Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
We've given lots of thought to our moderation policies around trans rights and sex and gender issues and thought it would be a good idea to articulate where we stand in the form of a clear statement, so everyone can be clear about our moderation going forward. You can find it here. Hope it provides a helpful reference point. Thanks.

But there is another way to say cis, eg non-trans.

So we have transwomen and non transwomen instead of cis, do we then have transwomen and natal women then instead of TIM?

I am never using woman, female or girl to describe a male.

even with trans on the front

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth Wed 13-Jun-18 13:22:22
None cares what you think though Gibb

How is it going with your support of MRAs

How is this the "civil and mutually respectful conversation" Justine has stated Mumsnet are aiming for?

Transwomen and women works for me.

I don't personally object to either TRA or MRA but they seem to parallel TERF

No they don't.

TRA is a trans rights activist. How can it be pejorative? Surely such people are proud of what they do? It's not used in relation to violence against these people.

MRA is a men's rights activist. This is their own name for themselves and they are proud of what they do. It's not used in relation to violence against these people.

TERF is used to call for violence against women and is not accurate - radfems include females with a trans identity and the term is mostly used about women who are not radfems.

Apples and oranges.

I disagree. TIM and cis need to stay - if only to be able explain that cis is offensive, and why.

When words are tabooed they increase in power, they increase in offensiveness, and ignorant or innocent users lose the opportunity to learn.

Report me then mostdays. And stop policing my posts.

When people talk about a male toilet they do not mean a sexual dimorphic mammal with XY chromosomes :-) They mean the toilet used by men. And this is the problem with the term male - in common use it means associated with men - not people's biology.

Is laughing still allowed?

The men's toilet is not for their biology. hahaha.

I haven't read all replies but I really do need a succint term with which to describe a "trans women" which doesn't include the word woman or female because that's what it's all about for me.

With respect, please find one which doesn't use male terms, XY or similar. Trans women are not male; they are not men, nor are they all XY.

But there is another way to say cis, eg non-trans.
^
So we have transwomen and non transwomen instead of cis, do we then have transwomen and natal women then instead of TIM?^

I am most certainly NOT a non-trans woman! That is even more offensive than cis!

Neither am I a natal woman. I am a woman. Just that: a woman.

Any prefixes go onto the labels for people who are not female, but wanted to be some kind of woman.

I’m concerned that very specific rules around language will make this discussion inaccessible to people with English as a second language or with learning difficulties.

Not just those people. I think it confuses the hell out of most people who haven't been paying much attention to the whole shebang.

Plenty of people I speak to assume 'trans woman' means genetically female but transgender, and trans man genetically male but transgender, because, well, why wouldn't it? I've seen one example on the threads here within the past fortnight. In those cases, how do you even have a discussion without saying 'No, actually the term means the opposite -- a trans woman is a male who identifies as female'?

I live in hope that people can be reconciled to their birth sex alongside their gender ID if they have one, and suffer no ill effects from either.

Trans women are not male; they are not men, nor are they all XY.

Bollocks.

Trans women are not male; they are not men, nor are they all XY.

=

Gaslighting

Of course trans women are male, Gibberty, otherwise they wouldn't be trans .

Anyone not XY is a different matter (did I see you mention that you had the docs in some doubt at your own birth, or was that someone else?)

Poor old gibberty.

Assigned a lot of GC posters on here have terf in their username and HQ hasn't said this isn't allowed. Terfulike, Terfragette etc

MNHQ are saying the post will be deleted in the context of how the term is used which I assume if it is used as an insult.

Why would we want to discredit our important points by being accused of transphobia.

I agree on principle. Unfortunately you will find that anything certain people don't like, even if it is proposed by another trans advocating group, will be accused of being transphobic

XY mate. Every cell.

Trans women are not male; they are not men, nor are they all XY.

Miranda Yardley says he is a man. And male.

Who are you to tell him he isn't, Gibber?

I see LM on Twitter is expressing pleasure that misgendering, deadnaming and use of TIM have been banned and people who use them will be 'deleted'; although LM believes banning TIM and CIS is "a false equivalence".

It is a false equivalence.
Here's why.

The measure of whether a term is allowable should be
-Is it factual (despite the hurt felt by such facts)?
If yes, it should stand.
If no, then it should not.
We should not be outlawing facts.

Male has a factual definition
Trans is self declared
Trans identified male was always 100% accurate

CIS was described as an identity class, not a biological one
Identity is not something that can be forced upon others.
It was never factual to falsely state that a biological group of people possessed an identity which they explicitly denied

TERF - well. If TERFs really were all radical feminists who excluded all trans people from...whatever...then the acronym would be factual.
As it was used like a weapon to label people who expressed that they were neither radical feminists nor exclusionary of trans men, the whole acronym was mostly a crock of shit.

So LM was right. One group of terms was accurate (but disliked, presumably because of such accuracy) and the other demonstrably a lie. And disproportionately coupled with explicit threats and derogatory associations.

MNHQ are struggling to find the balance and I sympathise.
But truth (hurtful) is being granted equivalence to lies (hurtful) and both are being banned together.

In essence, we are making hurtfulness the measure of allowable speech, and truth is the casualty.

We creep ever closer to that cliff edge.

We are now to be censored, threatened into silence and "they" have won or are damn close to doing so.

This is only my opinion and how I interpret that statement.

I hope Mumsnet has backup plans for funding once they've banned half it's members for writing the wrong word three times and the ad revenue stream collapses.

And the fewer the things you are allowed to say the easier it is for people to target the permitted. So ban TIM and allow trans woman. Then they will campaign to ban trans woman as well. The options just get fewer and fewer and eventually it ends up with us just being allowed a few permitted words chosen by the ruling few.

*I'm using them, us etc in the abstract. This post isn't specifically about trans but about the policing of language, using trans as an example.