Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think Mumsnet need to revise their talk guidelines?

379 replies

abeautifulmess · 05/03/2018 15:43

I have reported a number of threads recently and the mumsnet response has been 'we don't allow posts that break our talk guidelines' and nothing has been done when the whole thread has been attacking a particular (and vulnerable) group.

AIBU to question these guidelines and how they are applied?

OP posts:
MaisyPops · 06/03/2018 07:35

Lots of the LM threads were vile and had to be taken down
Because some of the posts were awful about LM.
Having an issue with someone and them being trans isn't transphobic anymore than me thinking a gay man is a dickhead is homophobic. A protected characteristic isn't a get out of jail free card.
oh i can deny biology and say my biologically male body will be able to sustain pregnancy... argh. People have pointed out I'm chatting shit. You are so transphobic Nope. I'm not transphobic. I have an issue witj you as a person.
I've seen a post op transwomans vagina described as 'just an open wound that needs dilating'.
Depending on where someone falls on the gender critic spectrum, it's a valid comment.
It's not a comment I would use.
I am happy to accept post op trans women into the fold of women as long as we are very clear that they.are transwomen and so are not the same as biological women and they better not call me 'cis' (but then most normal transwomen are perfectly fine).

There is a debate about what makes a vagina/penis. A vagina to me is more than a hole for sex. A transwoman will not have the same set up as a biological woman. I am fine to say that, but i wouldn't use more crass terma to say it.

Misgendering.
Calling a biological man with male hormones and male genitals male is only a crime if you believe (as self ID people do) that one can wake up in tjr morning, call yoursrlf the opposite sex and then suddenly you sex has changed (because TRAs love confusing sex and gender).

Are you going to tell TRAs that calling themselves women and biological women (with a lived experience of being a human female from birth and associated socialisation) 'ciswomen' that it's actually offensive? Probably not because stating biological fact is apparently bullying and offensive to TRAs but they can deny science and that's acceptable.

Talk of men in dresses
Because under self ID a man can wake up, call himself a woman, stick some eyeliner on and suddenly he is a woman but the rest of us are 'cis' women.
It is important to distinguish between perfectly reasonable transsexuals and people undergoing transition (regardless of one's personal views of gender) and the men in dresses who think performing gender stereotypes makes them a woman.

and perverts.
Because under self ID it is entirely possible for a predatory man or pervert to claim they are a woman, dress to stereotypes if theu wish and that will give them access to vulnerable women.

Pointing this out is NOT saying all trans people are perverts.
It IS saying that there are massive consequences to allowing people to self ID and have it unquestioningly accepted.

The problem with TRAs (and their die hard fan club) is they love presenting any challenge to their damaging ideology fanatic lobby as some kind of criticism of transpeople as a whole. Unfortunately, when you are in a position where the TRA lobby are engaged in some New Speak rewriting definitions of sex, gender, man, woman then people have to be more explicit to communicate.

CobraKai · 06/03/2018 07:48

They weren't criticising LMs views, she was consistently called a he. A 'spotty boy'. By her male name etc etc. Transphobia. You can argue as much as you like that it isn't but it is seen as that in law.

You're a teacher Maisy - are you sticking to the pronouns of birth if a pupil 'comes out' as trans and calling them by their original name? I'm a HCP. I probably know more trans identifying people than a lot of the people on MN and I would likely lose my job if I did that. Because it would be evidence of transphobia.

And talking about a transwomans vagina is not an acceptable comment and it drips with disdain. If it's just the TRAs we have a problem with and self-ID (as keeps being said on these threads) there is no reason whatsoever to be commenting on the bodies of post operative transwomen.

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 06/03/2018 07:56

I don't know what threads/posts other people on here have been talking about and I would imagine that they have been taken down (like I assume that one will be)

Just for any lurkers Smile i am on the feminist board a lot

If the above thread is deleted it will be the first definite thread deletion on this topic ive seen....although i think there may have been another one

Although the OP doesn't mean to, i think its unfair for people to say that the reason we can't find all these dreadful threads is because they have all been taken down

Especially as the OP corrected herself and said it was posts she meant

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 06/03/2018 07:59

Apologies cobra

I do take your point about the LM ones

HandbagKrabby · 06/03/2018 08:36

Hysterical and moaning. Nagging. Always banging on about stuff. Being selfish and exclusionary. A laughing stock. It’s funny how being progressive in 2018 involves describing women in such old fashioned and pejorative ways.

Idontdowindows · 06/03/2018 08:50

I always find it hilarious to see that women are being accused of being bigots for knowing biological reality.

And then I have to cry because laws are being made on the basis of denying reality and it's women that suffer.

Men don't have to give up jack shit with this ID-nonsense. Women have to give up everything.

LadyMcLadyCrisps · 06/03/2018 09:11

You are absolutely right Rufus. I didnt agree until I just saw it with my own eyes. Case in point being, that ‘Trans theme tune’ thread is still standing this morning.

Threads like that are just fogging over womens legitimate concerns about Self ID etc... and endanger the whole message in my opinion. They just turn into painting trans as the ‘bogey man’ which is completely unacceptable and not the point of the important dialogue at all, or at least it shouldnt be.

MrsOvarall · 06/03/2018 09:16

The FWR board has recently gained more traffic and attention. A few months ago I would have been confident in saying 'no hate here'. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there were a small number of posters posting borderline comments to get discussion shut down. We need to be vigilant about hate speech. Of course. I'm glad that MNHQ is clear on this.

Luckily the vast majority of discussion is in no way hateful. Self ID affects half of the population. It's reasonable to discuss this. Speaking about material reality might be uncomfortable but does not constitute hate speech.

MNHQ do a good job. They are allowing debate on a controversial topic that affects women. Guidelines are enforced. It's one of the only places in the Internet where women can talk about this. I'm grateful.

Maisy I agree.

Wheresmyfuckingcupcake · 06/03/2018 13:51

The people who are on other sites obsessing about MN and it's transphobia are themselves a pretty niche section of society whose views on these (and I would guess many others) would be regarded by most ordinary people as outlandish at best.
in short - the cranks are them, not those on mumsnet who base arguments on biological reality. To be taken seriously by them would entail going insane. It’s not a goal worth pursuing. We will not change their minds because in a very real sense they do not have minds to change - just a tangle of dogma and narcissism. The sensible goal is to expose them to the sane majority,

TerfsUp · 06/03/2018 14:31

‘Trans theme tune’ thread is still standing this morning

I just looked and it's been deleted.

crunchymint · 06/03/2018 14:43

Cobra No biological reality is not against the law, you are wrong. No one has ever been prosecuted for this either.

noeffingidea · 06/03/2018 14:51

On a recent thread someone posted that saying 'transwomen are not women' is considered deeply hurtful and offensive to transwomen, and therefore was considered to be hate speech.
I think that is the crux of the problem. Many posters on mumsnet, and indeed, outside of mumsnet, do not accept that a transwoman is a woman. While they may acknowledge and accept a transperson's legal and social status as their desired gender, they primarily regard man/woman as biological definitions.
Personally I wouldn't bother using a forum that doesn't allow it's members to state biological/scientific facts and use words in the correct dictionary defined manner. It would be akin to having to pretend the world is only 6000 years old to avoid upsetting fundamental christians.
Having said all that there's no need for nasty personal attacks and mumsnet are right to delete them. As far as pronouns go, I use they or the individuals name if I don't feel comfortable using the required pronoun (I'm not going to use she to describe a convicted sex predator, for example).

crunchymint · 06/03/2018 14:59

I am not going to use pronouns that are not biologically correct. Words matter. They shape thought and thought shapes how people react and behave.

AccidentalBumming · 06/03/2018 15:04

The erosion of women’s rights is a real threat and nobody’s protected characteristics should be upheld at the cost of another group. I think we can argue that most mumsnet users are female and therefore concerns about the trans lobby should be discussed.

Black-civil/disabled rights do not involve the suppression of other groups.

Sticking self identified trans men into women’s spaces is like sticking the Fox in with the chickens, frankly.

BarrackerBarmer · 06/03/2018 15:05

No-one has ever been deleted for saying "Transwomen are women"
Yet you certainly risk deletion for saying "Transwomen are men"

despite men = adult human males
and transwomen = adult human males
and women = adult human females

The factual statement is deemed worse than the false 'kind' one.
The only one which ever gets censored is the factual one.

This tells you everything you need to know about this issue, and who has the power to control what is allowable language, and what is not.

crunchymint · 06/03/2018 15:13

But at the moment we still have sex discrimination legislation.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 06/03/2018 15:47

.. and a loud and highly visible, well supported minority trying to make the world agree that sex = gender = a choice!

LadyMcLadyCrisps · 06/03/2018 15:48

Terfsup yes, thankfully the thread has now gone! Smile

crunchymint · 06/03/2018 15:51

Yes unlike the actual disablist and benefit bashing comments that remain. But then those affect women, so no doubt of no interest to you OP. Men all the way

CobraKai · 06/03/2018 15:57

crunchymint - the GMC, NMC etc are very clear that use of non-preferred names, gender, pronouns or 'dead naming' in trans identifying people (regardless of whether they have a GRC) is 'unlawful direct discrimination under the equality act 2010'.

crunchymint · 06/03/2018 16:02

Thankfully the GMC and NMC don't make or apply the laws then. It may be against their professional code of conduct, it is not illegal.

CobraKai · 06/03/2018 16:10

Its nothing to do with the code of conduct.

It is unlawful for a HCP, social worker, prison officer, housing officer, employer etc to use non-preferred pronouns, gender or names in trans identifying people and is in direct discrimination under the equality act.

CobraKai · 06/03/2018 16:11

Is direct discrimination.

crunchymint · 06/03/2018 16:14

You have amended it now to people in certain jobs. Although even then it is not always illegal.
So you accept that for me to use the actual sex pronoun is perfectly legal?

x2boys · 06/03/2018 16:19

This was quite an amusing thread , let's not turn into a trans thread .