Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

I'm sure transactivists are rubbing their hands in glee over the chaos and fear this has caused women.

I just want to point out to them that I'm not writing any of these comments for them, or even the lurkers, I'm writing them for the press.

At what point do the guidelines which state "I’m afraid you need to accept that Mumsnet isn’t the right place for you" apply to those people who claim to find the idea of debate about sex distressing? And yet turn up here mob-handed every single day in order to be further distressed?

This has been puzzling me for a long time, Popchyk.
I had understood there would be a high tolerance of MRAs and transgender advocates based on the stated commitment to "free speech", despite the fact that it constituted an open invitation to come and harass women on FWR.
Revising the commitment to free speech in order to limit the ability of GC women and Feminists to state facts because they may be hurtful to MRAs and transgender advocates who harass GC women and Feminists on FWR makes a mockery of the earlier MN claim.

This is an article from last year (probably discussed then) which talks about the language used on MN:

Browse the site for barely a minute and its becomes readily apparent: the first F-bomb is usually only three or four clicks in. And the bombs keep dropping. And dropping with such frequency and vehemence that Mumsnet begins to take on an almost Tarantino-like vibe. Posts like ‘Is this totally fucked?’ and ‘Can we talk about spunk’ are commonplace.

www.marketingweek.com/2017/08/23/mark-ritson-brands-boycotting-mumsnet-bad-language-deluded-view-consumers/

It's part of MN's USP.

Which is why I find it strange that it's now being so coy when referring to biologically male transwomen...unless it now regards the T-acronym as transphobic?

How long has that acronym been used on MN? If it wasn't transphobic three months ago (and if it was, it should have been deleted, according to the guidelines), why is it transphobic now?

If, on the other hand, it's all about politeness, the fact that MN is quite happy to allow fuck and cunt, which most newspapers would asterisk, it's a bit bizarre that a factually-correct three letter acronym is seen as beyond the pale.

A man who presents as a woman is trans identifying and a man, so therefore they are a trans identifying man (TIM) I am not going to be forced into a legal fiction where I can't say the truth. To deny us the right to call a TIM a TIM is telling us to lie. I will not lie. This is ridiculous!

but I can see why they want to make sure everyone toes the line so they can say they they are very obviously keeping on the right side of this ridiculous law.

Whilst I agree this is what they are doing, it's unnecessary. The people who are putting pressure on mumsnet are not doing it because they are facing a hostile environment of any description. They are doing it to shut women up.

They are not being discriminated against in any way, shape or form.

People across the globe call them sorts of names, it's not illegal.

We are not doing that. We are merely pointing out a fact. MtT, is the same fact used by medical professionals everywhere.

TPWSTW (Trans People Who Say They're Women) - Doesn't mention their sex, conveys how they identify. and is literally (as in the literal meaning of the word "literally") a neutral description.

Are MN counter as a publisher or a platform when it comes to content?

The Mumsnet forums have become far more than just a discussion group for parents. It is very powerful entity which millions of people read and has become a much quoted source of public mood, it is therefore disappointing that censorship of open and honest discussion is taking place.

Therefore important that we stay. And have our say. And refuse to use compelled speech.

It's the most ridiculous piece of legislation ever. Whoever wrote it was either a raging misogynist, or as thick as two short planks because they could not foresee it will be exploited to subdue women everywhere.

Agreed. There are some other options (eg protection for people who don't cornform to gender stereotypes) that would be so much more effective and also progressive.

However, it means they cannot be discriminated against. But this is in a work environment. Persistent misgendering to harass, passed over for promotion, not given the job because of their trans status, etc.

Arguably MN are providing a service and service provision is covered. Also, if MN have any trans employees they will need to ensure that they don't create a hostile work environment for them. I would still put money on MN to win even if they didn't ban these terms because I think the mods do a good job of removing anything that is really beyond the pale, but I can see why they want to make sure everyone toes the line so they can say they they are very obviously keeping on the right side of this ridiculous law.

I can’t really understand the need for any censorship for an adult conversation. I can take it, I’m sure the adults here can take it and if anyone cannot debate in an adult way I am not and other adults are not responsible for their taking offence. Opinions are opinions, it is what people are thinking- you can’t stop what people honestly think. Surely it’s better that thoughts are out there and discussed openly rather than hidden and used subversively. If a thought is considered distasteful by the majority, surely it’s better for it to be discussed and the majority can try to change the distasteful thoughts.

Even as a teenager I was part of a debating society and nothing was off the table even at that age (I joined at 14 yrs)

The Mumsnet forums have become far more than just a discussion group for parents. It is very powerful entity which millions of people read and has become a much quoted source of public mood, it is therefore disappointing that censorship of open and honest discussion is taking place.

Transwo-man literally has the word man in it. Weird huh?

I find people using "moron" distressing. It personally affects me.
Is that a bannable offence yet?

@KateMumsnet

“Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level - so let’s not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex.”

The same could be said about "transwoman" as only biologically male people can be called that. There are mainstream transactivists like Morgane Oger who do not want to be called "transwomen" but just "women". What are we to do about that? Are we allowed any say over our language?

Oh goodness sorry

I also wanted to say that i am still very pleased that MNHQ will moniter over reporting and, as ally said, the fact that biological facts are still being debated is also a positive

There is something a bit off when the people responsible for putting the women here at risk of doxxing and harassment through a security breach suddenly take the high ground to talk about what is hurtful to whom.

This.

Gender reassignment is applied once they start down the transitioning route no? It's not enough to put on pink nail polish and grow your hair for you to become protected

Well this is the crux of the problem. The equality act says just saying it out loud is enough to be protected.

It's the most ridiculous piece of legislation ever. Whoever wrote it was either a raging misogynist, or as thick as two short planks because they could not foresee it will be exploited to subdue women everywhere.

However, it means they cannot be discriminated against. But this is in a work environment. Persistent misgendering to harass, passed over for promotion, not given the job because of their trans status, etc.

It is NOT about a feminist group calling cross dressers, transvestites, AGP individuals, or 'gender fluid' people, Trans Identified Males (TIMs).

Genuine transwomen are called transsexuals, here. Ie men with gender dysphoria.

This is completely about transactivists exploiting the law to bully women into submission.

I, like many others, am utterley shocked that mumsnet are caving. Because there is no need. None whatsoever.

I'm tempted to just call transwomen transsexuals, and if clarification is needed as to whether they are born male or female, I'll give it.

Or transsexuals with gender dysphoria and transsexuals without gender dysphoria.

I suppose ally that i dont think that saying a transwomen is biologically male is a compromise

As its an actual fact and all

And there is no way MNHQ would be able to enforce that little rule

I do absolutely appreciate the tightrope MNHQ are walking...that rope is getting higher and higher, thinner and thinner

So where is the compromise?

We can still say transwomen are biologically male. I'm sure this pisses off a lot of people.

Im confused about the compromise bit

(Im permanently confused at the moment and im happy to agree thats its me and not 'you')

So gender critical women (the vagina/cervix kind) were unhappy with using the word 'woman' as any sort of descriptor for people that were born with a penis....

They were told not to misgender as that was rude...fine

They came up with biologically correct terms such TIM of MtT and that was fine

Until 'someone' decided that that was rude and now it HAS to be transwomen

Yeah

Am i right?

So where is the compromise?

And i speak as someone who has ALWAYS used transwomen as a term and has no problem using it...i just resent being told i HAVE to use it because any other term is now considered 'hurtful' or rude

ally thanks for your clarification on this. Now being in the Uk or familiar with laws there seeing as I've been away so long I appreciate it. Thankfully here to get a grc it takes a full reassignment, self Id is illegal and a full reassignment with all the counseling etc can take up to 6nor 7 years before they'll entertain the idea that you can call yourself a trans woman.

And if a penis claiming to be a woman is in a female space the penis holder is don't for sexual harassment, flashing and fraud.

Gender reassignment is applied once they start down the transitioning route no? It's not enough to put on pink nail polish and grow your hair for you to become protected

You literally don't even have to do anything other than say 'I intend to change my gender' and then you are covered. No nail polish required!

it was a paid position in the form that he was a woman speaking at a women's event, therefore taking a spot from a woman by claiming to be one.

Even if it's a women's event, Amnesty can invite who they like to speak at it. They could ask Ralph Little and other brocialists who claim to support women's rights if they wanted. There is nothing that requires Amnesty to only have women speaking about feminism unfortunately.

Sorry for the superficial reply at the supermarket, in phone but wanted to answer asap as I feel this is an important issue and wanted to get some other views on it

Oh I totally agree - this is important. I just wish the law wasn't so crap and did more to protect the rights of women and girls.

I was thinking more along the lines of how the law would side with MN if they got sued. I have no wish to start prosecuting anyone but I’d like this space protected.

Wed all like this space protected. Unfortunately seeing as MN are now singing from a tra mandated hymn sheet we'll never be protected again. MeWe is where we now gather to speak with no censorship

Justine likes to think of herself as a respected voice in the public debate on women’s issues.

I was thinking more along the lines of how the law would side with MN if they got sued. I have no wish to start prosecuting anyone but I’d like this space protected.

think talking about legal routes is a bit silly isn't it? MN could ban us from using the words "Mumsnet" or "biscuits" if they were so inclined. They're a business after all I was only discussing the situation with a friend and though I'd share on here her thoughts. I never mentioned legal action against mumsnet did I? Unlike tras have numerous occasions.