New guidelines - we aren't allowed to refer to natal sex

JuzzaL - maybe MNHQ didn't watch Happy Days and aren't familiar with the phrase 'jump the shark'?

I find the infringement and removal of my class of woman by men distressing on every level, not some level - every level.

I thought this was where I got to discuss that with other women.

I thought this was where women were entitled to speak openly.

How can a site called MUMSNET be cowed by a few men who by definition can never be mums?

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON!

*colludes with

Dunno if anyone already linked to the thread where it all took place www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/a3277316-Mumsnet-moderation-of-trans-rights-and-gender-critical-issues-II?msgid=78662138#78662138

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

I find it extremely distressing when my identity and legal protections are appropriated by individuals from the class of people who have repeatedly sexually assaulted, harassed, stalked, exploited and discriminated against me. I reject absolutely any collective expression for them which colluded with this appropriation.

**So let's have a collective expression for them which reassures them that the uppity women are going to be made to submit to their demand for validation. Because if facts are inconvenient or upsetting, we'll ban anyone for stating them.

FFS**

Sounds like a good collective expression to me

The guidelines might be useful, because they'll encourage any trolls or malicious people to report a lot, in the hope of getting us banned, and then they can be banned themselves for malicious reporting.

Kate Mumnsnet 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

So let's have a collective expression for them which reassures them that the uppity women are going to be made to submit to their demand for validation. Because if facts are inconvenient or upsetting, we'll ban anyone for stating them.

FFS.

You might as insist that posters call each other hun and be done with it.

Those who make conversations impossible, make escalation inevitable.
Stefan Molyneux

I'm actually now thinking of what would have happened if these new guidelines weren't issued.

is it that there were legal issues, personal threats and concerns etc etc.

I used to belong to a board run by volunteers. It's now defunct but I'm guessing that's the kind of place where full and frank discussion can be conducted. Before it closed - the main person running it fell ill - there was a lot of concern about people's DC and some of the "facts" they seemed to be hearing at school and some of the actions they might try to undertake if they felt unsure of certain personality aspects.

yes, I did phrase that in a very clunky way but I had to!!

People will do it and not get banned

I haven't been here in a long old time but I've had to log back in to express my utter disappointment. MN silencing women. WTaF?

If we can't define classes of people by their sex then we can't do feminism. The end. Are mnhq seriously proposing to ban feminist discussion on fwr?

Nuts!!!!

I'm totally confused - is this the last word from MNHQ or is there more tweaking? Can we have an update on the guidelines if so

I agree. Can someone who is a bit more ‘on’ this (MNHQ would be ideal) explain what’s going on please? I’ve read the Talk Guidelines and they, so far, just state that Transphobic comments will not be tolerated. Well that sounds fine. But there’s no explanation as to what constitutes Transphobic as far as MNHQ are concerned. Right now, for me, it could be literally anything. You only have to check my posting history to see I am an inoffensive, supportive and, hopefully, amusing poster who never wishes anyone any harm, judgement, or nastiness. I always, despite the flow of the thread, try to post genuinely supportive or good advice based comments. I’ve never been accused of an ‘ic’ or ‘ism’ in my life (possibly because I’m a member of various groups that could be subject to ‘ics’ and ‘isms’). I am however an avid reader of the FWR board (thanks to which I realised I wasn’t as Feminist as I thought I was and have been enlightened, I may be turning a bit ‘Rad-light’) and I am critical of Self ID, not Trans, but definitely Self ID. I don’t want to be tripped up by Newspeak or Doublethink and I don’t want to be accused of being something I’m not by a (to me) faceless entity. Basically, I’m nice. I’m nice, but I’m not fucking stupid and I won’t be treated like this and take it.

Kate Mumnsnet 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

I agree with this in part. Where sex isn't relevant, we should not define people by their sex. I understand that many trans people find any associations with their sex distressing. However, I also understand that many gender critical people find associating them or defining them with any kind of construct of gender distressing.

Banishing references to sex seems as reductionist as banishing references to gender. Both deny people the ability to be thought about and referred to in ways they find acceptable. There is a time and place for both forms of categorisation.

Surely we need to operate both categorisation systems and use them judiciously according to context.

I'm another, if this is not at least up for debate within a few days I'm also gone. I will NOT TOLERATE being treated like a child who needs mummy to make sure I don't swear. BOLLOX!!

I do like Gibberty's unintentionally funny posts about bodies not confirming to the standards expected of women.

"I only started posting on MN because of the commitment to free speech"

oh hi Sarah, yes I remember now, I have NC since then. I love your posts.

Agree re the theft and 50% too, excellent analogy.

Oh ffs Mumsnet, I thought you were better than this.
Silencing biological women so the that the poor men aren't offended. Shame on you.
I love mumsnet but if this is allowed to stand I'm out of here. I'm sure the numerous advertisers on the site will be delighted when we all leave in droves.

To reassure you, we've been discussing the collective nouns that posters use to describe trans people as a group; we're not preventing anyone from asserting that transwomen are born male, or expressing a gender critical position.

These two things are inextricably linked.

It is like saying that if a cybercriminal breaks into your bank account and steals your entire savings and the "compromise" is that he gives 50% of it back.

And ask him how many sugars he takes in his tea!

I only started posting on MN because of the commitment to free speech. I'm going to hang around for a few days and see how this goes, but if it's clear we can't discuss issues that matter then I'll be off.