MNHQ transphobia guidelines part 2

[QueenStromba]

First thread here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2120841-MNHQ-are-going-to-decide-what-constitutes-transphobia-on-MN-What-advice-guidelines-would-you-give-them?

Sitestuff thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2117350-MNHQ-now-email-posters-with-how-to-get-around-the-talk-guidelines?

The thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2107862-Following-on-from-the-TERF-thread?

MN is one of the very few influential spaces where women's voices get heard.

I'm going to second that.

i've stormed off a couple of times. But end up coming back...because there is nowhere else.

And this place's position isn't all that secure either. Sometimes it self sabotagues, which damages its influence and renders us more easily plonked in the "silly little irrelevant women" box. Hence all the storming off.. and then slinking back.

I'm not at all sure moving beyond is accurate. Not even in a European context. At my age it is hard to assess the youthful landscape, but my (albeit potentially not all that reliable) impression is that being a feminist was less rejected in 1984 than it is in 2014. It seems to me there is a growing belief that feminisim isn't needed anymore. Which is worrying. Without the maintained pressure it's not just that there will be no more forward march, things are likely to move backwards.

Of course the UK doesn't have womens equality. I just think we might have moved to the point where the simple arguments that actually reinforce stereotypes could be rethought out.

I think I view "childcare is a womens rights issue" in the same way I viewed William Hagues "real men don't rape women"

Really? I wasn't aware of Hague's comment until now but I cringe for him and for me.

What does he think 'real' men do? And 'real' women? What do we do in Little Hague's opinion?

And what does it mean to you?

Some time ago I regarded Hague as the most competent member of the Cabinet - quite a low threshold, I know - but this is yet another black mark against him.

I blame exposure to the stellar power of Angelina and Brad

My impression is that being a feminist was less rejected in 1984 than it is in 2014. It seems to me there is a growing belief that feminisim isn't needed anymore. Which is worrying.

God, yes! I didn't even bother "being a feminist" for about ten years - though I'm very glad others were still at it. There was a hell of a lot more parliamentary support at the time, which made it feel like all I needed to do was fill in surveys, vote, etc.

Now - if I answered every single anti-feminist statement I hear or read, I'd be doing nothing else all day, every day.

My impression is that being a feminist was less rejected in 1984 than it is in 2014. It seems to me there is a growing belief that feminisim isn't needed anymore. Which is worrying.

I agree with whoever said that.

buffy you are almost certainly right...and I am now almost certainly depressed about you being right

My DH was querying whether there really was any discrimination against LBGT these days as it has never made any difference to him and he assumed that was all fixed now.

I think maybe I am equally blind to the general public's level of gender discrimination. I shouldn't be...cause I suffered big time this year because students automatically believe they are taught better by white men than any other demographic...the performance markers for all of the non-white non-male persons in the department are shifted....nice huh? Luckily my future promotion prospects don't rely on this information...oh wait YES THEY DO.

brilliant.

I apologise for deducing your mind was closed, Ice.
I'll answer the remarks of yours that wound me up the most, in a little more detail.

If I propose a change to address a womens issue I know I will get nowhere. I propose a change to address a parenting issue I know I will.

What this statement says is that you only get an answer to the problem that is framed without reference to women. Men will normally interpret "people" to mean people like them - male people. Thus, questions about an issue which overwhelmingly affects women ONLY get sorted if you ignore the fact that it overwhelmingly affects women. Problems affecting women can only be addressed by not mentioning women.

The most powerful argument for making society more equal is not that it makes life better for women. It is that it makes life better for everyone.

The powerful argument for making society more equal is that it makes life better for people who are marginalised. This makes life better for everyone. As seen above, women are marginalised. When life gets better for half the population, of course it improves for all of the population.

In hunting down the causes of poor retention of women in my field we find ... being female is not essential. Being more likely to not have a SAH partner is the problem.

Firstly, you cannot be so blind to prevailing social norms that you don't realise SAH partners are mostly women, with WOH male partners. This means that, statistically, "being female is essential". Secondly, you might want to question why your working practices are dependent on the worker having a servant/SAHP. Do you provide household help to single employees? Assuming you don't, consider what that implies about your organisation's dependence on unpaid workers.

I am guilty of not reading the thread...I read the first few pages and went away and thought about it as I couldn't find the right words to express how I felt about this.

I think what I feel about it is that I am uncomfortable about transphobia in the same way that I am uncomfortable about over sexualised/sexy clothing being aimed at being sold for young girls to wear.

Being transgender is not, for the purposes of MN family friendly discussions, about sex. Yes, there's that side to it, but this isn't the place for that type of discussion. So putting that aside, let's consider what it is about in relation to MN.

I think what gets to me about transphobia is when every mention of trans gets a reaction as though someone has just said something sexual. There used to be the same reactions to the mention of someone being gay, which is not nearly as prevelant now. So I'd like to see a MN where someone can mention being transgendered and the converation to not automatically vere off into some unrelated tangent.

I had a trans friend at uni (more of a friend of a friend) and that was a long time ago. I think that is my only reference point. She was lovely, lacking in confidence, pretty, that's as much as I remember. We didn't keep in touch.

So I feel I'd like an education on the kind of language which is acceptable and respectful around the whole area of transgender identity. I'd like to think that MN can be a supportive place for that.

What? Yes, it is about sex - sex being the biological outcome (potential fertiliser or potential incubator) of your chromosomes.

Did you misunderstand the posts?

Eh? Are you using "sex" as in sexual intercourse?

Perhaps you should read the thread before you say what you think is appropriate for MN.

I mean sex as in sexy.

And I get my understanding of what is appropriate for MN from the talk guidelines, which I have read. Maybe you should read those, FloraFox. I have as much right to respond to the OP as anyone.

Try reading a dictionary. We're not talking about sexy FFS.

Yes MN is well-known for always being family friendly. We never talk about sex here.

YeGods, you're criticising the thread for talking about something it doesn't talk about

"Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex."

Apart from which, as Briar points out, MN is not considered a 'family friendly' website and does talk about sex!

Just picking up on Ice's earlier point, because I would have broadly agreed with her and I've been thinking about the issue and people's responses.

So I totally get that childcare (access to high quality inexpensive options) affects women more than men because there is a default assumption that it's women's work. In practice it's women who are saying that they can't work because of lack of childcare, or that they are running around trying to make it work and it affects their lives negatively. Women (mothers) who stay at home feel denigrated as 'workshy' and women who work feel attacked as 'bad mothers'. And of course it's also women who make up the childcare workforce and suffer from poor pay and conditions. So I totally understand why it's an issue that feminism wants to address.

But on the other hand I hate that it is assumed that childcare is exclusively a woman's issue because I think that is a part of the reason why the default is that women should be responsible for childcare, why women talk about childcare costs coming out of their incomes, why men often take a back seat etc. So it makes me really uncomfortable when childcare is addressed from that position. It makes me feel like I/women am being pushed into a box that says that I/we are responsible and men/fathers are not, and that makes me want to kick back.

Now this could be because I am coming from a position of privilege because in my family childcare has never been more my issue than dhs, and in my old industry flexible working was not just about childcare and many couples both flexed in order to be more hands on parents. So I know it doesn't have to be the default, and I really do believe that it would be much better if it wasn't.

So do I. I'm very vocal about totally rethinking business practices and expectations around work / 'life' conflicts. This neither dilutes the fact that the issue disproportionately affects women, nor implies that resolutions should be reached without reference to that fact.

I don't think anyone on any of the three current threads on this topic have discussed the act of sex with reference to transsexuals. I am thoroughly confused as to where that came from!

garlic
"The powerful argument for making society more equal is that it makes life better for people who are marginalised. This makes life better for everyone. As seen above, women are marginalised. When life gets better for half the population, of course it improves for all of the population."

I am not sure about this. I think the second part "makes life better for everyone" can be grossly oversold; I mean, put it out there if we think it helps, by all means, but talking amongst ourselves, I think it's mistaken, and I think it misplaces the value of what we are trying to do.

• in the short term, the non-marginalized group will lose privilege and this will hurt
• in the medium term, equality in a context of relative abundance, like Sweden, or the way this country could be if it knew what the hell it was doing socially and politically - yes, that will be better for everyone, ok
• but in the long term, globally, there is huge pressure for resources and honestly I think all white people in this corner of the world have too much, should have less, and need to take it on the chin. Ok so now we are talking about material resources rather than more spiritual sorts of equality, and you could argue that there is a huge pyschological or spiritual uplift in your wellbeing that comes from knowing you are not standing on the invisible bodies of dead child slaves in running 2 cars and having 3 flush toilets and eating meat 17 times a week. But still, your (by "your" of course I mean "my") life style is going to suffer if we're seriously heading towards equality

(disclaimer I do not have 2 cars of eat meat 17 times a week. I do not want to discuss the toilets, or my shower use)

"Being transgender is not, for the purposes of MN family friendly discussions, about sex. Yes, there's that side to it, but this isn't the place for that type of discussion. So putting that aside, let's consider what it is about in relation to MN.

I think what gets to me about transphobia is when every mention of trans gets a reaction as though someone has just said something sexual."

wtf?

Do you mean on mn?
Could you give an example?

Or do you mean - other people, in life?

It hasn't come from the 3 threads in particular, it is my response to what is acceptable, and what I have seen occur on MN in the past.

I suppose it also comes under the heading of stereotyping a group of people as all being the same - all wearing 1950s clothing or all dressing up to the nines, or all being drag show artists or making further assumptions about what is or is not under their clothes.

I don't see why my comment is so controversial and attracting so much attention. It's about respect of a minority group who are often misunderstood and who attract unnecessary and undeserved criticism.

allhail I agree with you that not everyone will benefit from society being more equal, at least not in the ways that are important to them. I think men realise it too, but this message is perhaps more for women who are not comfortable with the idea that, yes, men will be worse of (in the ways that matter to a lot of them) than women. I can think of lots of men who would not be in the jobs they are in if society were more equal.