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

Being gender critical is not the same as discriminating against trans people. Objecting to the hate speech and violent threats of TRAs is not discriminating against trans people. As Buffy pointed out so eloquently in another thread, gender critical thinking can't occupy the same ground as transgender thinking in that the two fundamentally disagree on the central concept but that doesn't mean that by disbelieving the concept of internal gender identity you are discriminating against trans people. The accusation of transphobia and hatred is being used over and over to shut down important conversations. TRAs online are using horrendously offensive insults and threats; of course this is met with anger. It doesn't mean we all hate trans people, but we can hate the extremist ideology that espouses a penis can be female and thus a lesbian declining sexual contact with it is a transphobe who must receive death threats. Objecting to that is not the same as discriminating against trans people. And when people dismiss all of the threads full of passionate debate by stating that they are 'shocked by the hatred for trans people' - those people are quite deliberately missing the point and trying to silence legitimate concerns and worries.

This is a debate with strong feelings and it will be impossible to avoid all offence on either side. We are all treading a fine line which sometimes some of us will overstep. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be having the conversation at all.

Radical feminism means radical as in "getting to the root of". It doesn't mean "extremist" or "nutty as a fruitloop". And gender critical roughly means "accepting of the idea that gender is a socially constructed, socially enforced set of beliefs about appropriate social roles arbitrarily attached to people of one sex or the other." It is therefore quite possible to be a liberal feminist and be gender critical, or indeed (as one regular poster on here is) not a feminist at all and be gender critical.

And by all means call me TERF. Free speech works both ways. Though be warned that since the word TERF is only ever used by a certain sort of virtue-signalling numpty or by the sort of unhinged blogger who typically adds "should die in a fire" to the end of the sentence, it may not incline me to take your arguments seriously. That is if you can formulate any actual arguments, rather than resorting to the usual polemic of "you're going to be on the wrong side of history."

The statement that there are ciswomen and transwomen only has meaning if you believe that both are a subset of woman. But transwomen are not women. They are gender non-conforming men.

This is why the word "cis" is so offensive to, it seems, to nearly all posters. We do not accept that equivalence.

Equality is not about treating everyone equally. It's about recognising that people are different and therefore have different needs. Women and transwomen are different. It's called diversity.

Are we not allowed to discuss prostate cancer as a male issue anymore? Are discussions about that shut down by mtt or ftt? Because some people have a 'female prostate'? It's all directed at women and it's not acceptable.

But transwomen are not women. They are gender non-conforming men

There are transsexuals who have body dysphoria - something which has been discussed on the other thread in detail

There are transgender people who are gender non-conforming.

Both fall under the word 'transwomen' - but they are different groups. I sometimes think that's forgotten.

Transsexuals do not necessarily have to conform to gender expectations - but that has been discussed in a lot of detail and in a reasonably decent tone on the other current threads.

Will mumsnet become like this? Where we can't talk about post birth bleeding, leaking nipples, abortion, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, vulvas, vaginas, PCOS, endometriosis, IBS that is really affected by our oestrogen levels rising and falling, pre menstural migraines all because it might be triggering to a MtF trans person?

The irony is that there are likely to be far more lurkers looking for support from MN for issues such as these, than those looking for support with transitioning of their children, or themselves.

And yet who is MNHQ worried about offending? Most women, or a teeny weeny number of men who might feel offended that they are somehow being excluded?

Yy what about the lurkers with prolapses and birth injuries who have to read "they're just jealous of your shiny new vagina". I'll bet paper money there are more lurkers like that than parents of trans!!

Will mumsnet become like this? Where we can't talk about post birth bleeding, leaking nipples, abortion, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, vulvas, vaginas, PCOS, endometriosis, IBS that is really affected by our oestrogen levels rising and falling, pre menstural migraines all because it might be triggering to a MtF trans person

I hope not.

Every right that has ever been achieved by women has started with the simple, brutal and truthful statement that women are oppressed by men.

I think it's a bit fucking rich MNHQ, with your right to personhood, a right to vote, a right to be educated, a right to enter the public sphere, a right to open a bank account, a right to wander around this country unchaperoned, a right to start a business of your own to pull up the right-on drawbridge behind you and dissolve into a puddle of identity politics.

FruitCider
However the train of thought on trans people is trans exclusionary

What exactly are trans people being excluded from?

this entire thread has been fixated on MTT, which tells me the whole argument is based on prejudicism against MTT without looking at both MTT and FTT.

Most of the problems that exist between feminists and trans are down to MTT, and generally transgender ideology itself does not support women. FTT don't cause the problems that MTT do, I'd suggest because there's not the combination of misogyny, autogynephilia and male entitlement that exists within the MTT community.

I've no wish to offend you, Ego, but neither group are women. No amount of surgery and hormones can create a change of sex.

Personally I do respect the level of commitment shown by transsexuals, and feel sympathy for the extreme feelings that would have to motivate such steps. I, again personally, may feel less anxious about male transsexuals in women's spaces, as long as they are sexually attracted to men, but that still doesn't mean I believe they should usurp women in sports, work or women-only meetings.

Transsexuals have their own struggles. There is very little overlap with the struggles of women.

Fruit - I'm sorry but you are the one having a problem with the English language.

Sect doesn't mean "any group". That word is section, as in "a section of society".

Sect is actually not a bad word to use for the culture of dogma, suspension of disbelief, disregard for scientific truth & physical reality, and flat out threats of violence to deserters and non-believers. But as I said, you probably used it because you were confused about its meaning.

I still don't know what the original Spartacus thread is about.
Would anyone please care to link or PM me a link please? Thank you
I feel like I'm Schrodinger's cat as at this point I don't know if I'm Spartacus or not.

So, is this stand based on avoiding legal action ?

I think that, in part, yes. I think another aspect is not wanting to bring the wrath of transactivists on to the site.

Really, it comes down to appeasing a small, vocal group of men who want to oppress and marginalise women.

"this entire thread has been fixated on MTT, which tells me the whole argument is based on prejudicism against MTT without looking at both MTT and FTT."

Actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of FTT on MN, mostly in the context of girls and young women who have started identifying as male (a phenomenon which has rocketed over the last few years). There is a lot of (I think understandable) concern that some girls and women who start the transition process may regret it when it's too late to go back.

Why are transwomen trying to invade our spaces anyway?

Why are they not demanding their own spaces instead of telling us to surrender ours?

However the train of thought on trans people is trans exclusionary

There is a serious problem with this kind of sentiment because it denies any possibility of discussion or examination of gender and sex other than the line chosen by trans activism.

And the standard liberal argument that those affected should be allowed to determine the situation for themselves doesn't work in this case because everyone is affected by sex and gender and women are discriminated against and disadvantaged because of both.

It is actually a good thing for everyone to be gender critical.

I personally believe that men and women are inherently different, I don't believe in a male/female brain, but do believe that generally women are more feminine than men, and I believe this is down to your mix of hormones. I for example am quite a masculine female. I have my hair cut short, I lift big weights at the gym and have no interest in wearing make up apart from to cover up my bags from motherhood.

I lived with a woman called Natasha for 9 months before she told me she was trans and pre op. I had no clue. She had breasts, a high pitched voice, a curvy waist, every feature you would expect of the female sex. I was absolutely gobsmacked, I didn't believe her until she showed me her passport, in which she was called Nathan. To call her anything but female just feels awfully disrespectful and rude. She is a woman in every way possible. I met her 10 years ago and she is very glad she had gender reassignment surgery, she waited 8 years to make sure it was the right decision. And for her it absolutely was.

I get the worry about blocking natural hormones in children, but to have this view of consenting adults, well, it's just abhorrent in my mind.

Sorry FruitCider but i see no hate on these threads.
If possible could you c&p any posts that declare hate of trans people?

What i do see are women speakinh biological fact. I see women supporting other women to speak out about womens rights that are being squashed in to oblivion by SOME very vocal and it appears influential trans people.
This does not mean i or any other posters hate trans people it just means we wont be told to shut up and put up anymore by men.

I think Mumsnet has gone to the same PR school as Edinburgh University.

Zing

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2716595-TransAgenda-BullShit-The-I-am-Spartacus-Thread

This is the Spartacus thread. It is full now, and it would probably be an idea to start Spartacus#2 because, this one is now discussing mnhq's response. (honestly we are disappearing u our own arses with all these threads).

"She had breasts, a high pitched voice, a curvy waist, every feature you would expect of the female sex. I was absolutely gobsmacked, I didn't believe her until she showed me her passport, in which she was called Nathan. To call her anything but female just feels awfully disrespectful and rude."

Biological descriptions such as male or female are not value judgements. They are objective truths and cannot be disrespective or rude when used correctly.

You can call Natasha the Queen of Sheba if you like, but Natasha with the Y-chromosome and artificial hormones is not female. That is another word you might like to look up in the dictionary:

Female: Of the sex that can bear young or make eggs.

FruitCider - I for one have no problem with people like your friend Natasha who transition, as long as they show respect to women and understand that, not having grown up as a woman, they have a lot to learn about what it means to be a woman in today's society.

I have no idea if such people have a undiscovered neurological abnormality that means that they feel like women despite being biological men, or whether they are reacting to the narrow gender norms of our society. Who knows.

However, the extraordinary, massive increase recently in the number of trans-identifying people (many of whom don't actually want to undergo physical transition, but do want access to spaces reserved for the other sex) is another matter. Their arguments are grounded in self-righteous nonsense and the more extreme transactivists do represent a threat to women's rights (and indeed a threat to the many confused and unhappy people who sign up for their cause and make their own lives much harder in the process).

"She is a woman in every way possible"

Apart from in every single nucleus of single cell of the entire body, yes.