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 would say woman, transwoman, man and transman. Does that not cover it.

It does for me winchester. Unfortunately "cis" is the tip of the iceberg, when you look at the misogyny levelled at women by quite mainstream parts of the trans community - witness the safe sex leaflet that said trans women have vaginas but women have "front holes"

It's pretty horrifying once you start looking

But that is exactly how it's being used, to say that biological sex matches perception of gender identity. And many of us object to that because we don't really believe in a gender identity. We say we're women because we are in a physical and chromosomal sense - not assigned at birth btw, that term has been appropriated from intersex individuals - but that who we are is just our own personality and not about fitting in to a box on the socially constructed gender binary

It is pure misogyny isn't it. We're moving back to stiff gender boundaries, how many people are going to be worried if their girl likes to climb trees, then try to socialise her according to society's strict rules. Where does this leave butch lesbians or effeminate men, or just people who want to experiment.

Need to have a proper read and catch up after a busy weekend, but did hq address the "no one has been banned for misgendering"/posie situation?

I've been wondering if this is the early, difficult time for breaking down gender and sex stereotypes. So many young people obviously not happy with the status quo. Maybe a journey where in the near future people won't be pressurised to conform to stereotypes or be consigned to a box. Maybe we need to go through this to get there.

Housemouse I'm sorry you had to see the ignorance of someone like Fruit.

Those who claim to be standing up for sex workers are only doing so for the minimal percentage who are content with their work, not the 80-90% who are destitute, trafficked, suffering from addiction or all three. The idea that radical feminists seek to marginalise these women further rather than liberate them is the result of the most deplorable misogynistic propaganda.

I am really starting to get fed up with some of the funfems and their wishy-washy ideas about "empowerment" rather than wholesale liberation. I read somewhere that radical feminists want to get rid of all the shit women have to deal with - funfems want to spray perfume on the shit and call it a flowerbed. It seems pretty apt to me.

Laura Maybe there'll be a better word or phrase someday for "sex assignation at birth matches this individual's perception of what their gender identity is"

That's the issue, most people have no perception of what their gender is. They simply have not spent the time gazing at their naval to reach a conclusion. They just are. The more gender is defined the narrower the parameters become and so more people fall outside them.

If there was a study, I'd imagine a lot of people with gender dysphoria would be found to be obsessive thinkers.

LumpySpacedPrincess my own DC is struggling because people have been critical of his choice to knit saying its a 'girls thing' it's taken all summer and proof of fishermen making jumpers (sharing the pic because it's ace) just to get him back doing something he loves.
He hates contact sports too so joins in with the girls who skip or the very few boys who play D&D. He's called a girl often. This language isn't just coming from kids but parents too.

I want to know why it's even a problem what children choose to do? :(

Also I found this on Twitter.

You aren't breaking down any stereotypes Bambini. You are reinforcing them. That much must be obvious to you at least.

What happens now re-inforces the stereotypes by enshrining the female deal as feminine, curvy, made up, heels. So many MTT talking about how being a woman is all about shoes, feeling pretty and so on.

With young children you have the my boy likes dolls and dresses and dance, therefore he must be "born in the body".

It pinkifies and glorifies the "high heel woman" image, which is nothing but a stereotype.

LauraRoslin Sex isn't assigned at birth unless the infant is intersex and/or has ambiguous genitals. It is observed. This assignation terminology has been taken from intersex circles, and been used by trans activists in order to encourage the (false) idea that biological sex is fluid, or a social construct.

It's usually easy to tell at a glance what sex to assign someone to at birth, yes, but that doesn't stop it being an assignation.

No because having particular genitals doesn't make you that sex does it (according to the New Truth). They have literally nothing to do with it, according to TRA.

It's a statement of scientific fact, not an assignation surely!

An assignation means that you're somehow giving or setting the sex at birth. That's not what happens. Sex is determined or observed, not assigned. I couldn't have been assigned male at birth, because my sex is female. Sometimes mistakes are made in the observation, like in the case of some intersex individuals, but that doesn't mean that in general sex is assigned.

I disagree, Laura. Assignation implies that the person 'assigning' decides whether the assigned person is one, or the other. Which is not the case, when sex is noted at birth.
When sex is noted/recognised/observed at birth in infants with unambiguous genitals, it is an acknowledgement of whether an infant has a penis (such infants being of the male sex, not by assignation but by virtue of their genitals,) or whether the infant has a vulva (such infants being of the female sex, not by assignation but by virtue of their genitals.)
Assignation is entirely misleading, unless one is also assigned blonde, assigned short-sighted, and assigned freckled. In which case the word "assign" is being used incorrectly.

I hate the term "sex assigned at birth", there is no such assignment except in very unusual cases.

You can't assign something that's there.

It's not assigned, it's identified. You're not given a sex, you have one already. Assigned at birth is a term co opted from trans individuals where sex is ambiguous and so one is effectively chosen. For the vast vast majority of people sex is merely observed.

How is it 'assigned'?

genitalia are physical and easily observed attributes in relation to ones chromosomes and a good, long recognised (we're talking millennia and in many instances across species) indicator of what a body can do - eg become pregnant or produce sperm.

Males will have XY chromosomes that lead to them developing in utero with a penis. Being observed and recorded post birth as 'male' is simply stating you have a penis. Your chromosomes will be XY and in order to have babies you will produce sperm.

Assigned implies its a choice 'you can be X or Y'. It's not a choice. It is what it is. You are X or you are Y. Your body can only do X or Y. There is no Inbetween there is no way to change this. We are not gobies and we are not clownfish (both species than can change their sex. It's a fascinating ability)

It's only in very rare cases a choice is made and only then will it be made after further careful observations and tests because the initial observations were not as expected. this is done to ensure that the outcome is right for that child. That is the only instance sex is assigned because it's not initially clear and further examinations give a clearer picture.

Removing one of those physical and easily observes attributes - a penis through SRS or a womb through a hysterectomy - does not change biological fact.

This fact has nothing at all to do with gender, a persons preferred dress, outward appearance and/or sexuality.

A gay man will still have XY chromosomes, be born with a penis and will need to produce sperm in order to have children in the same way a straight or bisexual man will and the same way a transwoman will. They are all male but across the spectrum that is 'gender' they all have a place as biological males.

I don't know. Maybe there'll be a better word or phrase someday for "sex assignation at birth matches this individual's perception of what their gender identity is". It's happened with other concepts.

Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish those with an XX/XY chromosome and who consider themselves to be a woman/man, from those with an XX/XY chromosome but who consider themselves to be a man/woman, and from those who do not consider themselves to be either men or women (whatever their chromosome is).

For such times cis tells you straight away that the person is not trans, not non-gender binary, etc etc. OK it doesn't tell you why the person considers themselves to be a man or woman, whether this is because they subscribe to the view that a man/woman is someone with such and such chromosome, which they have, or because they have someother sense of being whichever one, but it still neatly distinguishes them from trans/non gender binary etc folk.

Problem is, any "better" term will just come up against the same opposition from those who do not want to accept that there are other opinions on what makes an individual a man or a woman, than the one they subscribe to. It will be suppressed, declared offensive, and so on and so forth.

There are a huge number of attributes that only a minority of people have. We don't require words meaning the absence of each of those attributes.

We don't, but if the concept is going to be discussed with any regularity - and one's gender identity being in concordance with one's birth sex is certainly a concept that is discussed regularly when it comes to transgender issues - it's helpful to have a word for the concept.

(Analogous examples: "heterosexual" with respect to gay rights issues, or "neurotypical" with respect to autistic spectrum discussion.)