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

we were definitely not in a relationship - I prefer blondes if I'm going to date a woman! Your post did make me LOL though!

To (sorry can't look) whoever it was upthread who said Mtt need access to women's rape centres. A woman who has been raped needs counselling and medical care, but this is specific to her body and can include abortion and counselling around that. A transwoman who has been raped also needs counselling and medical care. But this medical care will be different, if post op they may need access to a plastic surgeon to fix any damage and will also need different counselling around this. If pre op they will have different needs again.

One facility does not provide this, they need to fight for their own facilities for their own benefit - lumping them in with women is detrimental for their actual needs.

As it stands at the moment, transpeople are gaining popularity (as in there are more and more, not that its a popular 'choice' or anything). As such, it would be worthwhile to set up crisis centres for those people. Not to extend womens centres to include men. This is surely the solution and one that everyone could be happy with? Everyone gets the care they need, and noone feels threatened?

If transwomen want to campaign for centres, support and refuges then fine, crack on with that then. Just don't expect to use resources that are for women.

If transwomen want to campaign for centres, support and refuges then fine, crack on with that then

And I'm sure women would support them in that.

I certainly would, ItsAllGoingToBeFine

As for the response to MNHQ's statement. Meh. It's so wishy washy and ill defined I can't see anything much changing. Someone says they feel a post is hate speech and/or a Personal Attack on the subject of preferred pronouns or biology and they are going to delete and ban just the same as always.
As for the supposed 'discussion' around Banning......bollocks does that happen.

One facility does not provide this, they need to fight for their own facilities for their own benefit - lumping them in with women is detrimental for their actual needs.

Beyond your comment actually makes sense, rather than the ones on this topic I have read previously. But whilst there are no trans specific services, where should they go?

For me the uproar about a university women's society event that got totally overrun by TRAS complaining that vagina cupcakes were transphobic illustrates that yes, women are not going to be able to talk about their anatomy except in vague ways completely divorced from their sex.
Unfortunately the FB page got taken down but it was shocking to see a feminist event get totally shut down purely for linking vaginas with women.
Here's a TRA sympathetic write up of the events greentea2177.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/vagina-cupcake-gate/amp/

A vagina cupcake..well you learn something new everyday.

But yeah, this is why women are speaking out about this rubbish. And no it does not make them TERFS (something I have only ever seen used as an insult...often followed by 'should go and die' or similar), it just means they are concerned about how the world would be heading if certain people got their way, which they have gotten until now (meaning TAs, not transsexual people)

The vast majority of men who say they are women do not have genital surgery. Most take hormones, have silicon breast implants and a penis. Is that person really supposed to be accepted as a woman by the rest of us?

Seriously, awful response.

Basically 'yes, we know some of these men are utter bastards, but could all you women pipe down, in case some - possibly mythical - other parents are watching.

I feel gaslighted. MN, what the actual???

Oh, and where is the Talk Guideline which states that suggesting autogynephilia is a motivator for transpeople will get your post deleted please??

Dear MNHQ

Let's take one banned poster. Posie Parker

From memory she was banned for saying she would misgender, on that same thread she also said she would call TWs she to their faces, and on threads out of respect but not if someone requested to be called " they". Apparently numerous people reported her posts....

I understand pp was a sharp tongued character but talk guidelines don't stipulate you have to be likeable.

So given that your email, and I've seen it, said it was due to numerous reports and specifically the threat to misgender I'm aghast that you've failed to address whether you feel there is a significant level of misogyny coursing through its veins and whether you stand by women who are being pushed to the back of every other queue?

Bloody hell am in a phone.

The trans activism movement has misogyny coursing through its veins.

She had breasts, a high pitched voice, a curvy waist, every feature you would expect of the female sex.

No tits, no waist and quite a low voice. Still female. Still Spartacus. Thanks.

The vagina cupcake thing makes me think of wearing one of these everytime I go out.

I'm going to buy the kit.

Is that what happens? I just googled the term and the top hit was a link in a medical dictionary:
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/autogynephilia which says it 'provides a theory of transexual motivation'. Does anyone think this post should be deleted or I should be banned? If so, go ahead and report it, I'll take one for the Spartacus team.

MNHQ, I have just read your response again.

I am confused about what you think gender is - and this is fundamental to the arguments on the Spartacus thread (eg female=xx, men cannot become women, cis is derogatory because it relies on stereotypes).

What does "sex-at-birth" mean? If you mean people can change sex (and you would need to explain what that involves) then why misgendering - why not mis-sexing (for want of a better word)?

In a debate about sex and gender, it is vital to make a distinction between the two, consistently and rationally (IMO the terms are often muddled in everyday discourse and perhaps that has led to some of the problems we are facing).

I've just read that link about the vagina-cup-cake-gate and this bit

'Yes, the female body and anatomy needs to be de-stigmatised, but even more so does the anatomy of trans people. This could potentially be done with educational events discussing the diversity of genitalia, which would be far more relevant and welcoming.'

just blows my mind. The versatility of genitalia. I really have no words.

How exactly does one de-stigmatise female anatomy while doing exactly that by insisting no visual representation of said female anatomy should be allowed at a feminist event???

I think I might start wearing sheela na gig printed t-shirts over that cupcake thing

Although restrictions on mis-gendering may avoid upsetting a few transgender people and transgender supporters on MN, calling a transwoman she has other consequences. I think it is important that consequences for women are not brushed under the carpet. Expecting women to deny biology to avoid mis-gendering a trans person is something that is exploited by other people, people with power, who harm women and girls politically, socially, physically and mentally.

If you were to ask me "how can women be harmed by referring to one or two MN transwomen as she or her?", I'd reply "restrictions on mis-gendering are not immune to the law of unintended consequences. Imposing limits on mis-gendering supports (a) the concept of gender identity - that being a woman is a feeling not a biological reality, (b) the belief that human sex can be changed after birth and (c) the belief that trans people change sex. These ideas are harmful to women."

Biology does not support the belief that humans can change sex.

Only a shrinking minority of trans people even have surgery and none of them actually change sex. (The idea that transwoman must equal transsexual has been outdated for years, but the media does its best to keep this old-fashioned view alive).

Many MNers will follow MNHQ's mis-gendering Talk guideline only because it's the nice, respectful and polite thing to do, not because the poster believes that transwomen are female. This guideline adherence may well help MNHQ to make MN more trans-friendly but it also supports the ever-more-popular anti-scientific and anti-woman belief that transwomen are women (which is often extended to transwomen are female).

Some transwomen do not care that the feminine pronouns are used out of politeness rather than agreement; some transwomen insist that it is a transwoman's right. I think some transwomen want to be addressed as she or her as validation and as supposed proof of womanhood or femaleness. This is then used in an anti-woman trans-reinforcing mantra of "if people refer to me as her and she, how can I not be a woman and female?"

So, MNHQ, when you make your decisions about the details of your Talk guideline on mis-gendering, I hope you will find a good balance between being nice to a few transwomen, staying on the legal side of UK laws, and protecting the rights of half of all humans.

I'm not so sure that it's such an awful response from MNHQ.

MNHQ have been allowing discussions on transgender issues and how they impact on women for a number of years now and have been pretty consistent that personal attacks on an individual poster will always be deleted no matter who is on the right side of science.

Many posters seem to be pushing MNHQ to come down in favour of one side once and for all - I don't think that's a fair expectation. This forum already stands alone in it's support of these discussions and willingness to engage with members. That's quite telling. It's also quite chilling.

There is nowhere else to have these discussions online without being shut down, harrassed, doxxed, silenced, threatened. We underestimate the power that MN has in influencing it's members and lurkers and that it in turn affords us a degree of power on this issue. It gives us a voice. I've watched and participated as this issue has moved from the fringes of FWR to mainstream Chat and AIBU and in doing so, women's voices have been heard. Women have been allowed to explore and understand the threats that some of us believe are very real and present and they have been allowed to do so in an environment where the trade off is simply that we are respectful of each other in our discussions.

Closed facebook groups don't bring these issues into the open, they don't lead a path to mainstream politicans, they don't influence advertisers and they certainly don't open the debate to women who don't want to see this discussion hidden away.

We need to be realistic about the very vocal minority group of transactivists and we need to understand how they are influencing social media and young minds. This isn't just about twitter and facebook but about money and power. Do you know how much money a certain transwoman billionaire pumps into ensuring that transgender issues stay front and centre ? Do you know how active one of the top earning CEOs in the US is in promoting trans issues ? Do you have any idea how scared companies are of being called transphobic ? Or the extent to which transwomen have been thrown to the wolves by the transgender activists ?

There's a whole other discussion about the culture of social media and individualism that's worth having but we'd be foolish to think that this is a grass roots campaign being led from the bottom. It's very much being driven by those rich white men at the top who have no more sense of womanhood than Kermit the frog does. They don't care about transwomen any more than they care about women.

MNHQ's position in actively supporting discussion on trans issues is more precarious than some of us realise. I don't want to lose that voice and the opportunity it affords us all. If the trade off is toning down the way in which I talk to another poster, so be it.

Has popcorn and getting comfy in my seat

I will keep saying this until I am blue in the face, so I hope someone from MN HQ might read this - cis is offensive because it means that we agree with what gender says about us. So to be called cis, or to call oneself cis (and for those of you who do, you are not going to win any special kind of reward or relief from oppression from men by demeaning yourself), means to agree with gender that females are , weak, stupid, passive, hysterical, a fuckhole, a breeder, a skivvy, etc. To be called cis or call oneself cis is a capitulation to misogyny and patriarchy, it is a betrayal of self and of your sex, it is masochistic, it upholds your oppression, and above all, it's unnecessary - over 50% of the human population do not need to be defined by what they are not in comparison to less than half a percent of the human population (trans)!