Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

Ally I need to be able to refer to what people materially are in order to discuss the power dynamics of sex inequality.

From my understanding we can still do that, we just can't do it in the form of a handy collective noun.

So if I have understood the policy correctly it would be permissible to say 'transpeople who may display certain attributes which society stereotypically associates with women will have had certain benefits from male socialisation because they were raised as male.'

The bit in italics is the collective noun and that didn't refer to biological sex - I referred to biological sex later on when I was making my point about male socialisation.

I think I have understood the policy correctly but I'm sure MNHQ will correct me if not...

Oh my fucking God.

Can't mention the sex of the class of people that are are the opposite sex from me in a discussion about my sex and why it matters that I am different from the class of people who are the opposite sex from me.

I'll just refer to them in interpretive dance.

Psych, when you say "looking for female volunteers," are you using a definition of female that we would recognise?

Isn't the standard mn rule on suicide to signpost to the Samaritans and then shut the thread (slash whatever communication method it is coming from)?

someone

If something is saying they are suicidal, why are MN not calling them an ambulance?

as I keep saying, if you give me [a collective noun] that does not appropriate my bio sex, I will use it.

I've been trying to think up something that fits the rules without appropriation or reference to gender. The best I have come up with so far is:

1. When referring to transpeople of either sex - 'transpeople'.

1. When referring to transwomen generally - 'transpeople who may display certain attributes which society stereotypically associates with women'.

1. When referring to transmen generally - 'transpeople who may display certain attributes which society stereotypically associates with men'.

1. When referring to Danielle Muscato/Ibi-Pippi etc. - 'transpeople who have physical attributes which society would stereotypically associate with men but do not identify as such.'

It needs some work I think (especially 4!). Hopefully we can just mainly use transpeople and it will be clear from the context?

Popchyk - agreed. The feminism board on MN is no place for anyone not fully embracing the facts of biology.

What about my distress at being told to LIE? Or does distress only matter when it is expressed of those born male?

L'Oréal boycotted now, appalled by that ad!

Not on a transphobic basis, no worries about anyone wearing makeup etc..... but on the basis of their fatuous comment about Women. That voice over crap, really does take the biscuit.

I spent a small fortune at Christmas, on presents in the family

Going elsewhere... "because I'm worth it " .

Also...

Feminists find appropriation of their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for transpeople which insistently defines them by our bio sex

"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".

Isn't it odd though that of all corners of the internet, they decide to come here? Not just onto Mumsnet, no, but the Feminism and Women's Rights board. Just that one tiny place. Where people discuss biological sex a lot because that is what feminism and women's rights is actually about?

As an atheist, I wouldn't seek out a forum about Christianity and then insist that I found their debate about God "distressing". And that they must not talk about God. And insist that the moderation team find another word for it.

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?

Would feminine transpeople (which may include femme females who for some reason include themselves as trans, but would generally mean males who "present as" female), masculine transpeople (vis versa) and non binary transpeople (gotta be inclusive...) work?

Hi @KateMumsnet I'm pretty sure I've read all the earlier posts and I'm happy to call post op transsexuals who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria with GRC transwomen, as a courtesy, by choice, BUT I find them thought of defining a group of men who meet stonewalls definition of trans (including gender confused, agp, convicted offenders and tra's) as any kind of "woman" ie trans women deeply offensive.

I'd we cannot use the factually correct TIM. What can we say to describe this group of men?

Agree , as always, langcleg.

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.

But biosex is the distinction it’s necessary to make in the face of the chant “transwomen are women”.

All we are doing is trying to hold the existing legislative line here @KateMumsnet so the term “women” to mean women is not erased. Because that will mean the effective legal removal of all sex-based protections.

So what exactly are we allowed to say on MN to defend this?

@KateMumsnet Not all trans people find the reality of their sex distressing, by any means, as not all people who fall under the trans umbrella have dysphoria, and of those who do, there are people like Miranda Yardley , who are honest about and reconciled to their sex.
So the policy is really there to support individuals who may be offended by reality. How on God’s earth are we supposed to have conversations about the rights of women and girls, or anything else for that matter, if we can’t use terms that offend someone who can’t cope with reality ? Frankly I wonder why someone with so shakey a sense of self would be policing the FEMINIST boards on MUMSnet. This isn’t about not offending random individuals, or many posts across all topics would be deleted. This is about capitulating to a very vocal activist group. It is disingenuous to put the emotional weight of someone else’s fragility onto women, many of whom will have dealt with this in their personal lives. Expecting gaslit women to lie for instance ? Shabby and cruel. This is primarily a website for women, and men who support them. To tell us we now have to consider the opinions of the opposite sex every time we post in the feminist section ? That is both bizarre and depressing.

We do, though, think it's right to be civil when we refer to other people. 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.

@KateMumsnet - as I keep saying, if you give me one that does not appropriate my bio sex, I will use it.

I find the appropriation of my bio sex by people of the male sex - and not on some level, on every level - distressing. Why doesn't my distress count for anything?

So what collective noun do you have for me to use? You say it can't mention their bio sex. I say it can't mention my bio sex. So what collective noun would be appropriate? Give it to me: I'll use it.

“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.”

Lots of us find the truth about lots of things distressing. That doesn’t mean we think denying the facts is the right way to go.