"Mumsnet statement on moderation with regard to..."

I agree with pretty much all that has been said, but also want to add one thing.

I am not going to be told what I can and can't call myself by a member of another group. Just as POC get to decide the contexts in which they do or do not want to use the word nigger. That's their decision entirely and - quite rightly - they have no need to think about anyone else's feelings.

I am a woman, the very least of my rights is to decide how I describe myself. If other people want to call themselves a 'cis woman' fair play to them.

But you cannot tell me what to call myself.

I find ‘cis’ insulting; it suggests women identify with their oppression, that small girls are killed because they identify as girls, women are raped because they identify as women, women are paid less because they identify as women. That the reason we suffer, die, are killed, paid less, do more of the caring responsibilities, discriminated against, are sexually assaulted etc is our fault because that is what we identify with.

My understanding of 'cis' is that it means person who identifies with traditional stereotypes customarily associated with their biological sex.

Some of the stereotypes associated with females are ones I feel comfortable with and express as part of my identity. But some of them I reject completely. Some male stereotypes are ones I identify with a bit more. Therefore I am not 'cis' anything. Nor am I trans anything. I am just me. My identity is me. My body happens to be female. My identity cannot be classified as it is unique to me. So it doesn't need a label.

If other people wish to categorise or label their identity, that is up to them. I don't choose a label or a category therefore I don't want anyone else choosing one for me thanks very much.

My biological sex can be categorised, obviously, and that is covered by 'woman'.

Indeed Empress, just repeating my post from Monday, it wasn't stunning in any way but it was responding to OP:

I agree, we center woman here, surely, and discuss sex and gender. Spot on OP. The trans issues shoulder their way in invariably, because the TRAs think that is what matters. We only worry about trans rights when they encroach on women's rights

...along with a handful of grey rocks

Concur with the grey rock. Thread's about forum guidelines.

Anyway, back to the original discussion... I think most of us here are very much in favour of the proposed changes and hope MNHQ will agree with us.

There is nothing for you to agree with.. what I have stated is a fact. That is what cis means and I’ve explained why it isn’t needed. What on earth does ASD have to do with anything?

Or this even!

Tad rude to @ someone who has accepted they were allowing thread to be derailed

otterlover58.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/grey_rock.jpg 

@Mldgebabe

I guess that could apply to nursery aged children.
there was one child in a nursery who wanted to be referred to as a boy. I wonder how that panned out. We used to ignore it mostly. Parents found it funny.

GailCindy. You are being deliberately stupid. Cis isn’t needed because natural born women are women, the word woman covers it fine. If you are trans then you are trans, trans signifies you aren’t the same as someone born and fine with their sex. So why is cis needed if we have the word trans? It’s so they can call themselves women and we become a subset when actually, we are women, not them.

Actually, I take your point about getting derailed

You keep quoting and continuing the discussion. I'm not going to just be lectured to by you.

Also in the context of children, who have to get through "growing up" there will be concern that "pretending" that someone can change sex may make it harder fir children to accept their biological nature . It may add unnecessary confusion to an already difficult ( for some) process. It may also make it harder to explain boundary setting to girls in particular.

That was to GailCindy!

Just will you please give up about that person now? Let it go. Just do. Or talk about it somewhere else. Because that is not the point of this thread and I sense some early weekend CFery

Given that 1 in 4 women have been abused, implication is that about 1 in 20 men are assaulters ( based on average number of assaults per convicted man ) those numbers are not very small me

Like if a plane had a 1 in 20 chance of crashing I think flying would be much less popular

The bit I was quoting was to do with CP, the parents involved thought the nursery worker has become as CP threat JUST because they transitioned.

That's not the dissolution of child protection we are referring to. Here are a few safeguarding failures in genderist demands and institutional-adopted guidelines we are talking about:

• allowing confidential disclosures
• dispensing with information sharing about children and vulnerable adults
• parental alienation
• mixed sex overnight accommodation

That's just for starters. I recommend the Safe Schools Alliance website, a read of Working Together to Safeguard Children and Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults to inform yourself.

Nothing to do with any individual in particular, including the trope of the "nice trans I know". Safeguarding is not about individuals.

My question is genuine. The parents who I knew all the time and most were reasonable people were really worried. And not in the same hysterical way my racist family get worried about a group of black people. I mean properly worried. I just didn't get it. The staff member was not sacked but you cant stay after all that uproar. It was awful for them.

GailCindy
The bit I was quoting was to do with CP, the parents involved thought the nursery worker has become as CP threat JUST because they transitioned. Nobody put in reports to OFSTED and LEA before the transition and request to use she/her. That it was what I was asking, how are trans people are CP threat?

It seems that in this case those parents were idiots, and it could not happen now and should not have happened then. I don't get why we have to answer for this issue? Trust me, we didn't do it! And I repeat this is a feminist board, not a trans-hate board. JellySlice has already answered with an example of the safeguarding aspect:

Undermine child protection refers to the fact that, under trans-prioritising rules, male under-18s are allowed to share sleeping accommodation with female under-18s, and parents are not to be informed about it.

and just a heads-up, we don't usually @ on this board, since if we are in the discussion we are here already

They say exactly the same thing about why we need a term for people with condition X and a group term for people with one of a number of similar conditions like ND but not one for people who don't have any conditions

It sounds to me like someone saying they don't have to declare themselves straight because they have a uterus and that is designed to make babies with men so of course they are straight because they are a woman.

You seem confused.

I am a woman because (among other reasons relating to biological reality) I have a uterus. My sexual orientation is immaterial to and separate from that fact.

I do not need to add the label 'cis' to my being a woman, because being an adult human female automatically makes me a woman. Again, my sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to this fact.

Conflating biological sex with sexual orientation is the sign of someone who either doesn't understand the difference, in which case I suggest you read some of the excellent resource materials on this sub-forum, or someone posting in bad faith to be provocative, in which case (in the words of MNHQ)...go well.