Transgenderism: the MNHQ position

[SarahMumsnet]

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.

This isn't meant to be a rude question, but how will you/did you know when you are living as a woman? Thanks for the information btw

"Some of the stuff on the Caitlyn Jenner thread is incredibly hard to read and I often wonder how that affects people's view of transwomen."

Not sure if I've seen that thread, but CJ seems incredibly vacuous, and I can't help but think she plays into the idea that transwomen are all about hair, makeup and pretty frocks. I would imagine she is no more representative of transwomen than Kim Kardashian is of women. In fact, both peddle a similar myth/stereotype. But both are popular with certain sections of the press so we'll keep hearing about them. Meanwhile, both women and transwomen have more important issues to contend with which are largely overlooked.

No idea.
I've had a google and it all seems a bit uncertain. Taking hormones to change the external appearance of your body, backed up with counselling seems to be the basics.

So, no help and lots of waiting around before you are told no help and many hoops of different shapes and sizes to jump through.
A long, tough road.

The thread has been derailed a bit about whether cis is offensive. It doesn't matter whether individual people can see that it is or not (although Ego has made it pretty clear that she does understand that it is offensive).

I am female. My cells are female. I've never not been female, so I don't know what other things make me female - biologically, and chemically, I have XX chromosomes and am female. I look female, I have boobs and feminine features and long hair, but I'm pretty sure that's a byproduct of being female, rather than what makes me female. I work in a "male" job, in a "male" industry, but that doesn't change things either - I'm still female.

I struggle to understand, therefore, how can you want to be female. It isn't really anything. Publicly, at least, CJ seems to equate being female with dressing glamorously and wearing women's clothes and lingerie, wearing lots of make-up, being flirty. I could name 5 women straight off that I've never seen wearking make-up or in a dress. The two don't equate, being a woman is more than that.

In any situation, it feels insulting if someone switches from the privileged side to fight with the underdogs, failing to recognise that they were privileged. Like pacifists who have others fight and die for them, and then proclaim that they were wrong, whilst enjoying the freedom that the fight won. It's not just a gender issue, in general, we're annoyed by this. I can't enter the paralympics because I'm able-bodied, I have chronic conditions and might well identify as a disabled person, but I'm not. They wouldn't let me race. I also can't enter the man's race, and I can't run for Germany, because I'm not German. These are facts. I don't meet the criteria so I can't do them.

It feels like these are the two most important facts in this argument. What is it to identify as female, and how is that possible without the XX chromosomes? There is no way to get those. Rationally and logically, the sense that something is wrong, that it doesn't fit, has to stem from something. You can't miss chromosomes that you never had. What is it to identify as female? How can it be anything but superficial, and how can that not offend women, who are much more than superficial?

And for people who do think that they don't belong with their biological gender, do they automatically become part of the side that they do identify with? That's not usually the case in life. I can't decide to become black, or Spanish, or run in the paralympics. I could set up a semi-lympics, I could move to Spain, but I can't join those groups because I'm not one of them. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a biological male being able to access some women's spaces, like women's wards - I've been on them hugely vulnerable and whilst I don't believe all men are attackers or rapists, if you're having gynecological issues, having men around is an extra complication - or rape centres. We had a women's only society at Uni to discuss the issues that affected us because of our biological gender - having a man there would be changed that. You can apply it to anything, from women's football teams to changing rooms and birthing classes. Women's prisons.

If our pronouns and spaces are taken over by people who don't identify as male, we are disadvantaged, again. I have no problem with people changing their own pronoun, or gender, or acting however they wish. I'm not sure that means that they can change my position, though, and branding me "Cis", or taking my pronoun, or using my spaces, does.

I am not cis. I am female, because biologically that is my classification, and I've never been anything else. I have no idea what it is to be male, apart from the obvious differences - I imagine careers are easier and having a penis could be fun, but I have no real idea.

Mumsnet is actually a brilliant example of this. Although it's an inclusive parenting site, it's aimed at Mums, at females who have reproduced. I don't fit into that category but I'm welcome here, as long as I respect the site. The same is true of the men here. But you'd expect that MN would stand up for it's core audience, wouldn't you? You can guarantee that if there was a MansNet, they'd be vocal about their issues and anything that they felt threatened them. Being women, we just take it, for the most part.

And that's before you debate whether it is actually possible to be wrong by referring to someone as their biological gender. It is a fact. That would, I believe, be enough in a Court of Law. You cannot libel or slander someone with a true fact.

I don't see what other stance MNHQ can take on this. To do any differently would effectively shut down one group or the other.

I think there is a world of difference between a discussion that says "biological women are the female sex and transwomen are the male sex" and one that says to an individual poster "you're a man regardless of what you believe".

But then my issue is primarily the rights of biological women and how they are in danger of being eroded. My view is that no transwomen or women should face discrimination or harm and that this will only be achieved by recognising the differences and accommodating them in society. Society is set up to distinguish, in certain instances, rightly or wrongly, biological sex. I know that doesn't make life easy for transmen and transwomen but I don't understand why the focus is on fitting into a system that doesn't work for them rather than asking for the system to be changed.

In addition to that, I think there's confusion around the transgender umbrella and what it really means. To me, as a woman and a feminist, there is a significant difference in a man being afforded rights as a woman simply because he identifies or dresses as one and offering access and rights as a woman to a transwoman who has undergone surgery, hormone treatment and counselling. I think the difference seriously colours ones perspective on this issue. I'm happy to support one group but the other one can sod right off but I don't have a shared language or consensus on terminology to express that without being accused of transphobia.

There's obviously a stigma in being a transwoman - I don't know how to work to remove that and to support transwomen to live freely and safely in society whilst not impinging on the rights of women. And I don't know whether removing all the stigma and discrimination would allow transwomen to live happily as transwomen or whether there would still be the need for transwomen themselves to have society believe that they are the same as biological women.

I suspect that many feminists like myself would happily work to erode barriers for transwomen and transmen but I cannot and will not erect those same barriers against women.

I'm sorry that Mumsnet is seen as hostile to transgender issues and genuinely sorry that I appear to contribute to that but I am also grateful that the discussion is allowed on here. I just wish it could move forward.

Great post Blistory.

I think there is a world of difference between a discussion that says "biological women are the female sex and transwomen are the male sex" and one that says to an individual poster "you're a man regardless of what you believe"

Precisely.

The most important words are these:

Mumsnet is a site built on the values of tolerance, supportiveness and respect

Anything which increases respect for other posters - in all Topics - is a bloody good thing.

I still think a topic would be a great idea.

Agrre spakly

I think a separate topic is a good idea too, all the recent threads will disappear if they are in Chat, or get lost in the sheer volume of traffic if they are in AIBU. With a separate topic anyone wanting to find out more about Trans issues would be able to find them more easily.

Anyone who didn't want to read or comment could just hide the topic, and anyone interested in debating it (possibly endlessly) would know where to look. Seems straight forward.

Thanks, MNHQ, I think your stance is as fair and balanced as it can be.

yy to Blistory, I agree with your post at 20:04

Yes, another vote here for its own topic!!

I think Buffy makes a great point about longer term historical perspective. Point is this issue has arisen at a particular point of time, and the agenda and vocal debate is coming from a particular group (transwomen mostly and younger generation feminists)

My take on it is that younger generation feminists supporting the whole cis women labelling (which I also find offensive) actually believe men and women have equality. I think, rightly or wrongly, it is a particular demographic who have yet to get married, have children and experience the many ways discrimination operates.

The Radfem arguments come from second wave feminism where arguments about oppression because of reproductive biology were key; fourth wavers are sufficiently young for these things not to be an issue yet. Abortion and contraception are accessible; so I am guessing they don't see oppression on biological grounds in their experience.

If a transwoman does not wish to be called male, fine, I will not call them male. But being not a male does not make someone a woman. Having surgery and changing genitals does not make someone a woman; it possibly makes them not a man as commonly understood - so they occupy a space which is not man and not woman. That space is no less worthy of protection and respect, but it is neither male space nor female space, it is a space not defined by either.

Why is it not possible to advocate for this third space to be recognised, or to dissolve the gender binary? Because then male/female hierarchies would also dissolve? What does the insistence that transwomen be recognised as women uphold? Because it upholds rather than challenges existing structures, it seems to me, whilst negating woman as a biological category and everything that means for women's day to day lives.

I would say that , if we're creating topics, it would surely make sense to have two - a gender critical trans theory topic and a pro-trans/support topic. So long as no-one crosses the line in the sand, everyone can be happy :)