AIBU to think Mumsnet need to revise their talk guidelines?

[abeautifulmess]

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?

ferntwist Interesting, do you have a link?

Thanks

But really it has no impact on my day to day life at all. That might be because there is something else going on. What you are reading is not anti trans, it is anti Self ID - and that will have an impact on your daily life at some point.

I'm not being snippy or anything, a year ago I would have posted exactly as you did. But someone was nice enough to explain, slowly, with repetition. Once I understood the difference between the 2 it became obvious that anti trans is not the correct term.

I have learned a lot in a very short time. My somewhat old school, social feminism has taken a bit of a battering. But I am now alarmed about the unintended outcomes of Self ID as a law!

If part of what people want from the 'campaign' (can't think of a better word) is to get the word out about self ID to as many people as possible then personally I think the threads on here go about it the wrong way. However much it's argued there is an 'anti trans' feeling and the misgendering etc just puts people off.

If that's not the case then of course it doesn't matter if people are put off reading and contributing.

NerrSnerr - I agree. Lots of threads and posts go way beyond anti-self ID/TRAs and do seem transphobic and it puts people off. That's why we have all the threads about putting the trans threads in a certain place on MN and people saying they see hate.

To deny that it happens is untrue.

And I think it is stopping the very important messages getting across because people immediately switch off when they see another trans thread.

And I have huge concerns about the current psychiatric 'assessment' of trans identifying people. I see individuals with complex personality or neurodevelopmental disorders assessed as trans and put forward for hormones and surgery. I'm against the transing of children. I don't think a transwoman is a woman - I think she's a transwoman. I don't think anyone with a penis should be in womens spaces if other women don't want that (I'm not hugely bothered for myself but am bothered for other women). I don't think a transwoman should be in a role identified for women because they don't have the lived experience of being a woman and never will. and I think the meaning of 'woman' is being eroded and we should all be concerned.

I've been 'quietly spoken to' at work about my views and advised not to vocalise them in the office as some of my colleagues view me as bigoted and transphobic. I was advised not to raise concerns about a certain GI clinic. I was ostracised to a degree by my wider work community for not considering a self ID individual (often mentioned on these threads ironically) to be a woman.

But I won't misgender. I didn't allign myself with the Spartacus threads because of that. I do think transwomen are transwomen and I will always respect that. I won't call them men or go on about their 'cock and balls' as I've seen on MN. I won't refuse to use their preferred pronouns, gender or names. I do see that as transphobia and discrimination.

But really it has no impact on my day to day life at all.

Do you know any girls, Viviennemary? Do you want them to be able to go swimming, take part in residential camps, take part in sports, and still hold on to their privacy and safety? Do you want any of the girls you know to be free to join the Guides if they want to, without the risk of a loss of privacy (at best) or assault and pregnancy (at the worst) when they go for trips away?

Do you want all the groups and posts and scholarships and other spaces that are currently held by and for women, and which help to push for greater participation of women in public life, to be held by trans-identifying men, who don't have the same understanding or experience of women's lives? Do you want it to be OK for women to talk about their bodies, and not be shouted down?

Do you every go to the doctor, or know other women who go to the doctor? Even if you are OK with having a man perform intimate examinations on you, do you think some of the women you know may feel differently?

Do you think you will ever get old, or ill? Do you want to be bathed in hopsital, or in a care home, when you are at your most vulnerable, by a man, without being able to object and ask for a woman?

These are all things which, I would suggest, are part of your every day life.

I understand where you are at, Cobra, but I have a question - do you still use female pronouns for rapists? Because that's my line in the sand. I won't.

A year ago I felt the same. I saw myself as a liberal feminist getting on with life and thought the Feminist boards were full of academic-types discussing obscure theory - definitely not for me.

Today I am SO bloody grateful I persisted with reading those boards and getting myself informed.

Self ID and the erasure of the category of biological female as a protected characteristic under equality law has everything to do with every woman and every girl in the country. You, your mum, your sister, your friends, your daughters.

Wakey wakey!

NerrSnerr it probably depends on your social circle and your contacts on social media. I don't know anyone who would agree that a man can become a woman just by identifying as one, and that includes my son at uni. According to him the whole thing is hilarious to him and his mates (mostly women). No one takes it seriously at all.
There has been a lot of pushback to the 'cis' thing, and that definitely goes a lot further than mumsnet, also a lot of concern about transing children. And most people can see through male sex offenders identifying as trans in prison to get transferred to a womans prison.

But really it has no impact on my day to day life at all.

Not yet anyway.

Additionally when I'm thinking about the impact of policies and politics I don't tend to focus only on how it impacts me - I think about the wider implications for those in other positions in society. For example; I am not disabled but it doesn't mean I am not disgusted by Conservative policies which have had severe impact on those with disabilities and mental health issues, I am white/British but think about the impact of Brexit on European nationals or the impact of immigration on women and children and so on ... When we think about politics we should think beyond ourselves and the consequences for us - anything other than that makes us quite insular.

I don't mean to pick on you Viviennemary it isn't just your post - it just happened to be the nearest one with that thought on it. It is more the sentiment of 'it doesn't affect me' that bothers me.

With that in mind I have examined and reexamined my position on this issue and I will continue to do so. I don't want to run away with unpleasantness and hate but the self-ID policy worries me, the amount of trans who are autogynophiles rather than gender dysphoric worries me, the impact of trans ideology on children and teens worries me and I am very concerned indeed about the amount of young girls choosing to trans and why and what it means for them as they seem to be the largely hidden people in this debate.

Sleightofgender good point about young girls. That is worrying. I'd like to add lesbians to that as well. I'm not a lesbian (or bisexual) myself, but it does concern me when I hear of lesbians who feel pressurised to sleep with men who identify as women, and called transphobic bigots because they only want to have sex with females, as per their sexual orientation.

Oh FFS. Anti self-ID is NOT anti-TRANS. Posters get (quite rightly) defensive when they are trying to debate a genuine issue that has the potential to remove safe spaces for women and are just abused as being transphobic. That may be what you are witnessing, OP.

Archery - I will but that's because I've been in the situation with sexual offenders (or any offender) in prison claiming to self ID and so if they legally change their name, I'll use that and use their preferred pronoun.

It doesn't make any difference to me and means I'm treating them in a respectful manner and I'm not discriminating under the equality act.

It's really common in prison these days and 99% of the time is nothing at all to do with thinking they're transgendered and more to do with trying to 'get one over' on the justice system or piss off staff or try to get different treatment. Same as inmates claiming to be Muslim or Jewish to get better food and be excused from work for prayer times or Religious festivals.

There are quite a few high profile inmates claiming to be trans now and they're not taken at all seriously and most of the time the press doesn't hear of it. Untill (or if) self-ID comes in, it's easy to differentiate between trans and not.

I'll use preferred names and pronouns but if asked 'do you think I'm a woman' I'll say 'I respect that's how you identify'. Will I support you being moved to a womans prison? No. And I will be vocal against that. Will I support your crimes retrospectively or currently being logged as committed by a woman? No. And I will be vocal against that. Will I support you wanting to be searched by only female staff? No and I will be vocal against that.

We have some specialised foreign national wings/units in prisons and many vulnerable prisoner wings in the UK. As far as I'm concerned we can have trans-identifying wings in a number of prisons (not all, but the need isn't that great) so no need for a transwoman to be in a womans prison.

Fair enough, Cobra. I won't do that, and I'm particularly angry when press reports, Crimewatch posts, etc, use she/her for clearly male rapists, but that's where I'm at, at the moment.

I know where you're coming from Archery. I don't object to the use of the pronouns in the press because it's always clear in the press that they're a natal male.

And when it comes to dealing with offenders - particularly sexual offenders, their perception of how professionals treat them and respect them as individuals and human beings is key. If you want to get into a battle, you'll get one. But that means they never trust you or respect you - so you can't accurately assess their risk because they won't tell you about their inner impulses or thought processes.

Remove the 'fight' for them to be seen as how they're identifying and you are more able to get to the truth of who they are and their offending.

@noeffingidea I can't have been clear. No one I know agrees with self ID. No one I know would ever use 'cis' either.

I think it's a case of tools for the job, Cobra. If you are dealing with them in a professional setting and need to use stratagems in order to get them to talk at all, or respond to whatever programme you are doing, I can see that being of utility. Whereas for me, my job is to keep emphasising, again and again, that these rapists aren't women at all, and should not be reported or treated as such.

It isn't a safe space to talk about emotive topics

Of course it isn't. It's on the internet. More than that- AIBU is a very robust debating forum, with very limited guidelines. I agree people should be civil and some of the comments from some feminists do not help their cause, but if you want a 'safe space' you are in the wrong place.

I think goady threads are fine for prompting a debate, but you started this one.

By definition a rapist can never be a woman. It is the ultimate expression of male violence with a penis which does not correlate at all with someone seeing themselves as a woman.

So when I see 'woman convicted of rape' I automatically know that is a transwoman (and I would argue not a genuine transwoman) and I haven't seen an article where it hasn't been mentioned that it is a transwoman. I do understand however that not every member of the public would see the headline and know that. I am 100% against any crime committed by a trans person being logged as committed by their preferred gender rather than their biological sex.

The number of transwomen convicted of rape either retrospectively or for current offences is very small though even though they're widely publicised. Where self ID is a much more major issue is around voyeurism, public indecency, downloading images of child sexual abuse etc etc.

Those are the offences that cause me the most concern if self - ID enters into law.

I don't object to the use of the pronouns in the press because it's always clear in the press that they're a natal male.

There have been a few cases linked to on her when the press havent been clear

I wouldnt like to say that all newspapers haven't been clear but no one reads all the papers

Well someone might I suppose...but not many people

Yeah I get that point Rufus. And I can see why people would object to the preferred pronouns being used in reference to sex offenders.

My objection is to misgendering on MN in reference to individuals who are identifying as their preferred gender over a prolonged period of time and who are often having hormone treatment or have had surgery.

We can criticise LM without referring to her as a man (or boy) or by her male name. We can object to transwomen being in female sports categories without saying 'this MAN should not be in womens sports'.

cobra

We obviously haven't met

I rarely have a point

I just see something and think 'oooh i can comment on this'

For what its worth I don't like misgendering but i do object to newspapers not mentioning at all what the sex of the person is 'if relevant' i would have no problem with it being mentioned at the start of the article that 'clare jones born Micheal jones did abc' and then the pronouns clare prefers used thereafter

I think most of us have a point Rufus (or a comment to make if you look at if that way)

And I usually agree with you. As we seem to be here

Yeah i think we are on the same page