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 problem with cis is that it’s completely unnecessary, IMO.

In a very petulant “we were here first” kind of way.

There are: men, women, transmen, and transwomen.

Surely it’s just common sense that the change comes with a title change??

How does he "live as a man" Gibberty? What are you suggesting are the "other aspects of sex". Clothing? Hair? Liking pink?

This is the trouble with non-lawyers trying to interpret law. They make a horlicks of it and get the wrong end of the stick entirely.

It's perfectly clear to everyone that sex means sex (you pretending you don't know what it means is disingenuous). And that there are two sexes, male and female. Men and boys are men. Girls and women are female. Citing intersex anomalies and using people with such conditions to try to prove a point is underhand and disrespectful - just pointing that out to you in advance before you start doing it as you have on pretty much every thread you participate in.

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

Yes please, this is a good compromise.

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

As you know "gender reassignment" applies to both people with a GRC and people without. Under 3k biologically male people have a GRC so share the protected characteristic of sex as females with millions of women. The rest of the males with protected characteristic of gender reassignment share the protected characteristic of male sex with millions of men. Stop with this disingenuous sophistry.

Gibberty,

I saw a twitter thread recently which showed that the EA and accompanying notes are contradictory in many parts. There is an explicit part that says even TW with GRC can be excluded from female only spaces if there is a good reason. In other places it seems to suggest that ppl with a GRC should be seen as a member of the opposite (biological) sex. There probably needs to be some clarification of the law.

I think the next term to become 'offensive' and 'literal violence' will be 'transwoman'. For exactly the reason Spartacus states - it is self-evident from the prefix 'trans' that the 'woman' is male. What are they 'transitioning' from, if not maleness?

There is surely too much unpalatable information contained in the prefix to allow it to stand as an acceptable descriptor for much longer.

It’s factual

Facts are transphobic. That is the point.

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

Actually, why are the protected characteristic group of gender reassignment being given more special treatment on MN than other groups?

One side has been silenced

I agree. Because if GC feminists have to call TIMs 'transwomen' all the time, it effectively defeats the GC argument. They may appear to be women in some cases, but clearly not all (Muscato et al).

As for the three strikes in a six week period - well, FWR is going to go very quiet indeed, in a very short amount of time, particularly taking into account all the new rules of 'no nos'.

Here is my biggest beef with the MN deletion policy - no reasons are given (on the thread), nor are the posters ever notified. If one does not go back and check the thread, we have no idea that we have had a comment deleted. Or why, ffs.

And it has been very clear, that a pattern of deletion occurs with different MN mods. Yes, it really is obvious. I can tell when a trans sympathiser mod is on. There must be an Emma Mark 2 floating about.

Gib says he's responsible for 'a significant chunk of equality law' which is either terrifying or unbelievable

There is surely too much unpalatable information contained in the prefix to allow it to stand as an acceptable descriptor for much longer.

Why, though? I mean when it comes to discussion and debate.

I’m sure in their day to day lives, transwomen will never be made to wear a placard saying “I am Trans”.

So when it comes to clarification around the debate, why not say it like it is? Namely that we are discussing people transitioning?

Personally I am happy to abandon the term woman and just stick with biological terms: female and male.

Cis people don’t reassign their sex so don’t need any special terminology.

If you do reassign your sex you are still biologically male or female so you get the suffix “gender reassigned”

Ian Huntley hasn't asked anyone to use pronouns,as far as I know it's all newspaper reports?

Trans people here also don't ask. If they haven't asked then we don't know so there is no broken rule.

Facts are transphobic. That is the point.

Which really does make the whole thing impossible.

If you’re going to be offended by science and actual, irrefutable, biological proof then you can’t be reasoned with, can you?

Call them transpeople.

I like Ellletorro's sugggestion.

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.

Yup.

Or the favoured 'transfolks'.

Same with pronouns, avoid using personal pronouns.

Mmm I am very uncomfortable about not using the acronym TIM.

How can we discuss feminism without being able to name people as male or female? Or without being able to mention if a male or female identifies as trans?

I find the term cis offensive, but I wouldn't report someone for using it or expect someone have their account deleted if they used it 3 times. They are using terms consistent with the ideology they follow, like a Christian might use the term 'soul' and these things are worth thrashing out.

Another thing - sweeping statements - how about the fact that dysphoria is a psychological disorder - are we allowed to mention it or must we pretend it is healthy and normal, but 'God made a mistake' and put a 'soul' in a 'wrong' body?

Also, I wonder about deletions. I find it very strange that we aren't notified. I have a feeling that my years as a MNer will soon be coming to a close because of the 3 strikes thing. I don't mean to be uncivil, I just don't want to be forced to pretend that people can change sex or be prevented from naming a person's sex if it is relevant to the point.

And i like the robust and sometimes pretty edgy debate on MN - I have a feeling this issue is going to be even more starkly different in tone from others on say Chat or AIBU where people can be pretty rude as standard.

I always say trans people or trans person. This is on Stonewall's list/guidance.

How can we discuss feminism without being able to name people as male or female?

It doesn't say that?

Elletorro, that won't work. Transwomen are female now, apparently, and to say otherwise is transphobic

Though it's worth asking - MNHQ, can we say "gender reassigned/ing male" or "trans-identifying male" - I bet we can't.

I think the answer is as everyone else says - let people use whatever acronyms they like, but don't use them as insults. So "you are all a crowd of TERFs" or "TiMs are all paedophiles" are not ok, but something like "TRAs want the law to be changed so that TiMs aren't allowed in women's prisons" or "cis people will never understand what transpeople go through" are ok.

Or are they ok, those statements? I don't know. It's all clear as mud.

What about 'trans XY'?

I like Ellletorro's sugggestion, too. Especially on FWR

Another point about deletions; I think it would be be beneficial to have the reason for the deletion put back into the deletion message. Otherwise (yes I have a crystal ball) there will inevitably be screenshots of tonnes of deleted posts (for another reason than the above) by one poster cited on twitter as "proof" that mn is still transphobic and should DIAF.
Can I stick a fiver on it now?