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?

It's about perception. To a trans person it no doubt feels like a personal attack. To many others, it's a statement of fact. Is either wrong with their perception ?

The discussions I have seen, posters have said they wish trans women no harm, that they need safe spaces to, that their issues and struggles need to be recognised and addressed. They are worried about how the change in laws don't seem to have been thought through, and take safety and rights away from women. These discussions need to happen imo, and I'm thankful to MNHQ for allowing these discussions.

Transwomen and women have different lived experiences and realities, and sometimes it's necessary to point out those differences to talk about issues. Sometimes one group might need to be excluded so that people feel confident and to talk about their experiences. So there will be times when Transwomen need their own space to talk about issues that affect only them and sometimes women will need the same.

It's illegal to discriminate against transpeople on the basis of their gender but equally it's illegal to discriminate against women on the basis of their sex.

The confusion and differing uses of gender/sex don't help this debate at all.

My issue is that MNHQ allow misgendering. They allow it for the protected group as a whole, and particularly celebrities, such as Caitlyn Jenner

I have no problem with somebody saying that they believe transgenderism is a mental illness, self delusion or whatever. People believe what they believe, and I'm fine with people expressing their opinions. Sometimes people say it as a 'fact', which in this country is both wrong and offensive, and call people by the pronouns which they do not want to be known as, which is wrong offensive and disrespectful.

There is a huge difference between deliberately calling someone "a man in a dress" to hurt or goad and holding the opinion that a pre op mtf Trans person is a man wearing a dress.
We are allowed to hold opinions on gender and we are allowed to voice them, however much some people want to shut down the debate and dictate the terms that are used.

I'm a pretty much with Pagwatch - I liked Tiggy's posts when I come across them, usually very funny, but that's outside of FWR section as I don't usually go there and I cant recall Tiggy posting on there. If he posts stuff that is hateful to women then they should be deleted and him being warned about his conduct etc.
The 'evil' thing is consistent with his style, and he's not suggesting Justine/Carrie or any of the managers actually have the sign of the devil stamped on their ankles.
But skim-reading, Tiggy as an admirer of yours in the bits I come across, I'd echo the suggestion you keep your hands or what ever part of your anatomy you use to type, away from the keyboard. Have a chat with a friend, do a bit of gardening and let MN respond in their own time? Hectoring and generally blowing a fuse won't be effective, so lay off?

The full quote in context of the post that has been left up is important, I feel.
It refers to a specific event in which some men who wear female clothing objected to the presence of some other men who wear female clothes for a different reason. It isn't a personal attack unless you think a man can choose to become a woman, which many people don't believe to be true.

It's a bit of a generalisation but I can see why MnHQ didn't see it as delete-worthy. They've left some borderline stuff up over the years that I thought they should delete. Irritating, but not the stuff Evil is made of.

'Men in women's clothing' is not ok
'Males in traditionally feminine clothing' is factual
Tiny semantic difference but significant I think.
I feel for mnhq, it's a minefield.

I suppose the trouble is that legally a man can become a woman after having transitioned for two years (not necessarily with gender reassignment surgery), but practically Tiggy is saying that from the moment a man chooses to transition they should be seen as a woman.

For me, the issue with cis is that it implies that we who have been born with female sec characteristics are merely a variety of the species 'woman'. Legally that isn't true. It is that both born women and trans women are legally women (if the transwoman has sought conversion through the legal channels).

"If someone tells a transwoman (or a transman) that they are male / female, is that a personal attack on that person"

Of course not. Male and Female are biological descriptions, not psychological ones. A typical XY human adult with a penis and balls dangling between his hairy legs is very obviously male, regardless of what he feels like. When a transwoman's skeleton is found centuries later, it will be called an adult human male skeleton.

"both born women and trans women are legally women (if the transwoman has sought conversion through the legal channels)"

That legal channels have said "Well, OK, we'll let you call yourself a woman because you care about it so much" does not mean that the man has actually and biologically been transformed into a woman by a magic (legal) wand.

lougle it goes further than that. Some would call it misgendering to say they were ever men and that transwomen were born women too even if they don't transition until later in life or in fact never transition at all, just identify as a woman.

How can you pretend to believe something that you don't, Ego?

I can respect the belief of someone that they have become female but I can't change my own belief in basic biology.

Yep, I got defriended and called a horrible bigot on FB because I suggested that Caitlyn Jenner was a man competing as a man when they won their Olympic medals (and therefore should get to keep them, unlike some opinions expressed elsewhere!). While I wish Caitlyn Jenner no harm (although they haven't proven themself to be a particularly nice person elsewhere), I do think that the rewriting/repurposing of their lived history is ridiculous.

I wouldn't say to a trans woman apropos of nothing 'you're biologically male' but if she said to me 'I'm not a biological male I'm a biological female and my penis is a female penis' I'd tell her I disagreed with her. Of course.

I've been mulling this over..
To me the whole trans debate is more about constructions of masculinity than about 'feeling like a Woman'

Surely if we look at gender as a construction (we have constructed femininity in a certain way such as the wearing of dresses, being 'pretty,' needing to please) If gender is a construction then isn't transgender experience more about wanting the world to respond to a feminine construction? And if that's the case then why can't masculinity allow for a wider construction of masculinity - such as that demonstrated by Caitlyn Jenner?

Is it unreasonable to suggest than men should evolve their constructions of masculinity and leave women alone? Is that wrong?

If I was asked if I was "evil or not very bright" I would be waiting for an apology before considering any further conversation on this or any other topic. Should that person go on to demand I answer point 1, 2, 3, huh, huh, huh, come on, Reni, huh? over and over I'd delete their number and direct mail to the spam folder.

If somebody would ask "Do you think your stance on xyz is very kind/ politically correct/ useful?" I would probably put some thought into it.