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=

You cant identify as none male.
If you are male you are male. There is no identifying out of it.

This is the problem. The belief that you can choose your sex. That your choice changes the bioligical reality. It is a delusion. One which women are being forced to agree with.

You've all got more patience than I have with people like Gibb.
Reading their kind of claptrap and circular arguments just gives me a headache.

However, don't give up. If no one challenges the bollocks spouted by "whatever we are supposed to call them" WWASTCT doesn't roll off the tongue does it? then we might as well all put on one of those handmaiden bonnets.

Real life isn't an RPG, you don't get to pick the character class you're in from a list, or make up your own. You are in fact assigned to one based on sex (and race and class and where you're born and so on).

The way this debate is playing out makes it abundantly clear that once you've been assigned to Class Female your role as the appeaser of other people's feelings and the one who's expected to yield if there's a conflict has been set for life, and other people don't react very well when you point out that you do not in fact identify as less important than them.

glibberty

What are the identifiable characteristics of being a woman? If not biology, there must be other markers to tell a person they are female. What are they?

Great post Sparticus.

On a slightly related note to this being an autistic women's issue, I also don't want autistic men being registered medically as women and altering the statistics about us. I want our numbers to increase because of awareness and diagnosis.

Spartacus even, sorry. Typing while walking!

Very well said SpartacusAutisticus.
I cannot believe that we're in this frightening position. And I can't believe that MNHQ are condoning policing language.

All this is just a targeted attack on a female space because it is a female space. TRAs like the one on here know they get nowhere in real life because they get told where to go. But because this forum is mainly women talking (which they hate), they exploit the associated expectation of women to be nice to shut us up.

This is just one of many talk forums. Mumsnet needs to think about the business model if a few TRAs are given more importance than actual women. Advertisers will go to the biggest and most appropriate audience. A site run by TRAs is rather less inviting to bleach/nappy/toilet brush sellers than a site for actual women. See, they'll know the difference too. We're the product for Mumsnet and this ridiculous capitulation to a few twitter warriors at the expense of 10 million + women isn't a good financial move, especially if it results in a new forum.

Before I inevitably get banned too...

The fact that a site specifically targeted at women is actively restricting women's speech and graciously announcing that it will allow them to discuss scientific facts, and indeed basic reality, only if they're very careful not to offend anyone is sinister. It's Orwellian. The ability to state truths should not be a favor graciously bestowed upon women only in return for promises to correctly perform female socialization. This should trouble anyone who cares about women's rights regardless of their stance on trans issues, or indeed whether or not they see themselves as feminists. The whole way this issue is being framed is deeply, disturbingly anti-woman and anti-democratic.

Women need to be able to say no, and we need to be able to distinguish between ourselves and people who are male. This remains the case even if some of those male people wish they were not male, or don't want to be referred to as male. The fact that our speech has already been limited so extensively, and that the demands that it be limited further are escalating, is a problem. Attempting to appease the people making those demands won't make the problem go away, but it might well destroy everything that made this site aimed at women worth using.

(And who'll want to buy advertising then, if lots of women are driven away?)

Why is a site designed for mothers taking so much notice of the feelings of people who cannot possibly be mothers? I am all for supporting the rights of minorities, but that does not include supporting the rights of minorities to invade and criticize the protected spaces of other minorities. Our Jewish DC do not talk about their religious background at their Catholic school: they respect the protected Catholic space they are in.

No. I am saying that there is a physical cause in most cases for gender dysphoria which is so strong that people permanently transition - and physical cause = intersex

But this is not based on any scientific data. We do not know what causes gender dysphoria, just as we do not know what causes other dysphoric disorders like anorexia or BDD. We just don’t know. No physical cause has been established. Some psychological risk factors have been identified in anorexia but we don’t know the root cause of that either.

I can’t say this enough - there is no physical or MRI signal or biochemical marker that can tell if someone is trans, anorexic, or suffering from gender dysphoria. none whatsoever.

Intersex conditions are NOT gender dysphoria. They are a specific set of developmental errors which lead to a range of external phenotypes. They DO have measurable, quantifiable causes. They are an entirely different kettle of fish.

Intersex people face their own challenges - they are not merely a ‘gotcha’ point in the argument and it’s offensive to label them so

Ooft SA that was a good post. Could you please repost on GC autistic women thread?

some of those aspects are mutable (eg breasts) , some are immutable (eg genotype). Sex (male or female) is based on the overall picture.

Again this is incorrect. A woman who has had her breasts removed is still a woman. It makes no difference to her sex at all. None. The argument is illogical: breasts and secondary sexual characteristics are just that - NOT sex itself.

Woman has double mastectomy for cancer - still a woman
Woman has double mastectomy as part of transition process - not a woman.

Both those statements cannot be true. Removal of breast, ovaries, does not alter the sex of a person. That person is still female.

I’m glad to see you accept that genotype is immutable. Because that IS the determinor of sex. It is coded into every cell at conception. It cannot be changed or altered, regardless of what is done to the corporeal body with hormones or surgery.

Sex is NOT based on the overall picture. That is a profound misunderstanding of what sex is. Gender presentation maybe you can argue is more to do with how an individual sees themselves but sex is immutable. It cannot change - nothing can change it. To change it would require rewinding to the single cell stage and switching the chromosomes. It cannot be done.

Humans cannot change sex.

Everyone should be able to present how they want and be free from gender stereotyping

BowlofBabelFish - the common thread between anorexia, bulimia, self-harm, trichotillomania, nail biting, gender dysphori (and, perhaps,tattooing, piercing) etc is deep-seated failure of recognition and denial of emotions. Human emotions are very real things but the gaslighting by society at large of human need and emotion causes immense confusion that results in people turning on themselves when they are not equipped to deal with the onslaught from the world at large.

I strongly suspect there’s truth in that user. Anorexia especially I think is rooted in a deep seated community alienation and inability to process emotion (not a popular view, as any kind of psychological etiology seems to be viewed as saying the sufferer is ‘bad’ these days..) hey ho.

What I keep pushing back against is the insistence from the aggressive activist side that they have ‘science’ to ‘prove’ that there is some kind of trans gene (there isn’t) or some kind of brain scan that shows a Male is more like a female (again there isn’t.)

The argument is circular and illogical, because on the one hand you have people insisting that AGP does not exist at all, and that gender dysphoria should be demedicalised, and yet still insisting that there’s some kind of measurable biological signal that proves they are trans. The two concepts can’t sit comfortably together. The manipulation of science is worrying g and disingenuous

There is also the worry that by removing GD as a medical condition there will be no need for, and no funding for, correct treatment. That would result in people with genuine gender dysphoria suffering. That’s not a good outcome either.

If there is biological proof then great, we can use that to test if someone is or is not trans. Right?

And suddenly, silence.

Regular posters on these boards have asked MNHQ lots of times to please clarify their position in what is and isn't deletable re trans.

I think the allusions to outside pressures forcing mn's hand are maybe forgetful of that. Clearer guidance has been asked for by mn users, repeatedly.

And there is now a clear statement that vexatious reporting is considered and dealt with, which has also been asked for.

As for deletions in the previous thread, if I had to take a guess at reasons it would be that there was troll hunting, since there was some blatant posting on those lines, and mnhq have never allowed that to stand. But mn said they would contact posters when deletion happens, so if you've been deleted and not contacted you could ask them yourself.

The guidance is workable - even Datun thinks so. How about we all stop picking holes in it, mosey back over to the FWR boards and resume business as usual, but with fewer slurs all round?

but with fewer slurs all round

Define 'slur'.

Another great post from Bowl

I know it’s been said, but I agree with this Maybe we should just keep TIM, TIF, TERF and cis? And everyone can lump it all round?

What we need is a language we all understand so that the actual meaningful conversation can take place.

For that reason I think it’s important to have TIM/TIF or M2T/F or transwoman/man as these are understood. If you just use male/female ie ‘a male messaged me on OLD and I didn’t reply as I’m a lesbian’ (example up thread) you can’t see if this is a man-man or a transwoman so some conversations can’t begin.

I’m not sure that anorexia is an inability to process emotion. My experience of anorexics (and I am a fully recovered adult anorexic) is that their feelings are so comprehensively denied by their well-meaning entourage that they have no means of escape to a place where they can explore their emotions in safety. The recovery framework may designed in such a way to be self-defeatingly restrictive.

"Define slur"

Haha. No thanks. I'll let MNHQ carry on with trying to draw the line on that one.

That’s very interesting user - I think I worded that badly. I’m thinking of a model/situation where the sufferer is unable to process their emotions within the context of their community, if that makes sense?
Taking an example from schizophrenia - have you read any of R D Laing’s work? His opinion was that the illness was partly caused (obviously biological roots but you can get identical twins where on suffers and one doesn’t so there’s an environmental influence somewhere) by the family dynamic itself.

It’s not the anorexic themselves who can’t process their emotions, more that they have no context where they can safely do that. Is that what you’re saying? Apologies if I misunderstood

I had an early night and I’ve missed a lot. What is the acceptable terminology? Has it been clarified at all?