Just read MNs response to this, and TBH I am 
(MNHQ in bold)
Hello all
Thanks for all your input on this - we've been listening and thinking hard.
Couple of quick points to clear up: it's actually not the case that people have been banned solely for misgendering - it will have been part of a broader discussion here about whether that poster is able to stick to the rules generally.
Maybe not banned, but certainly deleted.
We must admit to being slightly taken aback at being cast, by some, as the evil slave-baiting Roman republic in this grin - as lots of you have pointed out, Mumsnet remains one of the few places where these issues can be discussed at all. It would have been much, much easier (both in terms of the resource and the toll on our moderators' sanity!) to shut down the debate as others have done, but instead we are working hard to find a realistic balance between free speech and being a space which welcomes everyone.
So free speech is not allowed where it may cause offence or hurt to someone? This is not consistent with how other topic are moderated where views that others may be uncomfortable with are left to stand; politics, religion, homeopathy, anti vaxxers etc
From our perspective, the whole issue is pretty much covered by our Talk Guidelines. If people are using sex-at-birth pronouns to provoke inflame, or belittle, then that's against the rules and will usually have to go. If it happens as part of an otherwise broadly respectful (even if heated) discussion, we look at it in that context and take a view.
"Sex at birth" pronouns? So MNHQ believes that sex can be changed? A belief that most on these threads (and basic science!) opposes. Furthermore people may feel inflamed or belittled when the correct pronoun was used, when the intention was to be truthful and accurate. I am however happy that you see pronouns as being used to describe sex rather than gender, even though that kind of makes misgendering an impossibility.
Some of you have pointed out a disjunct between allowing posts which mirror mainstream scientific thinking, while asking MNers not to describe a trans woman as 'he'. We can see your point on this,and also accept that there is a fair amount of dodgy stuff on the trans side that can rightly be described as anti-feminist and regressive - but what we'd ask you to think about is the impact on the parent who's not an activist, and likely isn't even posting, but whose adult child is transitioning, or who is doing so themselves. Would they feel belittled, mocked or attacked? Would they think Mumsnet was not for them? If so, we're going to have to remove it. It's a fudge, but it's the best we can do at this stage.
I'm sorry MNHQ but it is a shit fudge. There are plenty of forums available where the groups you mention above can go to have their views/opinions/feelings validated. MNHQ has always been a place for robust debate where common sense and science tend to prevail. This is again not the stance you take on other topics, I'm not quite sure why trans issues is a special case? I am also a bit that you seem to be suggestions that we should ignore mainstream scientific thinking in case we hurt someone's feelings?
In all but the most extreme headline-grabbing cases, we do think it's possible to debate the core principles without referring to individuals in a way which will cause hurt. Most of you have said that when talking to a trans person face-to-face you wouldn't insist on using birth pronouns or names - and generally, on this and other issues, we encourage people to treat others with the same courtesy they'd use in real life. For every MNer who posts on a thread there are likely to be ten who are lurking - statistically, some of those will be trans or love someone who is, and we need to take account of them too.
So we are allowed to use the correct pronouns is a headline grabbing case? I'm sorry MNHQ but I will not accept that a transwoman is a "he" .
We hope that makes our thinking a bit clearer overall. Do continue to tell us your thoughts - it's probably unrealistic to think that this issue will be quickly resolved here or across society as a whole, but it would be brilliant if MN could be part of the solution, we think.
Er no. Your policy seems to be to ignore and fudge rather than coming out clearly with a useful statement. I am interested to know what MNHQ thinks the issues are and how they can be solved though.
MNHQ also posted saying that suggesting autogynephila was a prime motivator for transitioning would be deleted - MirandaYardley replied to this over on the Spartacus thread.