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

dreaming what word would you use to describe that group of people who are born with vagina/uterous/XX etc?

Yes I would like to know that too, if women are whoever 'feel' like women, then what name are we allowed to give the female of the human species?

Biology is important, it is biology that makes us female, makes us women or men, what is important is that we do not allow biology to dictate what we can or cannot be beyond that.

I don't see how denying the existence of a woman is anything but oppressive.

and, as cote continually pointed out, the definition of 'woman' is not someone who 'feels like a woman' it is an adult female human.

Which is all it is.

As a constructivist, I think the terms 'woman' and 'man' are today too normatively loaded to be used as neutral terms for biological distinction. I don't understand this fixation with dictionary definitions -- as if dictionaries are somehow separate from society, as if they weren't written by men decades or hundreds of years ago. They are not neutral.

I would call someone born XX a woman -- I just don't limit the definition to people born that way, which I guess is where we differ.

You only need a biology-friendly definition of strict binaries if you decide that biology is an important distinguishing factor in social identities. But it's not always important. We separate ourselves into English and Scottish despite minimal genetic differences. We don't separate ourselves into different social roles based on being left or right handed.

Throughout history, MEN have decided to oppress women and make biology important. I think limiting womanhood to people born female just makes it easier for them to continue to do so.

It sounds like you want to make 'woman' a neutral, biological term. I just don't think this is what it is today and it's unlikely to ever become so.

Anyway I'm sure this has all been said to death and I know I won't convince anyone, just explaining why I disagree.

Well I limit the term 'woman' to people with XX chromosomes because that is the meaning of the term women.

biology is important, of course it is when discussing issues that affect women (or men) as a socioeconomic group. When you are fighting for equality of course it is important to be able to say

'women get a rough deal in these areas'

There is a big difference between discerning between a man and a woman and limiting them because of that definition.

Again, what do we call people who are adult human females if we are no longer allowed to subscribe the name 'woman' to them?

Oh, and that is because I am an 'acknowledges reality-ist'

dreaming so you don't have a word that describes that group of people who have vagina/uterous/XX even though you acknowledge that men oppress that group based on biology?

You only need a biology-friendly definition of strict binaries if you decide that biology is an important distinguishing factor in social identities.

The issue is not social identities, whatever that is (and please do explain how it is relevant to the oppression of women). The issue is the oppression of women rooted in biological capability. This does not disappear simply because "you decide" that biology is not an important distinguishing factor. We need the tools to dismantle the oppression and that starts with the language.

dreaming do you think that if we play around with the the word 'woman' and decide to change its meaning that that will somehow mean the the group formerly known as women will somehow not be oppressed any more because everyone will be so distractred/wrong footed by the change in definition that they will forget to oppress the group formerly known as women (females who are in the group who carry and birth babies) for their reproductive capacity?

Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. And although I would love to think that it could be true, it just doesnt seem remotely plausible to me.

But who invented those meanings? Who wrote that dictionary? I mean think about it:

Man oppresses woman based on biological difference

Man writes dictionary defining woman based on biology

How convenient!

The thing is, if you don't accept that meanings are socially determined, or don't believe social identity has anything to do with oppression, then there's not much point debating. And that's fine, I'm actually not trying to start a whole other thread! It's not Newspeak though, it's just another ideological viewpoint based on social theories.

Beach: I think history shows that oppression and violence are much much easier when there are sharp, easily determined, zero-sum distinctions between groups of people. When identities become more blurred and less innate, it becomes harder to automatically oppress. So yes, I do think that less rigid definitions would be helpful.

It may not seem plausible, but then I don't think the attempt to make 'woman' a mere biological distinction, discarding millennia of accumulated associations in the social sphere, is incredibly plausible either. We are all just walking with hope here.

But dreaming why don't you have a word for people with vaginas/uterus/XX?

Even if we did a way with all of women's oppression, we still need to talk about sex, reproduction, pregnancy, health issues that affect every women. It feels oppressive and invisibilising to pretend these things don't exist.

Just because men wrote the dictionary does invalidate every word in it.

I don't see how your approach of pretending there is no such thing as the class of women helps to break down oppression affecting the class of women. Perhaps if you explain how social identity has anything to do with oppression I might believe it.

Yes I would like to hear this new word for... well for woman.

i know men wrote the dictionaries but i dont think they got everything wrong or made every word a tool of the patriarchy.

which bit of the definition of 'female' and therefore 'woman' do you find problematic?

i echo flora's request for an explanation of how you using 'social identity'.

Dreaming -- why don't transwomen try to broaden the concept of what is a man, instead of horning in on women?\

After all many transwomen start out as biological men. Why not try to make biological men accept that there is more to being a man than 'not being a woman'?

Steaming pile of shit neatly sidestepped there, MNHQ.

Hope you remember to thank the people (not me, btw) who pointed out just what kind of a pickle you were going to get yourselves in with a transphobia policy based on something like the F-Word's WRT your various campaigns and the ethos of the site.

I think I detect that somewhere in your explanation.

Anyway, thanks. I think.

Flora -- I guess it's because I think issues related to sex and reproduction are not the same for all women anyway. They will vary immensely according to location, socioeconomic status, local laws, etc. Obviously there is a strong current of commonality that allows us to look at these all as women's issues, but to me it is more like an extended Venn diagram, with huge areas of overlap but some areas of exclusion.

So to me, adding transwomen to this sphere of womanhood is not problematic. There will be some areas of overlap and some areas of difference. I don't see women monolithically.

As I said, I would still consider someone born XX as a woman, I would just expand the definition so that it is not solely based on biological characteristics.

It's not unheard of for definitions thought to be innate to change. Race used to be associated with language, it's only in more modern times that it became more associated with physical appearance. And yet today you would say that racial differences based on appearance 'are just reality'. Well, those differences didn't always matter.

No one asked for guidelines like the F-word.

The posting of the F word guidelines was purposely posted by someone very much opposed to MNHQ making any attempt to stem transphobia.

I think that the trans threads are a breeding ground for the demonisation of trans people and raised the issue with MNHQ.

Please provide evidence that race used to not be based on appearance?

The problem is really about the narrow definition of 'men' imo (not the dictionary definition but the definition as it relates to men who are gay, men who are not white, men who want to be nurses, men who want to play with dolls, men who want to work as reception teachers, men who are pacifists, etc, etc) and the way the definition has been policed over thousands of years. It is that attempt to define 'men' and exclude and enforce the exclusion of all others that created and maintains the concept of gender.

Thank you MNHQ I think your decision is very wise, as can be seen from the fact that, while there is still a lot of disagreement, nobody seems unhappy with your stance. Clearly this debate will rumble on, thank you for not stifling it.

And, seeing as we are on site stuff, when are tech going to fix the smiley?

I completely agree with dreaming. Lurking on these threads has made me feel pretty disappointed and fucking glad I left academia

I don't personally feel that transwomen who wish to identify as women take anything away from me. I don't think kim deserves to be accused of 'making it about her.'

You can't police what you think 'debate' or 'discourse' mean. Because univocal discourse doesn't work. A lot of the content of these threads has reminded me of some of the more unpleasant conferences I went to, where dissent was just not welcome. "You are wrong. I say you are wrong. You will not challenge me."

Happy to be challenged but when people decide to change the definitions of perfectly adequate words without even bothering to put a different one in its place (not that we should have to accept it) is wholly different from sociological debate.

I am a woman because I was born one, not because I fit into someone else's narrow view of my social identity.

It's just so insulting to women.

dreaming I think you are vastly overstating the differences in reproductive health between women and underplaying the differences in reproductive health between women and men.

gosh tiggyD asked for the F word guidelines. You didn't publicly say what you thought MN should adopt as guidelines although you clearly thought everything on the TERF thread was transphobic and therefore should have been against the talk guidelines.