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

Bollocks, I missed an "every"

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 want to be Einstein. I'very had surgery to look like him, I actually like him, dress like him and talk like him.

But I am not Einstein. I can never be. Genetics won't permit it.

Your friends do natasha can feel, act, dress and talk like a woman but she will always be male biologically speaking

I'm not going to trawl MN and c+p comments, that's a ridiculous suggestion. What I will say though, is that denying that trans is a real thing, or insisting on calling trans people "they" or by their former gender is in my mind bigotry.

By denying the experience of trans people it is marginalising them further.

I get that there is a small minority of MTT whose behaviour is vile towards women. I think that crying that talking about breast cancer is TERF is ridiculous. The vast majority of trans people do not see these things as an issue.

Interesting question for you though - if my post op friend was raped, why should she be denied access to a women's rape crisis centre? If she experiences DV, why should she be denied access to a refuge?

What about the case of Tara Hudson who was forced to go to a male prison?

I asked this on the other thread but - can anyone, MNHQ or those saying they use the term - provide a sentence in which cis is used that doesn't diminish, belittle or stereotype women? ie, one in which its use doesn't rely on assumptions/beliefs about women's behaviour, dress, brains, hobbies or attitudes? Those assumptions diminish all humans, and again, because this space is public and contested, I think such language has political force.

You have come on yo this thread spouting hate of trans people is what the threads are about but have you read them?
If you think stating biological fact is hateful then you may need to go back to your dictionary and look it up.

I am pleased to see that only a handful of posters have come on to the threads in an attempt to shut them down by calling us vile/disgusting/hateful. It appears the majority believe in what we are doing.

Interesting question for you though - if my post op friend was raped, why should she be denied access to a women's rape crisis centre? If she experiences DV, why should she be denied access to a refuge?

Because those spaces are for WOMEN who have expegienced violence at the hands of men. They have lived their whole life as women and have only female experiences of how violence/sexual violence affects them. They are told that the space they are in is a male free enviroment and that they can share and confide in other women their experiences.

A trans women will never know what it feels life to be a women ( whatever that means) as they were born male. This makes dealing with such situations totally different.

I'm a woman and I don't have a curvy waist

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.

I think this is slight progress. Until now, 'misgendering' has been seen by MNHQ as either an 'accidental slip-up' or deliberate and 'malicious'. This seems to be acknowledgement that there are occasions when stating a trans person's sex is neither accidental nor malicious, but is done simply to make it possible to name and describe what is happening. If I have read this correctly then thank you MNHQ.

I'm less happy about this:

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.

There are all sorts of parents, hypothetical and real, who feel 'belittled, mocked or attacked' by debate on MN. Others have given some examples. My own particular bugbear is pregnant women who are struggling to quit smoking. Over 10% of women are still smoking at the time of delivery. Have you seen what happens when they come on MN looking for support to quit? Am I now OK to report every nasty comment I see about pregnant smokers? I would love to because those comments all add up and lead to MN letting down over 10% of pregnant women. Actual women, who are pregnant - your core market.

This could be seen as 'whataboutery' but the point is this: why are trans parents and parents of trans being given special treatment? Must they be 'centred' on MN as they are in so many other spaces which used to be ours?

"What about the case of Tara Hudson who was forced to go to a male prison?"

Tara Hudson had a functioning penis which she enjoyed boasting about, and was convicted for a violent crime. She is not a great example for your purposes. (UK law means that trans people who have gone through transition and got a gender reassignment certificate will automatically be sent to the prison of the sex which they now identify with. Tara was not in this group.)

IMO it would be ridiculous if they banned 'cis' as lots of us use it to describe ourselves - and yes, that includes men!

We already have words to describe ourselves: women and men.

It's not trans-exclusionary to call myself a woman and talk about periods, childbirth and breasts (for example).

Someone up thread said comparing cis to 'the N word' is offensive.

Well. I'm black (mixed) and a woman and I'm telling you that I find cis just as offensive as ngger. Yes, I typed the whole word sans * because I can type cis so why shouldn't I?

Because it's laughable that you say the word hasn't got the same history.

The history of the oppression of women goes back to biblical times, as do race issues.

And just because the word itself hasn't been used an oppressive buzz word until recently, doesn't mean the intent behind it is not the same bullshit story that women have suffered since forever.

It is a stick to beat women with; to oppress, belittle and silence us. And I'm not having it.

So, HQ, if you are so on about the N word, let's extend the same common decency and respect to your posters about the C word.

so 1000+ eloquent and educated women on the Spartacus threads are all bigots who hate people who are MTF transgender and want to exclude, upset and discriminate against them?. Seems unlikely to me. or is it easier to just say that rather than accepting that they disagree with you about the biological basis of being a woman.

I also don't want to be a part of mumstransnet, after 15 years on here discussing pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and PMT, amongst other things. The wishy-washy, pandering, trans lobby PR friendly response from MN to the, frankly astonishing and inspiring, Spartacus threads is the first time I have ever actually considered leaving MN. Can I have a link to the FB page as well please.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2469565-What-is-going-on-with-the-Feminist-Library-in-London

This was when I realised, something was wrong. Before this^ thread I hadn't opened anything on trans because y' know live and let live. Transexuals were just people trying to get on with there lives. I only opened this thread as it had no reference to trans and was about a feminist library.

I now realise that Transexual have become the catch all under the trans umbrella. When talking of transgender I would hazzard a guess that most people see a transgender reference and automatically assume we are talking about somebody with debilitating body dysphobia(sp?)

But in the past few days all I've seen is racism against anyone who was born a woman by genetic males who want to become women.

Your really haven't, Amalfi. The weight of opinion on these threads is, very obviously, the other way by a ratio of at least 500:1.

I saw on thread tonight by someone demanding that the mods put up a separate thread to answer their demands as they had hidden the thread the demands were about.

No, you saw a polite suggestion that, when MN commented as they had indicated they would, it would makes sense to put it on a separate thread rather than bury it at the end of the Spartacus thread. Most people seem to agree that that was entirely sensible, as indeed is demonstrated by the existence of this thread.

And if you had read these threads properly, you would know that the individual in question has repeatedly answered questions - generally to be met with an accusation that she was making it all about her.

I'm not her, I don't know her, but frankly I hate the outright bullying I have seen on these threads.

She is a woman in every way possible

Thats just not true Fruit is it?

The only possible way to be a women is to be born with xx chromosome and female genitals.

The issue is that you say your friend Natasha, for want of a better phrase, passes as a woman. So, realistically, Natasha could go to a woman's refuge and probably not cause significant distress simply because she passes so the women there would not know she is trans. But, the majority of transwomen don't pass fully and would be recognised as a man and so would cause distress. So does it then become a case of "only if you pass?" But then that is hideously subjective and judging people purely on looks.

You then have to factor in that something like 80% of transwomem are still fully intact males from a biological perspective. They have male strength and male penises. How do we tell the difference between a fully transitioned transwomem, a transwomam in the prices of transition ie on hormones and awaiting surgery, a gender non conforming male who dresses as a woman, and a "man in a dress"? And then you have those who identify as women but have entirely male appearance - a la Danielle Muscado.

Who do you let in to a woman's refuge which doesn't allow men? Because current transactivist thinking and campaigning says it is all of them. If the only action required to enter a safe space is to say I am a woman then that space is no longer safe.

We are getting diverted here by semantics, pronouns and personal issues.

The real question I want MNHQ to answer is this:

Is MN a place where transactivism, that is harmful to women and girls, is unwelcome?

Will posters who speak up against transactivism that is harmful to women and girls be supported by MNHQ, or not?

Please answer these questions MNHQ.

This is the crux of so many of the posts on this and other recent threads. This is categorically not about making parents of young people who may be considering transitioning feel excluded. That is a diversion and a red herring.

C&Pd from bullshit thread:

Just read MNs response to this, and TBH I am shock (MNHQ in bold)

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.

Maybe not banned, but certainly deleted. Also it was my understanding that users had been banned for "persistent misgendering"...

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.

So free speech is not allowed where it may cause offence or hurt to someone? This is not consistent with how other topic are moderated where views that others may be uncomfortable with are left to stand; politics, religion, homeopathy, anti vaxxers etc

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.

"Sex at birth" pronouns? shock So MNHQ believes that sex can be changed? A belief that most on these threads (and basic science!) opposes. Furthermore people may feel inflamed or belittled when the correct pronoun was used, when the intention was to be truthful and accurate. I am however happy that you see pronouns as being used to describe sex rather than gender, even though that kind of makes misgendering an impossibility.

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.

I'm sorry MNHQ but it is a shit fudge. There are plenty of forums available where the groups you mention above can go to have their views/opinions/feelings validated. MNHQ has always been a place for robust debate where common sense and science tend to prevail. This is again not the stance you take on other topics, I'm not quite sure why trans issues is a special case? I am also a bit shock that you seem to be suggestions that we should ignore mainstream scientific thinking in case we hurt someone's feelings?

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.

So we are allowed to use the correct pronouns in a headline grabbing case? I'm sorry MNHQ but I will not accept that a transwoman is a "she" .

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.

Er no. Your policy seems to be to ignore and fudge rather than coming out clearly with a useful statement. I am interested to know what MNHQ thinks the issues are and how they can be solved though.

MNHQ also posted saying that suggesting autogynephila was a prime motivator for transitioning would be deleted - MirandaYardley replied to this over on the Spartacus thread.

Will go back and read rest of thread now.

I would also like reassurance that MNHQ will not be deleting posts or banning people for stating biological facts and making rational arguments based on them.The same policy as applies to discussions about god, vaxx, homeopathy etc etc. If people take offence from that, or feel unwelcome, then I regret that but this site is what it is partly because of its informed, articulate posters and the expertise they offer in well-reasoned debate.

I am parent who's not an activist, and isn't even posting, but whose NON-ADULT child is transitioning.

I have found Mumsnet invaluable over the last few years. My daughter came as transgender to us in 2012. It was a very isolating confusing time. It came out of the blue after quite a turbulent time in the family.

At the time (as I do now) I had the opinion that you fundamentally can not change your sex. There's nothing wrong with men presenting as a woman or a woman as a man. It was an opinion I kept to myself amongst my liberal friends. When I told one liberal friend about my daughter, her reaction was blind acceptance and she actually said 'How cool'. It was not cool.

A few months after my daughter came out to us www.mumsnet.com/Talk/teenagers/1464511-My-14-Old-Daughter-Says-She-Wants-to-be-a-Boy?pg=1this thread popped up. I was not alone. There were woman who were being sensible, asking questions, having valid concerns about the same things I was.

This line on the tread struck home, I would say that if you opt for counselling, be very very careful in the counsellor that you select. If they don't know what they're doing in this delicate area, they could do more harm than good.

My daughter was very fragile, she was getting a lot of her information from the internet and and any dissension from us would result in us being being called transphobic bigots, given suicide rates, etc. She was being fed rhetoric and was gobbling it up. At the time the TA movement was gaining a louder voice, I could see the future and I didn't like it. My view was that any counsellor we saw would validate her feelings of dysphoria and not question them. She had very valid reasons to want to change herself and the situation, though it's a very common teenage feeling, to want to be someone else, but this was not explored. I was so glad that thread was not high-jacked by TAs and was allowed to stay. Though towards the end a private space was created where mums in a similar position could discuss it in private without being attacked.

As gender dysphoria is not classified as a mental health condition (a whole other issue - why is the only dysphoria not classed as a mental health issue?) we had to first be referred to the local children's services, who recommended the local LGBT youth club, however, I knew some of the people there were also transgender and knew they feeding her the same rhetoric. Thankfully, I had the posters on Mumsnet who were saying the things I was thinking. After a disastrous CAMHS appointment where they spouted the wonky science of hormonal washes in the womb and lady/man brains and given forums such as Mermaids to explore. Ultimately, we were referred to the Tavistock clinic. Now some may think this is child abuse, but I delayed our referral as I didn't trust the clinicians not to indoctrinate her further.

All the information out there at the time spun the line that if you feel like a boy you are a boy, no questions, full stop. If you disagree with your child they will kill themselves. Through Mumsnet I discovered more and more people who thought like me:

4thwavenow.com/

www.transgendertrend.com/

gendercriticaldad.blogspot.co.uk/

There's a lot I've missed out, but now, 4 years later, she's happier in herself, accepts herself and can see that by wanting to be a boy/man she's hurting women. Without the voices on Mumsnet I'm not sure I could have stayed strong in my conviction. So please MNHQ do not silence the debate because it may hurt some hypothetical person. You could argue that the majority of posts on here could be perceived as offensive to someone somewhere.

The I am Spartacus Thread - moved me to tears. There were woman standing up for me and my family.

I am NonHypotheticalLurkingParent and I am Spartacus.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent, I have a lump in my throat....great post, thank you. This site is something to be proud of, MNHQ.

'A way which will cause hurt' appears to be..pointing out biology or refusing to fall into line and agree that trans people should be at the very top of the agenda for everything

But how can that conceivably be correct? If I say that I believe that, for instance, a trans woman who is simply getting on with living her life should be called "she", how on earth can that possibly equate to putting trans people at the "very top of the agenda for everything"?

Ok I have read through thread now and have a couple more thoughts:

"Woman" is shorter and more concise than "cis-woman"

A transwoman is not a woman so we don't need the woman category split into cis and trans, there are not two types of woman.

Transwomen are real people. As such they deserve the same kindness, respect etc as anyone else. However they are not women, and it is untruthful to say that they are.

With regards to what NonHypothetical said - that is exactly why people need forums like MN to be able to dispute the trans cult.

Before you rush to report I am not saying that all trans people are cult like - many suffer from very real dysphoria. However there is a trans cult whereby if a child or young person is at all uncomfortable with their "gender" they are positively encouraged to come out as trans. This is positively celebrated and confirmed on boards where there can be no dissent and by counsellor s /NHS/ various charities etc. If you go onto the transgender subreddit they will happily coach you in what to say to get faster access to puberty blockers etc. This is what is cult like and pretty terrifying - children and young people questioning themselves, as is entirely natural and normal, being pushed into being trans by adults who should know better.

If I say that I believe that, for instance, a trans woman who is simply getting on with living her life should be called "she", how on earth can that possibly equate to putting trans people at the "very top of the agenda for everything"?

Because they are not a "she" (pronoun used for females). You are saying that the entire body of science is less important than maintaining the fiction that a transwoman is a woman.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent, your daughter is lucky to have such a clever and caring mother.