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.

I'm baffled at why you're baffled that the whole world doesn't want to give up using sex based pronouns across hundreds of languages going back thousands of years. How is this a surprise to you.

Funny about AGP being in the DSM. I thought it was a big fat lie made up by that evil bastard Blanchard.

it has been shown that any concession that is less than full submission isn't seen as acceptable.

One poster is one poster and they are entitled to their opinion. That doesn't mean we brush all the cards off the table.

I will also use names and initials to avoid using any pronouns at all

This is also a really good point; names/initials are a perfectly workable compromise.

That is funny Pratchet.

Why, Gibberty? One sex using the customary pronouns of the other - that’s a fact rather than an ‘attitude’. Why does that make the compromise of ‘they’ offensive?

I am very far from being radical, embittered, deliberately nasty etc etc but I do not get this.

Is there a miscommunication? I understood that you intended to use woman/female/she/her to one group of women while calling trans women they/them etc because you refuse to acknowledge them as women. If I misunderstood, I apologise. Maybe you could explain again?

I don't know if anyone in the UK is AGP however

Try googling Gary/Marie Dean. Near us, so a name I can remember.

Thanks Empress, she dd is :)

"Lordy lord. Gibberty, the font of all reliable knowledge, whose every word enlightens us daily, pronounces that no-one is AGP in the UK. "

It couldn't happen in the UK though, could it. Stiff upper lip and all that.

It's just those Yanks.

Oh and the Canadians, they got in there first

"Funny about AGP being in the DSM. I thought it was a big fat lie made up by that evil bastard Blanchard."

Ray Blanchard got himself onto the DSM committee

Only on page 5

Maybe we should just keep TIM, TIF, TERF and cis? And everyone can lump it all round?

Happy with this if the majority are

With that attitude, personally I would see it as deliberate misgendering.

With respect, that's nonsense.

I will refer to people who are biologically female as 'she'. If there is someone who is biologically male but doesn't like being referred to as 'he' I will refer to them as 'they' to avoid referring to their sex.

You cannot force people who do not believe in gender identities to start using pronouns which do match with the opposite sex. That is as unreasonable as asking me to state that I believe in god when I am an atheist. I will simply do what I can to avoid the issue. You are being completely unreasonable.

"Try googling Gary/Marie Dean. Near us, so a name I can remember"

I will try to get official stats based on the number of diagnoses

I hope as many posters as possible would consider going neutral as much as possible.

Which takes us back to my original point that even if every poster on the GC side agreed to use gender neutral pronouns it would still be classed as misgendering.

"I've already shown you a table, complete with source, that 80% are AGP. "

I can't find the source. Do you have a link please?

"Funny about AGP being in the DSM. I thought it was a big fat lie made up by that evil bastard Blanchard."

• Ray Blanchard got himself onto the DSM committee

--- Got himself on?

What did he do? Shimmer up the drainpipe and sneak in to meetings? Drug the committees? Hack the pre-published version? Do you think someone should tell them that he put the AGP part in there?

Ah, I see. The whole point for you is that all transwomen are acknowledged as women. I'd think about using 'she' for some transwomen, yes, as I would politely use 'he' for my friends' trans children where necessary.

But I don't see any reason to use 'she' about someone who only occasionally identifies as female; or who only announced this week that they were thinking about their gender; or who has made no steps towards transition; or who has committed very male crimes.

In order not to misgender I would then use 'they' where needed.

I've already shown you a table, complete with source, that 80% are AGP.

There seems to be an assumption that this means they are dangerous psychopaths. It doesn't .

Follow Ray Blanchard on Twitter and you will learn more about it. He talks to people with AGP on there, they are frequently not trans identifying at all, but know they are AGP.

Which takes us back to my original point that even if every poster on the GC side agreed to use gender neutral pronouns it would still be classed as misgendering.

That's presumptuous and defeatist. At the very least it would show that those posters are making an effort to avoid causing deliberate offence. Do you think something that costs so little isn't worth trying because you believe it will fail? As a pp says, there are always names and initials.

twitter.com/michaelbeltis

A man with it.

"You could always go and search #transgirls and #girlslikeus on Twitter, although I warn you, it isn't pleasant."

There are also some rather surprising items, given the hashtag names

I feel sorry for MNHQ. After years of fostering the nest of vipers and encouraging us to argue vociferously, it's come back or should that be we've come back? to bite them on the bum when the TR...err no, the ...? When there is a discussion about gender v sex.

I feel sorry for MNHQ. After years of fostering the nest of vipers and encouraging us to argue vociferously, it's come back or should that be we've come back? to bite them on the bum when the TR...err no, the ...? When there is a discussion about gender v sex.

Hi all - just going to quickly clarify some points:

Seems to me that it would be essential to let posters know when they've had a post deleted for this to be effective
Yes - we'll mail posters when we delete one of their posts.

Sometimes people have posts deleted for quoting another deleted post. Will there be a mechanism for ensuring posts like that don't get counted in the three strikes tally?
Yes

Overall is this going to be the only area of the boards where we have a three strikes system?
We haven't had to formalise this elsewhere, but in practice, three deletions would usually lead to a suspension elsewhere on site.

Could you look at including TRA in your list
We don't think this as a slur per se - but as ever we'll keep an eye on context and tone.

Surely I'm allowed to say or criticise someone for their actions or express a negative view on them even if they happen to be trans?
Of course, yes.

Please can I also ask you consider deleting posts that associate transgender people with autogynephila (AGP) as this crops up quite a lot.
This is something we'd look at on a case by case basis, though we'll definitely delete posts which generalise.

Will I be deleted for saying 'male women' or 'male transperson' or 'male person'? Or by simply including them as part of the male population?
We'll continue to make decisions by taking tone and context into account. We'd be unlikely to delete if it's said in the context of a civil discussion of biology. If it's said with the apparent intention of belittling an individual, or if it's used repetitively and aggressively, we'd probably delete it on the basis that it undermines civil debate.

Can we say TIM to each other in conversation but not to a male who is transgender?
We're likely to delete this term however it's used. 'Trans-identified' seems pretty goady - people generally don't identify as trans but as the opposite sex. As someone said up thread, one person can't really tell another how they identify, even if they disagree with the logic.

So surely we can say X, who has a penis
In most contexts, the discussion of an individuals' genitals is likely to be deleted.

What about, for example, Ian Huntley - is it ok to say he is a man and call him 'he'.
We think we've allowed for flexibility and context by saying 'it's likely' to be deleted, rather than 'it will be deleted'.

Thanks all.

Hi all - just going to quickly clarify some points:

Seems to me that it would be essential to let posters know when they've had a post deleted for this to be effective
Yes - we'll mail posters when we delete one of their posts.

Sometimes people have posts deleted for quoting another deleted post. Will there be a mechanism for ensuring posts like that don't get counted in the three strikes tally?
Yes

Overall is this going to be the only area of the boards where we have a three strikes system?
We haven't had to formalise this elsewhere, but in practice, three deletions would usually lead to a suspension elsewhere on site.

Could you look at including TRA in your list
We don't think this as a slur per se - but as ever we'll keep an eye on context and tone.

Surely I'm allowed to say or criticise someone for their actions or express a negative view on them even if they happen to be trans?
Of course, yes.

Please can I also ask you consider deleting posts that associate transgender people with autogynephila (AGP) as this crops up quite a lot.
This is something we'd look at on a case by case basis, though we'll definitely delete posts which generalise.

Will I be deleted for saying 'male women' or 'male transperson' or 'male person'? Or by simply including them as part of the male population?
We'll continue to make decisions by taking tone and context into account. We'd be unlikely to delete if it's said in the context of a civil discussion of biology. If it's said with the apparent intention of belittling an individual, or if it's used repetitively and aggressively, we'd probably delete it on the basis that it undermines civil debate.

Can we say TIM to each other in conversation but not to a male who is transgender?
We're likely to delete this term however it's used. 'Trans-identified' seems pretty goady - people generally don't identify as trans but as the opposite sex. As someone said up thread, one person can't really tell another how they identify, even if they disagree with the logic.

So surely we can say 'X, who has a penis'
In most contexts, the discussion of an individuals' genitals is likely to be deleted.

What about, for example, Ian Huntley - is it ok to say he is a man and call him 'he'.
We think we've allowed for flexibility and context by saying 'it's likely' to be deleted, rather than 'it will be deleted'.

Thanks all.