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?

The idea that it is bigoted for women to talk about girls living in poverty not being able to go to school due to lack of private space in which to attend to their menstrual flow, makes me angry.

Or abortion clinics no longer referring to women's right to access abortion but 'people's right to access abortion'

That is what this has come to. These things erase girls and women. Which goes some way to explaining why supposedly 'extreme' voices are having so much influence - they aren't considered extreme by misogynists. They are lapped up by them.

If the trans community is going to let the transactivists speak for them then they can't get upset if feminists start tarring all of them with the same brush. I don't actually see anyone doing that though.

Kim, because the topic is not the behaviour of trans people. It is the behaviour of trans activists.

It is not the case that the same things come up on every thread. The current treatment of Dan Savage has only just happened. The attempts to label girls as menstruators has only just happened. The trans woman elected politician telling a feminist to suck her balls and then being asked to speak at London Dyke march has only just happened.

These kind of events are getting more frequent and closing down feminism and gay rights more and more.

If there are no moderate trans activists, stop making out we are cherry picking the extreme ones in these conversations.

There are plenty of moderate activists around Islamic issues.

dreamingbohemian, the reason I choose the statement "women menstruate" is because this is a real life example of women being called transphobic when they discuss the sanitary needs of girls in certain countries and how it affects their ability to go to school.

Now will you accept that what constitutes transphobia is controversial and a different issue to that of racism or homophobia?

I'm beginning to wonder if it would be more helpful to talk about genderists rather than trans activists.

As far as I can see this is a better delineation of the group who are causing problems for feminism/women - the people who think that innate gender identity trumps everything else and they need to attack the TERFS for not recognising their cis privilege. Not all these people are trans (many are just general Twitter-based social justice warriors) and as Kim suggest, trans activism in itself shouldn't be a problem - in fact it's rather important as far as I can see, that there are people out there fighting the obvious discrimination trans people get in employment etc. And not all trans people believe in 'gender trumps everything' anyway.

they are still erasing womens rights whether they are only a tiny minority of transpeople or not. You have to expect that feminists will oppose people who trample their rights, surely.

there is a distinction between ordinary trans people and transactivists who cause harm.

As I said on the thread itself, it's not so much the vocal trans activists (although what they say/do is pretty vile), it's their accommodation by feminists who appear to want to be righter-on-than-thou, who bend over backwards to give trans rights higher billing than... well, pretty much anything else. They're the ones policing feminist websites, abusing other women for bigotry and transphobia, closing down debate.

I'm sure the vast majority of trans people who aren't activists don't do this sort of thing and yes it is bad that they get lumped in with the activists who post 'die cisscum' at women and no-platform anyone who doesn't roll over and admit that their hurt feelings trump anyone else's rights.

They don't need to when there are a shedload of internet handmaidens ready and willling to do the work of that 0.01% for them.

I'm not sure why that is, but it is frightening that any debate or mention of another POV is being shut down like this.

Kim, if you named any other issue it would be easy to name moderate activists in that group. Being outspoken is not the same thing as having an extremist view.

Of course this is an issue of genderists rather than the majority of trans people -- and most genderists are mot trans. I said that on my first post on the terf thread.

That said, I did not use the word genderist, because that is not the word they have given themselves. I'm not sure it is up to us to decide what to call people who call themselves trans activists.

The transactivists I know in person and their allies believe and say the same things as the so-called extremists. I have lost a very long standing friend (not a very close friend but someone I have known and liked for 30+ years) who is not an extremist in any way (Lib Dem in fact) over a discussion about whether a transwoman is a woman / is of the female sex. I was told it is transphobic to even discuss this.

You say these are extremist views. I don't believe you.

That's actually the perfect analogy Kim. Say there are two countries - Womanistan and Manistan. Womanistan has historically been oppressed by Manistan and Manistan are much richer than Womanistan. Should the citizens of Womanistan be expected to accept immigrants from Manistan who will use up Womanistan's scant resources when Womanstani's aren't accepted in Manistan? Especially when the most vocal Manistanis who want to move to Womanistan make it pretty pretty obvious that rather than just wanting acceptance in Womanistan they want domination of Womanistan. It sucks for the Manistanis who just wanted asylum but the Womanistanis can't be expected to accept any old Manistani who wants in when the most vocal amongst them are obviously anti-womanistani.

I started this thread to seek clarification from MNHQ with regards to moderation, that's why I started it in Site Stuff.

This section exists for members to ask questions of MNHQ, so I don't see anything wrong or rude about my OP.

In order to highlight this thread, earlier I have reported my most recent post stating exactly what my questions were, so that it is flagged up to MNHQ.

This thread was not intended as a trans issues debate, there have been plenty of those already.

If I was MNHQ I wouldn't go near this with a ten foot pole. Look at what happened to Gia Milinovich after she tried to have a balanced event to discuss trans issues. Even Laurie Penny has been rounded on by transactivists for her latest article in the New Statesman.

I'm not sure that GAG or dreamingbohemian would agree with you that feminists should have a place to discuss the effect of trans activism on women.

These discussions would be more comparable to Indians meeting in India to discuss the effect of immigration of British people into India. That would not be racist or xenophobia.

Actually, in order to make my analogy work, Womanistan must have only have only recently succeeded from Manistan.

No, it is not comparable because the 'indigenous population' is a racist phrase if you are referring to the UK.

If you mean British people, the British are not a disadvantaged group, while females are.

QueenStromba I'd say Manistan is still oppressing Womanistan but less than it used to.

What exactly do you have issue with Kim?