourSword · 05/09/2016 13:57

But we already have those words Laura. Woman and transwoman.

MatildaOfTuscany · 05/09/2016 13:46

I think I'm going to stop talking about objects falling and instead talk about "this object has been assigned to a downward trajectory..." - oh no, hang on a minute, that would be a bit daft, wouldn't it?

LauraRoslin · 05/09/2016 13:42

We don't, but if the concept is going to be discussed with any regularity - and one's gender identity being in concordance with one's birth sex is certainly a concept that is discussed regularly when it comes to transgender issues - it's helpful to have a word for the concept.

(Analogous examples: "heterosexual" with respect to gay rights issues, or "neurotypical" with respect to autistic spectrum discussion.)

almondpudding · 05/09/2016 13:34

There are a huge number of attributes that only a minority of people have. We don't require words meaning the absence of each of those attributes.

JAPABiamtheonewhoknocks · 05/09/2016 13:21

I don't know. Maybe there'll be a better word or phrase someday for "sex assignation at birth matches this individual's perception of what their gender identity is". It's happened with other concepts.

Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish those with an XX/XY chromosome and who consider themselves to be a woman/man, from those with an XX/XY chromosome but who consider themselves to be a man/woman, and from those who do not consider themselves to be either men or women (whatever their chromosome is).

For such times cis tells you straight away that the person is not trans, not non-gender binary, etc etc. OK it doesn't tell you why the person considers themselves to be a man or woman, whether this is because they subscribe to the view that a man/woman is someone with such and such chromosome, which they have, or because they have someother sense of being whichever one, but it still neatly distinguishes them from trans/non gender binary etc folk.

Problem is, any "better" term will just come up against the same opposition from those who do not want to accept that there are other opinions on what makes an individual a man or a woman, than the one they subscribe to. It will be suppressed, declared offensive, and so on and so forth.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 05/09/2016 12:44

How is it 'assigned'?

genitalia are physical and easily observed attributes in relation to ones chromosomes and a good, long recognised (we're talking millennia and in many instances across species) indicator of what a body can do - eg become pregnant or produce sperm.

Males will have XY chromosomes that lead to them developing in utero with a penis. Being observed and recorded post birth as 'male' is simply stating you have a penis. Your chromosomes will be XY and in order to have babies you will produce sperm.

Assigned implies its a choice 'you can be X or Y'. It's not a choice. It is what it is. You are X or you are Y. Your body can only do X or Y. There is no Inbetween there is no way to change this. We are not gobies and we are not clownfish (both species than can change their sex. It's a fascinating ability)

It's only in very rare cases a choice is made and only then will it be made after further careful observations and tests because the initial observations were not as expected. this is done to ensure that the outcome is right for that child. That is the only instance sex is assigned because it's not initially clear and further examinations give a clearer picture.

Removing one of those physical and easily observes attributes - a penis through SRS or a womb through a hysterectomy - does not change biological fact.

This fact has nothing at all to do with gender, a persons preferred dress, outward appearance and/or sexuality.

A gay man will still have XY chromosomes, be born with a penis and will need to produce sperm in order to have children in the same way a straight or bisexual man will and the same way a transwoman will. They are all male but across the spectrum that is 'gender' they all have a place as biological males.

StatisticallyChallenged · 05/09/2016 12:31

It's not assigned, it's identified. You're not given a sex, you have one already. Assigned at birth is a term co opted from trans individuals where sex is ambiguous and so one is effectively chosen. For the vast vast majority of people sex is merely observed.

ChardonnayKnickertonSmythe · 05/09/2016 12:21

You can't assign something that's there.

Atenco · 05/09/2016 12:12

I hate the term "sex assigned at birth", there is no such assignment except in very unusual cases.

MissiAmphetamine · 05/09/2016 12:02

I disagree, Laura. Assignation implies that the person 'assigning' decides whether the assigned person is one, or the other. Which is not the case, when sex is noted at birth.
When sex is noted/recognised/observed at birth in infants with unambiguous genitals, it is an acknowledgement of whether an infant has a penis (such infants being of the male sex, not by assignation but by virtue of their genitals,) or whether the infant has a vulva (such infants being of the female sex, not by assignation but by virtue of their genitals.)
Assignation is entirely misleading, unless one is also assigned blonde, assigned short-sighted, and assigned freckled. In which case the word "assign" is being used incorrectly.

SpeakNoWords · 05/09/2016 12:01

An assignation means that you're somehow giving or setting the sex at birth. That's not what happens. Sex is determined or observed, not assigned. I couldn't have been assigned male at birth, because my sex is female. Sometimes mistakes are made in the observation, like in the case of some intersex individuals, but that doesn't mean that in general sex is assigned.