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.

...and neutral pronouns?

Wouldn't a person who gets upset because we don't use "she/her" for a transwoman still object to "they/them"?

I’m interested to note that the gender critical feminists on the thread are largely against the policing of language, preferring terms used as slurs against them to remain eg terf and cis.

Whilst the anti-gender-critical posters, namely daimbars and gib are extremely keen to have even more terms banned - I’m struck in particular by daim’s enthusiasm to strike out talk of AGP and TRAs which would of course silence a whole branch of conversation.

My reading of this is that those who have enough argument behind them don’t need to limit the terms of discourse. They don’t need to restrict what their opponents in the debate say, because they can counter it anyway. Those whose arguments are flimsy and tenuous desperately need to control the terms of debate because they simply can’t back up their viewpoint. They are wrong and they can’t prove themselves right. So they attempt to censor more and more vigorously so that the other side can’t put forward their arguments because they have been denied the words in which to do it. Instead of providing logical, rational, sensible reasons they have to obfuscate as much as possible.

It’s very telling!

There are circumstances where revealing sex is used to disadvantage women, as you say, Rat.

But.

There are circumstances when knowing the sex of a person is critical to keeping women safe.

An audition for an orchestra, an application for a job, can be done with sex blinded to stop the unfair discrimination that will otherwise happen.

Admittance to a refuge needs the revelation of sex to prevent the harm that will otherwise happen.

Discussions about the sex of people in arguments about sex or gender need clarity, not obscuring.

Barrack it's not about submission it's about respect.

If a person repeatedly and persistently called you Bearded Barry (even though you disliked it and had asked them to call you Barrack) with the reasoning they were called Barrack and didn't want you to have the same name as them, wouldn't it strike you as petty?

I'd be very, very, very surprised if sex-neutral pronouns were not considered transphobic. I'd happily used 'they' but have a feeling that will be the next pronoun to be targeted.

Why would I want to muddy pronouns. What on earth are you talking about.

I use 'they' as a reluctant concession as the price of speaking in a censored environment.

But being asked to pretend that I do not know a man is a man is unacceptable to me.

Wouldn't a person who gets upset because we don't use "she/her" for a transwoman still object to "they/them"?

Couldn't we first establish if this side of the room have a valid objection to they/their before we go supposing that the other side might?

How about you respect women? Why does the respect have to be one way?

Let's face it, feminists did show respect but it wasn't enough. Inch given, mile taken.

Rat TRA object to anything but their chosen special words.

Captain, that was well put

"I'd be very, very, very surprised if sex-neutral pronouns were not considered transphobic. I'd happily used 'they' but have a feeling that will be the next pronoun to be targeted."

If used equally I wouldn't object, but if someone used gender neutral pronouns for all trans people but not other members that would obviously be offensive. Context matters

That's what you use when you don't know the sex of the person, otherwise they are plural.

Or when you do not want to refer to the sex or gender of the person.

How so many have fully absorbed this bizarre "rule book" approach to language is really quite stunning to me. I'm not being funny, it really is. To me, language is about expression; it's fluid; it's changeable, interpretable. It seems it only isn't when one's ideological opponents want it to be.

Why would I want to muddy pronouns. What on earth are you talking about.

Are you reading my posts? Are you familiar with the blind audition studies? Basically when the sex of an applicant is known (in the case of the study they were applying to be in an orchestra) then men are usually preferenced for positions. THAT is why you want pronouns to not be a reliable indicator of one's sex/gender.

Why would you want pronouns to be a rigid and reliable expression of someone's biological sex? I've asked it three times now; if it it's to spite trans people, why on earth would you want this??

Sorry, "if it isn't to spite" in that last sentence.

If a person repeatedly and persistently called you Bearded Barry (even though you disliked it and had asked them to call you Barrack) with the reasoning they were called Barrack and didn't want you to have the same name as them, wouldn't it strike you as petty?

Wrong analogy. It's more a case of someone turning up and insisting that as they have changed their name to Daimbars, they now own your home and can have your job.

Captain you misinterpreted my post. There's no problem in discussion AGP at all, it's the frequent sweeping generalisation that most trans women have AGP that needs to be looked at.

There are circumstances when knowing the sex of a person is critical to keeping women safe.

Yes. What makes you suggest (as your post does) that neutral pronouns mean we will not be able to communicate biological sex when necessary?

Admittance to a refuge needs the revelation of sex to prevent the harm that will otherwise happen.

People are not admitted into refuges on the basis of person pronouns. In fact it's hard to imagine a conversation between someone arriving at a refuge and the person behind the desk where their pronouns even come into it

Very astute observation CaptainBrickbeard

It is indeed very telling. And puts me in mind of the Spartacus threads- a unanimous rejection of censorship.

Rat: what is the word for an adult human of the sex that produces motile gametes?

You love your fluid language and all. Do you have such a word to hand? Or did you fluid it out of existence?

It’s very telling!

So telling, in fact, it's pretty much all you need to know!

daimbars that may be what they intended to write, but that is not what it currently says.
It says that (1) pronouns, or (2) names that have been rejected,
are hurtful.

They don’t need to restrict what their opponents in the debate say, because they can counter it anyway. Those whose arguments are flimsy and tenuous desperately need to control the terms of debate because they simply can’t back up their viewpoint.

This. I dont want ‘the other side’ silenced any more than I want to be silenced.

Personal abuse, personal threats, malicious intent etc are something I’d expect to be moderated anyway, but i dont want either side silenced.

I feel that I can hold my own in debate, I want the debate to happen. I don’t want anyone genuine excluded from this debate for using words like ‘cis’ or ‘TIM’ or for expressing an opinion. I don’t care if people offend me and I dont care what they call me as long as it’s not threatening. I don’t want women excluded from this board because they don’t feel upnto the linguistic gymnastics of avoiding deletion. We talked on the Maria mclachlan/Tania wolf conviction thread about the cognitive load inherent in constantly policing your language

People are not admitted into refuges on the basis of person pronouns

No, but they are admitted in the basis of sex which is described by pronouns.

It's worth noting here that TRA do want people admitted into refuges on the basis of person pronouns.

When you talk about someone arriving at a desk, do you think arriving at a refuge is like checking into a hotel reception?