AIBU to have done a little happy dance when I read this.

[Skarossinkplunger]

I realise that loads of people will absolutely hate this, but I had a huge sigh of relief when I read this. Well done Justine!

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/13/mumsnet-transgender-row-feminism-tougher-forum-rules

• weight lifter

Parallel I've seen people get accused of transphobic for that. And said in very much the same way.

The immediate response to this statement was for some people to request additional bans - TRA (trans rights activists, used to differentiate between the ones demandinging everyone bow down and the majority who just want to live their lives presenting as the opposite sex) and mentioning AGP which is a sexual fetish involving dressing as the opposite sex and being turned on by it. Exact numbers vary but most agree 80% of trans people have AGP and for a significant number forcing other people to validate them by being in female spaces is part of the thrill. This shouldn't be admitted though.

Did you read the Connecticut runners thread? It was about young trans women beating girls in a race, schoolaships resting on their performance. So one where you need to be clear if you are talking about the male bodied individuals or the female bodied individuals. But you have to call them all her and ignore the fact that they're not female . So it would know read: she ran faster than the other girls because she was born in a body better designed for running and it's not fair.

We need to be able to talk about these things clearly. It doesn't mean we are picking on anyone but we can't keep denying reality.

When I went to bed no one could agree on a word to call people identifying as the opposite gender or what pronouns to use. (They was suggested but objected to as transphobic if women still kept her/she). Trans supporters didn't want the correct sex used in any way and gender critical people didn't want the presenting gender used as it suggests they are a subset of the presenting gender, rather than what they are which is a subset of their birth sex. I hope it's sorted now as people identifying as they opposite gender really is too long to type!

Mip - not on MN. It's perfectly clear that it's acceptable to express concern about transwomen in female only spaces on MN. You can do that without misgendering or being otherwise offensive.

People like@IslaBootswho try to reduce people to 'peni' is quite enlightening. "Bring on the peni"? How about you piss off, vagina!

How about you make a decision to change in places where peni and vaginas are welcome or choose to compete against women with a penis and testosterone in sports.

Leave everyone else make their own decisions. No woman should have to be bullied into sharing female spaces with men!

Why are these 'women' with peni activating to share real female spaces? Why are they not asking for gender neutral spaces?? WHY??

Well this doesn't use the word transphobic but it's pretty clear what they mean. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2884501-To-wonder-why-its-so-transphobic-here

But it's acceptable to post both views and any on the spectrum between the two views. That's what I'm saying, the discussion and debate can be heard from both sides. You're not deleted for it or 'silenced'. It's perfectly easy to post without misgendering or being offensive.

But some posters refuse to. Which is why after repeated warnings, MN have now had to take the stand they have. And it is STILL possible to talk about the issues without being disrespectful or offensive.

Identify as a kettle for all I care but you are 'not' a woman if you were born with a penis. Dress up all you like and pander to female sterotypes but you are still a man. Just in prettier clothing.

I'm not suggesting MN are objecting or preventing you from saying that. I'm saying that there will be accusations and that what is considered acceptable is getting smaller and smaller.

This policing of language means our ability for clarity is becoming more limited. Don't get me wrong, I bèlieve you can have polite discussions and should do. But banning words, making unclear to people not deeply involved as to what the natal sex of someone is, makes it a lot harder to express concerns.

Historically there have been many examples of policing language to control people. If you can't say something, in time you stop thinking it. We need those words to be available.

am I put of step or has the world gone mad
few years ago a male in a female toilet or changing room would have been called a pervert and arrested. Now by self identifying as a female he can go in either and if you complain you would be in trouble.
I still believe a person with a dick is male

Feel for MN and the moderating team. Tough job.

I'm sure the debate can continue. Definitely glad to see the back of cis. Ridiculous word.

Sorry Dopey, the world has gone mad.

Speaking as a BWF woman, I’ve learned along about transgender politics from mumsnet and appreciate it. I think the new rules may run into difficulty but the attempt is well meant. Anything that helps people to keep talking is good.

That’s born with fanny, by the way.

*a lot.

It's the self ID and no further action that gets me.

If you have a penis you are male.
If you've had the snip you're a transwomen.
If you were born with a vagina you are a female.

It's honestly not fucking rocket science.

You can have a penis, 'dress like a woman' (whatever that means, usually skimpy dress and heels ) and say you're a woman and I will refer to you as Miss, Ms if you want but your sex is male.

I can't and WON'T call you a female because you say so.

MN have always, quite rightly, modded posts that are hateful or threatening. I actually don’t see that many, but people do report them.

However we must be absolutely clear about the distinction between hateful speech and disagreement. It is NOT hate speech to disagree with someone. It is not hate speech to talk about biology. We seem to be in a climate where a small section of activists are demanding that their viewpoint is never opposed. Critiquing their viewpoint is not hate speech.

I’ve sued the analogy before but take religion. If I criticise religion and mock it to a Christian employee at work I create a discriminatory atmosphere. If I belittle or abuse or harm or discriminate against a person for holding a religion I am breaking the law.

But if I’m on mumsnet outlining the issues I have with Christianity as anlatriatchal religion then I am doing none of the above. I’m no longer harming a person, and no ideology gets a free pass. If we legislate against the latter we are fucked - criticism of ideology is a vital part of a free society.

It’s the same with trans ideology. Abuse directed at trans posters is and should be removed. But to critique the ideology in general terms cannot be.

What the new rules seem to imply is a mixed bag. I personally don’t care what terms people call me - I’d rather see the debate go on uncensored. So ‘cis’ and ‘terf’ have gone. OK. I loathe cis but I wasn’t calling for it to be banned.

Then we are told we can discuss biology and science. Which is good, because the root of female oppression is our biology and science is impartial. But then we are told that no terms relating to the natal sex of a transperson May be used at all. The post which contains that needs clarifying as to whether ANY mention of a persons natal sex (ie their sex, because it is a biological fact that sex cannot be changed) is mentionable.

Do you see how this restricts speech? If I say I am a woman I refer to my natal sex. Is that ok? Is it OK to say transwomen remain Male? That’s a biological fact - will I be deleted and banned for it? For stating a fact?

How can we discuss biology, discuss how self ID impacts on women’s safety and safeguarding of children if we cannot use clear, concise language?

What is interesting on the other threads is that the GC feminists are saying they don’t need protecting with censorship. Only the activists are calling for language to be policed.

I hope and I do think that my posts in this subject are never abusive. I find myself generally countering some of the ‘fake science’ that activists come along with and I try to do that in as calm a manner as I can. I aim to never be personally offensive. However if an individual is offended by a generality, I can’t control that. To paraphrase

“I display a general garment and you claim it’s cut to fit - what a fascinating revelation.”

The above is basically the definition of blasphemy. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the UK. Blair tried to push one through but thankfully was stopped.

Have a think about what countries with blasphemy laws are like. There are very few pleasant theocracies.

Very clear Babel, thank you.

In my post at 22:13 last night I set out my interpretation of the policy. I then reported my post to MNHQ to ask if my interpretation was correct.

MNHQ have replied to me that it is correct.

We can still say that a man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female, transwomen are biologically male, transmen are biologically female and that a man cannot become a woman, and vice versa. We can still say that autogynephilia is a thing, that a biological male - regardless of how they identified - viciously assaulted a 60 year old woman for wanting to attend a meeting.

We can still say that Ian Huntley is a child-murdering piece of scum who was, is and always will be a man.

I'll use the terms transwoman/transman, clarify my meaning if necessary and will continue to refer to any biological male convicted of murdering or assaulting any woman or child as a man.

So you had it confirmed that we can say the factual truth that transwomen remain men?

That’s encouraging if nothing else... to be told otherwise would be very damaging.

Oh for heavens sake. There are biological females and biological males. This is determined by chromosomes. There is no need for the term cis. Some people choose to transition to varying degrees to whatever they view as male or female defining characteristics. This relies purely on self identification not biology, you cannot alter this. Self identification does not actually make you male or female just as blacking up and speaking with a Jamaican accent whilst wearing a Rastafarian hat does not make you Jamaican (this is likely to be criticised as cultural appropriation). In none of these situations can you really experience what it is like to be what you are self identifying as. It’s open to abuse. People who have transitioned are trans. Why can’t they be proud of who they are and their journey?

I think the issue comes from you always get people who take advantage of the system and this will be no different.

There's some really good points being made here.

Yes Bowl. I think it would be considered 'not in the spirit' to aggressively bang on about but we are not being asked to deny science and biological reality.

If, for instance, you had posted that you were a transwoman, it would be rude if I responded 'No! You're a man!' and I'd probably get deleted (I'd delete me, iyswim)

If, however, you said transwomen were women, I could respond that transwomen were not women as they remained biologically male.

Couple of points

The relentless trans bollocks isnt going away...its will just be politer relentless trans bollocks

I do wish we could have a 'feminist but not anti-trans' board in addition to the current feminism board!

Loads of posters on every 'trans' thread are not 'anti trans'

For illustrative purposes, I believe that the following does not contravene posting guidelines:

Tara Wolf is a transwoman, i.e. a biological male, who was convicted of assaulting a 60 year old woman, Maria MacLachlan.

The judge rebuked MacLachlan, the victim, for referring to Wolf, who is clearly male-bodied, as 'he' when giving evidence.

(Go on, lurking TRAs. Report the hell out of that one).

Women - biologically, physically, in every way female have less rights than someone who believes they are women. Again women are being pushed to maintain the rights of men who believe they are woven.

Just doesn't make sense in any way !!!