Is Mumsnet HQ evil or not very bright.

[TiggyD]

As some of you may already know you're allowed to call transgendered women "men in dresses" and refer to them as "he" and "him.

"So some men dressing as women..." as one posted said in relation to trans women got the reply from RebeccaMN:

We agree that this post is in poor taste but we don't tend to delete on those grounds because it would be really hard to know where to draw the line.
The truth is, we don't think we should be the arbiters of what people should find offensive and what they shouldn't. In these instances, it's very rare that a tasteless comment is left unchallenged, and we would highly recommend that you put forward your point of view on the thread.

Well firstly I think Mumsnet should draw the line at discrimination of a protected minority group.

Secondly, if MN don't think they should be the arbiters of what people should find offensive, maybe they should ask a representative from a human rights or anti discrimination group? Misgendering is always wrong.

Thirdly, is it rare an tasteless comment is unchallenged? Now the trans people on Mumsnet refuse to post on trans related threads who the hell is going to challenge them?

Fourthly, that post was unchallenged. Have a look at the thread.

Fifthly, "tasteless"? "TASTELESS"?! WTF? Tofu is tasteless. Would MNHQ describe calling people spastics or coons or faggots as tasteless? Misgendering is a put-down towards an entire minority. Dismissed as tasteless.

A quick look at a quote about the 2010 equality act:
"harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them".

Is there harassment in trans related threads on here? Is the dignity of all transwomen violated by referring to them all as men in dresses? Bleedingly obviously yes. Does it create an offensive environment for them? How the hell could it not? Does Mumsnet do anything to stop it? No.

-----------------

It all makes me wonder if the people of MNHQ are deliberately letting all this unkindness and discrimination and harassment go on because they evil, or because they don't know any better.
I think I have it. I reckon it's like the Ricky Gervais thing where he started doing "Mong" faces. All kinds of people told him it was offensive and an unkind name for people with Downs Syndrome but he refused to accept it. I think he thought that as he believed himself to be a good person, and he used the word mong, that mong had to be an acceptable word because he was good. I think it must be like that in MNHQ. They believe themselves to be good people and when they allow people to call transwomen men on thier site it's fine because their belief in themselves being good trumps all the views of the victims.

-----------------

One question for MNHQ that I alluded to earlier. Have you ever asked any kind of trans, human rights, or anti-discrimination group about how to treat trans people?

Have you?

Ever?

I don't feel I have a gender, rather that it's something that was applied to me. However I don't think it's helpful to completely ignore gender because even though many/most women don't feel their gender really fits who they are, it does have an impact on how they live, and ignoring it won't make that go away.

Not sure if I've been very clear there, but what I'm trying to say is that even though I don't feel like a women, society sees and treats me as one, and I can't deal with the negative repercussions of that if I don't acknowledge my applied gender.

No that's true Saskia.

I use cis/trans in my field...where it means having all the same bits, but arranged differently and therefore behaving differently.

Before this 'cisgender' terminology was invented, I assumed the derivation of 'trans' in 'transsexual' was akin to 'transport', 'transform' - something implying change. We use 'transpennine' for trains and roads - a means of getting from A to B rather than the relative positioning. (Although the Romans may have used 'cis' geographically, I've never heard it in modern usage).

"This thread and every other thread I've ever read on this topic only reinforces my view that trans people and trans issues are being massively manipulated with one purpose in mind and that purpose is misogyny."

^ This.

"There are not cis women and trans women, there are women and trans women. The word woman has a perfectly serviceable definition and there is no need to redefine it." This I agree with, absolutely.

"I hear of cis all the time, it's used by many many people mostly those describing themselves." This I have not experienced, ever.

"I wonder how many trans men insist on using [the term] cis men?" I wonder, too.

And basically everything that Laurie, FanaticalFairy and Buffy have said above.

"If you don't identify as a woman, you aren't"

Actually, if you are an adult human female, a woman is exactly what you are.

That is the very definition of the word 'woman' and it has nothing to do with what you 'feel like' or 'identify'.

It's all well and good that a very small group of males think they are women, feel like women (whatever that means), want to be called 'she' etc and it is equally well and good that we now have the technology to provide them with the hormones and surgery that helps them look the part, but I personally the draw the line of my tolerance and compassion at they try to get us to redefine what a woman is.

The prefixes are only needed when talking about trans issues to distinguish between tran and cis women or men. Some would refer to women as either "transwomen" or "women". That's not treating everybody equally is it?

But surely 'Transwomen' is a statement of fact? It is a biological fact?

It's not treating everyone as equal if you mean calling everyone who wants to be called a woman, a woman.
For those who object to being called 'trans' women, there is always the term 'men'.

I hate the term 'cis woman', as I hope my previous post made clear.

But, you know, I'm a bit uneasy at the OP being described as an 'MRA misogynist' wanting women to be 'silenced'.

I've seen a few of Tiggy's posts (admittedly, not those in FWR in recent times) and I just don't think that's a fair description.

You might disagree with him on this issue (ffs, I disagree with him on this issue too), but that doesn't make him the devil incarnate. Especially as there are many women who hold the same view.

All I mean is: IMHO can't we argue against the opinion, rather than demonising the person who holds it?

I would support that stance PrincessFiorimonde.

I don't know Tiggy very well on here though we have had vague run ins in the past. I would rather debate the issue at hand than attack his character or assume his motives. They're not relevant - the arguments he presents, or doesn't, are enough to form a starting point.

The person posting them is as usual best ignored

I've seen the Op being utterly hateful off board about members of the FWR topic, Princess. So no reading between the lines needed. It's very clear where he is coming from on this issue and it isn't from the vantage point of someone who has the best interests of the Trans community in mind.

That's as may be but it isn't really relevant. We are discussing a stance on terminology - there will be all sorts of perspectives but what matters is what is written and not why.

I'm remembering Tiggy's posts on various threads and there is no doubt in my mind that he is misogynist.

Even if this were the first thread you have ever seen his posts in, would you not say that there is something very wrong with a man who is not even a parent repeatedly coming on MumsNet to tell women what to think about womanhood? Even petitioning MNHQ to censor women when we talk about transwomen, FFS.

On that note - Is there no other website on the internet that will have you, Tiggy? Peace and love and all that, but it is rather strange that you have decided to grace us with your presence for so long, given that you are neither a woman nor even a parent.

Oh, I don't know, SophiesDog. Sometimes ignoring the man behind the curtain isn't the best thing to do imo.

Not telling you to fuck off, by the way, just genuinely curious about why a man who isn't even a parent would hang out on MumsNet. Especially since you don't seem to like us very much and disagree on such a fundamental level with the way this site is run.

Some people don't like the idea that there is somewhere for women to get together and do their own thing without being policed by men .

Y'know, talk and think and debate on our own terms , without men telling us how to do it properly

No I do take those points but I'd hate to see this interesting discussion descend into a focus on one person. I don't want to think about or talk about him. and it risks becoming a bit of a everyone-against-one-poster situation which would derail it entirely.

But I do see what you are saying and it is relevant at least on one level.

Fair enough, although tbf, it is his thread.

I think the consensus on the last general thread about this with MNHQ input was that absolutely any misgendering would be deleted as a PA.
Perhaps MNHQ have done their own research and seen the wider implications of the attempts by a militant branch of Trans people to use this subject as a way to silence women.

The comment highlighted by the OP isn't something a little sheltered and bigoted 'typical MN poster' has said. There's a whole load of people out there, LGBT, who don't want to let a small number of m to F trans stamp all over the rights of others.

I don't identify as agender because I don't there is such a thing as internal gender, it's a social construct that I don't agree with. I don't identify as a woman, I just am a women. You can identify me as a woman due to my secondary sexual characteristics. "I identify as..." is new terminology we could do without.

I don't think heterosexuals have any business calling themselves queer.

I got the usual vauge wishy washy bullshit reply MNHQ usually send out:

Thanks for your Site Stuff thread.
We listen to the Mumsnet community on issues such as this and we appreciate any and all feedback.

You listen to the Mumsnet community, but do you listen to the victims of the abuse on your site?

So Mumsnet, 3 questions, still:

1. "harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them". Is there harassment on your site?

1. Is your policy towards trans people in your office the same as it is on the site?

1. Have you ever asked an anti-discrimination group for advice on trans matters?

Tiggy, it does seem a bit like no one's really interested apart from you. Which doesn't mean you should give up asking if it matters to you. But maybe modifying your approach so it isn't so aggressive might get you further.

I wouldn't blame MNHQ for ignoring you like one ignores a toddler having a tantrum, given your present tone of communication.

Btw what did the rest of their email say?

I don't think that sentence can have been the whole thing.