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 see it mainly on tumblr, certain subreddits on reddit, in journalism, it's used in gender studies and sex education, I've seen it on healthcare literature.

Oh come on. There are plenty of words in the dictionary that no one has heard of. Hence dictionaries.

I utterly reject the term 'cis-woman'. I am a woman.
But as Laurie said upthread, in rl I have never met a transwoman that wanted to infringe women's rights, or cause any discomfort to anyone, least of all women.

if MN don't think they should be the arbiters of what people should find offensive...

Personally I'd rather MNHQ didn't try to be arbiters. I'd very much far prefer a simple "Oi, we're gonna delete that because Justine don't like it" instead of policies and efforts to explain why or be PC.

I can't muster a single opinion about the trans-identity thing.

"Your spitting rage about these surface issues seems designed to silence women who wish and need to talk in respectful language about the implications of transgender theory on women's rights. "

What buffy said

yeolde Well I can, I don't want to identify as being a CIS woman. I am a woman that's it. I don't want to tag an other identify to me

^identity

Tiggy you're awfully quiet on the subject of using 'cis' in your posts.

I am not a cis woman, I am a woman.

A tran person lived in my village. Even though she has had a boob job, dresses like a female and wears makeup she hasn't had her genitals removed. She doesn't want them removed either.

So is she a man, woman or trans? I'm not trying to be goady, I just have no clue and I don't want to cause any offence.

Well I've learned something today, I'd only ever heard cis and trans in regards to isomers until today!

I've never heard anyone in RL use that term. And WTF would any bio woman need to identify themselves as anything but women?

It's awful.

I've heard the term cis a lot in health related literature & online articles. I don't have a problem with it, it doesn't replace woman, and presumably quite a useful thing to be able to use when relevant, the rest of the time surely irrelevant?

I dunno, to someone outside this whole issue, it seems to me that the wider world (everyone - the LGBT world, academia, feminists, trans activists, the (wo)man on the street....) has not decided what is acceptable and what is insulting in this scenario yet. Cis, trans, woman, drag, gender vs sex, shared spaces, woman-only spaces etc. Probably a million other issues that I have no idea of too. There seem to me to be almost as many opinions as there are posters on this thread.

So I think it is unfair of posters to expect MNHQ to be able to figure it all out when the people themselves involved can't even figure it out. For every poster who says that we should be saying cis-woman, there will be another saying she feels insulted by it.

Once there is consensus within the movement and society as to the correct terminology etc, then I think of course it would be fair to expect MNHQ to abide by it. I honestly don't think anyone can predict what the acceptable terminology and so on will be in 2, 5, 20 years. It needs time to develop, just like the gay movement. But in the meantime I believe MNHQ are doing their level best with a really complicated, emotive, difficult subject.

This is a difficult topic. I was dating a trans-women last year. She still had a penis but I couldn't see her in any way as a man. But she was also seroiusly considering gender reassignment surgery.
If at any point she had referred to me as a cis-woman, that would have been it for us. She didn't. As it was, I eased her out of my life, as she had a lot of issues and that combined with my issues, wasn't making for a good match.
Now, at the same time as accepting her as female, there was a part of me going 'yeah, but biologically, she is not' and nor could she ever be, her chromosomes at a genetic level would always be male, just as mine at a genetic level, will always be female. And I really think that basic biological fact needs to be included in any discussion on this issue.
I refuse to engage in discussion with any person who refers to me as a 'cis-woman', I am a WOMAN!

Stating that a penis is a male organ and that biological sex exists is considered cis-sexist and transphobic in some circles.

The prefixes are only needed when talking about trans issues to distinguish between tran and cis women or men. Some would refer to women as either "transwomen" or "women". That's not treating everybody equally is it? Transwomen don't want to be called trans you know. If you get upset about the word cis but still use trans you're saying "how dare you insult us while we're insulting you!"

So Mumsnet, 3 question:

1. "harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them". Is there harassment on your site?

1. Is your policy towards trans people in your office the same as it is on the site?

1. Have you ever asked an anti-discrimination group for advice on trans matters?

Isn't this covered in your email to them Tiggy?

Golly Tiggy, I believe you persist in asking questions while refusing to answer other's questions to you. I believe that looks like you have HUGE dollops of male entitlement sloshing about. You seem to wish to persist in misgendering women as well.

Could you possibly make a list of other things you don't want women to discuss? It would be soooo helpful if a "much loved" poster such as yourself could do that, just so we all know what's acceptable to you. and so we don't have to put up with you making malicious threads like this when you stamp your feet because you don't get your own way

People keep saying that 'ciswomen' means women who are biologically women and who identify as women.

Is that what it is supposed to mean?

Or does it simply mean women who were born (biologically) female?