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.

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.

Great post. Yes.

Amen Barracker

Unless I'm explicitly told I must mis-sex people (in which case I will just lurk)I will carry on telling the truth. And regardless, I will carry on telling the truth in real life.

Agree with the people who talk about being on the autistic spectrum. Lying can be very distressing for some people. It's very wrong to prevent people telling the truth. I for one struggled to make much sense of the rules-I'm also quote black and white in that I need to know the rules.

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

Why? People who use the pronoun based on their sex can do so unambiguously - all parties know what is meant. If someone chooses to use the opposite pronoun, they are trying to change the other person's perception. Some people can't handle the cognitive dissonance required for that, so use the neutral option. It's not offensive. It's one of those much-requested compromises.

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??

For the purpose of communication. That's what language is for. This is not, like, a hard sum tho.

Most the transmen and women , my girlfriend and I know, have stopped enaging on MN

And many lesbian feminists like my G/F and myself rarely come on anymore , its like an EDL rally for any one from the gay community sometimes

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

I can tell you what it isn't; it isn't he/she/him/her/they/them or their.

Will you answer my question if I ask for a fourth time why you wish so fiercely to protect personal pronouns as a true reflection of biological sex, to the detriment of women suffering the ill-effects of unconscious bias?

It’s very telling!

Funny, I read it as one said maybe not being quite as offended by the terms as one would be led to believe...

The first time I came across this I wasn't even that much of a feminist. I was just : 'But that's not true'. That's why. It's not to spite anyone. It's just not a description of the truth. It's a lie.

Just seen you answered me Pratchet, "for communication". I mean I can't say I have much more understanding of your position on the basis of that... why do you think it's good for women to communicate their biology in casual conversation?

It's a lie.

Except they/them/their is not.

I already did answer: twice. For the purpose of communication. So, over to you.

They are plurals. They don't refer to one person.

Funny, I read it as one said maybe not being quite as offended by the terms as one would be led to believe...

We are. But freedom of speech is important, don't you think? You suggested you thought it was. Just because we don't need smelling salts when someone uses particular terms we object to (unlike certain others) doesn't mean they're not offensive.

...except they can and do refer to a person when either their sex is not known or we do not wish to communicate it. So...?

I have no idea if any of my recent posts have been deleted.

I usually say "male who identifies as trans" which is both factual and clear. What would Justine/Mumsnet prefer instead of this? Does Justine/Mumsnet think there is any term at all that at least some MWIAT won't object to? They used to be called transsexuals or transvestites, then they were transwomen, then it was "offensive" not to have a space "trans women", then they were trans*, then that was offensive, then they were MAAB, then that was offensive, so they were CAMAB. Then they were trans women again, then just "women" (women's feelings on this were irrelevant), and now I regularly see them calling themselves female. All this in ten years!

The goalposts are always moving on what they want to be called, you can keep up (and I'm sure that is deliberate). And why should I care what they prefer enough to put their feelings before my own, before the feelings of women I care about?

Surely the best thing to do us state the facts in an objective way. Which is what I'm trying to do with "male who identifies as trans". I don't believe in 'trans' the religion, this phrase is as close as I can get to acknowledging that this is both who they are (male) and how they want to identify themselves (trans). I'm not calling them women because they aren't women and it is hugely offensive to women to assert that they are.

Why is it good for women to communicate their biology in casual conversation?

Are you actually advocating that we cease to differentiate between men and women in all language? Or just on 'casual' language.

Why would you want to be unable to refer to a person's sex?

I'm content to use gender neutral pronouns (ie they/them/their). There are people on both sides who don't like them, but that is why they are a compromise I suppose. It means GC feminists are not forced to refer to refer to someone who is not biologically female using pronouns that have always tranditionally been reserved for women, and transpeople don't have to hear pronouns related to their biological sex which causes them dysphoria or which they have otherwise rejected.

I would find it helpful if MNHQ could clarify at some point which terms are acceptable though when referring to transpeople of either gender, as I am thoroughly confused now about what terms are OK and which are not (other than the ones referred to in the statement).

I do agree with Elle's points about the need to consider other protected characteristics (in particular autism/Asperger's etc). I worry that some people are going to struggle with this new policy, particularly if there is not further clarification about what is acceptable terminology.

The suggestion that any discussion of autogynephilia should be banned is just bizarre. Nobody has said that all transpeople have this fetish but women have legitimate concerns relating to AGPs which would not apply to 'old school transsexuals' (I am assuming this term is still OK...).

Why? People who use the pronoun based on their sex can do so unambiguously - all parties know what is meant. If someone chooses to use the opposite pronoun, they are trying to change the other person's perception. Some people can't handle the cognitive dissonance required for that, so use the neutral option. It's not offensive. It's one of those much-requested compromises.

Because it is othering and offensive.

JuzzaL it all depends on the context, I doubt MNHQ are going to be heavy handed with the ban hammer for calling Ian Huntley 'he'. Surely a bit of common sense can prevail.

Now Rat I have given your answer, and explained it.

What is the word for an adult human of the sex that produces motile gametes?

if it it's to spite trans people, why on earth would you want this??

Can we just reflect a moment on how self centred a person would need to be before the conventional use of the English language is seen as a direct personal attack on them?

We use he she her his they and them in the ways we are used to from convention and for accuracy and precision.

Language has meaning. As a scientist (and a pedant, ahem) I feel pretty strongly about this. I’m not overhauling the entire English language because a tiny minority of people feel a general convention is personally having a go at them.

But freedom of speech is important, don't you think?

I do! Like I've said before, no horse in the terminology race. One side seem pretty adamant that they don't like certain acronyms that refer to them, the other are more "meh, don't like ours, but really want to keep using those other ones", and I'm just saying there are several different ways to read that.

Still not invested in it.

Any answer, Rat?