Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

Thoughts on MNHQ's response to the Spartacus thread

15 replies

OlennasWimple · 30/08/2016 22:23

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

Go to post
MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 16:51

Hello all

“… 'misgendering' is a useful proxy for deciding whether someone is being respectful or not. I imagine there are a team of mods responding to reports at MNHQ, who I'm sure are time-stressed, and it shouldn't be expected of them to have read widely and have understood all the nuances of this debate. Of course they're going to need clear and simple guidelines, as do we all.”

There's some truth in what Plenty says - misgendering has been a useful shorthand for our community team because in our experience it very often has broken our Talk Guidelines. In other words, it's been used aggressively, to inflame or provoke, to be insulting, or as a personal attack.

In all of this very complex and rapidly evolving stuff, though, we've relied ultimately on our guidelines. We think they make Mumsnet the kind of place that most people want it to be - a place which is tolerant of differences of opinion, and where deliberate rudeness and belittling doesn't stand; fundamentally a place where the rules of civilised debate apply.

The issue of pronouns seems to be derailing progress towards civilised debate here; it's become a bit of a distraction from that overarching aim, rather than a means of achieving it. Our TGs, as we've said often, cover all this, so for now - as they do with all contentious issues - our community team will make decisions on a case by case basis; the guidelines will be front and centre, and the team will use them to decide whether any given post is intended to inflame or provoke, is a personal attack, not in the spirit etc etc without blanket bans on any given phrase or expression.

We hope this reassures those worried about deletion/banning etc and that we can focus on what really counts - that is, ensuring that Mumsnet is a place where all voices can be heard and those who need it can find support.

A quick but sincere thank you to those who've acknowledged the difficulty of our position here - we are doing our very best in rather choppy waters.

Couple of other clarifications:

I have been told that they have staff members and/or sponsors affiliated with the TA movement so that is no doubt why.

This is absolutely not the case.

I do want to know that reasoned posts based on proven scientific facts, or discussing evidence, won't be deleted because those facts or research may upset someone.

TBH this has always been the case, but we're happy to confirm it again. Reasoned posts whose tone is not inflammatory and/or deliberately provocative or goady are within our TGs and won't be deleted.

I do not understand why you seek to prioritise the feelings of parents of those who are transitioning. Why have you ignored the feelings of parents, including adolescent lesbians who are particularly at risk in this world of TA.

What we're trying to do is support all parents. It's difficult, but we're trying.

MNHQ

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:10

Oscar, I think we'd take look at all these things the context of the rest of the discussion. We'd be thinking about whether you'd say it to Paris Lee's face were the discussion taking place in real life - and about whether you were saying it over and over again to inflame, or as part of a reasoned calm discussion of why you believe that, and why you believe it's important.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:18

@HermioneWeasley

Nobody cares if anti vaccine parents or pro circumcision parents get their arses handed to them, get told they're committing child abuse etc.

Why is it this one specific topic where facts can be deleted if "inflammatory" and opinion must be censored ?

Actually I don't think that's true. We'd definitely delete a post saying you're a child abuser to someone who circumcised their child.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:28

@OlennasWimple

Ada J Wells would, one presumes from past actions, be happy to tell me to my face that I'm a bigoted, cis-gendered TERF who needs to check my privilege.

Alas, we've got no power or control over how others behave either in real life or elsewhere on the internet, but we can and do try to ensure that Mumsnet is a place where courtesy and reasoned debate is the norm.

@OlennasWimple

Still silence on whether MN understand why so many of us here find the term "cis" so offensive, BTW. Just repeating the talk guidelines on misgendering doesn't show any real consideration of the point we are trying to make

We do understand, I think/hope. And to reassure, we'll be applying the same process to cis - ie passing it through the filter of our TGs, asking about the intention and the sentiment rather than blanket-banning any particular word or expression.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 17:32

WankingMonkey We'd deffo delete if that were directed at an individual. I think a more general statement is different - but again, it would depend (sorry) on the tone and the context.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:01

@CoteDAzur

WHY? I would really like to understand the purpose of asking us to pretend that these people are female, if that is indeed what you want.

Hmm - i think what I was trying to get across in my first post is that we're not making blanket demands about anything. We're going to judge (as tbh we've always done) case by case, looking at the tone and context - ie whether it's intended to inflame or is part of a reasoned discussion about the issue.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:08

@Lalsy

Kate, sorry I have asked this before but can you give an example of a sentence using cis that doesn't stereotype, diminish or insult women? I have yet to see one.

I think if we go down that route, Lalsy, we might have to give the same answer to posters who asked a similar question about preferred pronouns.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:20

@OscarDeLaYenta

I just don't get why calling men 'he' needs to be examined on a case by case, or any sort of basis at all. Not unless, you believe that there are situations where men can meaningfully be referred to as 'women' and are therefore entitled be called 'she'.

Oscar, I'm afraid we're not and indeed can't be the judges of that. "Meaningfully', for a start, is pretty subjective, and we don't think we have the expertise to be the ultimate arbiters of a hotly contested philosophical/intellectual/moral/ethical debate. What we feel why can and must do, though, is to make sure that the tone of the debate is something we can all be proud of.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:32

@OlennasWimple

But that response to Lalsy kinda shows that you don't "get it" KateMN Confused It's like saying that it's possible to use the word "n*gger" in a way that isn't insulting or offensive - ie it almost never is, with the exception of clinical discussion of language.

There was an interesting discussion about the n word on one of the other threads - consensus was that it is steeped in, if not born of, a relationship of enslavement between one class and another and has never been used in anything but a denigratory sense. There doesn't yet seem to be a consensus that 'cis' has that history and 'meaning' (inverted commas for the literary theorists), and since we're putting intention and sentiment front and centre, it makes sense to us to be asking on a case by case basis whether the use of the word 'cis' is intended to offend.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 18:46

@OscarDeLaYenta

Where do you stand? Because it is only if you renounce biology and embrace 'internal feelings of gender identity' that there can ever be the situation where a man can meaningfully be described as 'she'. I do not understand why this is difficult or confusing for you to comprehend.

The thing is Oscar, that asking us to decide one way or the other means that we'd have to go back to blanket bans, and carries a risk. I really do believe that, for everyone, it is better to leave room, to not have blanket rules, to accept that there are going to be some situations that might not go your way but that ultimately prescriptive rules might also limit one's own ability to express one's position freely.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 19:13

@WorkingItOutAsIGo

These debates are wrongly named (as so much else is within this sphere) trans issues. They are not - they are all about women's rights being threatened. Can we please make sure that MNHQ don't decide to create a trans section to put them in, as actually, we need to be able to air issues of threats to women's rights to all members of MN?

Working, there are no plans for this currently - and this isn't the kind of thing we'd do unless there was a pretty broad consensus in favour.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 19:21

@BeyondASpecialSnowflake

Can I ask - it was sort of hinted at being a possibility - are there any "links" between mn and mermaids (or similar organisations)?

No, none at all, Beyond.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 19:42

@OscarDeLaYenta

MNHQ - you still haven't explained the relevance of whether I would 'misgender' an MTT to their face. Nor addressed the risk of violence this may involve and why this is of no account.

We think the face-to-face idea is a fairly sensible proxy for the level of courtesy and consideration that others could reasonably expect of us. Point taken that the reasons for being civilized in a face-to-face scenario aren't always straightforward, but broadly, I think the point stands.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 20:17

Oscar, hmm - I think my posts imply that as a general rule we want to promote courtesy and consideration, but also that case by case we'll look at the context and history.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 02/09/2016 21:03

@Lalsy

Kate, i think my concern about the case by case approach is that I think it is possible that individual women including me, by being polite and respectful to other individuals, may have inadvertently damaged women's and children's rights. I feel bad about that. The cheery respectful personal can in this case add up to a toxic and confused political. And false balance (as in science journalism is an issue.). My internet has died so I am on my phone and not sure how coherent I am being!

Completely coherent Lalsy Smile. I do take your point about socialisation and timidity in real life. Online though, I can't help feeling that the aim should be to get the rest of the world to match our civility, rather than us matching them for ferocity.

I'm going to head off now I'm afraid - not technically 'on' this w/e but will certainly catch up as soon as I can.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread