Pronouns

[VincentVanLowe]

Can mumsnet please clarify, will posts be deleted if they do not use a person's 'preferred pronouns'?

The idea that people can choose their pronouns is very new and specific to the ideology of transgender activists in English speaking Western culture. I do not share this ideology and I use pronouns in the generally accepted, historically consistent, biologically accurate way. As far as I am aware it is not illegal to use pronouns this way, and certainly the general population, medical doctors, academics and other groups continue to use pronouns in the usual way rather than in the way currently popular amongst trans activists and tumblr bloggers. So - is it acceptable for us to choose not to use 'preferred pronouns' if it conflicts with our own ethical frameworks?

Many thanks.

Why? Are you planning to be the first?

Are you suggesting that legal action could be taken against mumsnet if they allow users to make comments that trans people claim makes them feel humiliated, offended or degraded because they are transsexual?

Absolutely genuine question, by the way. I'm very interested in how we stand with regards to the law on free speech and transgender.

The fact that so many people identify with a gender that doesn't match their biological sex just goes to show what a load of old bollocks inherent gender is, imho.

But I would never knowingly offend an individual by using a pronoun that made them uncomfortable. Why would I? It's no skin off my feminist nose.

Perfect OhShutUpThomas

So if a factual statement like 2+2=4 makes some people feel humiliated, offended or degraded then everyone must pretend that 2+2=5?

So if a factual statement like 2+2=4 makes some people feel humiliated, offended or degraded then everyone must pretend that 2+2=5?

Yep, that's about the size of it. Even if the lie offends FAR more people.

It all boils down to, whose feelings are more important? All women, or a small minority of loud men?

Sadly, even now, in 2016, it is perfectly acceptable to upset and offend a large majority of women, to spare the feelings of these few men.

Different century, same old shit.

Hi all,

It's about being civil and respectful.

We have discussed Transgenderism extensively on Mumsnet and we ask that folks think about the effect that their words could have on others.

As this topic is very much up for discussion, we do understand the confusion. If folks are maliciously misgendering to cause offence, we will remove the post. If there is a discussion about misgendering and posters are using examples or stating their personal views, that is different and will remain.

Each thread and post are a judgement call, we continue to review this at MNHQ and it's always good to hear your views on the topic.

but would like to see all potential harassment treated in the same way - and that means that if any poster is offended by something another posters have written about them, then it should be removed.

Hell no! Are you serious?

I find this kind of thing useful in separating those who are considerate of others and have good manners from those who aren't and don't.

Presumably mumsnet have access to legal advice and can seek (or have already sought) it on this topic, and can share it with their members?

Sheila Jeffreys was clear in her use of pronouns throughout Gender Hurts, published in 2014. I'm sure her publisher would have sought legal advice and wouls not have published it here as it is, if it conflicted with the Equality Act.

I think we are being manipulated into this.

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8
round each number individually and you get
2 + 2 = 5

itsall..fine Well, why not?

If MN HQ have decided that they are going to remove posts in which they think misgendering was used maliciously, to cause offence, then why shouldn't other posts be moderated in the same way?
If they're not, then I as a woman, am being treated less favourably than other people (transsexuals).

PrettyBrightFireFlies

I find your shortening of my name pretty offensive! Am I really worth so little that you can't be arsed to type an extra nine characters

I feel MNHQ should remove your post as it was offensive to me.

Thanks for your reply Rebecca.

You said "If folks are maliciously misgendering to cause offence, we will remove the post. If there is a discussion about misgendering and posters are using examples or stating their personal views, that is different and will remain.

Presumably then, when people are intentionally misgendering but out of principle rather than malice, this would come into the second category and would be left to stand?

If folks are maliciously misgendering to cause offence, we will remove the post

How do you tell if a poster is using he/she in a gender or sex context?

"If folks are maliciously misgendering to cause offence, we will remove the post. If there is a discussion about misgendering and posters are using examples or stating their personal views, that is different and will remain. "

How can you tell the difference between 'malicious misgendering' and people just using pronouns in the way they are and have always been typically used? Isn't this just 'tone policing'?

No one's addressed my analogy with Rachel Dolezal

Are you suggesting, Rebecca/MNHQ, that we would have to discuss her as a black woman in posts regarding her?

Because of being 'civil and respectful'?

Or would you be more concened about being civil and respectful towards the black people who may find her behaviour/self identification issues wholly offensive?

Why is this different?

Oh well let's base everything on 'rounding stuff up' shall we Soupdragon?

That would work

Each thread and post are a judgement call, we continue to review this at MNHQ and it's always good to hear your views on the topic.

Good to hear. I do agree with this -

Are you suggesting, Rebecca/MNHQ, that we would have to discuss her as a black woman in posts regarding her?

Because of being 'civil and respectful'?

Or would you be more concened about being civil and respectful towards the black people who may find her behaviour/self identification issues wholly offensive?

Why is this different?

But for now, to see that you're not having a blanket rule, and are assessing posts individually, is good.

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks, Thomas.

I wonder what the actual difference is tbh

Could it be

a) being black is different to being a woman, because of the prejudice black people have faced over the years being more serious than that faced by women (I don't know enough about history to judge whether this is the case or not)

b) it's less offensive to pretend to be a woman than it is to pretend to be black, again, who decided that and why? Both are aspects of a person's biology that cannot be altered, both carry a burden of prejudice and deserve protection from those who oppress

c) it's trendy to support trans rights at the moment

I would really appreciate hearing your reasons, MNHQ, if you have a moment.

I also would like to hear mumsnets thoughts on Hennifer's questions.

From my perspective, when a male uses female pronouns for himself, he presumes a woman is an idea he can occupy rather than a human being who has her own ideas about female identity which do not have to include him at all. This is highly offensive and objectifying. To me, 'malicious misgendering' is exactly this - the deliberate misuse of pronouns to force people to believe in (or go along with) the idea that women are empty vessels that men can identify into.

Oh and by the way, if the answer is something along the lines of a) then what exactly are the trans lobby getting so upset about anyway?

I mean it's not a racial issue for them either, is it. Its only a matter of what sex you are.

And if this matters vastly to them, then it's available for mattering to us on an equal basis. And it does, very much.

@OhShutUpThomas

Each thread and post are a judgement call, we continue to review this at MNHQ and it's always good to hear your views on the topic.

Good to hear. I do agree with this -

Are you suggesting, Rebecca/MNHQ, that we would have to discuss her as a black woman in posts regarding her?

Because of being 'civil and respectful'?

Or would you be more concened about being civil and respectful towards the black people who may find her behaviour/self identification issues wholly offensive?

Why is this different?

But for now, to see that you're not having a blanket rule, and are assessing posts individually, is good.

Thanks for the reply.

Well, to be honest we see these as two very different cases. Rachel Dolezal is an individual whose actions have been was widely criticised.

Transgenderism is a minority group.

We would not deal with them in the same way at all.

Thank you but could you elaborate, perhaps?

I don't follow the argument there at all. Is it just about whether something or someone has been 'widely criticised'?

Anna Lee has been widely criticised too. But somehow they're exempt because there are some trendy neo liberal media institutions people who are on their side?

We don't even know if Racel Dolezal represents a 'minority group' of white people who identify as black.

It never got that far, did it, before she was so utterly vilified in the media that she disappeared from it completely.