Mumsnet Says They Are Trans Friendly; What do you think?

Ah, I wondered what had started it

It was MN themselves who said "people are welcome to come and debate on the boards and "see for themselves", and that they welcomed discussion.

In terms of pronouns, I'm stealing what Michelle wrote as I'm not even half as articulate -
///

The right to use certain pronouns

Which has to be balanced with compelled speech. Very complex issue, there is a balance of people's rights here because if you want one form of speech to be respected on one side because of feelings, needs and identity, then there has to be mutual respect that the person on the other side of the conversation has feelings, needs and identity too.

///

Why should they have to be?

Your whole message can be boiled down to, “I come to you in bad faith.” Why should anyone engage with that hostility.

@Nightinghawk, I hope you are feeling better today.

Yesterday you said
The beautiful thing about words is that there are many definitions to them

Hell no! The beauty of words is that they have meanings which are understood by a group. This allows the group to communicate, share ideas, create, explore and build.

If your version of Summer means ‘a warm season’ and my definition means ‘a green hat’, you asking me about my plans for summer will go badly awry.

Being clear about our language and terms is essential for communicating with one another.

Also it is very common to use "they" when referring to trans people on here, even when the person goes by she, or he.

I do this. For one, because there are non binary and gender fluid people like Pip/phillip Bunce and Eddie Izzard who fluctuate between girl and boy mode, depending on their days/moods. Should I check with them how they feel that day before using a pronoun?
I also refuse to keep a list of all the neo preferred pronouns for people so by using they I treat everyone the same that have different pronouns than their sex based ones.
Lastly, when discussing the impact of mixed sex spaces and sports, it is vital to indicate what sex someone has. As MN doesn't allow that and it makes discussion really difficult, I refer to all transpeople with they.

Oh and I don't do compelled speech

@Ikeameatballs the rest of your replies are like a word soup.

I feel it's like the term 'dazzle with bullshit'. Some people (talking rhetorically here now, not referring to anyone in particular) come across as if they've swallowed a thesaurus and are trying way too hard to sound intellectual but I genuinely, genuinely believe that if you asked them to explain the definition of these words they use, they wouldn't know where to start. I honestly believe some people use these 'buzzwords' and 'talking points' because it's 'in' but have no idea what any of them actually mean. I genuinely wonder how many people who refer to themselves as such and such even know or understand what the words mean.

There are a few trans posters who contribute regularly on MN. the conversations are civil and interesting. So yes I believe it's a friend,y place, most of the time for all. As a pp said some people aren't so nice but to be fair you get your fair share of nastiness on other boards thrown at other posters. It's just people.

When I've been involved in a discussion around these issues and I've got a bit less civil it's because posters either plop along to literally just say "god, it's so transphobic here" with no evidence or examples. If I was going to make accusations at another I'd darn well screen shot or copy and paste. Otherwise you just look like a numpty trying to stir the pot and get people's backs up deliberately. For example I was accused of something similar on a thread yesterday and despite me asking several times the poster STILL hasn't come up with what I said or did. That's not cool.

While trans issues should not be limited to FWR, if a thread is there remember it's posters who are centring women and girls first. I don't believe feminism should be intersectional. Adult human female is as complicated as it needs to be. We shouldn't have to apologise for this.

There was a case in Ireland where this was taken to the enth degree with a lawyer arguing that it wasn’t only the defendants name that was dead, but also the life of the defendant (ie shouldn’t be tried for crimes committed when using ‘dead name’ as that wasn’t them any more). How they argued this with a straight face I will never know.

It is critical that we can know peoples past identity /name (unless they have been given a new one by the courts for some other reason) otherwise when filling out an application form to join the police (for example) Liquorishtoffee may well say ‘no’ to the question ‘have you a criminal record’ - however Proto-Liquorishtoffee may well have been convicted and served time for being the Battersea Cat Burgler.

In regards to dead naming.

There is often a reason to mention a person's previous name when searching for resources. I have not seen any dead naming outside of that on MN. It is always in relation to discussing someone's previous work, stated opinion, or reference in media.

Or are those stating it is never ok in the belief that a person has started a completely 'new slate' so to speak and that people should be able to leave all that behind.

Not great for safeguarding if that is the case.

@WellityWellityWellity completely agree with your post

"A thread just the other day - someone posted about their trans son and the thread constantly referred to as "OP's daughter."

I have a daughter. If she turned round one day and told me "Mum, I'm a boy", I'd be very grateful for a place - a safe space, if you will - to discuss this without meeting with an ideological wall of "your child is a boy now, there is nothing further to say".

I have a niece who is a transman. She is still female, which is why I use female pronouns on here. Using male sex-based pronouns to describe her would be dishonest.

WellityWellityWellity

great post!

But no one is dead naming or misgendering people to their face. If they're doing it at all, which again I'm not sure that they actually are; it's when they're talking about a person that's not there. I think it's pretty odd and controlling and self obsessed to try and control the language people use about you when you're not there. That's bonkers.

The only time I've seen it, is when a poster is talking about their own child and they start the post with saying I use the correct name and pronouns to them.

Its the equivalent of asking people to constantly refer to god as if he's there, they believe in him etc. If you dont believe in God why should all your language and interactions with the world reflect that? I don't expect atheists to pretend to Christian's that a.) They believe God exist when they don't and
B.) To us language that shows they believe in God when the Christian is not even there for the conversation.

Can you really not see how authoritarian that is?

"A thread just the other day - someone posted about their trans son and the thread constantly referred to as "OP's daughter."

I have a daughter. If she turned round one day and told me "Mum, I'm a boy", I'd be very grateful for a place - a safe space, if you will - to discuss this without meeting with an ideological wall of "your child is a boy now, there is nothing further to say".

I am close to two people who have trans-identified children in their families.

1. My friend had a son, "John", who declared some years ago that he was now "Jenny", a girl. At first, my friend was in shock and couldn't accept this. During this time, I gave her emotional support and a space to talk about "John" and what "he" was doing. After a while, my friend decided that this wasn't going to go away any time soon and that she may as well accept it, at least outwardly. She began to speak of "Jenny" and "her". So I do too. My role in this situation is to support my friend, not to make a point.

1. My cousin is grandfather to "Amanda", who now wishes to be known as "Andrew". My cousin loves his young grandchild a lot, and considers the "Andrew" business to be a response to certain real-life events and difficulties. He will use "Andrew" in their presence, but when talking with me he switches between "Andrew" and "Amanda". So I do too. I just follow his lead. Because again, I don't see much of this teenager. It's my cousin who I have a relationship with, and I respect his thoughts and feelings on this family situation.

Were I to meet either young person now, I would address them in their preferred way, out of politeness. But I'm clear in my mind what a classic rapid-onset identity crisis looks like, and I have great sympathy for all involved, which is not the same thing as belief.

What trans rights have you decided that the people on MN are against?

I'm picking this post up from the end of the full thread since it was not answered, and these are assumptions that definitely need unpicking as they fail to understand or recognise the issues for some women that are here.

The right to use the right toilet for them, for a start

I see your point, that personal choice of space that is 'right for you' is absolutely important.

However it's important to everyone and not just trans people. What do you intend the women should do who cannot use mixed sex spaces and are excluded from any toilet facility unless there are some single sex ones respected for the use of those women? This respect and care is a two way thing, we can't just vanish or erase those women who can't do it. And it's hardly kind or inclusive or feminist to not see and recognise the diversity of need here.

This is a women's rights forum. Women are going to stand up for those women: not going unquestioningly along with what is best for trans people regardless of the issues it raises for women is not 'being against trans rights'. If it is, then the pursuit of those rights is rather gynephobic really, because it sees women's needs and issues as lesser and worthy of contempt rather than equality of care and consideration.

The right to call themselves trans without mock or ridicule

You're going to have to evidence that, since I've never seen that allowed to stand. I've also not seen women here have any problem with anyone calling themselves whatever they choose. The issues tend to arise when there is a mocking and ridiculing of women who want the equality of right to call themselves adult human females, to sustain sex based rights, and to reject labels they do not identify with or agree with, such as 'cis'. Either this respect has to work both ways, with the same values for everyone, or it's probably not going to work, is it?

The right to use medical intervention if that's what they want to do

I don't think you'll find anyone on a women's rights forum who don't feel that adults are entitled to do whatever they want. I think you're referring to the Keira Bell case, and concern over child safeguarding and the ethics of children making very significantly life altering choices of medical intervention. Complicated question, as the judges established and will establish again in court. But anyone who cares about children would naturally want this scrutiny. It's hardly being against their rights, in fact quite the contrary.

The right to use certain pronouns

Which has to be balanced with compelled speech. Very complex issue, there is a balance of people's rights here because if you want one form of speech to be respected on one side because of feelings, needs and identity, then there has to be mutual respect that the person on the other side of the conversation has feelings, needs and identity too.

The right to change gender

Again you'll have to evidence this, as I'm not sure what this means. Anyone is free to be any gender they choose, obviously, it's not something under anyone else's control nor should be. MN as a whole is pretty passionate that anyone of any sex can be or do anything. If however the right to change gender means the right to access all sex based spaces by choice instead of by sex then obviously there are issues there for women who need single sex spaces.

Again, it's about a balance of consideration and answers that work for everyone. One person cannot have absolute freedom at the expense and limitation of another: there cannot be freedoms for one person to do as they please while telling another person that they may not have the same freedom or consideration.

Women having sex based needs does put limits and difficulties around absolute self identification of sex. It's something that needs balance and discussion and answers found that work for all. It's not 'hate' or being 'anti trans rights' for women to speak about their needs and point out conflict. Surely if it is then it's gynephobic to attempt to suppress and silence women from equal consideration and mention of their needs?

And some inclusive policies are turning out to be harmful to some women. Who have rights too. For example the seven women whose sexual assaults were being discussed in court yesterday following the inclusion of transwomen prisoners in prison. Those women matter as much as the transwomen do. Don't they?

I haven’t rtft but since we are requesting preferred language I’ll also say please do not use cis.

Hence I never use the term 'straight' any more after I learned that it offensive lesbian and gays and derides them by virtue of the of what the opposite insinuates.

Just as the 'n' word isn't going away, it doesn't mean it is acceptable to use. Cis is a slur. Just as the n word is.

I will not call a man she or a woman he

OK, that's fair enough but for the poster who was saying "never seen any of that on here"
there you go then.

Also it is very common to use "they" when referring to trans people on here, even when the person goes by she, or he. Which confused me when I first saw these discussions on the boards, but soon realised was a way to make sure nobody had to refer to the preferred pronouns.

That's because language is important. It's very hard to argue that "she" shouldn't be in a women's prison, or on an all women's shortlist.

By accepting calling a man "she" we make it harder to explain why that man should be treated the same as other men.

I will not call a man she or a woman he as it's not possible to change sex.

I believe that people who are trans should be able to present as they wish and have all the same rights as everyone else to housing, jobs, healthcare, I do not believe that they should be able to change their legal sex.

Toasting soreen? That is the devil's sport. Recommend eating entirely plain,slightly softened and warmed in the microwave with a cup of tea. Mmm.

A major thing I've seen come from this forum is people saying "trans women are not women" and subsequent misgendering and exclusion, but I'd like to know if that's just a vocal minority, as some have said already, or if it's truly a majority on this forum.

Yes most women here (and elsewhere I think) believe if one only self-ID and have not actually committed to be the gender they identify as via gender reassignment surgery then they are not transwoman/transman. Not saying it's my belief or not, but that is how most women (and men I think) see it.

We once made Soreen beer. It was cracking. We definitely should do it again.

I think most Mumsnetters actually don't get involved in any of the conversation around trans on here. I am one of those Mumsnetters! Until now anyway!

I am here mainly for the Style and Beauty board and the Baby Names board. Sometimes I get dragged into the weight problem chats, but I try to avoid those too, as a vocal minority of Mumsnetters are fatphobic cunts.

Anyway, as to your question; I am happy to use pronouns he / she / they or whatever the person would like. I personally don't identify with any gender, but I'm a natal woman, (cis, if you must), as I was born with a vagina, uterus etc. I've given birth, had periods, breastfed and so on.

What has bothered me about the wider conversation, outside Mumsnet, is the notion that a trans woman can self identify as a woman and walk straight into female only spaces. Do I think all trans women are evil rapists, just because some of them choose not to undergo the full surgery and still have a penis etc? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I'm not a nutcase. Obviously, I don't think that and if I meet a transwoman in normal day to day life, I chat to her as a woman, as far as that's even a thing.

Do I think someone who identified (publicly at least) as a man yesterday and identifies as a woman today, should be able to access changing rooms with women and little girls in there? No, sorry, I don't. It's because I've had bad experiences with penis owners, (not necessarily men, obviously). And the problem was indeed, their penis. So it does make me a little jumpy if I'm butt naked and unexpectedly there's someone with me, in a female only space with their penis on full show. Maybe this is a 'me' problem and I just shouldn't use public changing rooms? Who knows what the wider population thinks? I know what MN thinks, so nobody needs to tell me from here. But interested in what op thinks. Genuinely interested. Not wishing to goad.

I also find it irritating that women are the ones having to accommodate trans, while men don't. Trans men use female prisons (it wouldn't be safe to have them in with cis men). Transwomen also use female prisons. So cis women have to accommodate. Cis men don't seem to have to accommodate, and they are clearly the problem (sorry menz) if both transwomen and trans men feel unsafe being housed with them.

Womens health it is sometime suggested should be changed to be more inclusive....oh what was it "health for people who get pregnant and bleed" 🤢. But I didn't see anyone saying mens health should be changed to "people who have penises and ejaculate". Or maybe I missed it.

It annoys me that womens issues panels now have people who lived lives as highly privileged men, (although they were trans women all along). But nobody knew that, so they were treated by others, with the same level of privilege that white, wealthy men tend to receive. Now they are experts on issues facing women, having lived openly as women for only a short time...? Are they? I know when we consider intersectionality, they are under privileged because they are trans, and if they joined a panel for trans rights I'd think "yes, of course, you know more about that". But they have lived with the privilege afforded to men, for a long time already. Seems a bit much for them to now have a voice on a panel for issues affecting a historically oppressed section of society, (women I mean...or is it people with uteri?), on the face of it.

Just my thoughts. I very rarely voice them on here.

I do think refusing to use someone's pronouns is shitty. I do think transpeople are discriminated against generally and do face a number of dangers just for living their lives and that is unacceptable. Trans rights are human rights - yes, absolutely. But, women (cis), also are human and have rights. So, there is a balance and a conversation to be had, without people screaming TERF or cis scum at anyone who wants to have that conversation.