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.

"Gender reassigned male"
"Male who adopts a female gender"

Neither of these works for me because in my (radical feminist) understanding of the world gender is a tool used to oppress women in a male supremacist society. It's not something that can be reassigned or adopted. I get what you're both saying and that you're trying to find a compromise but I can't use the term 'gender' like that.

I think that most people on this forum are very polite

I hate the term cis but I don't think it should be banned; likewise transphobic, TERF. I think that if you allow people to call me those things it give me the opportunity to refute that. I also think it shows them up, which is fine by me.

So if I'm prepared to be magnanimous , then it sticks in the craw to not be able to state biological fact.

I agree with JoanSummers above

You are trying to be too nice.

BarrackerBarmer

Brilliant post.

I think that these rules actually make things worse. There is no sane or logical position to the TRA ideology. Any attempts to sanitise it makes it more obvious how regressive it is.

Man who believes himself to be a woman. How about that?

I think saying that you will delete references to people’s genitalia is unfair - if we are talking about access to women’s prisons, refuges, hospital wards etc then genitalia is extremely relevant.

What about other male aspects of a person’s body? For example, the physical advantages a man has in sport over a woman and the unfairness therefore of allowing them to compete in female categories?

I am puzzling my little noggin to come up with a concise description of the class of persons who were born male (you shouldn't say assigned male at birth because that is the term used by intersex folks that has been coopted elsewhere). So, born male, but then has some trans history. Doesn't mean they necessarily identify as a woman (hence trans woman is not appropriate), although some do, but some might now identify as gender fluid, or agender, or some other one of the many gender designations you can find elsewhere. DOesn't mean they have necessarily transitioned in any physical, surgical or hormonal fashion, doesn't necessarily mean they present in any particular way (masculine/feminine/anything else). As far as I can see the only meaningful criteria here that apply to describe this group is their sex, and under the trans umbrella in some way. So, what are we supposed to call this group in order to refer to that group in the most concise way?This group certainly exists, I can meaningfully describe criteria to determine if someone belongs to this group or not, so why cannot we name them?

What price free speech if you cannot name???

MWBHTBAW. Tidy.

Also, if we can’t discuss genitalia then how do we address the cotton ceiling issue? I find it really bizarre that I’m here arguing for the right to talk about dicks on the internet: I mostly try to avoid dicks on the internet as much as possible. But in this case, I really think we need to retain the right to talk about them!

To be honest I am feeling confused, light-headed and depressed. Emmas mates get to police the last refuge for women's free speech.

Here let's put some of these on the grave. It was goodish while it lasted.

Ok Joan, point taken, just throwing out ideas.

Ultimately, it's something like 'biological male at birth who now chooses to identity and present in an (often) typically stereotyped feminine manner'. But there could be so many additions/qualifiers to this that it could indeed need three paragraphs.

I'm really going to have to work out how to programme certain terms into shortcut keys or function keys

We're sanctioning some people being allowed to forbid the factual truth being spoken about them. And the same people are forbidding us speaking factual truth about ourselves. Basically, one group is outlawing truth for everyone.

Excellent post BarrackerBarmer

I’m not comfortable with signposting to the transwidows threads - it’s an important support network and their stories should be heard, but continued signposting runs the risk that they will be targeted by the TRAs that we aren’t allowed to mention any more. I don’t know what the answer is but I think it is their decision to publicize their thread, rather than for it to be held up as proof in a debate. (I’ve messaged mnhq separately to request that their new guidelines do not endanger the trans widows threads.)
Apols if this is a bit infantilising - y’all are more than capable - it just makes me nervous to see it flagged on such a high profile debate.

Ian Kevin Huntley murdered two 10 year old girls. Ian Kevin Huntley is also a sex offender.

I would also like @MNHQ to take into account that I feel my blood pressure go up, get chest pains, feel slightly light-headed and sudden waves of depression everytime a male uses female pronouns, refers to themselves as female, girl or woman even with the prefix 'trans' or if anyone else refers to them that way. It is offensive to me, my biology, my motherhood, my life experience, everything I am. I feel under siege and it is extremely disturbing.

I agree.

Thank you for continuing to provide a space where these issues can be discussed. It’s so important women’s concerns are not silenced.

What about Holly & Jessica @KateMumsnet ? Do you remember them? Care about them? I know most of the TRAs are too young to remember them but surely MN staff do?

It cannot be the case that womanhood and female pronouns are awarded to the 'nice' ones and not to the 'nasty'ones.

Exactly. And I would imagine this to be highly offensive to trans people. According to this ideology, you are what you say you are. That means everyone. To this ideology, Ian Huntley is a woman who is also a dangerous criminal. To those of us with feet of clay and a belief in the rational, he is a man who is also a dangerous criminal.

What's the threshold for this not to apply on Mumsnet? Who sets it? Kate? Justine? Me? No. Because if we are saying we must respect identities, then Ian Huntley sets it.

I'm really going to have to work out how to programme certain terms into shortcut keys or function keys

Indeed!

Making women's discussion arduous and eventually impossible is clearly the goal of trans activists.

I just don't see what Mumsnet, a website that relies on women's discussion to exist and profit, hopes to gain from it?

Langcleg so you agree that geese are ganders?

This whole business is extremely stressful.

I would walk away from this debate if I could, but the implications of giving in to this ideology are too serious for women and girls, and I can't do it.

I wish I could.

Mumsnet

You mean Birthersnet surely?

There is an article on the Guardian website about MN’s new moderation policy.

A spokesperson for Hero, an LGBTQ+ group has welcomed the changes but suggested that the ban on ‘cis’ means we aren’t set up for a ‘balanced’ discussion.

That guy has a very different definition of ‘balanced’ to me. I suspect the two of us are probably working out of pretty different dictionaries full stop...

Gender reassigned male

JoanSummers et al

I'm only using this as it's the exact words in the EA protected characteristic.
I too think gender is an abomination. Therefore I am happy for them to have their word. It still has not changed their sex. Passports etc are neither here nor there. They might as well show me a birthday card with happy birthday mum on it.

Elletorro knows what she is talking about. Being a lawyer and all.