Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Transgenderism: the MNHQ position

389 replies

SarahMumsnet · 17/11/2015 11:12

Morning, everyone.

Given the number of threads about transgenderism on MN over recent weeks – and the fact that these threads tend to be strongly polarized – we thought it might be useful for us to come on and reiterate/clarify our position.

First and foremost, we’d like to remind everyone that Mumsnet is a site built on the values of tolerance, supportiveness and respect. We’re sure you’re all aware of our Talk guidelines by now, but for anyone new, do have a look: the key points in terms of transgenderism are, firstly, that we aim to keep intervention to a minimum and let the conversation flow, but that secondly, we will delete posts that we consider to be transphobic.

The obvious question, and one that’s been the subject of debate and a large number of reports over the last week, is what exactly we, as a site, consider to be transphobic. We’ve posted on this in the past – you can read the full post here, but in summary, we think it’s paramount to consider context, so rather than coming up with a “Mumsnet” definition of exactly what does and what doesn’t count as transphobia in our book, we think it’s sensible to ask users to adhere to principles of mutual respect and courtesy.

We think by and large this works well, but over recent weeks, some of you have been unhappy with the way in which we’ve dealt with the question of pronouns. Generally we delete posts in which people persistently refuse to refer to people by the pronoun (he/she; him/her) by which they’ve asked to be referred, out of respect for that individual’s wishes. Again, this isn’t something we’ve been rigid about; there are many instances (for example, on a recent thread about Jack Monroe) where we’ve felt that given the context/recency of the individual’s transition, deletion wasn’t appropriate - but broadly we tend to take the view that folk should refer to people by the name and pronoun those people choose.

There has been a question raised about whether or not we would delete the term “cis” when applied to posters on threads, on the grounds that some posters feel that being identified as a “ciswoman” rather than a woman is just as offensive as being addressed by the “wrong” pronoun.

We can see where these posters are coming from, so are of a mind to use the same rule of thumb when it comes to the term “cis” as we do for pronouns - i.e. we won’t necessarily delete every use of it, but if it’s applied pointedly to a poster who doesn’t identify as a ciswoman, we would delete that.

Transgenderism is a complex issue and one which has really only been discussed widely in the last couple of years. We are aware that there is a debate to be had about the differences between biological sex and gender, and how pronouns figure in this, and we’re glad that Mumsnet is a place where people feel able to have that debate.

But we are keen to make sure it takes place in a way that’s as civil and constructive as possible - and, frankly, in a way that means the threads on which it’s taking place don’t descend into a series of personal attacks which result in us having to delete lots of posts. We hope you’ll agree with us that the best way to achieve this is to start from a position of mutual respect - it’s only then that a productive discussion can take place. Essentially we’d hope that everyone could stick to criticising the argument(s), not the person.

We do think that by acknowledging posters’ rights to self-identification, we’re giving everyone the best chance of making their arguments heard.

Hope this makes sense. We’ll be keeping an eye on this thread, so do post your thoughts/questions below.

OP posts:
Synyster · 17/11/2015 17:29

so women have to accept something, even if it is offensive, because "some" people are offensive.

cis is offensive and has no place on a forum for parents

Synyster · 17/11/2015 17:31

(by the way in rl its easier as you just call people by their name)
I do think using CJ as a reason on here does people who have real battles a diservice

QueenStromba · 17/11/2015 17:32

Most women aren't cis but all transwomen are male. That is where your argument breaks down.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

QueenStromba · 17/11/2015 17:34

Should we stop talking about the colour red because some colour blind people can't see red and might be upset by discussion of it?

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Synyster · 17/11/2015 17:35

i can't speak for transwomen. but surely if they find something offensive, using an offensive term themselves, just causes a row.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

QueenStromba · 17/11/2015 17:36

So you do want actual facts to be censored then?

Synyster · 17/11/2015 17:37

Egosumquisum your post proves the point.\if mn hq are going to take the stance that he or she should be used in the correct manner, then they should also stop the use of cis

QueenStromba · 17/11/2015 17:37

Thank fuck we're not on one of those forums.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DixieNormas · 17/11/2015 17:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArmchairTraveller · 17/11/2015 17:38

' A microscopic minority of women identify as cis. I'd wager a microscopic minority of women have even heard of the term.'

I'd never heard of it, but DD is 24 and very cutting-edge aware as are several of her friends. We have had numerous discussions about all the new terminology and definitiona, as I'm about 20 years behind. She's comfortable using the terminology, I'm less so. It's an interesting dialogue where we often disagree.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

QueenStromba · 17/11/2015 17:40

I believe in the word 'cis', it came up a lot in my "Biology" degree.

QueenStromba · 17/11/2015 17:40

And facts are facts.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Queenbean · 17/11/2015 17:45

Ego you attacked my post and haven't responded back to my questioning of it - what was offensive about my post?

Synyster · 17/11/2015 17:47

"cis" does not exist.women are women. they are not anything else

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Egosumquisum · 17/11/2015 17:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

QueenStromba · 17/11/2015 17:49

You are completely missing our point. If MNHQ are going to delete posts that misgender trans people then they should also delete posts that are misgendering women. That is all.

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 17/11/2015 17:49

'Cis' is made up nonsense, and being a man is not.

Finding it offensive when men are called men is not the same as finding the invention of a new and largely meaningless category, which depends for any meaning it has on hugely problematic assumptions about gender (not sex) offensive.

MissFitt68 · 17/11/2015 17:49

You seem very fixed on the word 'cis'.... Yet nobody uses it! Bit pointless isn't it?

Swipe left for the next trending thread