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?

A traditionally female role seems like a strange choice of job for a raving misogynist. Do you think Tiggy doesn't realise that he hates women?

Oh Ok, that clears it up then. I always got the impression he was a normal accepted, and liked member of MN until now.

I have no wish to suppose that he hates women or anything of the sort. I can't know that. I really feel it is important that rather than rounding on someone we concentrate on the issue at hand.

Play the ball, not the player and all that.

sophie I think Tiggy's dislike of women is pretty clear- it's hardly supposition.

Sophie on another thread he said having a trans topic on MN would be like having a black minority and ethnic section on a forum for the BNP.

He likened mumsnet (a general forum for women) to the British National Party. Weird, personally I'd never post on a forum that reminded me of the BNP.

He clearly doesn't like Mumsnet the people on it or MNHQ so its a bit strange he is so invested in what happens on the site.

Ok, point taken, he's been quite unpleasant. But do we really want to spend our time talking about the OP, rather than the topic?

It's up to you but it doesn't seem to me that this approach will do any good.

Sophie, it's difficult to avoid discussing the OP given that he is essentially attacking MN posters in a rather cruel but disguised way.

MNHQ is a a corporate entity, so you can't ascribe the notion of evil or stupidity to it. At best MN is a community

Oops, MN is a community and it's not one that drives posters but is very much driven by what posters express and demand. The OP is really attacking posters and that's not on. He doesn't really have an issue with MNHQ but with us.

Probably time to let the thread fizzle out or hide it.

No I do understand.

And I'm not sure that there is a resolution. Where the OP sees transphobia on my part, I see sexism on his. I don't know how you reconcile the opposing views but I refuse to buy in to oppression top trump.

Still not answered MNHQ!

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?

Oh knob off Tiggy. I'm sure they will issue a public announcement when they have one prepared. You're like some gutter press journalist.

Oh FGS give it a rest Tiggy.

"I always got the impression he was a normal accepted, and liked member of MN until now."

According to himself, Tiggy is a "much-loved" member of MN.

Much loved.

Yes.

Really.

Tiggy, you are really, really boring, did you know?

I think MN just haven't answered him in the way he wants because they're too busy swooning with their love for him.

Or maybe it's just because it's Saturday and they've gone shopping.

I'm pretty sure they asked Stonewall last time this came up, you know. Cba to trawl through AS, which is something anyone could do if they felt strongly.

You're trying to bludgeon MNHQ in the same way you try to bludgeon and silence posters on here, Tiggy. I hope they tell you to do one.

"spend our time talking about the OP, rather than the topic?"

But the topic is the OP and his insistence that women on a parenting forum must do as he says, since as a gay man he gets to dictate what he wants to women, including the site's management. That is what the thread is about.

"so, what would you have gender critical feminists do, specifically Tiggy? What change in behaviour are you asking for? Precisely?"

Buffy, do you not know that Tiggy does the questioning and demanding answers here, not you. He's not here to answer impertinent questions from women, what are you thinking? His place is to demand answers from the site owners, not to answer questions of other posters.

Tut tut.

meg•a•lo•ma•ni•a (?m?g ? lo??me? ni ?)

n.

1. a highly exaggerated or delusional concept of one's own importance.

Oh and since Tiggy is too lordly to answer it, I'll do it on his behalf: he thinks gender-critical feminists should STFU.

Or just stop being gender-critical and accept the truth, which is that biological reality doesn't exist.