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?

Tiggy I don't read many Trans threads, and yet I have seen you a number of times saying that you are never going to post or talk about Trans issues again on MN because of how difficult it is for you.
Your complaints about trans threads and MN are becoming as common as family parking spaces.
I don't know what you are trying to achieve. And the title of this threads is VERY goady.

I've spent a lot of time reading both 'sides' of this debate and one thing I have found is when you are firmly entrenched in one side of it you can't see the other side at all - and when I say you I mean me. I've been in a few situations where there are two 'sides' and often there is some cross over. Here it seems so polarised. It's very sad. I think there is so much hurt and perceived hurt.

I'M A WOMAN!!

But Eddie Izzard is not trans - he just wears clothes that are traditionally associated with women.

Eddie Izzard - "I am transgender, I decided to be honest and tell everyone about it, and that's it."

www.interviewmagazine.com/culture/eddie-izzard#_

BUT HE ÌS NOT A WOMEN .

BUT HE ÌS NOT A WOMEN

I didn't get the impression that he disagrees with you on that point.

I am surprised at that interview. Eddie Izzard has said many times before that he is not Trans, he was asked about it all the time.
Reading that interview though I wonder if he is saying he is transgender as many now include cross dressers within that label?

The misgendering thing is very hard for me. I worked with a young, trans person in a homeless shelter. She (fine to use 'she' because she has transitioned back now) worked there identifying as a man. I found myself misgendering her by mistake a lot. At the time I thought of myself as a ally and a liberal feminist. Now, I still want to think of myself as an ally but identify as a radical, gender critical feminist and I'm not sure it's possible.

To a person, pretty much all the clients misgendered her all the time. MH, addictions and high stress traumatic lives meant they have very little cognitive space left to remember things and she, with short hair and t-shirts and jeans, looked and sounded female. We would say, 'he' if we noticed but it's very hard when someone is dealing with something traumatic. It was a conflict of very real needs. When people are mentally ill and high, they see a woman, they say she.

And, on the subject of her transitioning back. It happens. I don't know why she did, we weren't that close. But it does sort of challenge the 'a transman is a man' thing since she is now a woman (biologically and in terms of what she feels).

I'm actually incredibly disappointed by that article. Eddie Izzard has always suffered the consequences of his wearing dresses (no cis privilege there) and he also always claimed that he likes wearing dresses and they are 'man's dresses' because he bought them.

Suddenly he is being honest about being 'transgender'? It's hardly coming out in the traditional sense is it? It's not going to make his life harder (that article is 50% around his wardrobe -like most people who wear dresses) he was already suffering the consequences about people wanting to discuss his clothes.

However, he is now, as a "transgender person" part of a protected group that are actually doing quite well in the celebrity sphere... A vocal trans lobby who also claim historical figures mold were actually "trans" but didn't have the words to identify as such. They are deciding that anyone who doesn't fit the mold must actually be a trans person. He wasn't just flouting society's norms he was going directly against trans politics.

From the same article. INTERVIEWER: Do you call it transvestitism?

IZZARD: No, I just call it wearing makeup. No woman would say of another woman, "Oh, she's wearing pants, what's up with that?" None of that sounds like he actually believes he is trans anything. Just a bloke in a dress. Suddenly this very clever, forthright man thinks wearing lipstick is a "genetic gift"? #notbuyingit.

*although ironically despite all the vocal TW people now those historical figures always seems to be women because a woman who was strong and clever couldn't have just been a woman.

*who also claim historical figures don't fit the mold were actually "trans" but didn't have the words to identify as such.

That article is odd. Every other things Eddie says about his choice of clothes indicates that he isn't transgender and is a male man who wears whatever the fuck he wants. His whole stance in gender critical and always has been. I'd love for the interviewer to have unpicked what he meant by transgender there.

Ego Am I male?
Yes, you will always be male, but you can also be a trans woman because trans woman is a social category whereas male is a biological category. You can transition across social categories but not biological ones.

And actually, when you compare Jenner and dolezal you can see how it is possible to transition across racial categories because actually they are social categories too. My DS could easily present as white or mixed race. If he changed his name nobody would think he was mixed race, equally if he spent 6 months abroad and his skin went darker particularly he wouldn't be seen as an outsider within his other ethnic community.
Point being, social categories are fluid and partly defined by others and the way they see you. So a trans woman is seen as a woman by society and becomes part of the social category of woman based on how others see and treat her. Same with dolezal, she became mixed race because she was treated and seen as such.

Neither a trans woman nor a white woman is authenticity female or mixed race in a biological sense. there is a big discussion to be had about why it's socially acceptable for people to transition gender but not race. I'm not sure why that is to be honest.

Yes Ehric, he literally says in one breath no one questions a woman wearing pants (trousers) and then in the next breath says his wearing makeup is a 'genetic gift' of trans genderism. If he is trying to imply that we are all 'transgender' in that no one fit neatly in to society's little gender box well then yes, hell yes. But that would eliminate the need for special snowflakism and the term Cis.

And there is a whole other social category for trans people who don't pass. That must be a very weird and isolating place to be. I suspect life is easier for non passing trans men because the category of butch women are very visible and accepted whereas feminine presenting men are not so accepted at all. I'm not surprised that many trans women are upset by this situation. I wish gender roles were not so rigidly applied and that men could just rock a dress and long hair without being made to feel like a weirdo or someone who is actually female inside.

I couldn't find any answers Ego, having tried a search. But I don't know your previous names which probably doesn't help.

It's not your responsibility to educate me through current posting or previous posts however it would be bloody helpful to have the perspective of a trans person if anyone does feel like answering my question.

Thank you, I will take a look.

No of course. I would not want to be outed either, though you did mention your old name in part earlier on in the thread.

I think I'll just give up on it tbh, and wait for someone else who feels like commenting/answering questions to come along.

Thanks anyway.

It does illustrate the sort of honest support that people get on here outside of the current debate about terminology, highlighting that MNHQ /MNers tend not to be evil or not very bright.

You've already outted yourself

But Ego, you refused to answer questions saying you've answered them before and we should search your posting history to do so. How can we do that without reference to your old username when you haven't answered the questions under the current one?