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 too appreciate the discussion. I can use he and she in plenty of non-insulting ways. I cannot think of a use of cis (to describe women) that doesn't insult women,, whatever the intention of the speaker. Can you?

I've seen posts in which people say they don't mind cis applied to themselves - I don't think all of them are intended to be inflammatory. If they lead to a rational discussion about why others find the term (and 'gender' as a whole) problematic, then that would seem to me to be a case where deletion isn't appropriate.

Kate, why aren't you prepared to say cis is only allowed if a poster is referring to them self? That seems a fairly easy to enforce rule

I agree that the term can be used in discussion (I've used it that way myself), but the distinction I would draw is in applying it to an individual (either a RL person or a MN pp) which can only IMHO be insulting, derogatory or inflammatory.

Actually, I would also agree that pp can use it without realising that so may of us find it so offensive: when you start dipping your toes into this murky water, it's not hard to come across lots of websites that use that terminology.

I've seen posts in which people say they don't mind cis applied to themselves

Followed up by a bunch of 'everyone should be called whatever they want to be called' though, right? Thats honestly the only time I have seen cis mentioned besides insulting. Cis is designed to shut down any discussion by making people think that these 'cis' people just dont 'get it'.

However I would support the same kind of 'rule' tbh. Where it is deleted and such if its obvious it is being used as an insult or an attempt to shut down meaningful convo.

its evident from the Spartacus threads that people do learn from MN threads - there are quite a lot of people saying they've changed their stance over the years. Someone may use cis innocently enough, having picked it up uncritically elsewhere. Better to educate than delete in that case? (Ive been on the receiving end of education here and I am grateful for it)

Kate a thank you from me for you rejoining the debate and answering some questions and follow ups.

I get really hurt and offended and incredibly worried by many things which transactivists say and believe. It's clear that the strategy they have been pursuing is that of 'the squeaky wheel gets the most oil'. And it's been successful: I am certainly too scared to debate these topics anywhere outside MN. So, within MN, my strategy now needs to be to follow theirs and I will start complaining and reporting about everything that hurts and offends me. So misgendering - i.e. calling men women when they are not, the use of the word cis, demands for MTT to access women's spaces, recommending early transition for children: all of these are red rags to me now.

But one question if I may: these debates are wrongly named (as so much else is within this sphere) trans issues. They are not - they are all about women's rights being threatened. Can we please make sure that MNHQ don't decide to create a trans section to put them in, as actually, we need to be able to air issues of threats to women's rights to all members of MN?

Cis is a get in your box! Word

I have never seen it used differently.

Also agree that a couple of posters have referred to themselves as cis. Fair enough but to blanket a hole bunch of other people cis is offensive.

What about breeder? If someone comes on and calls us breeders is that ok? Because I sure breeder was a word full of hate too, although technically could be true as most of us have bred.

hermiones point is good

"As a cis woman i believe...." Is fine

"Cis women believe..." Not so fine

"You cis women all think the same..." Really not fine at all

Cis to me is similar to retard. A word with a scientific usage, and a history of 'legitimate' use, but one which used now to refer to a person, is nothing but derogatory. If I am a ciswoman I accept that there are categories of women aside from those with female chromosomes and sex organs (ie men who 'identify' as women or who have had surgery) - the term cis, cis woman, cis sexist, cis fucking privilege - all terms designed to keep us in our place as some sort of subset. Fuck that, I am a woman, cis should have no place on mumsnet.

Yy. And as with similar words it is okay to use about yourself, but never about others.
I can describe myself as crippled. No one else can.

Kate, why aren't you prepared to say cis is only allowed if a poster is referring to them self? That seems a fairly easy to enforce rule

I would expect (and I'm not defending) that until now they (mumsnet and Kate) haven't really given it proper thought or had the time to digest everything fully. Plus that female socialisation means we must must must come to conclusions slowly, always give the benefit of the doubt, and come to conclusions softly. Then there's juggling a neutral, welcoming, message board and trying to please advertisers (which sex has the money again?).

It took me 18 months to reach the point where I can voice my opinions anonymously, I still don't have the strength to do it publically because I'm afraid of losing IRL friends who work in associated fields. It's a very divisive issue, easy is anonymous, not so if you've got funding (and therefore your job) to lose.

I would softly remind Kate and mumsnet that no oppressed class, including women, have won anything without solidarity. I would like to remind posters that capitalism generally favours the people with money and power as a class (males), mumsnet operates in a capitalist framework and gas very little wiggle room.

Apologies for typos in advance. On phone.

I agree that people should be able to use cis to describe themselves (and be challenged politely on what that means for women and for clarity of debate). Given its only meaning in this context, I don't understand why it is ever ok to use it to describe other people (unless they have said it is ok) or a group of people. Seems to me the same as the n word, breeder, tranny etc etc.

If MNHQ's stance on this matter has allowed us, as women, to have this discussion, to educate and support each other and if it has given us an opening to influence other women, I'd say it's been successful to date.

For all the open criticism aimed at them for not taking the side of women, I would imagine that they've had plenty more off screen criticism from those who refer to posters on these threads as vile and transphobic.

The confirmation that they'll take context into account instead of blanket bans suits my purposes but I appreciate that others want a more definitive statement of support.

I'm not going to have my ability to use sexed language correctly in order to express my position curtailed. The hypothetical situation where is 'does not go my way' meaning I am not able to correctly use pronouns is both absurd and abhorrent.

@WorkingItOutAsIGo

These debates are wrongly named (as so much else is within this sphere) trans issues. They are not - they are all about women's rights being threatened. Can we please make sure that MNHQ don't decide to create a trans section to put them in, as actually, we need to be able to air issues of threats to women's rights to all members of MN?

Working, there are no plans for this currently - and this isn't the kind of thing we'd do unless there was a pretty broad consensus in favour.

Apart from anything else, I would say that banning blanket use of cis for "all of you people" is pro-trans. Because it acknowledges that the audience does not just consist of "cis" women especially those who have done the sage test but of transmen, transwomen, agender/genderfluid and even great big meany TERFs.

??

krop while it's true to say that men have more money than women, women are responsible for something like 80% of consumer spending decisions in the UK. That's why advertisers love the site and give products away free for us to try.

Transactivists threatening a boycott would be bad PR for a company. Women and mothers taking their spending away would be a disaster. The US retailer Target has lost market share and their share price has dropped on the back of their support for Trans issues over the women who (used to) shop there.

MN's sponsors and advertisers would want them to back the hundreds of women who signed the Spartacus thread, no question.

Can I ask - it was sort of hinted at being a possibility - are there any "links" between mn and mermaids (or similar organisations)?

Having said that I agree entirely with BeyondASpecialSnowflake. The conclusion I have come to is that cis* is much like retard. Had legitimate usage once-upon-an-epoch but is used mainly as a shut down. "Stay in your place, get back in your box" get-up. It serves to silence, much in the same way as "What are you saying WOMAN?!" of times gone by.

@BeyondASpecialSnowflake

Can I ask - it was sort of hinted at being a possibility - are there any "links" between mn and mermaids (or similar organisations)?

No, none at all, Beyond.

Thank you, that is reassuring

MNHQ - you still haven't explained the relevance of whether I would 'misgender' an MTT to their face. Nor addressed the risk of violence this may involve and why this is of no account.

So Oscar just to clarify you have no theoretical issue calling a transwoman "he" within their hearing, but in reality you have very sensible fear if male violence.

I.e. you would not call them "she" out of respect, or belief they are a woman, but out of fear?

A good point I think. In the safe confines of MNHQ I will happily call a TW he, in real life I would be too scared of repercussions, even though I still think it is the correct pronoun.