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=

I don't really understand. Genuinely.

The very first guideline states that MN allow people to discuss biology and scientific evidence.

And yet:

You are allowed to say transwomen are women (which is not true).

You are not allowed to say transwomen are men (which is true). Even in response to someone saying the first untruth?

The first untruth must always be uncontested?

What now? Maybe I've misunderstood.

it's not fair to put a single person

Perhaps there aren't systems in place to ensure they are all clear about what their position is that they all stay on message.

When Justine spoke to the papers or went on the radio, she seemed pretty clear about what she finds acceptable, yet it took ages to thrash out this self-contradictory policy statement. This suggests to me that there is strong disagreement within MN as to the value of free speech versus censorship. It suggests Emma was probably right in her claims that she has mates still at MN who hate Gender Critical Feminists as much as she does and resent commitment to free speech over censorship.

I suppose I prefer to get a sense of an individual mods politics since Emmagate put the wind up me - so I am glad of a bit of distinction about who is who.

Science.

@KateMumsnet I think @MNHQ should respond to @SpartacusAutisticus and her post up thread. We know you are reading these threads/posts so it's not a good look to ignore the important points she's raised.

Back to using transwoman in the same way as I use snapdragon and seahorse. I have come to understand that the terms transwoman and transman are not the preferred terms of those advocating for greater trans rights.

The thing is, Diane, you can do that if you want to. I have seen the steady encroachment, I have seen that compromise is never enough, and I am not prepared to use any terminology for the female sex with regards to people of the male sex. Full stop.

I don't call trans people of the male sex "men" on here because we were asked not to. I write ludicrous convoluted sentences avoiding pronouns for specific trans people because were told correctly sexing misgendering was unacceptable. I've already done my compromising.

There are instances - for example, the provision of single sex services - where I will need an acceptable collective noun for trans people of the male sex because I'm not talking about trans people of the female sex. Even explaining this to you is against Kate's new interpretation and might well get me deleted and on strike number whateverthelatesttotalis. It's ridiculous.

Activists aren't arguing for greater trans rights; they're arguing for the elimination of women's rights.

@KateMumsnet

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.

@JustineMumsnet said yesterday that TIM was not permitted because trans people do not identify as trans, not because it referred to natal sex.

How do you distinguish between trans people who are biologically male and those who are biologically female without either:

1. referring to their natal or biological sex; or
2. using a political term you don't agree with (e.g. "transwoman"); or
3. gaming it which you have said you would delete?

"male to...", "female to...", "born male..." and "born female..." are commonly used across mainstream media, medical texts and even by trans activists. If you take this approach of not allowing any term which references natal sex, MN will be putting more extreme restrictions on how we, as women, can discuss this issue than most other platforms. It's not consistent with the commitment to free speech and continuing to host these discussions.

You can see from discussions on this topic that language is very powerful. Women are constantly shut down with the phrase "transwomen are women". If anyone wants to counter this is any way, it has to start with rejecting the language that terminates further discussion.

PermissionToSpeakSir

I am really disturbed that @Kate has set out two options:

1) Call a man a woman, even if this:
contradicts your personal beliefs,
deeply offends you,
prevents you from clearly articulating your relevant points and
runs counter to the purpose of the board provided by MN for discussing feminism.

Or

2) Fuck off away from Mumsnet - it is obviously not the right forum for you.

I think this is really clear discrimination against women on the basis of our protected characteristic of sex.

Mumsnet plans to withhold services from women who articulate what it means to us to have the protected characteristic of sex.

Mumsnet is intimidating women from talking about our protected characteristic of sex.

Mumsnet is treating us less well than people who do not share our protected category of sex as women.

Mumsnet is treating women who complain about this discriminatory treatment against us by themselves in a less favourable way than people who are mostly not service users.

@JustineMumsnet said yesterday that TIM was not permitted because trans people do not identify as trans, not because it referred to natal sex.

Good point. So referring to natal sex should be fine as that was not what Justine was prohibiting at all. You should check this with her @KateMumsnet, perhaps you have misunderstood.

You are allowed to say transwomen are women (which is not true).

You are not allowed to say transwomen are men (which is true). Even in response to someone saying the first untruth?

Correct. Scary, isn’t it?

I’m not sure if invoking 1984 is similar to Godwin’s Law but I’m going to do it anyway and suggest doublethink for what has been happening everywhere on this matter, resulting in the above

Agree Joan.

Mumsnet is treating us less well than people who do not share our protected category of sex as women.

Actually, transwomen with GRCs have the protected charactistic of sex as women under the Equality Act too. Make of that what you will...

I appreciate MN are in between a bit of a rock and a hard place here. I can live with a few banned words as long as we can continue to find a way of being able to clearly express that transwomen are not biologically female and there are therefore many instances where what they want will conflict with women's rights (particularly with the generally poor legislation which is currently in force and does not adequately protect women's rights). MN seem to be a lot more permissive that Twitter for example.

I think this is really clear discrimination against women on the basis of our protected characteristic of sex.

Mumsnet plans to withhold services from women who articulate what it means to us to have the protected characteristic of sex.

Mumsnet is intimidating women from talking about our protected characteristic of sex.

Mumsnet is treating us less well than people who do not share our protected category of sex as women.

Mumsnet is treating women who complain about this discriminatory treatment against us by themselves in a less favourable way than people who are mostly not service users

YY

It's irrelevant if other people share the characteristic or not or even if they agree with is if discrimination against those of us speaking this exists.

We are specifically being banned and intimidated over our right to speak about our protected sex.

You are not allowed to say transwomen are men (which is true)

Is this correct? I would like clarity on this point. It is a statement of biological fact.

I have confirmed with MNHQ that we can state that transwomen are biologically male.

We need our own secret code so we don't upset the oversensitive.

People are valiantly trying to meld the various things MNHQ have said into a coherent policy, in order to decide whether or not to follow it.

There is no coherent policy. Deletion and banning will depend on the individual moderator's interpretation of your intentions.

Happy with that?

Yes.

I don't think any words should be banned.

Abusive behaviour yes.

A list of words no.

Specific aspects of material reality no.

Just guidelines on respectful treatment.

If a particular demographic only feels welcome where everyone is forced to not mention that the Emperor wears no clothes, I would imagine that they should not consider participating in forums where people talk about reality.

Fragile people are not entitled to a reality distortion field.

My my my this has become a massive shit show.

I used to refer to people who wished to present as women (when born men) as transwomen. This goodwill has been erode overtime with constant gaslighting. I will never now refer to people born male with a penis as women in any shape or form including using transwomen.

This is my line in the sand, the hill I die on. I would rather die on my feet (metaphorically of course!) than live on my knees.

Just to note apple (ie iPhone software) doesn't recognise the word transwomen and tries to split it in two. Make of that what you will.

It isn't counter to science once you realise that sex, like gender, is a social construct. People aren't born into a sex - they are assigned one.
How are we supposed to have conversations when people say stuff like this?

Would sperm producing transwoman be ok?
The fact that the vast majority of transwomen have a fully functioning penis, cannot be ignored when we are talking about issues about women's safety.

Does anyone agree that WE need the be lobbying the advertisers? (And really quite energetically.)

That’s what the TRAs have done to leverage their nonsense.

But whose pound is at stake here? Women’s m.

I don't think any words should be banned.

Well I'm fine with certain words being banned - the 'n' word for example or the one for a transperson that ends with a 'y'.

I do worry that the new rules are a bit prescriptive though. It seems like the only words that are acceptable now are 'transwomen', 'transmen' and 'transpeople'.

But as long as I can continue to express my concerns about the risks of opening up what we're previously spaces reserved for women, I suppose I can live with it.