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.

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

Sounds like a good compromise to me Rat.

People who use threats of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims are generally called terrorists.

Where does TRA fit in that definition?

Can I call myself a TERF?

Because I am one.

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

That's one of the few things you've said I agree with.

It's not the words we use. We have a group of males who want to be included within the group 'woman' and we have a group of women who believe it is detrimental to women's rights to include them.

The male group are going to want to use words that blur the distinction, women are going to want to use words that separate the two groups.

I think stopping people from talking in the language they a feel comfortable with, cis or TIM, will stop debate even if that isn't the intention. Because it's going to be so difficult to say anything meaningful without getting deleted.

Gibberty the Equalities Act also makes it perfectly clear that transsexuals can be excluded from some same sex provisions.

The wording is not perfect because some people seem insistent on deliberatly and consistently misunderstanding words. Such as woman, and sex.

But biological sex is protected.

@MNHQ

I think clarification is an excellent step, and thanks for defending science (quite disturbing that we've got the point that being allowed to state scientific facts is something to celebrate but here we are).

However, I just have a question - you write

2. We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

That's fine but could we please add in "we don't allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards women and girls" as well? Or indeed just stop at we don't allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive Otherwise it does appear that transpeople are getting special treatment and, by omission, that it's fine to be derogatory and aggressive to other groups of people, which presumably is not your intent?

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

BANNER HEADLINE! Lang agrees with Rat!

I think the best modding decision would have been to say that no terms are off the table and endless vexatious reports over terms will be the thing that gets people suspended.

I agree with others that this paragraph is troubling:

"That said, it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns, or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’. Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely. As we’ve said, context is everything – but it’s likely that going forward our moderation team will delete these expressions."

So for example, referring to trans-identifying male convicted rapists by their given names, as 'he' or 'him', or as a 'trans identifying male' could get a person banned? Am I misinterpreting that?

Words have meanings. I know some people are unhappy about them but that doesn't make it OK to ban people for using the terms correctly. Pronouns refer to sex. Male/female refers to sex. Some people believe that they have a gender identity of the opposite sex, that means they identify as trans (meaning 'across') gender. People are given names when they are born. They might legally change their name later, but they're still the same person.

I am not affronted by the term cis if a person is using it to describe themselves. It means they ascribe to the concept of gender-identity and believe that their gender identity aligns with their sex. I object to people using 'cis' to describe gender critical people because it's inaccurate and dismissive but I don't think it's worth banning people over it. I do think 'terf' is a slur and inaccurate but again, if someone isn't being belligerent and is just (mis)using the term to describe GC people I don't think it should warrant a ban.

If you were to go through with this you would need to define what the appropriate terms ARE. E.g. Instead of TERF say GC, instead of TIM say 'male trans person' or MTP.

Personally I don't think hopping onto the euphemistic treadmill does anyone any good, but if you want to say that TIM is bad then tell us what is ok.

This is the example in the Explanatory Notes

"A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act."

A person can only have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment by changing physiological or other attributes of sex so sex in EA 2010 cannot just be biological

At least some transwomen say that they are men.

Miranda Yardley is a man. Has said so on here.

Are we really saying that Miranda would get deleted on Mumsnet for speaking the truth?

Or it okay for Miranda to refer to men who identify as women as male, but other posters are not allowed to do so?

Goldenbug

Huntley in particular is a serial liar, manipulative game player, probably psychopath, and has a real incentive to jump onto the transgender bandwagon. Why should anyone be asked to believe or validate anything he says? The problem of violent sex offenders and murderers discovering they're "trans" in prison should IMO be treated differently not because "bad people don't deserve decent treatment" but bc we have very reasonable cause to be suspicious of their motives. And because of the implications for vulnerable women.

Thanks very much MN. I really appreciate this forum, and it's seemed to me that it's been sensibly moderated so far.

1. We believe in free speech and civil debate. So we will, for instance, allow people to discuss biology and scientific evidence.

It's certainly an interesting point in time when we are told that a company will "allow" people to discuss biology and science. This is where gender"ology" has got us.

The rules look great, I agree that there has been a deliberately aggressive campaign of reporting, lots of people have announced their intention to do this to deliberately shut down women here so I'm glad Mumsnet are putting a stop to this.

I don't really use TIM at all, and I manage to make my thoughts clear usually.

Daim imagined I said something that I didn't yesterday so reported me for that and I was deleted. I will make sure in future that I don't say anything that can be misunderstood.

Hi @MNHQ. Thanks for doing this. I agree with most of it (especially laying off the mods - I may not always agree but there's no need to be mean ) but I would be grateful if you could clarify a few things for me. Thanks.

I use TRA to differentiate from the majority of trans people who are just getting on with their lives. Will I be deleted for this?

Will you now be informing people if they have been deleted and why (you could have standardised reasons and only go into more detail if requested)? If you don't know you've been deleted and why you cannot prevent yourself repeating a mistake.

There are times, such as with the boys winning the sprint in Connecticut, where it is clearly important to show the difference in sex and highlight it in order to allow for the discusdion to make sense. How will this be dealt with?

AGP is a recognised sexual fetish That is included in transgender under Stonewalls definition. Obviously this does not apply to all trans people but it does for a significant number. Are we still allowed to discuss it?

Where there is a lack of clarity on how a person identifies, such as Ian/Lian/Nicola Huntley where there are conflicting reports, or Philip/Pippa Hunts who is a part time cross dresser, will we be penalised if we get it wrong?

Will you introduce a way to edit posts (maybe with the original automatically included below so people can't say something then hide) so that if we accidemtly misgender someone we can correct it without it counting to our three strikes and out? I certainly make errors on occasion and I've even seen Datun misgender by accident so no one is immune.

What is an acceptable term to refer to people presenting (or claiming without changing appearance) as the opposite sex that is clear to everyone including any new lurkers? I think we really need this if we are to avoid mistakes. In fact it might be an idea to have acceptable and unacceptable terms pinned to the top of the femanists board (and let other boards know so they don't fall foul of the rules).

I'm sure there are more questions that I've forgotten but if be grateful if you could clarify these for a start. Many thanks.

That's one of the few things you've said I agree with.

To be fair, it's easy for me to say because I've never personally experienced any negativity as a result of those terms...

Sporadic you're almost certainly right; I think "transwoman" as a word in its own right rather than "trans woman" is self explanatory, and doesn't say "definitely a woman but a certain type of woman" (which I know some posters are keen to say they don't acknowledge).

Agree totally with cup of tea above, can those points be address pls, thank you

When people are still actively being killed for a biological reality lets not pretend its some abstract "feeling". Because that is offensive.

I don’t want this to get lost!

Look, it’s very simple. The only way to discuss the erosion or potential erosion of women’s rights and safety around this is to be able to clarify. That’s it. End of story.

If someone decides that calling a biological female a female is offensive then surely that’s his/her problem?

I can’t for the life of me understand why “trans woman” is offensive? It’s factual.

Section 7 of Equality Act 2010 Gender Reassignment
A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

I do find that last bit confusing. Do physiological or other attributes of sex include clothes? Hair? Makeup? Thoughts? Feelings?
If it is working towards reassigning the person's sex then that sounds like a permanent change so couldn't include cross-dressers. People like Philip Bunce wouldn't be covered by this definition.

I understand that this is a minefield for MNHQ, I don't want to see anyone being abusive but I do want to be able to have proper discussions and I hope we're not going to end up with unreadable threads.

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

I agree with this as well.

Can I just point out that TIM is a very new acronym, yet has quickly found its way into the list.

Do you know how long disabled posters have complained about use of terms they find personally hurtful? Chinney reckon, eh...

And yes, there is supposed to be a difference between a TRA (violent and misogynistic, parallel with MRA) and a regular transactivist

I think the best modding decision would have been to say that no terms are off the table and endless vexatious reports over terms will be the thing that gets people suspended.

Agree

We're all grown ups - it's quite clear if someone is using a word in a descriptive way as opposed to a derogatory way.

Cis gets right on my tits for example, but there are people who use it descriptively who aren't deliberately trying to offend.

sex in EA 2010 cannot just be biological

We are not in EA 2010 though Gibberish, we are in something called existence, human life, on a planet. We don't live in a legal concept.

Bit confused about the pronouns thing - I would refer to someone I was talking to using their preferred pronoun - but what about, for example, Ian Huntley - is it ok to say he is a man and call him 'he'. What about other trans prisoners?
Genuine question Mumsnet. Please don't delete me! Very much appreciate your efforts, especially when so much censorship is going on elsewhere.

Gibbrty

Changing attributes of sex doesn’t mean you change biological sex.

A GRC changes legal sex not biological sex. It’s a clumsy legal fiction.