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=

Morning everyone. Just to let you know, we're going to gradually get going with moderating according to the new guidelines today. We're not going to be too heavy-handed while everyone gets used to things, and we'll be letting people know if they've been deleted, so please don't worry that you'll be accidentally suspended.

We also thought it might be useful to clarify our thinking about general terms for trans people. Having said that TIM is not okay, it seems a bit illogical to allow other terms which hang upon natal sex.

Just to unpack that a bit: it's really important to us that Mumsnet is not unwelcoming to any group. If the favoured term for trans people on MN centres on natal sex, when what trans people actually have in common their unhappiness with the same, we think they're bound to feel unwelcome.

If we thought it was difficult to express a gender critical position without these generic terms, we might hesitate - but honestly, we don't think it is.

As ever, there is room for mods to exercise their individual judgment, so they might occasionally decide that a particular instance isn't problematic. We'd much prefer it though, if you found ways to refer to trans people as a group which don't refer to natal sex, and as we move forward with moderating according to the new guidelines, we're likely to delete terms which do.

Thanks all

MNHQ

I think @mnhq should keep a very close eye on posters who report.

My suspicion is that the vast majority of people who report do it maliciously at the moment and they probably also to it repeatedly.

These repeated reporters should have their activity closely monitored to see if they engage in good faith or are here to control women, restrict women's rights and erode women's legal protections.

I haven't reported anyone on FWR in years; possibly ever.

I think it's important to let things stand, so that people can see the ridiculous arguments (and threats) used when trying to convince people that 2+2=5 (or eleventy million).

I do feel like reporting the complete liars though; I don't get why MN allows people to repetitively post factually incorrect opinions, link to dodgy science (and lie about it) and give dangerous medical advice.

I'm hopeful too that the banning of vexatious reporters will get rid of a lot of the persistent offenders, as it seems to be the people with strange beliefs who want to control what others say.

I don’t post much on this area at all, but find going through what is allowed and not still murky.

But are you saying that transwoman is ok?

I cross posted there.

So are you saying, Kate, that we are not allowed to refer to transpeople's natal sex at all. Every?

We can never say "X was a man" or "Y transitioned from male to female"?

What on earth terms are we allowed to use.

You had better be absolutely clear about this. What term can we use to talk about someone who is biologically male but wants to live "as a woman" whatever that is meant to mean?

@MarshaBradyo

But are you saying that transwoman is ok?

That's right Marsha.

@katemumsnet it is politically essential to refer to sex when discussing the politics of sex which is what feminism is.

Is that not self-evident that you are preventing free speech to discuss biology, sex, feminism by barring mention of a person's sex?

@katemumsnet I find it hostile to have the words female, woman and girl use to describe males.

It makes me feel unwelcome.

It makes me feel forced to lie and pretend along with an ideology I reject.

That makes me feel extremely unwelcome.

@justinemumsnet @mnhq does that not matter?

And if someone asks what a transwoman is, are we allowed to say "someone who was born male but want's to be female" or something like that?

We have to be able to use accurate terms to discuss this topic. You aren't, surely, expecting us to pretend transwomen are female?

But are you saying that transwoman is ok?
That's right Marsha.

Could I just clarify @KateMumsnet is 'transwomen (and by transwomen I mean people who are biologically male)' OK or does the part in brackets contravene the rules because it refers to people's biological sex even though it provides much needed clarity?

We'd much prefer it though, if you found ways to refer to trans people as a group which don't refer to natal sex

1. When you consider, even for one minute, that the whole point of wanting to be regarded as a sex you weren't born as means you kind of have to refer to birth, your proposition is nonsense.

1. You make the rules, then say we make the rules. Make your mind up, FFS.

@Maryz

So are you saying, Kate, that we are not allowed to refer to transpeople's natal sex at all.

No, just that the general term for trans people can't hang on their natal sex.

If you need to refer to the natal sex of an individual to clearly express a point, we'd likely allow it. It's probably not okay to refer to the natal sex of an individual on principle rather than in pursuit of a specific point. If the natal sex of an individual is aggressively repeated over and over, we'd likely take the view that had progressed beyond a discussion of facts/biology and towards a personal attack.

KateMumsnet - how do you justify MN policing language such that terminology that is used freely in real life in quite ordinary situations may not be used on MN?

"If we thought it was difficult to express a gender critical position"

I personally think that someone born a CENSORED is not a CENSORED while someone CENSORED a CENSORED is CENSORED

But hey, that's just my CENSORED

and for something different that thread - Taking it out on one's body

I propose we call Tim unicorns and tif seahorses.

That way no snowflakes get melted over something as silly as science, fact, biology or reality

"we'd likely allow it." - that's not fair.

You are saying "we probably won't delete you" - and by saying that you are implying "but we might".

You are policing how women talk, and (by implied threat) forcing them into silence or acquiescence.

I'm disappointed, but sadly not surprised.

@AllyMcBeagle

Is 'transwomen (and by transwomen I mean people who are biologically male)' OK?

Yes - but if you added that bracket regularly we'd probably think you were trying to game it, and delete.

If that is your absolute priority, then ask for 6 months hormones and blockers with blood tests confirm they have been taken. No man doing it for sexual reasons will persist if there is a permanent reduction / loss of male sexual function. Personally I prefer self-ID but my honest answef to your question is hormones + blockers.*

Sorry Gobberty but that's transphobic. At least, that's what I was told when I expressed concern that self ID would result in people not being able to access mental healthcare as easily (as they wouldn't automatically be referred when they started the trans process). Expecting any involvement with healthcare is not allowed and penalizing trans people who want to stay exactly as they are but presenting differently.

@KateMumsnet please can we gave a glossary pinned at the top of the board with acceptable and unacceptable terms (and why) and what they mean? We've already had people commenting that they originally thought trans woman meant someone who was female now presenting as male so I do think we need the clarity. Thanks.

@MNHQ: Not referring to natal sex - is that a general stance or a terminology-specific thing?

So if I refer to a transwoman I’m ok? TIM is now not acceptable? Dont forget that ‘woman’ refers to natal sex as well. So literally no term which refers to natal sex is OK? Not even the medical ones like MtF? I personally think that’s dangerous territory.

Would we still able to state that transwomen remain male for example? That is biological fact. And refers to natal sex.

Terminology I suppose can be worked around (although I still disagree with language censorship) but does this extend to any discussion of natal sex? Because that really would be untenable.

@katemumsnet

Since I find the word 'transwoman' offensive (because it suggests that a male can be in some way like me because he thinks he is, even though he is not), if I report posters for using this highly offensive term, could you show some even-handedness and delete it please.

I find it distressing and upsetting. Or is it only the upset and distress of males that matters? Or only males that need to 'feel welcome'?

My suspicion is that the vast majority of people who report do it maliciously at the moment and they probably also to it repeatedly.

These repeated reporters should have their activity closely monitored to see if they engage in good faith or are here to control women, restrict women's rights and erode women's legal protections.

I report quite a lot, not just on the feminist boards. Almost always because I feel someone is not posting 'in good faith' and I ask MNHQ to look at the poster's history rather than individual posts that may not, when taken in isolation, contravene guidelines.

Quite often MNHQ agree with me.

So WOMEN on a site set up for WOMEN and MOTHERS , are made to deny biology, and lie, so that a tiny subset of male people don’t feel unwelcome ? Are you serious Mumsnet ? This is the first time I have ever thought of leaving the forum.
Are we seriously not allowed to mention now that a male person. Is a male person ? I am really, really angry about this, I think it is incredibly disturbing.
I would have to refer to Ian Huntley without mentioning the fact that this is a male, who committed crimes that are exclusively male , against children the same age as my FEMALE child ? How can we possibly discuss what is happening to women’s rights without being able to discuss the huge male push to destroy them, and the jealousy and hatred of women by males, inherent in that ?
I repeat THIS IS A SITE SET UP TO SUPPORT WOMEN.