My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Site stuff

MNHQ: Mumsnet and transphobia - our thoughts

169 replies

SarahMumsnet · 03/07/2014 10:23

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. Flowers

    MNHQ
OP posts:
Report
kim147 · 03/07/2014 22:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Feenie · 03/07/2014 22:32

I've reported some posts too.

I would stop engaging and let MN sort it - it's very obvious what's going on here, Kim, and it's not pleasant at all.

Report
LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/07/2014 22:32

Not that this remotely matters, and it's back in the discussion, but FWIW, my (female) mate is currently writing the OED.

I don't think it's as simple as 'men made language therefore language is oppressive'. Sometimes it is. But here, no, sorry, I do think what's oppressive is the concept that says 'someone with body parts lesbians do not find physically attractive must be found attractive by lesbians or they are bigots'. For me, that is the bottom line. I know not all trans people feel that way, but the fact some does is what makes it not ok for me. It is effectively saying, lesbians get to choose between accepting sex they don't want or feel revolted by, or being called bigots. And sex you don't want or are revolted by, is rape. So, sorry, not ok by me.

Report
CoteDAzur · 03/07/2014 22:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

kim147 · 03/07/2014 22:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CoteDAzur · 03/07/2014 22:36

I wasn't aware that my comments had been deleted "numerous times" but I'll take your word for that.

I have no idea what you are talking about re stalking and bullying, though. OK, the bullying is in your head, but stalking? What? Shock

Report
CoteDAzur · 03/07/2014 22:36

Life isn't a bitch, kim Grin

Report
Feenie · 03/07/2014 22:38

You have no possible way of knowing how many other people reported you, so to goad one poster about it is absolutely not on.

Judging from thread alone, I would imagine many posters reported your posts, tbh.

If you have a problem with deletions, take it up with MN - you know, the people who actually deleted you?

Report
CoteDAzur · 03/07/2014 22:39

LRD - "I don't think it's as simple as 'men made language therefore language is oppressive'"

I agree. And what does "men made language and wrote those dictionaries" mean anyway? Surely language evolves over time and that process involves men as well as women. And dictionaries don't write definitions that don't exist in RL, being spoken by women as well as men.

Case in point - That Newspeak definition of "woman" as "whoever says they feel like a female" is not in any dictionary.

Report
kim147 · 03/07/2014 22:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

settingsitting · 03/07/2014 22:40

Dictionaries change all the time.

Report
settingsitting · 03/07/2014 22:42

Whoever is not happy, report. Give them a picture.

Report
LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/07/2014 22:43

Yep, I agree cote.

I agree there are some words where the OED definition pisses me off and I will argue against it. Eg., if mankind for humankind is still in there without 'archaic' after it, that'd annoy me and I'd argue it's part of our history of misogyny. I think that makes sense.

It's not a blanket rule though, and most people these days are kind of aware of the issues with 'mankind'. I do not think that 'women' recently redefined as 'anyone who identifies as a woman' can be interpreted in the same way.

Though, I would be you there is a dictionary out there that does include a bit about women self-identifying as such. And the fact it's taken getting on for a millenium for 'mankind' to be qualified as slightly archaic, while 'woman' is redefined within, what, less than a century, is something I find pretty telling.

Report
LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/07/2014 22:44

Gah. 'I would be you' should be 'I would bet you'. I can't type.

Report
limitedperiodonly · 03/07/2014 22:48

When some people not a million miles away from here were recently saying things to me that I found very hurtful I complained to MNHQ.

I was advised that it was in the spirit of robust debate and that if I didn't like it I should consider taking a break from Mumsnet.

On balance, I thought their opinion was very wise, considering what I had posted and that I was being unreasonable and borderline hysterical.

I offer that up to no one in particular.

Report
EllenMumsnet · 03/07/2014 22:48

Evening all. Grin

Will unravel this thread properly in the morning, if that is OK with y'all. However, just wanted to say, no one can 'get' a thread deleted, IYSWWM - they can be reported and we will look at each one in context. To speculate on who sent a report on a post that was then deleted is a bit pointless; often more than one MNer will have contacted us and we don't name names, for obvious reasons.

We would really appreciate it if you could be mindful of the guidelines //www.mumsnet.com/info/netiquette as we don't want to delete posts that knit into a longer discussion. It makes for very unsatisfactory reading.

So, a plea for a bit of harmony Thanks Thanks and we will look at any reports that come in individually in real time.

Report
ICanHearYou · 03/07/2014 22:50

Nobody has come up with this 'new' word for biological woman that we are supposed to use when talking about... well women.

You know like breeding and mating and giving birth and all those things that biological women do in studies about people and whatnot.

How are we supposed to teach our young the birds and the bees if we cannot even state what a woman is.

Report
CoteDAzur · 03/07/2014 22:57

LRD - re "mankind".

It is in the "spirit" of the English language, though, for the male word to encompass the female of the species. Same with French. Example: "Whoever thinks this thread is all about him should just go report some posts". "The first person in line should prepare his stuff for 10 AM" etc.

I remember being quite surprised by this when I first started to learn English.

Report
LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/07/2014 23:01

Oh, I'm familiar with the arguments, cote.

It's simply that this fact fairly obviously comes about from a society that privileges the male. It's not rocket science and increasingly, dictionaries tend to recognise that some people will prefer 'humankind' or whatever else.

My point is simply that you cannot compare a term that's been kicking around for centuries and demonstrably has roots in a society that'd see nothing whatsoever morally wrong in privileging the male, and a term that has been re-defined within the last few years.

Report
CoteDAzur · 03/07/2014 23:15

I understand your point.

I was trying to say that the problem may be the language (which was forged during times when male privilege was even more acute than it is now, obviously)

For example, Turkish has no gender (like French le/la) and no male/female pronouns (like English he/she). There is also no distinction between waiter/waitress, no gender-specific professions like postman , and no " mankind" ("humankind" is the only term in use). I wonder if the two are related - i.e. there is just much less inherent sexism in the language than English.

Report
LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/07/2014 23:17

Oh, sure, I take your point, absolutely.

Report
MrsTerryPratchett · 03/07/2014 23:26

How are we supposed to teach our young the birds and the bees if we cannot even state what a woman is. Oddly, I was thinking about this the other day as I read a book about bodies and families with my DD who is three. It's a nice book with lots of families represented, quite good representations of boys and girls with their similarities (girls like being loud, so do boys, girls like playing sports, so do boys). It also has, 'who has what' IYSWIM. Boys have penises and so do men. Girls have vulvae and so do women.

I was pondering how exactly to write a book for preschoolers about bodies that some people wouldn't find transphobic and some children wouldn't find really confusing. I want DD to grow up happy in herself and understanding to everyone. If she is trans or gay I hope the world is shrugging by them (and about her gender as well come to that) because it has become such a non-issue. I still, however, cannot shake the belief that sex is biological and gender is social.

Report
oaksettle · 03/07/2014 23:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ICanHearYou · 03/07/2014 23:46

I'm going to teach my sons that women are the female of the species and men are the male of the species and that everything else is just socialisation.

Report
CoreyTrevorLahey · 04/07/2014 07:23

Genuine question for ICan: if someone is born with ambiguous genitalia and their parents choose the female sex for them, they spend childhood unaware that they were ever anything but biologically female, then they are told by their parents about the circumstances of their birth and choose to carry on identifying as female, where would such a person fall within the categories you privilege?

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.