Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

Follow on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3276551-Mumsnet-moderation-of-trans-rights-and-gender-critical-issues?pg=40&order=

There is literally no way to describe a male who wants to be described as a woman as anything but a woman without pissing them off

And until HQ understand that we aren't going to get guidelines that are workable.

How about using the same words but with air quotes. I think that makes the meaning pretty clear

I don't think you will be deleted three times in six weeks, bowl, to earn a banning.

Bowl, woman, beyond - I would absolutely love to explore this topic with you and others on a dedicated thread. I’m really busy this morning so would welcome suggestions for a thread title and am totally fine with any one of you starting the thread. I have no pretensions to owning the topic of debate!

Can you imagine a woman going onto pistonheads, saying that they are man, having a hissy fit when the long established users quite rightly point out they are a woman, going to a lawyer and getting pistonheads to stop calling women, women?

It beggars belief.

"All this is just a targeted attack on a female space because it is a female space. TRAs like the one on here know they get nowhere in real life because they get told where to go. But because this forum is mainly women talking (which they hate), they exploit the associated expectation of women to be nice to shut us up."

No. It isn't an attack on women. Simply, a forum open to the public should not be hostile to trans people.

My suggestion:

MAN - Male Ante-Natally

Can't see an issue with that?

And @GibbertyFlibbert - if you think this forum is 'hostile' to transpeople, I think you need to get out 'there' a little more...visit a football forum or something, recalibrate and come back into the (relatively) loving arms of Mumsnet.

Something that stood out to me on the other thread, was the insistence that doing away with pronouns would help feminists. Now, I don;t know about anyone else but I am deeply suspicious of transactivists and their motives, and pronouns seems to be the most important issue to them for some reason. I don't pretend to know why, but there must be a reason they insist that anyone who simply says 'I feel like a woman' should be immediately called she and her (I am not talking about transsexual people here, which very few transactivists actually are anyway). I do not see how resisting this pronoun thing is an own goal for fmeinists at all

Pronouns should matter to feminists; it should be of particular importance to muddy the fuck out of them so they stop being a reliable give-away of someone's sex/gender so that women can stop not getting jobs because of them!

Women do not not get jobs because of pronouns. How would a pronoun stop a woman getting a job? I can kind of see how mrs/ms on a CV might sway someone away from interviewing, however if that applicant put mx. or something instead..their sex would be obvious at the interview stage, so if they had a sexist fucker doing the interview they would be rejected anyway. Except for mrs/ms/mx (which I don't see as pronouns anyway?)..I don't see what pronouns have to do with getting employed. Maybe someone can explain it to me, in simple terms please.

Simply, a forum open to the public should not be hostile to trans people.

It shouldn’t be hostile to women either. There are transpeople posting on here - many of them. There are men, women, parents, non parents. All sorts of people.
I have never seen anyone be hostile to transpeople as a class (but by Jove I’ve seen people on AIBU be hostile to women, single mothers, SAHMs, Working mums, people on benefits, the disabled as a class.)

People are at pains to point out that they are not anti trans. I am not anti trans. I am pro woman. right now there is a concerted push to bring in legislation that will actively disadvantage women and children. I see that legislation as a threat. I will oppose it. I do not oppose transpeople as a class. I oppose self ID.

It is a way of shutting down debate to label anyone worried about self ID as transphobic. I oppose self ID. I oppose the projected changes in the GRA. I support the right of transpeople to coexist with everyone else. I cannot be any clearer about this. Disagreement is not hostility. Even pretty robust debate is not hostility. Demanding that women censor their speech, their thoughts, and accommodate other people’s opinions that the women do not agree with, under threat? Now that’s hostile.

Regarding employment.

I’ve worked a lot in expat environments and many people I’ve met have said they feel that a foreign name or their being a woman has disadvantaged them. I now insist that every CV that comes across my desk is redacted - dates of uni, name, any photo or anything that identifies them, their sex or their age. I encourage others to do this too.
Once you’ve got three or four people and you need to actually speak to them there’s no way of blinding, but that initial redaction is important. I think it’s that first screening hurdle that people find easier to discriminate against because no one is there in front of them.

I have been told that I would have got a job if I hadn’t been a childless woman in my early thirties before - sex discrimination does exist.

I do however agree with the part about malicious reporting, and abusing the mods. I moderate on another site and honestly, mods cannot win no matter what, and our site is nowhere near as large as this one. I don't agree with abusing the mods for doing their job. I do agree with challenging seemingly odd rules though, respectfully of course.

I’ve worked a lot in expat environments and many people I’ve met have said they feel that a foreign name or their being a woman has disadvantaged them. I now insist that every CV that comes across my desk is redacted - dates of uni, name, any photo or anything that identifies them, their sex or their age. I encourage others to do this too.
Once you’ve got three or four people and you need to actually speak to them there’s no way of blinding, but that initial redaction is important. I think it’s that first screening hurdle that people find easier to discriminate against because no one is there in front of them.*

Yeah that makes sense. I would say in this case, there should maybe be a campaign to get more businesses/bosses to do what you do. Or for CVs to no longer actually contain names and such, only achievements? I don't know if that would work as obviously a contact number is needed and that, and every interview I have had I have been invited to by phone so my sex is obvious anyway but I didn't realise that this would make a difference as when I have done interviews for FIL (I don't own a business and never have, but he did) he chose the candidates, I just did the interviewing. So yeah, thanks for that reply. It has made me think a bit.

It shouldn’t be hostile to women either. There are transpeople posting on here - many of them. There are men, women, parents, non parents. All sorts of people.
I have never seen anyone be hostile to transpeople as a class (but by Jove I’ve seen people on AIBU be hostile to women, single mothers, SAHMs, Working mums, people on benefits, the disabled as a class.)

This is what bothers me.

The hostility towards women.

It is hostile for a male to claim to be a woman like it is hostile for an invading army to take down all the natives to settle in their territory.

It is hostile.

Males need to respect women's boundaries - our bodies, our spaces and the words we use to describe ourselves.

Enough of tolerating male hostility, invasion and appropriation!

Enough of males trying to tell us what to do, how to be or what to say or get us ejected from our spaces so they can squat in them and gloat until the triumph of successful domination fades and they are so empty of self-affirmation they need to hunt us down and try to do the same thing to us in our refugee camps.

We need separation from them, we need space.

They are the ones being hostile.

I'm inclined to agree with Amalfi, the whole point with extremists is They. Just. Don't. Stop.

I'm also very pissed off with MNHQ's continued lack of response to not putting this thread up on Trending. MNHQ is very quick to stop on those they believe to have transgressed but cover their arse big time on this one. Ooooh we have...wedding cancellation; TESCO confrontation.

Here's your starter for 10 Justine: would you care to comment on why MNHQ is censoring this thread by not "Trending" it?

Fuck me, when my DH died it hit trending. Lovely as he was, his death affected fewer people than this appalling mess.

But transpeople describe themselves as AMAB/AFAB, with the A signifying 'assigned'. This is a term that has been hijacked from correct usage when applied to intersex people. So just dropping the A is scientifically and semantically accurate.

I think that in terms of transpeople who are OK with 'AMAB' etc. it is because the 'assigned' suggests 'wrongly assigned'. It was a decision imposed on them by medical staff who couldn't see there true identity. I agree that we shouldn't hijack intersex terms anyway as it muddies the water.

I sadly agree with others that there are some people who won't accept any term other that 'women' for transwomen (and by transwomen I mean people who are biologically male). But I was hoping MNHQ might be able to confirm where the line is as I'm still not sure.

I am half-tempted to just keep using 'transwomen (and by transwomen I mean people who are biologically male)' every single time. It's lengthy but it's clear, accurate and shows the linguistic hoops we have to jump through.

Bowl, woman, beyond - I would absolutely love to explore this topic with you and others on a dedicated thread. I’m really busy this morning so would welcome suggestions for a thread title and am totally fine with any one of you starting the thread. I have no pretensions to owning the topic of debate!

I would love to explore this more too. What you have written is chiming with my experiences and I would love to learn more.

Can someone link to the thread you start so I don’t miss it?

I am half-tempted to just keep using 'transwomen (and by transwomen I mean people who are biologically male)' every single time. It's lengthy but it's clear, accurate and shows the linguistic hoops we have to jump through

You're spot on. It would work and also piss off both the gutless MNHQ and the oppressive TransActivists.

Are we allowed to say on here “trans person born with a penis” and “trans person born with a vagina”? That is the terminology we have resorted to (somewhat unconsciously) in this household in order to ensure we understand one another when talking about trans issues.

I'm rather enjoying this aspect of the thread as I'm teaching "Nineteen Eight-Four" and "Stasiland", both pertinent texts when applied to what MNHQ is kow-towing to.

I am half-tempted to just keep using 'transwomen (and by transwomen I mean people who are biologically male)' every single time.

That would be really helpful for most people who are new to the issue because they tend to think transwoman means a woman who has transitioned rather than a male.

Wait - we can't say "transwoman"? What the fuck are we meant to say?

Bowl, woman, beyond, fortunate

How about "Taking it out on your body - exploring possible roots"

Wait - we can't say "transwoman"? What the fuck are we meant to say?

Really?! I hadn’t understood that either.

It doesn’t say that in the link?