Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

"we'd likely allow it." - that's not fair.

You are saying "we probably won't delete you" - and by saying that you are implying "but we might".

You are policing how women talk, and (by implied threat) forcing them into silence or acquiescence.

I'm disappointed, but sadly not surprised.

I propose we call Tim unicorns and tif seahorses.

That way no snowflakes get melted over something as silly as science, fact, biology or reality

and for something different that thread - Taking it out on one's body

But hey, that's just my CENSORED

"If we thought it was difficult to express a gender critical position"

I personally think that someone born a CENSORED is not a CENSORED while someone CENSORED a CENSORED is CENSORED

KateMumsnet - how do you justify MN policing language such that terminology that is used freely in real life in quite ordinary situations may not be used on MN?

We'd much prefer it though, if you found ways to refer to trans people as a group which don't refer to natal sex

1. When you consider, even for one minute, that the whole point of wanting to be regarded as a sex you weren't born as means you kind of have to refer to birth, your proposition is nonsense.

1. You make the rules, then say we make the rules. Make your mind up, FFS.

But are you saying that transwoman is ok?
That's right Marsha.

Could I just clarify @KateMumsnet is 'transwomen (and by transwomen I mean people who are biologically male)' OK or does the part in brackets contravene the rules because it refers to people's biological sex even though it provides much needed clarity?

And if someone asks what a transwoman is, are we allowed to say "someone who was born male but want's to be female" or something like that?

We have to be able to use accurate terms to discuss this topic. You aren't, surely, expecting us to pretend transwomen are female?

I cross posted there.

So are you saying, Kate, that we are not allowed to refer to transpeople's natal sex at all. Every?

We can never say "X was a man" or "Y transitioned from male to female"?

What on earth terms are we allowed to use.

You had better be absolutely clear about this. What term can we use to talk about someone who is biologically male but wants to live "as a woman" whatever that is meant to mean?

I don’t post much on this area at all, but find going through what is allowed and not still murky.

But are you saying that transwoman is ok?

I haven't reported anyone on FWR in years; possibly ever.

I think it's important to let things stand, so that people can see the ridiculous arguments (and threats) used when trying to convince people that 2+2=5 (or eleventy million).

I do feel like reporting the complete liars though; I don't get why MN allows people to repetitively post factually incorrect opinions, link to dodgy science (and lie about it) and give dangerous medical advice.

I'm hopeful too that the banning of vexatious reporters will get rid of a lot of the persistent offenders, as it seems to be the people with strange beliefs who want to control what others say.

I posted this on another thread but I think this is the best place for it:

MN haven’t said we can’t discuss genitals.
They've said that they will almost always delete posts where the genitals of an individual are discussed.
We need to say more about this:

I hope they agree it is appropriate to discuss your own, your child's genitals, your DP's genitals, and the genitals of someone who has abused you or that has abused someone you know well.
I may in fact discuss the genitals of the people that are my children's biological parents.
It's appropriate to discuss the genitals of the Irish rugby players or indeed anyone that is tried for rape, I jolly well hope.

It's appropriate to discuss in general terms the operations that individuals undergo in gender reassignment surgery, no?

Where there's a news report or journal article about this topic, individuals (N=1) are often discussed. For example we were discussing GRS regret recently and one poor woman having surgery to transition to male-type genitalia died from post surgical complications. We have therefore discussed that (non-famous, anonymous, but N=1) individual's genitalia.

Can we post links to actual TV programmes about actual individuals' genitalia? Can we then discuss them? Or articles in the Times?

For example we were told we were "disgusting" for discussing Jazz Jennings' genitalia. Yet Jazz and Jazz's family have discussed this topic many times on a TV show. It's not exactly private. Same for the child of the head of Mermaids. All in public elsewhere.

Why can't we discuss it if it's on main stream media elsewhere?

I can see that - just as we are not going to start using abusive terms for other women and their genitals despite them being used on horrible MRA forums - we are not free to repeat abuse from elsewhere on social media.

But if it's on a TV programme or website that the family themselves endorse? Or in a broadsheet news article? Why can the readers of that news website discuss it and we can't?

It would be quite powerful if no-one reported cis or terf and the only calls for censorship were coming from one side. Which they are.

How can we talk about the impact that the concept 'cis' has on women, if we can't even say the word cis. How can we talk about the misogyny and incitement to violence behind the word Terf if we can't say the word terf?

I quite agree HerFemaleness and I won’t be reporting any use of cis or terf for this reason.

Jeebus, you go away for a few days ...

As others have said, censoring words is shit. In fact, does this mean i can say shit and fuck and cunt here with impunity but not cis, TERF and TIM.

I'm not a fan of banning words. I'd rather someone call me cis so I can explain my objections, than the person who used the word be threatened with the ban hammer.

If you ban these words then you limit our ability to talk about these things among ourselves. How can we talk about the impact that the concept 'cis' has on women, if we can't even say the word cis. How can we talk about the misogyny and incitement to violence behind the word Terf if we can't say the word terf?

The Guardian has shared the article on FB and the hate directed at MN in the comments is almost comical and almost entirely men.

You need to be quite severely deluded to think that a rational way to avoid distress is to get the rest of the world to conform precisely to your own values and opinions, even when the sharing of those values and opinions is confined to spaces you can easily avoid. I don’t force myself to attend church or synagogue and then wail in public about how distressing I found the experience amd the church and synagogue should undergo censorship at my discretion.