MNHQ now email posters with how to "get around" the talk guidelines.

[GoshAnneGorilla]

There is yet another thread on FWR about trans people. Like nearly every other thread on there about trans people, it's a load of transphobia dressed up as gender analysis.

Nothing new, sadly.

What is new, is that MNHQ have now sent an email to a poster whose post was deleted, telling them how their post could be within the guidelines, even including a copy of their original post to make editing all the easier. This is because "discussion is important".

So, a few questions for MNHQ.

Are GLBT rights at all important to you?

Will you be extending this " How to bend the talk guidelines" services to racist, homophobic, or disabilist posts too, or is it only trans people who deserve to be discussed in a manner which is extremely offensive?

dreamingbohemain shall I give you an example of some things that are considered transphobic by many people and website guidelines and then perhaps you could give what the equivalent would be with regards to racism.

"women menstruate"

"women are adult human females"

"abortion is a women's rights issue"

"a penis is a primary male sex organ" (Wikipedia is guilty of this one as is the NHS website, every biology book in the land and every sex education class given ever.)

What is considered racist or homophobic is not set in stone but what is considered racist or homophobic does not enter into the realms of denying white people or straight people their identity and body biology. And neither white people nor straight people are an oppressed minority so the comparison falls down right there.

Most educated decent people can agree on what racism and homophobia are. The same can not be said for transphobia. At all. To compare transphobia to racism and homophobia is not to compare like with like and anyone who is informed on the issue knows that there is massive controversy and disagreement over statements such as those I have given above.

Transphobia is not just saying offensive things about transpeople. It is also saying true things about born women/females/biological women/FAABs/insert other PC term here as the term 'woman' is now controversial too.

Kim, yes, they probably think it is okay, but I have not seen such a thread on MN.

I think if you posted a thread on AIBU, most people would be totally unaware of transgender people beyondbelieving they were people who wanted to be the opposite sex, a statement which itself is considered transphobic by trans activists.

Try going on chat and asking people what trans means.Most people, in my experience, think it means the above.

Also like almond I do enjoy reading the opposing viewpoints on UKIP threads and having a lively debate. I think posts there should stand unless really appalling, and we should all engage with each other on the thread.

What I don't like is to think that perhaps MN is there behind the scenes, showing posters how to 'clean up' their posts, like Nigel Farage or something. That to me is not engagement.

If it is merely which sub forum the thread sits which bothers you, Kim, then why not start another similar thread elsewhere, as you suggest Chat or AIBU?

I'm sure the differences in opinion would be just as interesting there, however, it might be more difficult to learn from it.

1) Do MNHQ email posters who have had posts deleted for other forms of bigotry such as racism, homophobia or disabilism and tell them how they can express their prejudices without breaking talk guidelines?

GothAnneGorilla that is not actually what happened. As I clearly explained in my above post MNHQ emailed me and said (politely) "Beachcomber you are not allowed to say X and Y".

They did not suggest a different way of expressing X and Y. They said I can't say them.

Perhaps you would like access to my emails in order to check up on both me and MNHQ? I mean in addition to implying that we are bigots who are no better than neo-Nazis because we don't hold the same opinion as you on an issue of enormously conflicting views.

I never said that. It was quite clear in my post that I was talking about a hypothetical thread.

Please do not attribute statements to me that I did not make, Kim.

kim147 Fri 27-Jun-14 11:20:31

beach Do you think any of your statements would be controversial on FWR or even on the rest of MN?

Do you think that anyone on here would consider them transphobic?

I certainly don't.

That is exactly the point I'm making. The above statements are not considered transhpobic on MN which is a big mainstream website. And yet they would be considered highly transphobic and offensive in other places. There are feminist websites where you would get deleted and told to check your privilege for saying such dreadful things as I have posted above.

And yet dreamingbohemian is arguing that transphobia is no more controversial than racism or homophobia.

If I say "lesbians are women who are sexually attracted to biological females" I can be accused of transphobia. Which seems a bit unfair on lesbains. I mean for it to now be bigoted to give a straightforward explanation of their sexual orientation.

Perhaps dreamingbohemian would like to give us the racist equivalent of that too.

Not by anybody on here Beach. And not by any of the trans people I know. I dare say the trans equivalent versions of David Icke would.

beach those statements are intentionally grounding 'woman' in biology and thus hostile to the concept of trans, so yes I can see why some people would consider them transphobic in certain contexts. It's a bit disingenuous to divorce simple statements from the politicised contexts in which they're taking place (i.e. a bigger discourse about gender identity).

That doesn't mean you have to think they're transphobic -- it doesn't mean MN does either. And this goes back to the original question. What is transphobia for MN? Is it simply that you can't use hate speech? Because then probably your post should not have been deleted. Or is it a more extreme version? I doubt it, given the content on the rest of the site. I sense they are trying to straddle different interpretations and perhaps not being consistent.

I don't see how you can argue that the evolution of what's racist hasn't changed white (and especially white male) identity but that's probably another thread. And given that many 'educated decent' people deny structural racism exists, I disagree that there is consensus in this area at all. Perhaps progress, but still a long way to go.

x-post

I did not at all say that transphobia is not as controversial as racism.

I said you should not use controversy as an excuse to be phobic, because by that logic it would be okay to be racist as well, given the still contested nature of racism.

kim yes, I think they should

To avoid accusations of transphobia avoid the use of the word "tranny" and don't refer to 'MtF' transpeople as men, and don't say 'he' or 'his'. 'They' or 'their' would be fine if you didn't want to say 'she' or 'her'.

Talking about the issues would be fine, as well as saying that you believe the whole thing is a mental disorder if that's your opinion, so long as you mention it's your opinion and get the personal pronouns right.

And be aware of the problem when it's 50 against 1 in an argument debate. The more of you there are, the more careful you need to tread so the one person doesn't feel like they're being bullied. (And that's for ANY subject)

I think that's a great start, Tiggy

I wonder if we all gave suggestions, we might find there is actually a lot of consensus

TiggyD, then perhaps you would like to give us some links to a moderate transactivist who doesn't share those beliefs.

DB, those beliefs are frequently cslled transphobic in the context of women's rights issues that are not about gender identity.

Both yours and Tiggy's points were covered and arguedagainst with evidence on the thread.

Pretending that is not the case just means the whole thread ends up replicated here.

Also, I don't enjoy engaging with UKIP supporters. I don't have the knowledge to do so. I read and learn from hearing the sound arguments against.

I would learn nothing if I came to this with little knowledge, because all you, Tiggy, GothAnne and Kim are doing is arguing against things you would have liked 'us', MNHQ and feminism to have said/done rather than engage with the actual situation.

Tiggy, sorry was responding to your David Icke post notyour last post which I xposted with.

dreamingbohemian can you (or anyone else) give me an idea of what would be the racist or homophobic equivalents of;

"women menstruate"

"women are adult human females"

"abortion is a women's rights issue"

"a penis is a primary male sex organ"

I don't think you can. And I don't think you can because gender politics are inherently different to the politics of race and homosexuality/lesbianism.

When you say that white people's identities have been changed as a result of considerations of racism, I agree. White people's unearned privilege and undeserved higher status have been adressed (at least a bit). And that is how it should be - supremacists and oppressors should be made to relinquish privilege in order to give human rights and recognition to the groups they exploit, harm and oppress. This is not denying white people their identity however.

DB, my first guidelines for you, Tiggy, Kim and GoshAnne would be to not to refer to women as sluts and whores.

No, but nobody on the thread in question used the T word, yet apparently it is excellent advice for us to be told not to do do.

I will also point out that thousands of people are petitioning to have Dan Savage no platformed because he used the t word to explain why it should not be used, just as Tiggy did. So it certainly isn't excellent advice. It is a transphobic post.