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=

So the words man and woman may only be used about trans people when they specifically refer to the literal opposite of their actual sex?
AKA lie or be banned?

'Transwoman' is fine because you're ceding ground with 'woman' in it. What if, in conversations discussing women and transwomen, we refer to women as a group's biological sex by using the word 'women'? Is that prohibited now due to it quite clearly highlighting that transwomen are not women, i.e. their sex is not female?

AllyMcBeagle - in our household we say “trans person born with a penis” and “trans person born with a vagina” and variations on that theme (testicles, uterus). On the basis that the lowest common denominator is that trans people as a group are self-identifying as a gender that is different to that of their biological sex.

Go on then, Kate - give me such a term that does not involve coercing me to use terminology for the female sex.

There is no such term and gaslighting us into pretending that there is abusive of your gender critical users.

This is outrageous.

I am not using any terminology belonging to the female sex to refer to people who are not of the female sex. End of.

This is the gender critical position. You just banned it.

^This. 100%.

I'm not autistic or uneducated, but I've no idea what's allowed now. I hope the national press pick up on this censorship.

I don’t use “transwoman” or “transman”. Trans person is fine.

Not when discussing single sex spaces and services, it isn't.

This is fucking ridiculous. I'll have to step away from the keyboard before I have a rage stroke.

spartacusautisticas.... I had never realised this... nor thought it through.... and thank you for helping me understand.... I feel deeply threatened by this current assault, as a woman and for all women..... I cannot imagine the pain it is causing you given all that women with autism have gained, and oh so recently, and to see that under threat....

Thank you SpartacusAutisticus.
I half wondered whether to report my post and ask about reasonable adjustments, but I won't, because this affects all women, and rsporting for the sake of my individual right isn't enough. It would be similar to Magdalen Burns' latest YouTube video where an employee appeals on the basis of trans rights to not wear the regressive and uncomfortable uniform, rather than simply calling her employers out for sexism.

@JustineMumsnet I am very confused about your @MNHQ statement that we should be free to speak about science and biology and how this sharply contradicts @KateMumsnet 's later clarification that we will get our posts deleted if we mention biological sex or genitals (the politically relevant initial indicators of biological sex).

How can this a) be considered free speech or b) be considered conducive to discussing the political relevance of reproductive biology.

How is a meaningful conversation possible under such constraints?

For example, we need, as feminists, to be able to discuss male violence against women and girls and the patterns it takes.

If males perpetrate this violence or even exhibit attitudes or behaviours underpinning male violence, it is essential be able to recognise and name it as part of this pattern.

If MN sanctions that some males are allowed to identify out of this pattern recognition at their say so and even claim to be one of us (the female class oppressed by the class to which they belong) and bars us at that point from any further discussion about their male pattern behaviours - then MN are saying we cannot discuss feminism.

Is that the intention?

AllyMcBeagle - in our household we say “trans person born with a penis” and “trans person born with a vagina” and variations on that theme (testicles, uterus). On the basis that the lowest common denominator is that trans people as a group are self-identifying as a gender that is different to that of their biological sex.

I think MNHQ have said references to genitals are out though generally, and I think if they aren't happy with mentioning people's biological and legal sex at birth, they definitely won't be happy with mentioning people's sex organs at birth!!

I don’t think transpeople have any place at all in single sex spaces or services.

I find transwomen hideously offensive.

The term we use for someone born male cannot hang on someone elses, as in my sex.

We all know what the word woman means, its not complicated.

Pretty sure at this point mumsnet are in breach of the Equality Act.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/identifying-discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services-what-s-the-unfair-treatment/

in our household we say “trans person born with a penis” and “trans person born with a vagina” and variations on that theme (testicles, uterus). On the basis that the lowest common denominator is that trans people as a group are self-identifying as a gender that is different to that of their biological sex. ....

oh user I love you.... I hate the games we are having to play but love the way you play them so well.... I'm following you!

in our household we say “trans person born with a penis” and “trans person born with a vagina” and variations on that theme (testicles, uterus). On the basis that the lowest common denominator is that trans people as a group are self-identifying as a gender that is different to that of their biological sex.

oh user I love you.... I hate the games we are having to play but love the way you play them so well.... I'm following you!

Go on then, Kate - give me such a term that does not involve coercing me to use terminology for the female sex.

There is no such term and gaslighting us into pretending that there is abusive of your gender critical users.

This is outrageous.

I am not using any terminology belonging to the female sex to refer to people who are not of the female sex. End of.

This is the gender critical position. You just banned it.

Exactly this. Plus some expletives.

If MN sanctions that some males are allowed to identify out of this pattern recognition at their say so and even claim to be one of us (the female class oppressed by the class to which they belong) and bars us at that point from any further discussion about their male pattern behaviours - then MN are saying we cannot discuss feminism.

YY

I've been deleted for being "pretty rude" about the MNHQ moderators. No explanation, natch, but as I've been unequivocal in my drawing attention to MNHQ's , ahem, CAUTION, in not putting this thread in Trending, and as a long time single username member, I'm worth squashing.

This post won't last long, I'm betting.

twitter.com/666_Angell/status/1007006104147189762

This is who you are siding with, KateMumsnet. This is who you're sticking up for, and sparing the feelings of.

Over the women and mothers on your forum.

Maybe MNHQ could provide us with an acceptable definition of "woman"?

If you don't believe that "transwomen are women" then why are you allowing that lie to be broadcast as if its a fact?

If you do, then that's going to take a fair bit of explaining to the millions of MN members who I expect will vehemently disagree with that stance.

What is an acceptable collective noun for trans people of the male sex that does not appropriate the terminology of the female sex?

Tell me one. I'll use it.

If there isn't one, just say it: articulating GC views using collective nouns where necessary is banned by Mumsnet.

This is the gender critical position. You just banned it.

I agree.

Referring to myself as a woman refers to my natal sex just as much as any acronym.

And to be plain - I do want this clarified. I want to be able to continue posting, I don’t want to be banned and I want to be able to discuss. While I’m like a dog with a bone about science, I don’t think I’m ever rude or derogatory but I am struggling to think how I would frame what I want to say with no terms referring to natal sex. If the concept of referring to natal sex at all (deadsexing..?) is out then I honestly don’t see how debate or discussion is possible at all.

I post in good faith. I’m struggling with this new climate. I know you mean well and there have been hints in other threads of the specific pressure that may have triggered this, but I feel this solution is unworkable.

Hatred, incitement, threats, malicious posting, malicious mass reporting, goady fuckers, personal attacks etc - all these are reasonable measures and ones you do well with modding. Measures like not discussing specific children I am on board with totally.

Restriction of themes and concepts and language is going to be an absolute nightmare for you to mod effectively, and very difficult for posters to adhere to.

I honestly don’t think the rules need to be more complicated than how you deal with racism or religious abuse.

Same here ally

I dont often refer to natal sex and I usually use transwomen and transmen but i am honestly confused by these 'guidelines'

But yeah, if transwomen are men is not allowed to stand then neither should transwomen are women...is that right, because its hinging everything on natal sex

And I'm happy to be told im wrong

But its not clear at all.....and there are snippets of information all over the bloody board!!

I think it's unfair to view complaints about moderation as being complaints about the moderating team, or particular individuals.

I also think it's fair to say that this new guideline is bonkers, unfair, sexist and impossible to moderate.

That doesn't imply I'm being rude about Kate, personally, AT ALL. Or about any other mn hq-ers. I respect they are doing a difficult job, but on this thread I think Kate, while trying to be reasonable, is being forced to defend the indefensible which is bound to draw a lot of flak.

I expect it feels like personal abuse, where it isn't meant that way.

So, we're no longer allowed to refer to someone's biological sex? Is that correct?
This appears to completely contradict what Justine said in her statement...
We are allowed to discuss biology and science but not make any reference to the fact that transwomen are biologically male?

This is madness. Utter stupidity and madness. Your demographic is largely made up of biological women (many of them gender critical). Yet, you're flinging us under the bus to appease a tiny minority of angry male Twitter users?
Very sad to see this happening.