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=

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.

yy. That conversation up thread confused me too. If a poster states that they believe that transwomen are women and then start referring to 'women', the rest of us don't know who they are actually talking about unless we are allowed to ask them to clarify.

Having slept on it, I'm of the mindset that no words should be off-limits. I'll accept TERF and CIS if we can keep TIM and TIF. (Although I quite like the idea of Uncle Tim(othy) mentioned elsewhere )

But that's the problem, if MNHQ start to ban certain words because they're slurs, at what point will we reach the inevitable conclusion that we can't call a man a man, because it's a slur, because he feels like a woman?

There are far more disabled posters on MN than there are trans, yet for years mnhq's stance has been that we should educate ablist posters, and in the meantime dreadful things have been aimed at certain posters, and there have been disabled posters who've been targeted and have left over this. I think they've recently improved their process, but it's still very hit and miss.

So why, when their actions of disability; quantifiable, observed, physical and neurological disability, is arguably weak, even though MNers are far more likely to be affected by disability in some way, why is it that trans rights (and don't forget they already have rights, they're not a neglected group - unless they're in Brazil or somewhere like that), trump women's rights?
And why are their rights more important than women's? Why do we have to be nice and shuffle up to make room for a group of men who are showing red flags that should make every female in the country sit up and take notice? And that's not even counting the men on Twitter calling for terfs to die, to hang, to be raped, to suck their womanly cocks, to enjoy ur erasure.

How is a website set up primarily for women, for mothers, not see how fucking sinister this is?
But no, calm down ladies, let's be polite about this...

Only the initial post by Justine and an update from Kate, as far as I'm aware. I suspect they may be in meetings this morning...

This is how it starts, the policing of language leads to the policing of thoughts before you know it you live in Gilead or Oceania.

When people a few years ago started talking about the biggest threat to women's rights I like many millennials of my generation thought can't we just live and let live. Stop over reacting. Over a relatively short period of time this goodwill has been over ridden and rode rough-shot and now look where we are.

We were wrong, I was wrong!

We can only hope the more they (I say they as am I allowed to say TRA, fuck knows???) push the more people see they too are Spartacus. I will never police my language or thoughts to the point I agree and say that men can become women or are in anyway women.

On another thread, someone has suggested the acronyms MAB and FAB - Male At Birth/ Female At Birth.

Ah probably can't say "they" either new - it's othering...

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

I don't think so (unless I have missed something). MN have made it clear that anything about 'identifying as trans' is out because transpeople don't generally identify as trans - they identify as a man/woman.

I would prefer something like Biologically Male Transperson (BMT) and Bioligically Female Transperson (BFT) as IMO this conveys meaning without being goady, but would love clarification from MN about whether these terms are acceptable under the new guidelines.

MNHQ have said on the first thread that they have no objection to TRA Newspeak

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.

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.

Emotional and psychological abuse targeting women, at family and societal level and now pervasive on SM, denies, discounts and coerces women away from their rightful automnomy and freedom of thought and being. This abuse can be somaticised by many women into blaming themselves, as the only tolerable, psychological alternative at an early age. This can lead to various manifestations of self harm and/ or taking it out on one's body. That is not women's fault but the environment they were raised in, where abuse is normalised and they are scapegoated.

And suddenly, silence.

Well exactly. It’s arguing for two different things. On the one hand there seems to be an aim of denying the medical roots of gender dysphoria so that the entire ‘umbrella’ as it were is normalised. That is going to do an awful lot of damage to people with gender dysphoria who need and should be able to access treatment appropriate to their age.

But then there’s a push to have validation via science. But there isn’t any solid evidence (or even any not terribly solid evidence tbh) for the existence of some kind of prior biological factor that ‘makes you trans.’

And when you point out that if there was a ‘test’ for being trans that could be used to define who is and isn’t, you get tumbleweed.

It’s an odd situation. I will continue to politely pick holes in the ‘science’ until I’m banned for doing so.

As a scientist I’d like a terminology list though :)

Just leaving this here!

Damn it cut off the bottom which said

Learn
Understand
Accept

user and woman I find this topic really interesting and I would love to explore it. I do think it’s a feminist issue - it goes right back to the ‘hysteria’ day’s doesn’t it? If you started a thread on it I’d be very pleased.

The ability to state truths should not be a favor graciously bestowed upon women only in return for promises to correctly perform female socialisation

This. I'm not prepared to predicate my feminism on concern for male feelings, that is ridiculous

I use 'they' as defined by by Oxford Dictionaries
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/they unless a person has told me their preferred pronoun, which I will the usually use to be polite.

On another thread, someone has suggested the acronyms MAB and FAB - Male At Birth/ Female At Birth.

I think some will still find this objectionable because a lot of people say that transwomen were always women (even when born, and possibly even before that) because they had a woman's brain or something...

user and woman I find this topic really interesting and I would love to explore it. I do think it’s a feminist issue - it goes right back to the ‘hysteria’ day’s doesn’t it? If you started a thread on it I’d be very pleased.

Yes I agree Bowl - it is at the very essence of feminism as subjugation of women starts in utero imo. Love to discuss on separate thread - I'll defer to user setting it up as they made the original comment, if they are still around

I'd also be interested in a thread on the crossovers of what reads like my personal mh history :)

Whatever anyone comes up with will be found objectionable.
TiM / TiF was already a concession.

Should we try though? Good 3 letters ...

Beyond

I am at the point of thinking the mental health industry targets the wrong people!! That is the abusers never get labels but the ones they victimise do. :)

There is literally no way to describe a male who wants to be described as a woman as anything but a woman without pissing them off

That's the choice here. We either piss these people off or we engage in compelled doublespeak.

It’s an odd situation. I will continue to politely pick holes in the ‘science’ until I’m banned for doing so.

I doubt very much that you will be banned Bowl. Everything I have seen you post falls well within the guidelines and makes things very very clear. Please continue your polite hole picking, I for one am very appreciative of your posts.

Thank you 😘 I have learned so much on here and I’m keen to stay. This stuff is important.

But transpeople describe themselves as AMAB/AFAB, with the A signifying 'assigned'. This is a term that has been hijacked from correct usage when applied to intersex people. So just dropping the A is scientifically and semantically accurate.

I'm sure they won't like it though.

The comparison with regard to slurs was "tranny" and "TERF" that MN said they agreed should not be used.
Suddenly we are informed that it is no long tranny and terf that are slurs but cis and terf (neither of which exist) are comparable slurs to TIM and TIF (both of which very much exist).