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 a male trans person on twitter claiming that Mumsnet made them suicidal, and talking of the threats of legal action that (this person) then gave. Apparently they managed to contact both Mumsnet and their MP while feeling suicidal. This seems to be why we can’t use the term TIM anymore ? Apologies if this has been covered already, the thread is so long I have missed bits.

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

I use transwoman, however I do think this would be the best way for people to be factual while not using TIM. It is lengthy, but given MN stance on being able to accurately talk about biology, it cannot be deemed against the rules, surely?

I’m very glad cis has gone though. Awful term

woman sounds excellent.

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.

Yes this has been my experience when talking to people in real life. They get worked up about how people are wanting to stop 'transwomen' from using female areas, and they are all like 'but transwomen ARE female' and it turns out they think transwomen are actually transmen.

woman - that’s great and please start the thread!

Still reading but wanted to take issue with Super Dandy invoking me as saying the guidance is workable.

It's workable for me. Because my priority is to expose the sexism in the ideology. I can't do that if I'm banned.

I understand, and admire, women who refuse to sacrifice anything in order to stay.

Believe me, one of the biggest things I've learnt as a result of this issue is self restraint.

It is an outrageous and profoundly sexist move to claim you cannot call men, men. On an anonymous Internet forum!

Just because I have grimly decided to attempt to work within the guidance, doesn't mean I agree with. I don't. And never will.

There is a male trans person on twitter claiming that Mumsnet made them suicidal, and talking of the threats of legal action that (this person) then gave

I have nil fucks to give about anyone who says anyone "makes" them feel anything. I despise it when it's posted on MN. Lazy thinking that ascribes responsibility to others for your feelings.

woman sounds good - please do start it :)

MNHQ - we need to know what terms to use - don't want to accidentally break the rules.

SpartacusAutisticus that is an amazing post, thank you it has clarified so many things for me

It's like a version of the Roman Catholic Index of forbidden texts:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Also wondering if MNHQ is dead to shame.

There is a male trans person on twitter claiming that Mumsnet made them suicidal, and talking of the threats of legal action that (this person) then gave

While I sincerely hope the person in question remains healthy and can access appropriate support for their issues, I am concerned about the parallels here to coercive control and also the way suicide is being weaponised by some parties.

The giving of puberty blockers for example is leveraged (I’m sorry, hate the term but it is appropriate here) by having the alternative as the patient will kill themselves otherwise. It has to be, because these are incredibly powerful drugs and no ethics body in their right mind would approve giving them to children unless the benefits outweighed the risks. Since the risks are so high, only death can be used as the leverage point. 80% of children questioning gender identity end up reconciled with it. It is unethical to treat 100% of such a population.
But when we examine the suicide stats which are so widely publicised we see that they have been debunked.

And so we are led to the uncomfortable conclusion that perhaps the threat of suicide is being used by pressure groups as a tactic to force hands and actions.

Of course many women on here will be familiar with that as an MO of abusive men in general.

So I hope the person in question is making a full recovery and has support. At the same time and speaking in a general and hypothetical manner about Boone in particular, I do not accept that an online forum like MN alone can drive anyone to suicidal ideation and I would if I was a lawyer in such a hypothetical situation be exploring the possibility of vexatious litigation as a defence.

I’m also saddened at the amount of linguistic wriggle I had to put in there, but such is life.

OK will work something up and be back to post link :)

If an online forum raises issues that make you feel very distressed, the best thing is to walk away. It is easily done.

If an online forum raises issues that make you feel very distressed, the best thing is to walk away. It is easily done.

Very strange that you would engage to the point of becoming suicidal.

Exactly. There are sadly many instances in life where it is extremely difficult to avoid coming up against opinions and values that are deeply contrary to your own. Online fora are, happily, very easy to avoid.

And if you are unable to avoid despite it having such a severe affect on your mental health, that suggests prior mental health issues.

Yes.

You need to be quite severely deluded to think that a rational way to avoid distress is to get the rest of the world to conform precisely to your own values and opinions, even when the sharing of those values and opinions is confined to spaces you can easily avoid. I don’t force myself to attend church or synagogue and then wail in public about how distressing I found the experience amd the church and synagogue should undergo censorship at my discretion.

The Guardian has shared the article on FB and the hate directed at MN in the comments is almost comical and almost entirely men.

Jeebus, you go away for a few days ...

As others have said, censoring words is shit. In fact, does this mean i can say shit and fuck and cunt here with impunity but not cis, TERF and TIM.

I'm not a fan of banning words. I'd rather someone call me cis so I can explain my objections, than the person who used the word be threatened with the ban hammer.

If you ban these words then you limit our ability to talk about these things among ourselves. How can we talk about the impact that the concept 'cis' has on women, if we can't even say the word cis. How can we talk about the misogyny and incitement to violence behind the word Terf if we can't say the word terf?

How can we talk about the impact that the concept 'cis' has on women, if we can't even say the word cis. How can we talk about the misogyny and incitement to violence behind the word Terf if we can't say the word terf?

I quite agree HerFemaleness and I won’t be reporting any use of cis or terf for this reason.

It would be quite powerful if no-one reported cis or terf and the only calls for censorship were coming from one side. Which they are.

I posted this on another thread but I think this is the best place for it:

MN haven’t said we can’t discuss genitals.
They've said that they will almost always delete posts where the genitals of an individual are discussed.
We need to say more about this:

I hope they agree it is appropriate to discuss your own, your child's genitals, your DP's genitals, and the genitals of someone who has abused you or that has abused someone you know well.
I may in fact discuss the genitals of the people that are my children's biological parents.
It's appropriate to discuss the genitals of the Irish rugby players or indeed anyone that is tried for rape, I jolly well hope.

It's appropriate to discuss in general terms the operations that individuals undergo in gender reassignment surgery, no?

Where there's a news report or journal article about this topic, individuals (N=1) are often discussed. For example we were discussing GRS regret recently and one poor woman having surgery to transition to male-type genitalia died from post surgical complications. We have therefore discussed that (non-famous, anonymous, but N=1) individual's genitalia.

Can we post links to actual TV programmes about actual individuals' genitalia? Can we then discuss them? Or articles in the Times?

For example we were told we were "disgusting" for discussing Jazz Jennings' genitalia. Yet Jazz and Jazz's family have discussed this topic many times on a TV show. It's not exactly private. Same for the child of the head of Mermaids. All in public elsewhere.

Why can't we discuss it if it's on main stream media elsewhere?

I can see that - just as we are not going to start using abusive terms for other women and their genitals despite them being used on horrible MRA forums - we are not free to repeat abuse from elsewhere on social media.

But if it's on a TV programme or website that the family themselves endorse? Or in a broadsheet news article? Why can the readers of that news website discuss it and we can't?