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?

Sometimes it's useful to think of things from other people's perspective.

Like the perspective of women who feel threatened that male bodies are being allowed into female-only spaces?

Or the perspective of women who are concerned that their identity is being eroded/arbitrarily changed and they are being told to STFU about it?

I still think MNHQ are neither dim nor evil and for that alone I hope they remain silent until an apology is forthcoming.

Biology is very complicated

Not massively. The vast majority of humans are clearly male or female based on chromosomes, genitals, internal reproductive system, skeletal structure, bone density, jaw shape etc etc. there are variances within that and some males will have characteristics that are usually female and vice versa, but overall we are male or female and it's not hard at all to categorise us.

Comparing trans as a characteristic which is comparable to race or disability is a bit of a red herring.

People of colour don't deny their colour. Disabled people don't deny their disability. We aren't asked to accept that black people are white or that disabled people are able bodied. It's a much simpler concept to simply acknowledge that the characteristic that results in discrimination exists and focus on eliminating the discrimination.

The issue with women and transwomen is that it involves a denial of the very real biological differences that many believe exist between the two groups. I think that there is plenty of common ground between the two groups and that the focus should be on addressing male violence and intolerance but I also think that there is conflict between the two which results not from intolerance or a desire to discriminate but from a fundamental difference in belief in sex and gender.

There's certainly upset on FWR when MRAs or others appear on there with their views. And those threads and posts get deleted.

I'm sorry, but just for the teensiest second there I thought you were comparing women who feel misgendered by the term cis and know that people with penises are male to men who think that rape is not only acceptable, but that women deserve it, the same men who rape, assault and kill TW as well. I'm sure that was a horrible oversight on your part, and you will now retract.

blistory I agree, but would argue that people don't "believe" in very real biological differences, there are very real biological differences - it's not a question of opinion or belief, but facts and biological reality.

Pretending otherwise helps nobody.

So why can't people state their point of view about Muslims, black people, Gypsies etc on here? Why are some of those posts deleted because "you just can't say those things" but opinions / POV on transwomen are allowed to stand?

If a white woman claimed to be a trans black woman she would be pulverized on MN as seen in recent media stories. Saying she was really white would absolutely stand and not be deleted. TW are treated with kid gloves.

It was interesting that both these stories were in the media at the same time

"Because it's not controversial to say that a biological male is a biological male"

All depends on what your view is of the cause of trans issues.

A biological male is a biological male. That is fact and not open to debate. If your "view" is otherwise, then your view is wrong.

The cause of gender dysphoria might very well be biological, just like species dysphoria. There are many mental disorders* like schizophrenia that have a biological cause, quite a few of which are inherited. And yet female is female and male is male, just like human is human and cat is cat.

If I meet a man who says he is a cat, feels like a cat trapped in a human body, wants to be called "it", undergoes surgery to "felinise" his face, sharpen & lengthen his ears, attach a tail to his body, etc I would go along with it, call him "it" and scratch his chin. He would still not be a cat.

• Yes, it is listed as a mental disorder. Check out WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10)-2015-WHO Version 2015:

..Disorders of adult personality and behaviour (F60-F69)
........F64 Gender identity disorders
.............F64.0 Transsexualism - A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex.
.............F64.2 Gender identity disorder of childhood - A disorder, usually first manifest during early childhood (and always well before puberty), characterized by a persistent and intense distress about assigned sex, together with a desire to be (or insistence that one is) of the other sex.

Well, you have me and you haven't addressed my posts

Didn't you have a lengthy thread a short time ago declaring dramatically that you weren't going to post on trans issues anymore?

Are you going to do another one now?

Oh please, I'm on lots of threads. What exactly are you trying to insinuate?

Let me get this straight.

It is offensive if I call men who aspire to be women "he, him". Despite it being a linguistic recognition of biological reality, it is 'misgendering', a ridiculous term, in my opinion.

Those same men are permitted to call me "cis" and I am not allowed to complain, even though I completely reject the term and find it extremely offensive.

Is that about right?

I have no common ground with men whose trans-ness derives from their sexual pleasure in thinking of themselves or being perceived as female. I have some common ground with gay men / boys in homophobic environments who face male violence due to non-conformance with gender roles and for whom life is easier if they present as female (i.e. susceptibility to male violence). But it stems from fundamentally different places. Male violence against non-conforming males is not the same as male violence against women, neither in its motivation nor in its execution.

I can't speak for everyone else, ego, but for me, this thread showed up in Most Active. This could explain why these posters are here.

alex that is the stance of some vocal people, yes.

And if you object to male bodied people in important women's only space like gym changing rooms and showers, rape crisis centres and women's shelters then you are a hideous transphobic bigot and a legitimate target for death and rape threats.

Am I male? yes.

And Hermione I got a post deleted for posting that picture.

Yes, was in most active and I was intrigued by the title as MNHQ are demonstrably neither stupid or evil, and while I don't always agree with every call they make, I believe they are doing their best.