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

Thank you for the clarification Kate. I was one of those seeing reassurance about stating facts or discussing evidence and I welcome what you have said. The previous statement suggested reasoned or fact based posts could be deleted if they might upset people or put them off, hence the debate about hypothetical parents. I really value MN and support guidelines that apply equally to all subJects

Kate, thanks for the reply. I understand how hard it is to 'lay down the law' as it were on certain sensitive subjects and I do think you have done well to clarify a few positions with that post. I am part of an admin team on another forum and our stance (as decided by site owner) is misgendering is automatically a ban, no matter the circumstances and 'transphobia' (meaning, pointing out biology or refusing to agree that a transwoman IS indeed a woman) also equal a ban. I have to uphold this when moderating and it fucking annoys me as I disagree with it entirely. So I assume that posts made by MNHQ are not necessarily the views of the people behind the posts, if that makes sense. Its just a catchall that has to happen. I also understand the various legal challenges you get as a forum in whole. Our forum is about 1/10th of the size of here and we get requests almost daily to remove stuff and messages about how posts are actually breaking the law. What members often do not realise is that the content you chose to allow to remain CAN actually cause serious issues for the site as a whole. Seeing this from both sides, thanks for allowing discussion to still be had which is unlike the stance of ANY other place I can think of. This is a start.

Same post minus typos and a couple of additions

And I agree about pronouns and erosion. Again, there is a difference between private everyday discourse and more serious debate in a public and contested space. I will call most people what ever they like if we are having a friendly chat. But i do want the language to describe a situation clearly and to distinguish between sex and gender.

Oscar, I think we'd take look at all these things the context of the rest of the discussion. We'd be thinking about whether you'd say it to Paris Lee's face were the discussion taking place in real life - and about whether you were saying it over and over again to inflame, or as part of a reasoned calm discussion of why you believe that, and why you believe it's important.

Thank you Kate. I do understand how difficult this is for you, and I am sincerely grateful that mumsnet does offer one of the few public spaces on the internet where these issues can be discussed.

MNHQ I too would like clarification on the examples posed by Oscar

I still think the supporting all parents is a fudge. Nobody cares if anti vaccine parents or pro circumcision parents get their arses handed to them, get told they're committing child abuse etc.

Why is it this one specific topic where facts can be deleted if "inflammatory" and opinion must be censored ?

Isn't the 'would you say it to their face?' test a rather dangerous one, given that the more violent and unreasonable someone is likely to be, the less likely you would be to say it to their face? Whereas if they are smaller than you and non-violent you can be as aggressive as you want to them. In other words, it's always going to end up with a tendency to kowtow to men and let people be as rude as they want to women.

Also, you would never use pronouns to someones face anyway...

I doubt I'd say it to PL's face, cos I think he'd probably deck me! [wimp emoticon].

I've explained in great detail over these threads why I would say, why I would continue to say it, why I will not say 'she' or 'they' for that matter, and why firstly 'feelings' do not trump accurate use of language, and secondly why I fail to see why it is more important that an MTT's feelings are not hurt through accurate use of language, than my feelings are hurt and my reality is diminished and eroded through the propagation of a lie. If people's feelings are inflamed by the truth, it's actually not down to me to tell a lie to make them happy again.

Ada J Wells would, one presumes from past actions, be happy to tell me to my face that I'm a bigoted, cis-gendered TERF who needs to check my privilege. Just because someone is prepared to say it in person, doesn't make it part of reasonable discourse (though I appreciate the point about not allowing people to hide behind their keyboards to make offensive statements).

Still silence on whether MN understand why so many of us here find the term "cis" so offensive, BTW. Just repeating the talk guidelines on misgendering doesn't show any real consideration of the point we are trying to make

@HermioneWeasley

Nobody cares if anti vaccine parents or pro circumcision parents get their arses handed to them, get told they're committing child abuse etc.

Why is it this one specific topic where facts can be deleted if "inflammatory" and opinion must be censored ?

Actually I don't think that's true. We'd definitely delete a post saying you're a child abuser to someone who circumcised their child.

Actually I don't think that's true. We'd definitely delete a post saying you're a child abuser to someone who circumcised their child.

I'm pretty sure you let posts saying non-medical circumcision is child abuse stand (not to a specific poster)

Would you let a general statement that transing a child is child abuse stand?

Yeah - I joked about not saying it to PL's face, but given the death and rape threats that TA's routinely make to women who won't play by their warped rules, I think you are being massively unfair in expecting my to (even hypothetically) state that yes, I would say 'he' to a potentially violent MTT's face. Do you want me to say that I would tell Tara Hudson that he is a he? You want me to agree that I would be prepared to put myself at risk like that? Nice. Really nice.

Actually I don't think that's true. We'd definitely delete a post saying you're a child abuser to someone who circumcised their child.

OK this kinda leads me to a question..does your stance mean it is unacceptable to say that willingly leading a child towards a life of endless hormones and surgery..would be against guidelines? Or posters saying using puberty blockers and such is also child abuse? As this is a view shared by every one I know in real life, and everyone I know online alike, including a fair few transsexual people. I cannot see any way which it would NOT be child abuse, when the other solution is allowing your little boy to wear a dress if he wishes so? A parent who opts for hormones and surgery for a phase he may well grow out of, IS abusing said child IMO. Sorry if this offends anyone btw, but it is my very firm opinion that will never change.

The thing is as well he/she isn't some sort of value judgement, it's just the correct pronoun applied to a particular sex. It's not really correct to describe it as misgendering as it's about sex not gender. I don't appreciate males appropriating "she"

Am happy to use other pronouns though eg ze and zir would that be acceptable MNHQ?

I found this report on LGBT/HIV+ violence really interesting in the context of the importance of language to describe - and therefore address - a problem.

One of the major flaws in the data collection (acknowledged by the authors) is that in asking victims of crime their gender identity, they allowed them to select multiple gender identities - so we have the slightly farcical situation where a report designed to analyse hate crime against LGBT/HIV+ individuals is hampered in its ability to do so because of suggesting that it's possible to have multiple gender identities

@OlennasWimple

Ada J Wells would, one presumes from past actions, be happy to tell me to my face that I'm a bigoted, cis-gendered TERF who needs to check my privilege.

Alas, we've got no power or control over how others behave either in real life or elsewhere on the internet, but we can and do try to ensure that Mumsnet is a place where courtesy and reasoned debate is the norm.

@OlennasWimple

Still silence on whether MN understand why so many of us here find the term "cis" so offensive, BTW. Just repeating the talk guidelines on misgendering doesn't show any real consideration of the point we are trying to make

We do understand, I think/hope. And to reassure, we'll be applying the same process to cis - ie passing it through the filter of our TGs, asking about the intention and the sentiment rather than blanket-banning any particular word or expression.

WankingMonkey We'd deffo delete if that were directed at an individual. I think a more general statement is different - but again, it would depend (sorry) on the tone and the context.

KateMumsnet
thanks for responding.
⛵

Fair enough kate

WankingMonkey We'd deffo delete if that were directed at an individual. I think a more general statement is different - but again, it would depend (sorry) on the tone and the context.

OK thank you. I would of course never say TO someone who comes on with their child having gender identity problems who is considering hormones and such that they are abusing their child. That is unnecessary and mean and definitely inflammatory. If this hypothetical person came on though I may show empathy with their position and point them in the direction of some other sites/blogs and such that I would hope would change their decision of going down the surgery route with a preteen. Assuming that would be ok, given guidelines.

I would however make my views clear (harshly if needed) on a general news issue about the matter.

Again, thanks for actually answering. I know how much work it must have taken to reach a 'catchall' decision on something so delicate.

Kate MNHQ - re Oscar's examples on referring to Ada Wells, Danielle Muscato etc as 'he':

"why you believe that, and why you believe it's important."

"Why" is easy to answer: Because they are male and especially in Danielle's case, because this is as obvious as possibly can be. Because, at least as I have been taught, human males are referred to as 'he' in the English language.

Suspension of disbelief and pretension is extremely difficult for some of us, and not just in this subject. It is positively brainhurty to have to say "her penis" or "her beard", or to refer to someone who is an intact male and prefers to present to the world in a beard, suit, and tie as a "she".

WHY? I would really like to understand the purpose of asking us to pretend that these people are female, if that is indeed what you want.

@CoteDAzur

WHY? I would really like to understand the purpose of asking us to pretend that these people are female, if that is indeed what you want.

Hmm - i think what I was trying to get across in my first post is that we're not making blanket demands about anything. We're going to judge (as tbh we've always done) case by case, looking at the tone and context - ie whether it's intended to inflame or is part of a reasoned discussion about the issue.

Kate, sorry I have asked this before but can you give an example of a sentence using cis that doesn't stereotype, diminish or insult women? I have yet to see one.