Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

744 replies

PermissionToSpeakSir · 13/06/2018 22:54

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

OP posts:
SirVixofVixHall · 14/06/2018 16:14

Agree , as always, langcleg.

turnaroundbrighteyes · 14/06/2018 16:17

Hi @KateMumsnet I'm pretty sure I've read all the earlier posts and I'm happy to call post op transsexuals who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria with GRC transwomen, as a courtesy, by choice, BUT I find them thought of defining a group of men who meet stonewalls definition of trans (including gender confused, agp, convicted offenders and tra's) as any kind of "woman" ie trans women deeply offensive.

I'd we cannot use the factually correct TIM. What can we say to describe this group of men?

BeyondSceptical · 14/06/2018 16:19

Would feminine transpeople (which may include femme females who for some reason include themselves as trans, but would generally mean males who "present as" female), masculine transpeople (vis versa) and non binary transpeople (gotta be inclusive...) work?

Popchyk · 14/06/2018 16:20

"Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex".

Isn't it odd though that of all corners of the internet, they decide to come here? Not just onto Mumsnet, no, but the Feminism and Women's Rights board. Just that one tiny place. Where people discuss biological sex a lot because that is what feminism and women's rights is actually about?

As an atheist, I wouldn't seek out a forum about Christianity and then insist that I found their debate about God "distressing". And that they must not talk about God. And insist that the moderation team find another word for it.

At what point do the guidelines which state "I’m afraid you need to accept that Mumsnet isn’t the right place for you" apply to those people who claim to find the idea of debate about sex distressing? And yet turn up here mob-handed every single day in order to be further distressed?

BeyondSceptical · 14/06/2018 16:21

Also...

Feminists find appropriation of their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for transpeople which insistently defines them by our bio sex

CrustyCob · 14/06/2018 16:22

L'Oréal boycotted now, appalled by that ad!

Not on a transphobic basis, no worries about anyone wearing makeup etc..... but on the basis of their fatuous comment about Women. That voice over crap, really does take the biscuit.

I spent a small fortune at Christmas, on presents in the family

Going elsewhere... "because I'm worth it " .

ImagineBeing · 14/06/2018 16:23

What about my distress at being told to LIE? Or does distress only matter when it is expressed of those born male?

user1499173618 · 14/06/2018 16:23

Popchyk - agreed. The feminism board on MN is no place for anyone not fully embracing the facts of biology.

PermissionToSpeakSir · 14/06/2018 16:27

Also the thing about bio sex being so distressing - this has been totally over played as a way to shut people up.

Dysphoric transsexuals can be pretty down to earth about things and own responsibility for their own feelings and decisions - just like the rest of the population.

People who can't cope with reality are extremely unsound of mind and not in a position to be dictating policy.

The discussion works fine without them, so why bend over backwards and suppress everyone else so they feel 'welcome' to bring their reality-severed perspective to the table when there are important things to talk about?

OP posts:
AllyMcBeagle · 14/06/2018 16:28

as I keep saying, if you give me [a collective noun] that does not appropriate my bio sex, I will use it.

I've been trying to think up something that fits the rules without appropriation or reference to gender. The best I have come up with so far is:

  1. When referring to transpeople of either sex - 'transpeople'.
  1. When referring to transwomen generally - 'transpeople who may display certain attributes which society stereotypically associates with women'.
  1. When referring to transmen generally - 'transpeople who may display certain attributes which society stereotypically associates with men'.
  1. When referring to Danielle Muscato/Ibi-Pippi etc. - 'transpeople who have physical attributes which society would stereotypically associate with men but do not identify as such.'

It needs some work I think (especially 4!). Hopefully we can just mainly use transpeople and it will be clear from the context?

ImagineBeing · 14/06/2018 16:28

If something is saying they are suicidal, why are MN not calling them an ambulance?

user1499173618 · 14/06/2018 16:29
Grin
ImagineBeing · 14/06/2018 16:29

someone

Psychstudent2013 · 14/06/2018 16:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PermissionToSpeakSir · 14/06/2018 16:36

Ally I need to be able to refer to what people materially are in order to discuss the power dynamics of sex inequality.

How they see themselves, what they would like to be or how they want me to see them is politically irrelevant.

Reality is what I want to talk about not make fucking believe.

OP posts:
BeyondSceptical · 14/06/2018 16:37

Isn't the standard mn rule on suicide to signpost to the Samaritans and then shut the thread (slash whatever communication method it is coming from)?

BeyondSceptical · 14/06/2018 16:38

Psych, when you say "looking for female volunteers," are you using a definition of female that we would recognise?

BarrackerBarmer · 14/06/2018 16:40

Oh my fucking God.

Can't mention the sex of the class of people that are are the opposite sex from me in a discussion about my sex and why it matters that I am different from the class of people who are the opposite sex from me.

I'll just refer to them in interpretive dance.

AllyMcBeagle · 14/06/2018 16:44

Ally I need to be able to refer to what people materially are in order to discuss the power dynamics of sex inequality.

From my understanding we can still do that, we just can't do it in the form of a handy collective noun.

So if I have understood the policy correctly it would be permissible to say 'transpeople who may display certain attributes which society stereotypically associates with women will have had certain benefits from male socialisation because they were raised as male.'

The bit in italics is the collective noun and that didn't refer to biological sex - I referred to biological sex later on when I was making my point about male socialisation.

I think I have understood the policy correctly but I'm sure MNHQ will correct me if not...

LangCleg · 14/06/2018 16:49

Can't mention the sex of the class of people that are are the opposite sex from me in a discussion about my sex and why it matters that I am different from the class of people who are the opposite sex from me.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

Amalfimamma · 14/06/2018 16:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PermissionToSpeakSir · 14/06/2018 16:54

From my understanding we can still do that

Refer to male transsexuals/ trans identifying males as a subgroup of men?

Because thats what they materially are and that is all that is politically relevant.

OP posts:
OnThisHill · 14/06/2018 16:56

I'm repeating this for @MNHQ

WHATEVER word(s) or acronym you come up with, after tying yourselves up in knots, handwringing and soul searching, in a VERY short space of time, TRAs will come at you with further cries of transphobia.
TiM was ALREADY a concession.
This is the Forth Bridge you're painting here.

Plus what Datun said at 14:34 (amongst others).

womanformallyknownaswoman · 14/06/2018 17:01

This is about capitulating to a very vocal activist group. It is disingenuous to put the emotional weight of someone else’s fragility onto women, many of whom will have dealt with this in their personal lives. Expecting gaslit women to lie for instance ? Shabby and cruel. This is primarily a website for women, and men who support them. To tell us we now have to consider the opinions of the opposite sex every time we post in the feminist section ? That is both bizarre and depressing.

Well said - I have continually raised the harm being done by skewed moderation guidelines to women who are survivors of male violence. And that is a significant minority or perhaps a majority of the users here, given the endemic rates of male violence. Being forced to call male-bodied people women, when it is obvious they are cross-dressing men, is sadistic.

And on top of that, some of them seem to take glee in causing distress to women, given their unrelenting verbal abuse on MN - for example the Twitter & misogynistic press comments they quote on here plus they never agree to disagree but continue to demand women succeed to their demands and derail discussions to reinforce their male entitlement. They don't start threads themselves preferring to derail feminist discussions.

Where I come from that's called bullying and those who enable it are bystander bullies. Women are protected by international law as a sex category - why is that ignored at the expense of a few vocal males?

All the research indicates this type of verbal abuse, derailing and silencing behaviour is from sadistic trolls, not genuine contributors. These trolls target women online. How many of the lobby group fall into the former category and how many are genuine? Miranda and many others tell us this lobby group is not representative of them.

Isn't it odd though that of all corners of the internet, they decide to come here? Not just onto Mumsnet, no, but the Feminism and Women's Rights board. Just that one tiny place. Where people discuss biological sex a lot because that is what feminism and women's rights is actually about?

Well said - it's no coincidence is it? So who exactly is getting off on trashing women's spaces and silencing them? The research says trolls. One could be forgiven for thinking some relish the harm they cause on MN. So what exactly is MN afraid of? Saying no to a lobby group that is unrepresentative and goes around silencing women aggressively?

At what point will you rise to the challenge MN, to make a stand for your women users on here? Exactly how much distress will you witness or will you continue to kowtow to bullies?

Why don't you say you will wait until the government consultation is completed and the law is clarified? And that until that point, will continue to provide a space for women to discuss this vital issue, in the spirit of freedom of speech and the safeguarding of women and children. Those who object have all the other platforms around the globe to use - which they do and have demonstrated they do. You pride yourself on providing one public space online to centre women and children's safeguarding concerns and allow those to be aired.

user1499173618 · 14/06/2018 17:02

Amalfimamma - your solicitor friend is therefore suggesting that MNHQ is legally on shaky ground here?

Swipe left for the next trending thread