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

@OscarDeLaYenta

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.

We think the face-to-face idea is a fairly sensible proxy for the level of courtesy and consideration that others could reasonably expect of us. Point taken that the reasons for being civilized in a face-to-face scenario aren't always straightforward, but broadly, I think the point stands.

9 times out of 10 I would use the right pronouns face to face simply out of respect and not liking to cause offense when it is not needed. The other 1 time in the 10..I would be tempted to use incorrect pronouns in the face of an obvious misogynistic arsehole capitalizing on the trans-movement but I probably still would for fear of said bloke slapping me down, physically.

Which again, brings me back to womens spaces...

OK. So, if both my immediate and subsequent safety could be guaranteed and I had ovaries of steel enough to get over my gendered socialisation that means I must not make a fuss and must not challenge, and if I could get over any residual shyness and lack of self confidence, then, yes, I would call an MTT 'he' in a face-to-face encounter.

Your post implies that I should extend courtesy to Danielle Muscato, and use the pronoun 'she' in face to face interactions. Really?!?!? I mean, really???

You misunderstand. This is not 'hiding behind the internet in order to be vile and hurtful', in which case the face-to-face test is of use. The fact that I and others may be more open on the internet and may express ourselves more openly and forcefully, is because in real life we may be genuinely scared of reprisal, which may include social exclusion, being sacked, or being physically attacked.

Oscar, hmm - I think my posts imply that as a general rule we want to promote courtesy and consideration, but also that case by case we'll look at the context and history.

I thought long and hard about whether to post this but I've been where many of you are now, I've been angered and frustrated by the language, I've wanted MNHQ to come out in solidarity. I've followed the transactivists around twitter, tumblr and reddit, I've read blog after blog about how transwomen are better than real women. I've ranted at the Women in Equality party, I've read the papers, puzzled over the notion of science vs feeling and I've been hounded and threated and silenced all over the internet.

What it led me to was a stark realisation that I had immersed myself so deeply in the transactivist world that their tactics had become ones that I was starting to use myself. It felt good to be angry, particularly knowing that I was on the right side. It felt good to shout back and to ridicule or humiliate. Fact won out everytime. Every woman agreeing with me felt like vindication. The reality was that I did nothing to help the cause of women on a larger scale and left others hurt in my wake.

Call me cis and I'll point out that I'd rather not be referred to as that and move on with the conversation. Ask me to misgender a transwoman simply to prove a point and I'll refuse to do it. It gains me nothing. Calling me cis does not hurt me - I refuse to play the TA game of exaggerated hyperbole and claim that it does. It suits the purpose of transactivism if we all focus on the pronoun thing. They are much better at drumming up sympathy, at creating and expanding falsehoods, at manipulating even those they claim to represent. It sucks us in and ties us up in knots . It leaves us focussing on the little stuff whilst the big stuff just passes us by. It gives them all the ammunition they need to point us out to the wider community as being violent, phobic extremists. Concentrating on pronouns makes us look bad, not them We're ignoring that they have handed us the ammunition we need to prove that they are deceitful and dangerous.

We'd achieve so much more IMO by

• pointing out that the suicide stats don't really reflect the true position
• pointing out that there is no definition of transgender and until there is, it is a term that cannot be used in discussion or legislation. Make the transactivists define themselves and in doing so, expose the very inconsistencies that they are taking advantage of.
• pointing out that the stats on violence are not reflective of the experience of the average white, able bodied man who transitions but an appropriation by them of stats relating to poor, transwomen of colour and mainly those involved in sex work. That particular combination of race, poverty, homophobia and sex work are what present the danger.
• refusing to allow those in government and the judiciary to fudge the difference between gender and sex. Make them commit. Our top Law Lords sent a case to Europe recently because they didn't think they could issue a judgement - and in stating this consistently mixed up the terms gender and sex.
• keeping the issue focused on women.
• not using transactivist tactics
• being aware that we're coming across badly - it's possible to be gender critical without being offensive.
• demonstrating why we have genuine concerns - not relying on the notion of the bathroom bogeyman. There is enough to be said about education, welfare, health, reproductive rights, employment and sport and the impact on women becoming invisible before we even get to the issue of physical spaces and separation.
• not demonising individual transwomen - even I have sympathy for someone held up to worldwide scrutiny and ridicule.

I don't expect you all to agree with me and indeed, I wouldn't want you to. Hearing a range of diverse opinions has enhanced my understanding of feminism and I'd wish the same opportunity to every woman. What I would like is for us to use the opportunity that MN gives us to move the discussion on before the discussion gets shut down. Because if we continue in the same vein, that's whats going to happen. We, and I've been as much a part of it as any one else, have alienated a significant portion of MN when we could have had them onside as allies, we could have had their voices supporting us, spreading support throughout their networks. If we carry on fighting about pronouns then it won't be transactivists that finally silence us, it will be other women.

Kate, i think my concern about the case by case approach is that I think it is possible that individual women including me, by being polite and respectful to other individuals, may have inadvertently damaged women's and children's rights. I feel bad about that. The cheery respectful personal can in this case add up to a toxic and confused political. And false balance (as in science journalism is an issue.). My internet has died so I am on my phone and not sure how coherent I am being!

Hearing a range of diverse opinions has enhanced my understanding of feminism

Bad form to quote myself, I know but you're one of them, Buffy. One of those diverse opinions and I thank you for it.

Lalsy, what I read in Blistory's post, which I really like, is that we can and should politely and respectfully strongly disagree. I think where many of us, including me irl, have gone wrong is in buying the (stereotypical!) assumption that the only way to be polite and respectful to someone is to avoid challenging their opinion, or at least, to do so only diffidently.

That has to change, and it'll be a challenge to do so with the right tone - but if not here, where?

Blistory Buffy
I wish there were more of you on MN. I have seen Buffy post before and have seen your recent posts Blistory. I have no desire to silence anyone. I simply hate to see posters piling in on one person.
I am also amazed to see so many threads about trans and not one about other items in the news eg.Nate Parker, despite the similarities with the Ched Evans case.

@Lalsy

Kate, i think my concern about the case by case approach is that I think it is possible that individual women including me, by being polite and respectful to other individuals, may have inadvertently damaged women's and children's rights. I feel bad about that. The cheery respectful personal can in this case add up to a toxic and confused political. And false balance (as in science journalism is an issue.). My internet has died so I am on my phone and not sure how coherent I am being!

Completely coherent Lalsy . I do take your point about socialisation and timidity in real life. Online though, I can't help feeling that the aim should be to get the rest of the world to match our civility, rather than us matching them for ferocity.

I'm going to head off now I'm afraid - not technically 'on' this w/e but will certainly catch up as soon as I can.

Kate thanks for the answer to my question, and I wish you a great weekend.

Sorry, I am reading with interest, I've done 2 long shifts in a row and have another one tomorrow, I have a raging ear infection and only got 2.5 hours sleep last night so going straight to bed. If I remember I'll respond to some points tomorrow, but what really jumped out at me was questions regarding my sex. I was born a female, and identify as female, but really, why are either of those points important? I already said up thread that I'm quite masculine with short hair, that doesn't make me neither male nor trans, and for a group of people that are arguing against male/female brain or that gender is a social construct, I find these questions of me quite interesting. Anyway, night!

My personal feelings - which may not reflect mnhq view, but...

In general conversation or when discussing individuals in the media - I'd include twitter transactivist types in this too - then I think it's reasonable for posters to use the pronouns and terms which reflect the posters view of that individual or group. However when we are talking to or about a specific MN poster then we should afford them the same courtesies as we would face to face. For me personally this means that the majority of the time I would use someone's chosen pronouns to be polite. In MN world that means that for individual posters like Ego, Miranda and Helen I will use the pronouns they request as I'm engaged in a direct conversation with them, albeit virtually, and wish to be polite.

But abstract celebrities and transactivists are a different matter and I will not call Ada Wells she.

Agree with Blistory. Think all of this round and round the pronoun mulberry bush isn't helping us achieve progress, although I'm on board with the frustration of it all.

I would add to her post that in RL I've found the most effective things to point out to spread the gender-critical word are the issues surrounding trans kids. I think when people stop thinking "each to their own", "live and let live" "this really doesn't affect my life" etc is mostly when they have to think about how these ideas about gender are impacting on very young children - how children as young as three are now being diagnosed with this "condition". This is certainly what worked for me, especially when I had a non gender-conforming child myself. Transgendertrend and 4thwave now have brilliant information and statistics here for anyone seeking more on this.

WRT to defining a transwoman (or man) this newly produced guide may be useful....

“Today, the HRC Foundation, the educational arm of the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) civil rights organization, and Whitman-Walker Health, a community health center with special expertise in LGBTQ and HIV-related care, released Safer Sex for Trans Bodies, a comprehensive sexual health guide for transgender and gender expansive people and their partners. The guide fills a significant gap in inclusive, publicly-available sexual health resources for transgender and gender expansive people."

hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.comfiles/assets/resources/Trans_Safer_Sex_Guide_FINAL.pdf (triggers a PDF download)

In this, the term trans is defined as:

"TRANS: Anyone and everyone who feels they are part of the transgender community, including folks who identify outside of the gender binary. Being trans does not necessarily mean that you have had surgery, want to transition or use specific pronouns. It’s all about how you understand yourself.”

It also helpfully defined a few other terms to avoid any confusion, for example:

FRONT HOLE: We use this word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina. A front hole may self-lubricate, depending on age and hormones.

VAGINA: We use this word to talk about the genitals of trans women who have had bottom surgery.”

Am I reading that right? Is a biological/born woman's vagina a 'front hole', demoted behind an artificially/surgically created pouch which is now a 'vagina' proper?

When I share some of the stuff that comes up on these threads with DH, he is always "WTF?" I think this gem might actually fritz his brain. That's quite some appropriation of language. Also, inaccurate. My front hole is my urethra/pee hole. My vag is the middle one. Way to go MTTs! I'm glad my 'birthing person' days are behind me, as I'd hate to have to squeeze a baby out of my urethra.

I like your post blistory. I swing between agreeing re: being respectful but then thinking that allowing things like cis/preferred pronouns has enabled encroachment onto other boundaries. Maybe things like the sporting stuff wouldn't have happened if women were more vocal about protecting their identity at first, rather than enabling the "a woman is anyone who says they are a woman". I feel like a lot of this stuff has happened by stealth and by manipulating women's desires to be accomodating.

Wait, am I reading the PDF right a front hole is an actual vagina - the one a woman is born with.

but a vagina is what transwomen have?

If that's right er... wtf?

Am I reading that right?

Yup. The guide makes quite interesting reading. As far as I can tell it is a legitimate guide by the "HRC Foundation, the educational arm of the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) civil rights organization, and Whitman-Walker Health, a community health center with special expertise in LGBTQ and HIV-related care". I thought at first it might have been written by TERFs to highlight the ridiculousness of some of these things, but no, it appears to be genuine (am happy to be corrected if I am being totally gullible)

Of course, on reflection the reason a woman's urethra doesn't even register is because it is of no interest to men - can't stick a dick in it.

How is dismissing biological fact helpful? Its basically pretending it doesn't not exist

I really hope it is fake because if that is real then that is a big part of the problem.

If that 'front hole' thing is real and not some sort of parody, I think I just reached a whole new level of peak trans.

Would any woman describe their genitals as a 'hole'? Sounds like the sort of thing said by particularly misogynist men. A front hole for fucking.

That is horrendous. Front hole, indeed!

I also agree with Blister. It's much more than being nice or smoothing over feelings or even taking the moral high ground. It's about communicating your points effectively.

I think it's important not to sneer about autogynophiles etc. That doesn't mean discounting autogynophilia as a possible explanation, just not positioning it as a laughable perversion. That doesn't help anyone and it simply alienates people.

Being gender critical means that we need to recognise that men are harmed by gender stereotypes too. Again, that isn't an 'oh what about the poor menz' position. It's to recognise that patriarchal gender stereotypes constrain us all. Contemporary transactivism is a deeply conservative (and problematic) response to this, but to dismiss it entirely is to miss the point and, in doing so, to fail to provide a robust response to logics that reinforce the gender binary and insist that those who don't conform must transition to the other side.