Thoughts on MNHQ's response to the Spartacus thread

[OlennasWimple]

As the Spartacus thread is about to reach capacity, here's a new thread to discuss MNHQ's response to the issues raised on that thread and in a few other places over the last week or so.

is lesphobic to insist that a lesbian likes penis. Feck off with that shite.
Add message | Report | Message poster KateMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 30-Aug-16 21:08:00
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MNHQ

I still don't understand how/why this has become such a huge issue here (UK/Europe) when a lot of the madness seems to stem from US fundamentalism?

because it filters through. Policy over there can help shape policy over here.

I wouldn't be surprised if some donors work both the UK and US to get favourable laws in much the same way the have done in the past with medications, products and even trade deals.

I don't think the response says anything new. I think it's a missed opportunity for this debate to be the start of something - something where logic triumphs over trend. I was excited! Now rather deflated. I was reminded of the Sam Cooke song A Change is Gonna Come:
"It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will
Then I go to my brother
And I say brother help me please
But he winds up knocking me
Back down on my knees"

Prawn I just wanted to say I have really liked so many of your very thoughtful posts on these threads. Thank you.

Prawn is definitely correct.

When the TA's give links to their 'research' it's usually a whacky study using only 10 or less subjects. They also refuse to define terms, which in science we call Operational Definitions.

Because the transmovement is based around stereotypes and circular definitions it's a house of cards.

The only thing that has ever made sense is the descriptive stuff about autogynephilia. I've seen many posts on other boards where men hang out that fit autogynephilia to a T. If you want to see some autogynephilic posts, go to nofap forums and you'll see several men on there talking about how aroused they get fantasizing that they're female. You'll see all 4 subtypes of AGP.

Reddit is also a place to go where men openly describe what can only be AGP.

Finally, the few posters who show up to yell 'TERF' are just doing themselves a disservice. Nobody can take you seriously when you do that.

Bit late to the party, and need to catch up on this thread, but wanted to get my thoughts down on the MNHQ 'response', which I feel is wholly inadequate.

Firstly, I take issue with the phrase 'sex-at-birth pronouns'. The temporal modifier 'at birth' implies that one can have a different sex at some point after birth. This is simply not the case. MNHQ, you state that it is 'use of sex-at-birth pronouns to provoke, inflame or belittle' which will be against the rules. How is this to be judged? Taking my favourite example, Danielle Muscato, if I assert that DM is a man and refer to him as he, simply in order to express the scientific, biological and immutable fact that DM is a man, my intent will be to simply use language correctly. Another poster may claim that my insistence on doing this, and refusal to use DM's stated preferred pronouns is to inflame and provoke. They may feel belittled my my (correct) use of language and may view my refusal to change my use of language despite repeated requests to do so as an attack. How are you to interpret this? Is my intention, which is to use language accurately, to hold sway? Or is it the feelings of others who read my words which are to be held to be more important?

You are requesting that I lie and say that DM is a woman and that I like her beard in order to spare the feelings of those who may read my posts. Could you please tell me what else you would like me to lie about in order to spare the hypothetical feelings of hypothetical people? If there is nothing else, why does this subject have such special status that reality must be denied? Why is this truth unspeakable?

I take issue with your assumption that the parents of people who are transitioning will be on board with their child's transition. A cursory trawl though the internet will indicate that this is not the case and parents may be deeply concerned by their child's transition, yet feel powerless to speak up. How should language use be policed in order to spare their feelings?

I also ask why the feelings of women who assert that sex is an objective biological reality that cannot be altered are to take second place. I experience hurt, feelings of being belittled, mocked and attacked by having you insist that I call DM, Alex Drummond, Paris Lees and all the rest of them 'she'. To refer to them as 'she' acknowledges and reaffirms their claim on womanhood and thus diminishes my own. Why are my feelings unimportant to you? Why, yet again, do I need to privilege the feelings of TA above my own?

I do not understand why you seek to prioritise the feelings of parents of those who are transitioning. Why have you ignored the feelings of parents, including adolescent lesbians who are particularly at risk in this world of TA.

You seem to imply that 'extreme headline grabbing cases' would be excluded from this policy, such that we would not have to say 'a woman committed rape with her penis'. This simply will not do. You cannot have a policy regarding pronoun use based on whether the actions of the individual in question are acceptable or not. That is nonsensical. Either MTT are women and should be called 'she' no matter how bad the things they do are, nor they are not women and should not be called 'she' despite the fact of them being 'nice and well-behaved'. You may have misunderstood certainly my objection to the statement 'a woman committed rape with her penis'. My objection has nothing to do with the abhorrence of the crime (I am perfectly happy to state that Rosemary West and Moira Hindley are women - because they are), rather that such a statement is nonsensical. A woman does not have a penis, whether is it to rape, or urinate with.

You have ignored many issues that have been raised on these threads. Your position is simply reifying a nonsense. You need to decide: are MTT women or not?

I remain Spartacus wholeheartedly. I will use pronouns correctly.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2722081-I-am-still-Spartacus

Thought I'd start I am Still Spartacus.

I think pronouns come up a lot because of the deletion policy.

It seems to me that we can generally (and of course respectfully) discuss what we like as long as we don't 'misgender' anyone (although the deletion of the autogynaephilia posts was ... interesting). I don't blame MNHQ for approaching moderation from this angle, it must be a nightmare on these threads!

So 'misgendering' is a useful proxy for deciding whether someone is being respectful or not. I imagine there are a team of mods responding to reports at MNHQ, who I'm sure are time-stressed, and it shouldn't be expected of them to have read widely and have understood all the nuances of this debate. Of course they're going to need clear and simple guidelines, as do we all.

The trouble is, this makes pronouns an obstacle we have to negotiate all the time in order to be able to say what we mean. If we use a person's preferred pronouns, this can lead to nonsensical, self-contradictory statements which erase what's actually happening. If we tie ourselves in grammatical knots to avoid 'misgendering' while still saying what we mean, it makes it very difficult to write and to read and understand. If we name reality as we see it, we are deleted.

I will continue to use people's preferred pronouns whenever I can, which is the vast majority of the time, when it doesn't matter.

On the few occasions when it does matter, I will name reality as I see it. I will not commit to not mentioning a person's sex or using the appropriate sex-based pronouns. This is independent of whether they have been a 'headline-grabbing case'.

Prawnofthepatriarchy - But I'd remind them that so very many of us here love and support this site. We have fun on it, we chat, but more importantly we trust it, many of us have trusted it in very dark times. Some of us lurk - quite a few de-lurked on the Spartacus thread. We want it to continue being a beacon of light. Please, MNHQ, hold firm. Do not let us down by allowing the TAs to silence us. This issue matters so much to parents and children, and it is the biggest threat to women's rights in a 100 years.

This ^

MNHQ - it would be brilliant if MN could be part of the solution

This too ^

fruit cider weirdly I don't remember anyone called fruit ciderI know the feminist group that branched off though, a close friend of yours??? Doubt it

Well, yes, my real name quite clearly is not fruit cider. I am certainly friends with the person that set up the original feminist group, then was swiftly added into the second feminist group. That is when I came to realise that RadFems for most part are trans exclusive, and as an intersectional feminist it does not fit my world view as I try and empathise with different groups of society and see how it affects different races, genders, ethnic groups, cultures, religions etc. Trans exclusive feminism appears to miss this.

Fruit, could you be more specific please? I don't see how labelling people and lumping them together (as RadFems, for example) shows empathy towards people as individuals. I have read many brilliant posts expressing empathy on these threads, and many by people saying they are not radical feminists but women cannot become men.

Facts do not change because one feels empathy for someone in distress - it is in their nature, the pesky little blighters.

And yet you don't remember Nina?

I'm peculiar.

But you know the radfem in real life who set it up.

Bull.shit.

I have empathy for trans people - and for men, come to that. Doesn't mean transwomen or men belong in female-only spaces, sports categories, scholarships ... I've noticed very little empathy for women coming from transactivists who believe they are women, though.

Empathy is only half the story. Critical thinking is needed too, if we are not to be so open minded our brains fall out and we just give away all our rights and protections which we have fought hard for, and which we still need because women are still discriminated against and still at risk of harm on the basis of our sex.

Critical thinking and empathy - both are spectacularly missing from the transactivist agenda.

I agree with everything in your last post Plenty.

I have shedloads of empathy with transpeople.
Lets not mix that up with hard won women's rights.

I really want to believe that MNHQ have come to the realisation that transactivism is a huge threat to women's rights and that is why they resolve to allow this space to remain one of the only spaces to permit debate.
I really want to believe that they are playing along with TA pressure by just the bare minimum to avoid getting sued, or shut down.
I really want to believe that their heart isn't in their repeated insistence that we should not 'misgender' because they already know that people who don't acknowledge gender as real cannot in fact make correct OR incorrect gender references.
I really wish that the whole 'let's please tread carefully" official MNHQ stance is purely strategic, pragmatic, and sticks in their craw as much as it does all of us who STILL have to make concessions to transactivism that betray our beliefs, our right to speak the truth and our integrity.
Every time I even use the phrase 'transWOMAN', or 'she' for a male, I feel frustration that I am adding to the drip drip normalisation of a movement that will harm me for it.

If MNHQ could give me any confidence, the virtual equivalent of a subtle nod of solidarity, that they were playing the long game and will not take a stance betraying women's rights ultimately.

I just don't quite know whether in this issue they see themselves and us as women with a common goal to fight for women's rights, or whether commercial success will take precedence and subsume integrity.

I think perhaps I'd prefer for the Captains to go down with the sinking ship rather than sell us all out. If Mumsnet cannot play its part in turning the tide of women's rights being eroded - and to hell with the consequences, perhaps it would be better it didn't continue at all.

I empathise with different sectors of society. But I'm not going to stand by and let other oppressed groups and their hard of thinking apologists shit all over my rights as a woman, as you'd like me to do and you do, Fruitcider. And that goes for cologne and Rotherham as much as for the trans agenda.

That's another great post Hairy.

Just over a year ago I was one of the people reading MN and rolling my eyes at 'yet another tedious trans thread' and thinking that none of it affected me. Then I read a Trans thread that changed my opinion. The tone was bullying and aggressive. It came across very entitled and it was clear that MN has a very tough job managing this issue.
I was shocked by the tone of the thread and it led me to exploring the issues more closely. I still don't fully understand everything, I still can't argue my points very well but I strongly believe that this does affect all women and girls. And we can't allow ourselves to be silenced.

TBH Hairy, I think we just have commit to ourselvess and each other that we are not going to allow this shit and we are not going to shut up, despite the pressure from the TA's on one side and the virtue signallers/oh it's all so boring-ers on the other

YY Sodthe. Today's "Different View of the Spartacus Thread" post will have been some people's peak trans moment, I rather think. Happy to have those debates, as the entitlement and lack of concern for women came across loud and clear.

And yet you don't remember Nina? I'm peculiar. But you know the radfem in real life who set it up. Bull.shit.

I'm not even going to get into this. Yes I remember Nina. I don't however recall the behaviour you are on about. I remember her coming out and everyone saying she passed as a woman. I then remember a huugggeee transphobic debate about how men should not be allowed in the group. Perhaps I missed the threads you are referring to. I shall ask someone from ALW later.

Fruit, could you be more specific please? I don't see how labelling people and lumping them together (as RadFems, for example) shows empathy towards people as individuals. I have read many brilliant posts expressing empathy on these threads, and many by people saying they are not radical feminists but women cannot become men.

Honestly? There is a huge train of thought that gender critical feminism - euphemism for trans exclusive radical feminist. Denying the experiences of trans people is not liberal either.

Sorry if some find the links offensive.

http://transadvocate.com/gender-critical-feminism-the-roots-of-radical-feminism-and-trans-oppressionnn_14766.htm

http://uncommon-scents.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/a-terf-comes-clean-about-gender.html?m=1

If you want to read more on this topic, Google is your friend.

There's that first rule of misogyny again, that women are responsible for what men do.

There's that first rule of misogyny again, that women are responsible for what men do.
Good point. I am always amazed at how many people think this. Women are the root of all evil appatently

Who is denying the experiences of trans people (quote please)? Experience does not affect your chromosomes.

Plenty of people have said they are not radical feminists - their belief that people cannot change sex rests not on ideology or belief but on verifiable scientific fact, as found in any textbook. I am one such - I exist.

See, that's your problem Fruit - following other people's "huge trains of thought" and not doing any thinking for yourself. And it's pretty rich to accuse us of "denying trans people's experiences" when a) you've just ignored the women who tell you they are not radfems and b) the very essence of TA ideology wholly denies the material reality and lived experience of women.

There is a huge train of thought that us TERFS, as you so charmingly call us, should be raped, murdered and die in fires. It doesn't mean that it's a good train of thought. Critical thinking is not automatically hateful, can't you actually see how regressive that viewpoint is? 2 years ago I would NEVER have questioned trans ideology, because I didn't realise how harmful it was. I thought live and let live. I'm not motivated by anything other than a need to protect my own hard-won rights. Ideally a lot of us on here want to come to a middle ground with trans people - we want a solution that can accommodate the rights of everyone, without eroding the protections that women still desperately need. It is shameful of you to scold us in our efforts to do so. You seem to have absolutely nothing constructive to add whatsoever. Why are you here? To tell us what we've already heard a million times before? To play the hero? To feel superior? Why don't you help us find a solution, instead of slinging around insults that you know won't change our minds?

Fruit, I'm not suprised you clearly (as evidenced by your posts) don't understand what gender critical means if you're basing it on articles like that pile of shit. I scanned it quickly - it opens by simply asserting "Gender Critical Feminism (GCF) is a euphemism for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERF)", then goes on to argue that GCF (sic) posits some form of biological essentialism. No, no, no, that's the whole point that they've got back to front - gender critical views reject the idea that biology (which is binary, that's just how the world is - just like it's round and it goes round the sun) determines neat little bundles of personality traits that go with XX and XY chromosomes. The whole point of being gender critical is to point out that these bundles of personality traits (nurturing, good at languages, ...blah blah) are put together by social pressures, are culturally and historically variable (Medieval England - weaving is a man's job; 19th century Navajo society - weaving is a woman's job) and crucially, function as a mechanism of oppression.

In fact, if anything it is a certain subset of transactivists who are wedded to biological determinism - because unless there are such things as intrinsically feminine characteristics and/or lady-brains, there is no "normal gender" relative to which they can say "see, I really am a woman in the most important sense... my chromosomes are irrelevant."