MNHQ: Mumsnet and transphobia - our thoughts

[SarahMumsnet]

Hey everyone,

Thanks to all for your posts on this issue - we appreciate them, and have read through them all in order to take everyone’s views into account. We’ve had a lengthy discussion - several, in fact - at MNHQ on how to move forward re transphobia on Mumsnet, and this is where we’ve landed.

Firstly: we need to hold up our hands. Mumsnet is a general interest site; we moderate across a wide host of issues on a daily basis, and can’t claim to be experts in any one field. As a result, our policy in terms of Talk Guidelines and what we deem deletable has always been inclusive rather than exclusive: we find it more sustainable to operate under broad principles of mutual respect and courtesy, rather than specifying what users can and can’t say on any given topic.

Having thought about it, therefore, we’ve decided we want to apply those same broad principles when it comes to transphobia, rather than coming up with a “Mumsnet” definition of what transphobia is, or with a list of specific deletable transgressions. We realise that several of you have asked for just such a list, on the very reasonable grounds that transgenderism is, for some, an area about which they know little, and it would therefore be helpful to have a clear set of “you can say this/you can’t say that” guidelines. Our reasons for not wanting to go down that route are as follows:

1. we don’t do this for any other type of deletable offence - racism, sexism, homophobia, disabilism or ageism

2. we’re poorly placed to do it. We can’t claim to be experts in transgenderism; therefore, for us to come up with a definition of what we believe it to be would, we feel, be presumptuous

3. part of the reason we haven’t done so for any other “ism” is because it’s impossible to make such a list definitive. For every ruling we make (“it’s transphobic to say X”) 3/10/a thousand more questions will arise (“what about if you say Y?”)

4. such a list wouldn’t take any account of context. As I said above, many of the people who suggested a definition/list would be useful did so because of the lack of knowledge and clarity around the issue. Having given this some thought, and in particular, having read the recent thread on the subject in Chat, it seems to us that folk might very reasonably ask questions around transgenderism that are purely in the spirit of enquiry and in no way intended to give offence but which might, under specific guidelines on wording, be construed as transphobic. We’ve no wish at all to stifle discussion of an issue that is, rightly, gaining visibility - in fact, we think it’d be counterproductive.

Currently, we don’t specifically mention transphobia in the list of offences we delete for in the Talk Guidelines. We’ll amend that now, so it’s spelled out to anyone using the website that transphobia is not welcome on Mumsnet. We’ll also change the Lesbian and Gay Parents topic to LGBT Parents, as suggested, to make it consistent with our LGBT Children topic.

Ultimately, we think one of the real strengths of MN is that it allows users to have robust disagreements about difficult topics, but without hate speech, and without comments that are just plain mean or personally directed at other posters. If there are any posts that you think we need to look at please flag them up by hitting the 'Report' button and we'll always take a look.

Apols for the essay. Hope all of this makes sense, and you can follow our reasoning on it. Please let us know what you think and as ever, thanks for the input.

MNHQ

(Do I mean ironic? I probably don't.)

Yes, I completely agree with you that threads becoming personal battle grounds is not ok. And I do think it happens on the well-worn 'bunfight' territories across MN.

I'm only dwelling on the 'personal' thing because I think people do get a bit intimidated by the idea they can't have a personal perspective. And in this specific case, I get why kim is going to feel very personally involved. It'd be really dishonest if I didn't say that.

I just don't think - sorry - that that means it's ok for us to have constant threads about how feminists are all horrible people, and for that not to count as an attack.

However, I think I am derailing and my basic thought is MNHQ made the right decision here. And I'm quite pleasantly surprised it came out of the chat thread, too.

Totally agree with you LRD

I am pleased with MNHQ's decision too. As members of the LGBT community, trans people should be afforded the same protection as LGB people are and I'm glad MNHQ have clarified that this will be happening.

Interesting take gosh. I don't see MNHQ saying there will be a change in their deletion policy. That seems pretty evident from their approach on the Chat threads. Unless you're talking about changing the name of the LGB parenting thread?

As a member of the LGBT community, I'm also glad mumsnet have taken this very sensible approach, and haven't taken steps to close down any discussion of when trans activism becomes homophobic.

Means this bit I think:

"Currently, we don’t specifically mention transphobia in the list of offences we delete for in the Talk Guidelines. We’ll amend that now, so it’s spelled out to anyone using the website that transphobia is not welcome on Mumsnet."

ICan I'm sorry but I think your posts about kim are quite unpleasant. Anyone who's read the other threads knows exactly who are you talking about. I personally don't think kim makes threads all about her, anymore than any of us who post personal experiences related to the topic under discussion.

MN is not an academic forum with academic standards, people should feel free to contribute their own lived experiences. If you don't think it's relevant, ignore it. I suspect kim's contributions stand out more than they would otherwise because she is the only one posting from her perspective.

MNHQ I think your approach here is very reasonable. Personally I will try to avoid any future trans threads because I find the hostility towards trans people baffling, reactionary and depressing.

Everywhere you look today, there are identity boundaries being broken and blurred, the demise of zero-sum approaches, the rise of more harmonious and fluid associations. And so for me, the insistence on biological essentialism is like waking up in the 19th century. But I recognise that this is the dominant ethos on FWR and so it is easier to just avoid those threads from now on, rather than arguing endlessly with posters who I do otherwise respect and whose passion I admire.

I think she just means, it's good they're confirming transphobia isn't ok?

Us on FWR know that because the deletion policy is fairly obvious, but you wouldn't necessarily know if you posted elsewhere on the site.

"Us on FWR know that because the deletion policy is fairly obvious, but you wouldn't necessarily know if you posted elsewhere on the site."

This change was made as a result of the threads on FWR, so in MNHQ's view this isn't/wasn't the case.

dreaming I don't think you understand the meaning of biological determinism. Trans ideology is more determinist and goes so far as to say that if you are not conforming with the required determination if your biology, you should change the biology.

19th century biological determinism means if you are a woman, you must behave like X (feminine).

21st century biological determination means if you behave like X (feminine), you must be a woman.

Gender critical feminism says if you are a woman or a man, behave however the fuck you like. Feminism and masculine are concepts that change from time to time and place to place. Reproductive and sexual capacity don't change from time to time and place to place and women's oppression is rooted in these physical characterists. Without the language to identify and discuss our oppression, we can't change it.

FloraFox I think that's the best, most concise summation of the current situation I've seen in a while. Thank you.

Good decision from HQ I think. Thanks very much.

harold - nope, you're mistaken: this actually came about because someone who's a FWR regular started a thread, then someone else who's another FWR regular started a thread.

It was only when it went to chat that MNHQ made their decision, which was the one backed by the majority of FWR. Pretty much all of us said we needed to be able to debate, but that things like deliberately misgendering someone were definitely not on.

That's the sort of thing I think your average person who isn't into feminism or trans issues might not know - I've come across it on chat/AIBU threads before, that people simply wouldn't have come across the idea that you shouldn't call a transwoman 'he' any more, even if you'd known him as 'bob' before he was 'carol'.

Good decision MNHQ. Thanks.

And thanks to all those who have contributed to the threads - I have learned a great deal.

You ground a woman's identity in her reproductive organs, correct? A woman is someone who is born with a female reproductive system? There is no way of altering the identity you are born with? That seems like classic essentialism to me. And it is this very basic idea that I don't agree with.

Anyway I don't want to kick off another whole thread which won't get us anywhere. I was just explaining why, despite MN's reasonable assurances, some of us probably will avoid the trans threads anyway. I think our worldviews are basically incompatible and there's not much common ground to be found on this issue.

LRD - my apologies I only saw the other thread in the "Site Stuff" section referencing the FWR threads and assumed that was what prompted MNHQ to respond.

This says it for me.

The simple act of classifying human beings by sex does not assign to either sex any innate dispositions nor pre-determined behaviors and is therefore not essentialist nor determinist. (Again, dictionaries are your friend.) Knowing that women are female does not mean all we can do is have babies any more than knowing men are male means all they can do is produce sperm.

Merely having words for classes of people is not only not-essentialist and not-determinist, but very obviously necessary for describing the material conditions, lived reality, oppression, and possible liberation of those people.

Aaargh no Dreaming, you are totally, utterly misunderstanding the radfem position, but I have to go and get kids' tea so can't explain why now. Will come back later if I can.

No worries! It's been a really loooong set of threads.

The fact is that nobody has yet been able to tell us what we are 'allowed' to call women if it isn't women anymore.

I am a woman because of my biology, nothing more and nothing less. How I act and what I do is separate to that, Transactivism wants to pin me down to my biological reality and I refuse to let it.

There is also the very simple reality that when a man cuts off his penis, he is not a woman, when a man says 'I am a woman' he is not a woman.

Thanks AA. Sorry for the typos.

That's the sort of thing I think your average person who isn't into feminism or trans issues might not know - I've come across it on chat/AIBU threads before, that people simply wouldn't have come across the idea that you shouldn't call a transwoman 'he' any more, even if you'd known him as 'bob' before he was 'carol'.

But some people couldn't care less if it is pointed out to them, like the set of bitches people on the CBB threads talking Lauren Harries

See, I disagree. If someone feels like a woman and says they are a woman, then I have no problem accepting her as a woman. I don't care about the biology. Biology IS the root of our oppression and I would like to see its significance fade.

If I misunderstand radfem ideology I apologise, but I do disagree with all the various explanations and stances I have seen on these threads, call them whatever you like.