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?

Do you not think that someone announcing that they feel like 'a' woman is aos stereotypical though Ye?

I actually haven't seen any stereotyping of transexuals on these thread, simply personal accounts of individuals and how they seem to portray their 'feeling like a woman'

Mab - The context was about workplace equality, whether a SAH partner is necessary for a good career, and whether that's a feminist issue. I say it is a feminist issue and, taking a broader view of the same context, that employing more female, non-white, non-straight and disabled people enhances the general situation for everyone.

In the much, much wider contexts you reference, then 10% of adults owning 86% of all global wealth would likely see some fringe reductions in their quality of life through measures to raise median incomes globally. Their losses would, however, be very minor relative to gains made in the bottom section of the pyramid.

... erm, now I'm off topic but have this anyway.
The richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion.
Each one of those individuals (you could sit them all comfortably in a train carriage) is worth more than 41,176,471 other people put together.

Interesting. Really not what I expected to be criticised for in my post! The thing that I feel most strongly about, and that I missed out, was that transgendered MNers should be the ones to consult on this, as it is clear that very few of the rest of us have got any clue about it.

In other words, ladies, this really isn't about you! (Or me.)

Um...

Okay. I really think you should read all the threads if you are interested in why the best approach to what is transphobic and what is not is not a list of 'banned' and 'acceptable' words. A sentiment that HQ agreed with.

That's what the threads are about.

No one is interested in trans sexual relationships.

I think I have a good idea about what makes me a woman Ye and what makes me a woman is my biological 'bits n pieces', hormones and socialisation.

The issue is (and you wouldn't have got this if you've not read the threads) is that (some) transsexuals insist that 'woman' is a term used to describe anyone who 'feels like a woman' rather than a biological reality.

So it is impossible to refer to women and men, because they no longer mean the same things as they used to. This might be considered 'transphobic' by some but certainly for me and others, is very much 'femalephobic' because suddenly we have not just been relegated to a lower socioeconomic group due to the reproductive organs we were born with, we now no longer have the 'right' to define our existence as being weighed heavily according to those reproductive organs.

YeGods, parts of this are all about us, actually, which are the parts we are talking about. who and what we are, and how we talk to each other.
the parts we are not talking about - like transsexual people having sex - no, they aren't about us. which is why we are not talking about them

I did get that on the first few pages? still stuck on that?

I think you may have misinterpreted what (some) transsexuals insist/want.

After all, there are many, many women on MN who are post menopausal, have had hysterectomies and do not have share you...socialisation (whatever that is, there's bound to be some). Are they not women? apparently they are and are not up in arms at not being included in your definition. If you said all women have uteruses, or breasts, or can have children you would be wrong there, and you're insulting a lot of my friends and relations!

As I understand it, all (some) transsexuals want is for each individual to be able to choose how they are referred to, as individuals and if they want to be referred to as a woman, then they want that to go unquestioned and up for debate.

What is the point of you objecting to such a small % of people being included as women, anyway?

Personally I couldn't give a single fuck about the sex life of transsexuals, up to the point when they demand that lesbians should have sex with them etc etc. Because that is just not on!

"In other words, ladies, this really isn't about you! (Or me.)"
Actually this might well be about me. If my rights and freedoms are at risk of being curtailed by a group of people who consider that their rights trump mine, then I reserve the right to stand up for myself- and expect that group to make a good case before I agree to retreat from my hard own position.

because ye I don't think the term 'woman' is up for debate.

I don't believe that anyone who calls themselves a woman is one, I respect their right to be called she or miss or whatever they want to do but suggesting that the term 'woman' ceases to be about biology and conditioning and instead becomes something else is just ludicrous.

I don't think you can possibly be familiar with the work of transactivists, what they want is to be considered 'real women' and leave no space for biological women.

That is unacceptable, we deserve respect too.

No. But again, being transsexual isn't about the person's sexual parts or their sex life, and they should not have to answer questions about it or accept comments about it.

You've lost me, when has anyone asked questions about a transsexuals sex life?

can you quote some of these questions? Because I have not seen any.

I have seen a lot of rather worried women whose rights are being eradicated because it is now considered 'transphobic' to point out that biological males are not women.

You know, it might just be in the interest of discourse and - I don't know - fair to engage with what YeGods is saying with curiosity and openness, rather than shooting her down and pulling (virtual) funny faces at her because she's said something you don't agree with.

That just shuts down debate and makes people feel unwelcome when, if this is an issue for all of us women, we should all be listened to respectfully.

I am engaging with what she is saying, I just completely disagree with it (and don't really understand it) she is saying we should not talk about sexual relations of transsexuals (which we haven't) she is saying that transexuals 'are women too' (which they aren't) and that we should all just roll over and accept that because 'it doesn't matter either way' (it does)

I don't just mean you, ICan. I mean anyone who responds in a mocking way.

It reminds me of being young and intimidated at conferences when senior academics would answer honest questions from PhD students with snorts of derision.

That was pretty patronising corey given that ye has come into a thread and told us all off for saying things we haven't actually said, I would say she is quite capable of defending her position without being likened to 'a student in a room of professors'

Ye-'where has anyone said anything about transpeople's
sex lives?

In other words, ladies, this really isn't about you!

It really, really is, Ye, when my rights are being threatened.

ICan, I didn't say it was said on this thread. I am saying that it could be part of the guidelines, you have not understood what I have said, so please don't attempt to paraphrase it as you're going to get it wrong.

I'm not comparing Ye to a student in a room of professors. I don't presume to speak for her. And hell, professors are nothing compared to senior lecturers when it comes to refusing engage with someone who disagrees with them!

I'm referring to the tone of many responses to any dissent on these threads and the practice of stifling discourse instead of welcoming it.

The first post makes it clear this is the continuation of three other threads. To jump in with "I haven't read the threads but hey this isn't about you" is never going to get a good response though, is it? yegods is getting a more respectful reception than she deserves.

Could you direct us to where it has been said? Because I think we have pretty much covered most peoples worries about the transgender movement and not one person has discussed sex. I would be really interested to hear where it was talked about?

I still stand by very clearly, that it is very much about us as woman.

So what do you propose corey that we do not discuss anything? That someone comes and says something (often directed at us) and we don't respond to that? Surely that is the point of discussion.

Ye- I obviously have 't understood what you said either- could you say it in different words? What I understood you to say is that the debate about transpeople always focuses on their sex lives, and that it is up to transpeople to dictate the terms of the debate , because "it is 't about us". Obviously I'm wrong. Could you say more?

Of course not, ICan. You know that's not what I'm saying.

I mean I prefer discourse when response entails an opening out of the discussion, not a wall going up. As in asking someone why they feel the way they do or how they've arrived at a certain point.