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 await an article in the Daily Mail TBH.

whomoved
I think Tiggy has generally been a good-natured, good egg in the past. I've not been following these debates closely, but I can see that his analogy that a trans section in MN would be like a racial minorities topic on the BNP was an attempt at humour which has been manipulated and misquoted.

Wherever one sits on this debate, I do feel that some posters are going over the top in their condemnation.

mardy I have no doubt that he thought it was clever and humorous but calling people BNP isn't funny. He was not misquoted.

He seems to have conveniently forgotten that spat, whemoved, as he wanted to know on Thurs evening if MNHQ had solicited their views on this subject.

"Am quite surprised that MNHQ hasn't commented on the thread though"

I'm not. Parenting 101. Never give a child attention when they are in the middle of a tantrum.

I'm sure if the OP starts to use indoor voices all will calm down and we can have a cup of tea and talk about it.

I don't have the eloquence to argue with you Buffy. And to be fair from what I've seen from your posts, you have put forward some considered viewpoints.

My discomfort is seeing so many people piling into the thread where a long-established, normally genial poster seems to be lashing out in frustration wrt to a topic which must affect them personally to get so heated about it.

I think you will find a lot of posters considered Tiggy to be a reasonably good egg in the past but for a few years now he's been getting quite nasty. If you haven't followed them closely why would you assume you know more about it that those who have?

*also I can link to the thread in question if you are worried that was a deliberate photoshop job I do NOT do photoshop

normally genial poster seems to be lashing out in frustration wrt to a topic which must affect them personally to get so heated about it.

Things Tiggy has said about his lifestyle do make me think this might affect him personally, however Cis/Trans also affects women personally so we equally have a right to be annoyed.

If TW can enter women's prisons, take scholarships and jobs in subjects women are underrepresented in call Women's Aid transphobic for saying you need to have had reassignment surgery to work with vulnerable women..It does affect people in the real world.

From the vitriol from some posters I can see the point in his BNP analogy. I don't agree with everything Tiggy has expressed or the language used. But most if us have said stuff which was ill-advised in the past on MN. And yes, he's crossed lines. My point is that this thread has crossed a line too IMHO.

I suggested that Tiggy send MNHQ an email early on and he said he had. So i don't understand the purpose of this thread at all other than wanting a bunfight and to stir things up.

I thought he was a 'reasonably good egg' but now I don't know quite what to think TBH.

" If you haven't followed them closely why would you assume you know more about it that those who have? "

I've read enough to have have become much better educated on the arguments and to realise that there are no easy solutions.

My posts here are about my perceived bullying, rather than the arguments. Bowing out now.

mardy are you Tiggy's mum? Because I can't see any reason why else you would disregard all the evidence (which you then say you haven't really followed) and say he's generally a good guy.

His behaviour in starting this thread and then his continued behaviour on it is simply unacceptable, and a number of people are saying that.

I've read the thread with little sense of the background so no issues either way.
But tbh the whole thread, while really interesting, is rather illustrative of the very things that those at odds with the Op accuse him of.

He has started a really rude thread with a highly arrogant tone, refuses to acknowledge let alone engage with points made and generally comes across very badly.

Rather than sensing bullying my feeling is that were he not a recognisable poster he would have had his arse handed to him by now.
I certainly read it and thought 'but TiggyD isn't usually a twat - what am I missing'

I'm still possibly missing something but every post from Tiggy makes him look more like the person his opponents on this thread portray him to be.

Maybe TiggyD isn't usually a twat on other boards but he's a prize twat on FWR.

Seems he has different personas because I have a lot of topics hidden I have never seen the TiggyD on this thread, so I thought much the same as Pagwatch.

X Post Queen I have FWR firmly hidden.

Out of the bajillion posters on MN (I think that's the correct number) I have a mental shit list of about 3 posters. I actually struggle to remember who people are despite being here for years. You have to be a really long term bell end for me to remember you. Tiggy made the list for his own behavior.

And no MN are not like BNP. The British National Party want to cause violence to and threaten the very existence and right to life of minorities in this country. I and most everyone else on this thread think having a vagina means you get to use the word woman. It's really not comparable.

I was the same as you sparkling. I saw him as a funny, if sometimes cutting poster. Till I started lurking in fwr section. He is venomous towards feminists. He certainly uses cis as an insult.
I am not a cis woman. I am a woman.

Sorry it looks like bullying to you mardy it's really not meant to be, at least from my PoV, more a wry take on the somewhat ridiculous and twattish behaviour the OP has displayed regrettably often, which he's amplified by starting this rather childish and nasty thread.

I think Pagwatch's summation is probably the closest, if this was HurHurUrAllDum4519 posting this, rather than someone who's been around as long as Tiggy has, he'd have been shown the door right at the start.

Buffy said:
1. MNHQ do not allow misgendering of a transperson, celebrity or otherwise. If someone misgenders, or says 'bloke in a dress' about a transperson, and this is reported, HQ will delete. Rightly so, IMO.

Actually, they do allow it. That's my point.
"So some men dressing as women..." in reference to transwomen. Been reported. Been left up.

2. HQ will allow, in respectful language, the discussion that Blistory outlined above to take place. We are allowed to voice concerns about changes to the law around what transgender means and how that impacts women's rights.
Yup, absolutely. But misgendering people is not respectful.

3 & 4 Agreed with.

Sparkling "I suggested that Tiggy send MNHQ an email early on and he said he had. So i don't understand the purpose of this thread at all other than wanting a bunfight and to stir things up."

And I have sent one. I've sent lots. No replies. The purpose of this thread is to get a reply.

They are probably wading their way through them TiggyD, it's the weekend in the summer holidays I doubt they are overrun with staff tripping over themselves to reply to you to be honest. Especially if your tone is the same as it is on this thread.