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

It's a bit like the incessant trigger warnings (and demands for warnings) for everything, to the point where it's become meaningless cos you've no idea which trigger they're warning about. I don't think it's reasonable to expect strangers to moderate their speech to avoid upsetting you - within the bounds of reason, I don't mean go around insulting people but I'm rather sick of people saying we shouldn't talk about certain things, use certain words, etc in the course of reasonable conversation.

The idea that it's necessary to be as nice when talking about men in a group by and for women as it is when talking to their faces (with the fear of violence and retribution that entails) is an incredible slap in the face to every woman here.

We should probably only talk about abusers with words we'd use to their faces, too, right?

I too dislike the word cis and feel very opposed politically and personally to it's mainstream acceptance and it's use as a label for me against my will. It doesn't hurt me to hear it used, though maybe this will change the more cisscum is thrown at me. I dunno.

I previously (maybe a couple of years now) felt saying the n word in a discussion is different from using it against someone but was told by a black woman who has had the word used against her all her life that seeing/hearing it caused the same painful reaction for her. I accepted her lived experience and feelings on this and immediately edited what I'd written to semi censor the word. Seeing it written here reminded me of that encounter. I didn't report the post because I think if I speak directly to Olennas and she reports herself it isn't censoring or going over her head but trying to amicably discuss things and come to mutual understanding. Thanks for agreeing to ask MNHQ for an edit.

It's not that I don't accept her lived experience , it's that I feel that we are now getting to the stage where many people feel they have the right to try and censor what other people say and how they use language. I'm not talking about actual insults. I appreciate that you're talking about a specific phrase which has a long and horrid history but actually we're seeing exactly the same phrasing, that certain words/expressions cause a painful reaction, used by the TA lobby to shut down discussions on all manner of topics because the phrasing used is somehow "triggering"

Note, I'm in no way trying to belittle your friend's experience or feelings, just explaining that I'm coming to a point where I feel that there's a constant push to moderate the language used in the course of discussion and I'm not sure it's right or helpful.

Oh, I agree blanket bans on words are counterproductive but there ought to be an equal playing field. If I cannot misgender someone, I will find another way to say what I mean.

If Cis is allowed then I will cop it and have to disregard my opposition to it even though around only 0.6 percent of the adult population are dictating those rules to the majority.

At the risk of being banned- after 7 yrs of living with my ex and listening to their side of things I do know that Autogynephilia was part of their makeup. I saw it every day. There are numerous sites that talk about why that term is considered embarrassing. and how to embrace it.

Accepting who a person is should not come with censorship and labeling. I am aware that Trans is an umbrella term,not everyone has the same ideas on what part of the spectrum they are on. Some people go on to change their initial ideas and realise they are neither one nor the other.

That leaflet

I'm trying to find the words for how wrong it is to mangle language like that. If someone has such a visceral hatred for their own body that they can't stand to hear the word vagina, that person needs help, not some linguistic coddling. A woman who thinks "front hole" (a hole is an absence, a gap, a nothing) is a better word than "vagina" (an organ) is saying something profound and disturbing about her sexuality, and how she views women. Such terrible misogyny. I don't think you do that hypothetical trans man, or women in general any favours by bowdlerising away their anatomy.

Jesus Christ, it's given me the shivers. There's something porn soaked and sick and so hateful about women's anatomy being reduced to (not even anatomically correctly identified) holes. That's before we even start on the issue that vaginas now properly belong to men!

Blistory, really enjoyed your post earlier. And KateMumsnet thanks for the thoughtful engagement. While I would prefer a stronger statement in solidarity with women, I understand the difficulties. Is there any intention at MNHQ to make any sort of policy statement at any time?

I'd never really thought about this stuff until reading about it here a couple of years ago. My general stance is live and let live. However, this extends to everyone, including women, which is the bit that seems to get missed off repeatedly and consistently.

I don't see women as being not-men and I doubt very many women do. Men might see women as not-men and assume they can just join the not-men as and when they decide they don't want to be in the men category. That's my understanding of the sentiment behind how things seem at the minute, I don't get the impression the bulk of transactavists want to really be women, they don't appear to want to stand in solidarity with women anyway.

I don't understand why someone would want to be a woman anyway if they didn't have to be one. Currently accepted gender norms regarding makeup, dress, jobs, emotions etc could be challenged and changed over a few years if people want more choice, this would be positive for all people. Not to trivialise but many people feel that their body is wrong and needs changing to be right, I feel this is perhaps part of the human condition.

makeslogicalsensetome2 your posts really resonate with me.

The problem I have with challenging psychologists and psychiatrists, etc, with clear clam reason is that they just don't listen, they brand you resistant and a bigot for now going along with the current dogma. I've found one Dr that listens to me and has the same concerns about TAs pushing their agenda. What needs to happen is a revolution in the psych community.

That document is typical of the trans literature, the authors are so wrapped up in their trans centric lives and inventing the most correct narrative, that they don't realise that by not being offensive or triggering to trans people, that the are offending the majority of the population. As for a penis being called a 'strapless', words fail me. Complete doublespeak, so a lesbian transwomen with a penis would have a strap-on that's strapless?!

KateMumsnet thank you for confirming that you have no ties with Mermaids. However, have they ever lobbied Mumsnet? Not that you can probably answer that!

That document is typical of the trans literature, the authors are so wrapped up in their trans centric lives and inventing the most correct narrative, that they don't realise that by not being offensive or triggering to trans people

I swear this must isolate them further because it makes the words taboo/wrong and triggering.

As a parent of a child who wanted to transition. Do you feel the failure to use the correct medical terminology made things worse?

I still stand my previous argument that Trans people need support accepting the biology they have - and using the right terms - along with support to help them transition to living as the person they feel they are.

I found the literature and doctrine impossible to argue with, especially with a teenager. It's a relatively new 'science' (sorry couldn't think of a better word!), so the rules are still being written, mainly based on assumption that's based on personal experience rather than studies.

For my daughter the logical conclusion to if you feel female you are female, therefore, if you have a penis it's a female penis. She did struggle with the opposite though - a vagina could never be a male vagina. To my knowledge these terms weren't around when she wanted to transition. If they were I think it would have heightened her lack of dissonance with being female. It would be one more layer of misinformation to dismantle.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent science, therapy, psychology practice? yes, studies are needed. annecdotal evidence is a bit wishy washy. Implies transition is a cure but clearly some trans people are still unhappy with their outcome.

That's interesting about the vagina issue for her. It's what my once trans friend said too. He couldn't figure out that argument/logic. I think you are right. It is misinformation and that leaflet is terrible especially coming from a medical centre.

Reassigning a woman's vagina as a "front hole" tells you everything you need to know about the misogyny rampant in the trans movement. It reveals that 1) they have no understanding of female biology because as others have said, the urethra is actually first 2) also a vagina is not a "hole" 3) the see the vagina's purpose as nothing but a "hole" to be fucked

Revolting

Even if you didn't start as a misogynist, you would be after constantly being exposed to this hate filled garbage.

Reassigning a woman's vagina as a "front hole"

But they aren't doing that. They are referring to trans mens vaginas. NOT womens.

I will never refer to my vagina as a front hole. But they are not asking for that. People either have mistakenly or are deliberately misquoting or misunderstanding the purpose of this text, which was for trans people to talk about safe sex in terms that they are comfortable with.

People either have mistakenly or are deliberately misquoting or misunderstanding the purpose of this text, which was for trans people to talk about safe sex in terms that they are comfortable with. as said up thread. It is great they are doing what they can to be inclusive. BUT These terms are then expected to be used by everyone else. This causes confusion. If the general population doesn't use these terms then they are labelled transphobic and not inclusive.

Take the feminist gathering 'night of 1000 vaginas' and the controversy that caused. www.salon.com/2014/01/31/the_fight_over_the_v_word/

Should we really rename that even 'night of a 1000 front holes'?

The cupcake incident mentioned several pages back. Should that have been an 'ice your own front hole' event because Activists kicked up a fuss about vagina apparently not being inclusive.

BUT These terms are then expected to be used by everyone else.

Are they though?

The fact this tiny minority need disgustingly offensive language used towards half the population to be "comfortable" is worrying at best

Yes. There is a growing expectation that these terms are used. For the majority of it it is aimed a women's events and spaces.

I've yet to see and article attacking a male event that uses dick, cock or penis or other term referring to male genitals as being exclusionary to transmen.

If you have, please share a link. I want to know if this is affecting men and women equally but from when I am standing I can only see this attacks on women and women's events and spaces and its almost all around vagina being used :/

The pronouns, and even wheat individuals like to call their bits (I find 'flower' really quite upsetting ), are just red herrings. Or smokescreen - something to get het up about, while quite easily forgetting the wider issues.

Vociferous and aggressive TA are a small minority within the TS community which is itself are are small subset of society. While I wish individuals well and in my RL contact with transpeople am not in the least 'phobic' about them (stupid phrase, anyway), it still puzzled me how they have become so visible/audible. I now one FTM person who is very angry about the language and methods used and does NOT feel represented. Now, I know that the plural of anecdote does not data make, but FFS - lets fight for Women's Rights and a better world for everybody, including trans people without a TA agenda trampling over everything else.

NB I have learnt SO much beyond my previous wishy-washy, vaguely lefty-liberal feminism on MN, won't name names, but you know who you are

Some terminology is a red herring but if the perceived 'wrong' terminology is used and then that Is the basis to attack an event then it does become important. Surely? Claiming things are phobic for any reasons is another way to shut down a debate.

When women's groups in particular are faced with this the negative impact means that they often end up cancelling events and that does bugger all for women's or trans rights and they have been events that are open to all women and transpeople.

I have been wondering myself why they TRAs have gotten so popular/have such a seemingly loud voice over feminists give they are a minority of around 1% maybe less? It's very disproportionate and certainly have to agree the TRAs don't represent the people I know.

There's an overwhelming push by the trans lobby to erase women. It's this that will impact women, legal language, legal frameworks which makes women's spaces a thing of the past. The desire for trans validity as the opposite sex is currently outweighing the desire to protect women and girls.

It's like everyone is convinced women hold all the power and are harming and oppressing transwomen by saying we are biologically different.

It's so close to MRA shit it's untrue.

Are they though

Yes, I think so.

Doctors would need to use "front hole" to a female patient to avoid being offensive, and vagina to a male

People sleeping with a transman would need to use "front hole" to avoid being offensive, or if a transwoman vagina.

Any body discussing these issues would need to use the "correct" terminology to avoid being seen as transphobic

Meanwhile vagina loses its meaning, appropriated by the TRAs

It's deliberately using language to obfuscate reality, to crate a new reality that if you don't agree to you are transphobic, a new reality that erases women.

Its pretty bloody scary.

But they aren't doing that. They are referring to trans mens vaginas. NOT womens

A transman is a woman.

"They are referring to transmen's vaginas. NOT women's"

As you aptly said above, transmen's vaginas are still vaginas. That is the name of that organ and if it were in Prince Charles, it would be still called a vagina.

I see changing pronouns and the reclassification of sexual organs, not as a smokescreen, more the tip of the ice berg.

It's deliberately using language to obfuscate reality, to crate a new reality that if you don't agree to you are transphobic

This I totally agree with, because there's no proven scientific evidence, language is all there is.

Are we expected to use the terms? Maybe not at the moment, I think that document comes from a group lobbying for change. We were certainly expected to different terms when talking to our daughter.

There may only be a small number of vocal TAs, but there are certainly a rapidly growing number of children identifying as trans. The number referred to the Tavisock has doubled in the last year, and that's just those referred. We live in a small town and my daughter had a group of 14 friends who all identified as trans, only 2 of which had been referred. They all expected the correct language to be used. We found that using the preferred pronouns did more harm than good. The more they were used, the more ingrained they became. The shame of going back to female pronouns probably gave an extra year of issues.