Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

TRA response to Mumsnet new pro trans guidelines

343 replies

Southfields · 15/06/2018 10:27

As many on here predicted, they are STILL not satisfied. They believe the new guidelines from Justine are transphobic.

So, MN feminists don't like the new guidelines and nor do the TRA.

Where do we go from here?

By transwoman Natasha Kennedy:

Wednesday, 13 June 2018

False equivalence on stilts: Mumsnet's new censorship.

Today Mumsnet have come out with some badly transphobic guidelines which can only be regarded ill-considered at the most generous, profoundly transphobic at worst. They have said they are going to ban transphobia, terms like "TIM" ("Trans-identified male") and the like, although transphobes on Mumsnet are apparently already trying to find ways of producing new abusive and transphobic terms in order to get round this. How many hundreds of mods Mumsnet are going to employ to monitor this is unclear.

However for false equivalence they have decided ban the term "cis-". This is not only ridiculous, it is profoundly transphobic and reflects the institutional transphobia endemic at Mumsnet. "Cis-" as a prefix, they claim is offensive to "feminists", swallowing the rhetoric that "cis-" is somehow a form of abuse (in fact it is only a form of abuse if you are a transphobic bigot). Mumsnet are exposing their bias here and it isn't pretty.

The prefix "cis-" was first used in relation to gender by Dr Ernst Burchard, a cisgender doctor - and one of the earliest campaigners for gay rights - in "Lexikon des Gesamten Sexuallebens" published in German in 1914 and the term "cisgender" was first used by a cis male academic called Sigusch in 1998. It was created in order to provide a counterbalance to "trans-" so that people didn't have to say "non-trans" or "normal" when referring to someone who is cisgender. "Cis-" is effectively like the prefix "hetero-" in heterosexual. We don't talk about people who are not gay men or lesbians as "normal" people, so why should be have to do just that for trans people on Mumsnet?

In effect Mumsnet have censored trans people from using their discussion boards because we can no longer name people who are cisgender except in a way that Others us, pathologizes us or marks us out as somehow "abnormal" or not valid. In effect this is an Orwellian kind of censorship at a lexicon level (like "doubleplusgood") from a media platform that has complained noisily about Orwellian "censorship" when trans people called them out on the abuse we have been receiving on Mumsnet.

So it doesn't just reveal Mumsnet's institutional transphobia but their profound hypocrisy also. They cried foul to that other transphobic media platform, The Times, about being held to account for the transphobia in their forums yet have now banned some elements of the very behaviour they said trans people were threatening "censorship" by complaining about. In other words by their own standards of a few weeks ago they now are "censoring" themselves. This is not merely hypocritical, it is pathetic.

They are effectively excluding discussion by trans people and our allies by denying us legitimate terminology; banning a term that is, by the way, in the Oxford English Dictionary. Without being able to use a term like "cisgender" they are effectively making it impossible for trans people to engage in any meaningful debate in important areas. Their attempt to appear even-handed has ended up being oppressive and effectively taking the side of the oppressor. False equivalence is the name of the game, something trans people are very familiar with in the media, particularly broadcast media. And something the CEO of Mumsnet should be very familiar with since her partner is a senior commissioning editor in Channel 4, which recently produced an abusive and demeaning "debate" about my right to exist.

Mumsnet have got it badly wrong, they have demonstrated that

they are institutionally transphobic and in Desmond Tutu's terms are not even taking the side of the oppressor by being neutral, they are taking the side of the oppressor, period. Their motivation for this...? The only conclusion I can come up with is that they want to maintain their abusive transphobic user-base while avoiding complaints of abuse to advertisers; screenshots of transphobic abuse next to adverts make advertisers nervous. It is worth noting that trans people have been complaining about this kind of transphobic abuse on their site for literally years and they have arrogantly ignored us and brushed us off.

But the implications of Mumsnet's censorship go much further into dangerous territory...

As an academic the last place I would ever want go to discuss my work is of course Mumsnet, but now even if I wanted to I would be unable to since my most recent peer-reviewed publications, and some soon to come not only use terms with the prefix "cis-" ("Cultural cisgenderism" and "Cis-mythologization") throughout but they use them in the title. In effect my research is now banned from Mumsnet. No great loss from my point of view but should we should regard this as the modern equivalent of book-burning?

When the Nazis started to burn

books in Berlin University in 1933, among the first into the flames were those of Magnus Hirschfeld, a researcher into trans people. The comparison is too obvious not to make. Indeed I am not the only academic some of whose work it is now prohibited to discuss on Mumsnet; Gavi Ansara's and Peter Hegarty's award-winning research publication "Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008" (which originally coined the term "cisgenderism") is also banned under Mumsnet's new regime as are works by both transgender and cisgender academics including; Dr Ruth Pearce, Prof Dean Spade, Dr Julia Serano, Prof Rogers Brubaker, Prof Susan Stryker, Dr Jemma Tosh, Dr Diane Ehrensaft, Asst Prof Z Nicolazzo, Asst Prof Tobias Raun, Prof Sara Ahmed, Dr Meg-John Barker, CN Lester... I could go on and on...

To go from complaining to mainstream media about "censorship" to implementing a thoroughly Orwellian censorship regime of its own is quite a feat of hypocrisy even by Mumsnet's own pitiful standards, and something trans people are used to as pretty much the default setting of transphobes. However banning a term that is the equivalent of "heterosexual-" is not only bizarre but profoundly oppressive, the fact that it prevents the discussion of work by a wide range of academics is, in practical terms no great loss, Mumsnet is really just a cesspit of hate and ignorance. The symbolism of it however is very significant indeed.

uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2018/06/false-equivalence-on-stilts-mumsnets.html

OP posts:
Snappity · 15/06/2018 11:13

"The word is woman. It IS offensive to women"

If it is then surely trans woman or trans man are equally offensive (and I hope transwoman and transman without the space are a breach of the new guidelines) and just woman or man should be used. I agree with Natasha - there has to be symmetry on this.

Southfields · 15/06/2018 11:13

Kennedy: "They are effectively excluding discussion by trans people and our allies by denying us legitimate terminology; banning a term that is, by the way, in the Oxford English Dictionary."

Banning "cis" does not stop trans discussing us. They can just call us "males", or "men", and "females", or "women". Every English speaking person in the world knows that those words mean!

"Cunt" is in the dictionary too, but that doesn't make it all right to habitually call someone or a group of people by that name just because you don't agree with them.

OP posts:
Picassospaintbrush · 15/06/2018 11:11

'transphobic' (seriously, who gives a fuck at this point?)

This should be the title of a thread.

RatRolyPoly · 15/06/2018 11:11

As teenagers me and my brother would listen to loud music in adjacent rooms and piss each other off no end constantly ramping up the volume to drown out the other's music.

We'd both go whining to our mum about how unfair the other was being until eventually she snapped and made us both turn our music off.

Eventually we'd come sulking back to her begging to be allowed our music back on, promising to keep it at a reasonable volume and conceding that we would probably be okay to tolerate the occasional intrusion of the other's music, so long as it clearly wasn't being ramped up to antagonise.

She lifted the ban when we both volunteered those rules to play by.

Mumsnet are parenting the fuck out of both sides.

SittingAround1 · 15/06/2018 11:10

Does anyone feel that reading this feels like being in an abusive relationship with a man who is never happy and no matter what you do it will never be enough and always your fault?

I think the general advice for relationships like that is

LTB

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 15/06/2018 11:09

I'm not surprised Kennedy is raging. If trans lobbyists can't claim that everyone has a subjective gender "soul" wlth no connection to their sex, a great dollop of their argument disappears.

I don't have a gender. I have a sex.

Didn't want either "cis" or "TERF" banned. Every time someone tried to call women here cis they were handed their arse using logic, likewise with the other term. A teaching moment.

Nuffaluff · 15/06/2018 11:09

Very clever of that person to use the word ‘Orwellian’ isn’t it?
Not being able to call someone ‘cis’ is not Orwellian.
Being forced, by censoring language, to pretend that someone who was born male is now a woman and has always been one, is.
And that person knows that when the wider public hears more about this, they will recognise it too.

Southfields · 15/06/2018 11:09

Sillydoggy

"Even then the goalposts would be moved again..."

This is a deliberate, planned tactic used to keep us constantly in the wrong, constantly walking on eggshells, terrified of putting a foot wrong, etc. Classic covert narc tactic, too.

OP posts:
NotTerfNorCis · 15/06/2018 11:06

I find the word transphobic deeply insulting and traumatizing. I demand we ban it, along with all its related forms.

Southfields · 15/06/2018 11:05

hackmum

Yes that is correct. The author of the article switches IDs between Mark Hellen and Natasha Kennedy as and when it suits them. This is why he/she cannot complain about "misgendering". Nor can anyone on his/her behalf.

OP posts:
Sillydoggy · 15/06/2018 11:05

It is 100% worth remembering that nothing short of complete capitulation will ever be enough. Even then the goalposts would be moved again and more of our rights to name ourselves would be removed.

hackmum · 15/06/2018 11:04

Beyond: DID?

Doubt it's anything as grand as that. More likely a case of inflated self-worth.

Moonkissedlegs · 15/06/2018 11:04

Also I don't get this idea that trans people are entitled to the space of Mumsnet? I mean, obviously you can't police who posts here like on any other forum, but surely they question has to be why TRAs are so invested on not being 'censored' on a largely female, parenting website for mothers? It's kind of like me moaning that Piston Heads are censoring me because they want to talk about cars and tits and I don't?

And it just feels like MN are giving and giving and giving in the hope of not being seeing as 'transphobic' (seriously, who gives a fuck at this point?) and the TRAs just won't be happy until MN is theirs to police as they see fit?

I say all this as someone who has used MN for nearly 10 years, have got involved a little bit with the trans stuff but not overly so, but has got an awful lot out of this website as a woman and a parent.

starcrossedseahorse · 15/06/2018 11:03

Giddy - he is male.

MipMipMip · 15/06/2018 11:02

Both sides are unhappy. (This includes me btw). That's usually a sign that it is a least a nod towards fairness.

BeyondSceptical · 15/06/2018 11:02

"Natacha and Mark have also co-written academic papers - isn't that sweet?"

Confused

DID?

MsMcWoodle · 15/06/2018 11:00

Yup. Will never be enough. Funny thing is, their tactics just make people resent them more and have already destroyed good will.

Kyanite · 15/06/2018 10:59

They won't be happy until we all believe trans ideology and homosexuals drop their "genital fetish". Actually, that probably still wouldn't be enough...

Moonkissedlegs · 15/06/2018 10:57

This is fucking ridiculous. Other movements just do not work in this way. It is total gaslighting and silencing, and MN seem to be totally falling for it. It's just bizarre.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 15/06/2018 10:57

Cis being included in the OED is not evidence of its legitimacy or lack of offensiveness. You can also find n**r, slut, and a derogatory term for a person with Down's Syndrome - following Natasha's logic these must also be perfectly acceptable, but we all know they aren't! They are offensive to the majority of people they are applied to, so is cis.

hackmum · 15/06/2018 10:57

Am I right in thinking that Natacha Kennedy isn't Natacha Kennedy All the time? Sometimes she goes by her birth name of Mark Hellen. (Natacha and Mark have also co-written academic papers - isn't that sweet?)

heresyandwitchcraft · 15/06/2018 10:56

banning a term that is, by the way, in the Oxford English Dictionary

But they get really pissed off and call the dictionary flawed when you use it to define "woman" and "female"

This isn't going to stop. And it was the TRAs who demanded language be policed like this in the first place. If anything, they're the book burners here.

ScienceIsTruth · 15/06/2018 10:56

@InLoveWithDavidTennant and @CaptainMarvelDanvers, I completely agree that they will never be satisfied until they have total control.

Like most abusers, it starts off small: "If you'd just stop wearing make up, I'd be happy" leads to "If you'd cover yourself up more, it would please me", which in turn leads to "If you'd stop going out without me" or "I don't like you seeing X" or "I know you can't see it atm, but I'm doing this for your own good".

Every time you concede another inch they will want 2 more. IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH.

womanformallyknownaswoman · 15/06/2018 10:56

Word salad - classic MO of cluster B aggressive male abusers

Picassospaintbrush · 15/06/2018 10:53

It's basically saying if we can't call someone cis you are all Nazis in a cesspit.

Plus the repetition of the 'phobe word several hundred times it seems.

Swipe left for the next trending thread