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?

Why do you want this forum to be controlled by moderators, what are you afraid of?

It would be impossible to moderate a site like this to ensure no one is offended ever, I have always had the impression MNHQ do a pretty fair job tbh.
I don't agree with misgendering people either and would do my best not to, but it's a minefield with such strong views all over the place I imagine it's a hard one to handle. Did you not challenge the poster on the thread yourself? I'm suprised no one did, I've seen it challenged by other posters frequently when I've come across it before.

Well, if you think MNHQ are so stupid, or evil, then why on earth would you wish to continue using their site? If you don't like it, I suggest you fuck off elsewhere.

You use cis so you're hardly one to talk are you op?

I think MNHQ have thought long and hard about how to treat various viewpoints on trans threads and I think their current policy of treating each instance individually (as they seem to be doing) is wise and fair.

Where do you draw the line? Are you really saying that anybody at all who is born male can say they are a woman and women just have to suck that up and validate their claim, regardless of the effects that has on women and regardless of actual reality?

Fuck that.

1. Normally I don't give a toss about the sex of a poster on MN but on this occasion I think it's worth pointing out that as a man you don't have a dog in this race in the same way that women and trans women do.

2. Miranda Yardley has been warmly welcomed onto MN and onto trans threads, or does she somehow not count? Is she the wrong sort of trans woman?

3. You've got most of the rest of the internet on which to shut women up.

"Behold! A Cis woman with cissly ways" was a reference to "Behold! A Man with manly ways".
In the same way that it's kind of stupid when a man arrive in a conversation and says "let me tell you about women", It's also kind of stupid when a cis person says "let me tell you about trans people". No?

I think there's a fine line between allowing freedom of expression and being seen to condone or allow the continuation of comments which would be discriminatory. I think HQ should be taking a clear stance within their talk guidelines, as it would be a shame if any category of people felt they weren't able to post here. We're an inclusive open bunch after all. However equally HQ can't shut down the open discussions too much. It is annoying that responses have such lack of commitment to anything & I hope HQ can reach a clear position on what discussion is appropriate and what is not for them to then zap anything that breaches that & keep MN the open inclusive place it is. I don't think insults are required. But I agree 'poor taste' is a bit mild if there is discriminatory language etc. against a protected characteristic - equally, Im sure we don't want censoring - there needs to be clear guidance re. what is not acceptable, irrespective of context, and this policy needs to be applied by everyone dealing with the posts.

Anyway, on the LGBT specific discussion sections I don't see anyone questioning trans* people. But when the topic is opened up for debate on _chat or AIBU, people are allowed to respond and express their views.

Here is a link to the rules. You'll note use of cis and trans, he and she is not on there. But deliberately inflammatory behaviour is, which is what you're partaking in now.

Evil?! don't be ridiculous.

Uh oh. Tiggy I've reported some of the horrible comments against trans people myself and it's something that means a lot to me (my partner is GF) and was also totally bothered by the reply I got, but I don't think this thread is going to help, I know you're angry and rightly so really but this is just going to start a bun fight and nothing is going to be solved that way.

Open discussions are know problem. If people believe trans people are all mentally ill then I'm perfectly happy for them to say it. "I believe they're men in dresses" is an opinion. "They're men in dresses" spoken as a fact is wrong.

A bit of context might help here. The post Tiggy has objected to is on this thread which is a discussion about trans activists banning drag acts at a Pride event.

The full quote is:

So some men dressing as women are offended by some other men dressing as women because they think they are women whereas the second set don't think they are women.

Women however are allowed no feelings about either type.

If it's evil to allow one place on the internet where 'female' or 'woman' has a meaning beyond 'a feeling inside a man's head', then I'm glad MNHQ are evil, to be quite honest.

Yes, so the some men dressing as women bit referred to trans women. Like I said.

I'm slightly confused with what pube garden said

I didn't think the OP was a man, I thought they were transgender?

I find it highly annoying when a man tells me what a woman should think.

Op is a man.

It's extremely hard to talk to Mumsnet about stuff you know. Anything they feel is slightly controversial gets a whole pile of non-commital vaguely worded bullshit back.

MNHQ, have you talked to anybody like Stonewall about the issue of misgendering?

Then I really don't get it

The only possible explanation for a man with no skin in the game to be this wound up constantly about transgender issues is because they're using a transgender agenda to try to dominate women.

If there's some other reason I'd be grateful if someone told me. I would hate to accuse anyone unnecessarily if there was another explanation.

The only possible explanation for a man with no skin in the game to be this wound up constantly about transgender issues is because they're using a transgender agenda to try to dominate women

Precisely.

Indeed.

Is Tiggy having another tantrum because he can't shut women up?

I find it highly annoying when a man tells me what a woman should think.

Women and men shouldn't call black people niggers.

Women and men shouldn't call disabled people cripples.

Women and men shouldn't call trans women men.