Mumsnet moderation - response to yesterday's feedback

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,

I’ve had lots of contact about about yesterday’s thread which has now maxed out so thought I’d put a response here.

First of all our guidelines absolutely do allow people to discuss biology and science. And we absolutely see why some of Penny Mordaunt’s words yesterday would raise concerns amongst those with a gender critical POV - so maybe it wasn’t, in retrospect, the best moment to make a point. Nonetheless we do believe that as a rule Spartacus-type threads are not conducive to a constructive debate and that trans people would be likely to feel attacked and/or excluded by them.

To state the obvious and as I’ve said before, this is an extremely polarised debate in which even the most basic terms are disputed, so if we’re going to have it here we’re in danger of being attacked from all sides (which we are in actual fact). Nonetheless, we think it’s important, so we’ll keep at it and we’ll keep trying to moderate it to make it as open and civil as we possibly can.

You should also know that I’m due to meet soon with Penny Mordaunt to discuss “any ideas you may have on the women and equalities agenda’' and I will of course reflect the strong opinion of many Mumsnetters wrt to this issue and ask her to do a webchat too.

Thanks, as ever, for your input.

If you were legally and biologically a woman - as thousands of trans women are
🤔

Snappity, that is a falsity in itself. Many trans women may be legally women but none of them are biologically.

If that gets me banned then so be it but it's scientific fact.

This is a fairly new subject for me but I don't see an equivalence to the two sides. One side seems to want to discuss the proposals and the other seems want to close down any debate. Instead of making a rational case they complain/take offence/and label people that disagree with their point of view. The fact that their are no other public forums to discuss this show just how successful these tactics have been in the past and I don't think they'll be happy until Mumsnet fall into line or at the very least they control your language to limit the debate. . Personally, I think the tide is turning against this sort of behaviour and it would do credit to you to (politely) stand your ground.

@JustineMumsnet

First of all thank you for allowing the trans widows support thread to stand. Have you read any of the thread?

My STBXH is self defined as Trans. In old money he would be called a sexually motivated cross dresser. He's been abusive. He uses the narrative of oppression to bully me. He's not oppressed.

you know my real name, how long I have been here, my posting history.

He gets off on wearing woman's clothing, and from the power he has to make women (especially) move their boundaries to accommodate him. We all know that sexual crimes are about power and not sex.

I'm not sure why it is that my experience isn't relevant in this debate. Why women pointing out the massive holes in the legislation being debated, is seen as confrontational.

We exist, our experiences are real. Please if you can't help us, at least be fair.

The things that are talked about on FWR often include the safeguarding of children. I really find it difficult to believe that a website for mothers, no less, would be this accommodating to a political movement attempting to undermine safeguarding for children.

Indeed Langcleg, I get the impression that this has barely been considered, if at all.

Also, can we maybe all ignore the attempt at derailing the thread by claiming men are biological women. It is clearly an attempt to derail this important discussion and I have witnessed this happen a lot and more often than not it works. No-one takes that position seriously, let's keep having the important conversations....

I'm not sure why it is that my experience isn't relevant in this debate. Why women pointing out the massive holes in the legislation being debated, is seen as confrontational.

We exist, our experiences are real. Please if you can't help us, at least be fair.

Take the time to read some of these threads from start to finish, and if you still believe that trans people who transition late in life after benefiting from male privilege have tougher lives than abused female survivors of the care system, (who are barely literate and who are going to find themselves sharing refuges, locked mental health wards and prison cells with male bodied sex offenders) then at least we will know you for who you really are.

If you were legally and biologically a woman - as thousands of trans women are - and had people telling you daily that you are a deluded man and that they will campaign to prevent you from using women's spaces, would you feel welcome?

They aren't legally women, as has been explained on here multiple times.

Can you explain how they are biologically women?

I find that incredibly offensive, especially given this information about the post op genitals of transgender males. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695466/

Why are blatant lies like this allowed to stand, while women have their posts deleted for stating facts?

Personally, I find the Spartacus-type threads enormously beneficial for my mental health. I work in quite a right-on environment and have a lot of right-on friends and I feel very alone in my GC views. I also - to my shame - feel too afraid of losing my job/putting myself in a difficult position to fight this fight very openly, and to have a space where women can assert what they believe and help other women not to feel so alone and gaslighted is an enormous relief.

MNHQ, why do you view such threads and unnecessary bullying rather than as a lifeline to isolated and frightened women who don't want to feel alone?

The best indicator of anyone's beliefs is their behaviour.

If you were legally and biologically a woman - as thousands of trans women are

Say what?
How does that translate to prescribing of medication? They are suddenly biologically female and now metabolise drugs differently? Or their kidneys suddenly change?

Genuine question here, Justine, hope you can excuse the hyperbolic example:

While we all agree that opposing viewpoints and fine and debate is generally good, there has to be limits.

How much kowtowing and compromise would you expect an African-american group to make for the feelings of neo-nazis INSIDE of an African-american group? On a page which is explicitly for Jewish people to talk about their needs and rights, how much should they compromise their speech and views to protect the feelings of any anti-semites who happen to pass by?

Cause that's the sort of thing we're talking about here. This is a feminist board ON a women focused site. And here, in this space, you're asking women to step aside and let others be heard. To compromise their own language to protect the feelings of a completely different group which is actively working to harm them. These is not a televised debate, there is no requirement for equal representation of all sides, this page is explicitly for one side of the 'debate'. The women.

Yes, some women are in favor of expanding trans rights and have every right to discus their views here and be heard equally, but that doesn't require other women to tap dance around the topic and play word games. Open debate is NOT compatible with limiting simple factual terms and reality based discussions. What you're doing is asking women as a group (on both sides) to limit their expression to protect the feelings of transgender men. To 'respect' the very men who are attempting to erode our rights, in a group which is explicitly for defending those rights.

Trans activists and advocates have no shortage of platforms which are explicitly for them to discuss their needs. No shortage of platforms which are biased in their favor. No shortage of open unregulated platforms (e.g. reddit) to take their discussion. You don't need to coddle them here. Seriously. They will be fine.

Let women speak the truth. Let women talk about biology, reality, use pronouns correctly. In a WOMEN'S GROUP, on a page which is explicitly FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS, even here we can't just speak the plain truth, we need to move aside and 'play nice' and pretend every opinion is equal?

Then we've already lost.

My own struggles with this subject (after much consideration) fundamentally come down to not what is a woman (or man) but what is Trans?

Personally (and I appreciate this isn't a universal view) I don't have an issue sharing female spaces with trans women who have undergone reassignment, by which to be clear I mean no longer have male genitals and have a GRC.

I will however caveat that by saying I do not think a GRC should be awarded to anyone with a history of violent or abusive behaviour towards women.

I also do not believe this should equate to "equal" participation in sports.

Then there's a grey area in the middle, where people are "mid" transition. In all honesty it's difficult when dealing with people who suffer from Gender dysphoria to whom I want to be tolerant towards but feel as if a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The only solution I see here is a third space.

I'm not at all comfortable with people who have made no meaningful steps towards transition being allowed in female spaces at all.

However, in this "debate" there's a lack of nuance imho.

So yes I get angry when Penny Mordant says allegedly "trans women are women".

Or Justine says "my life would have been harder if I'd been trans".

This is because the trans umbrella is so wide as to make such statements inflammatory. I see an awful lot of people sitting under that umbrella whose life has been far from difficult - rather it's been a rather effective "marketing" exercise in notoriety and fame for which the physical and emotional investment has been minimal.

Do I have empathy for people suffering (and I do think they suffer) from genuine Gender dysphoria? Yes, absolutely.

Do I think they are biologically women? No.

However there is a significant proportion of people who self id as trans who do so for their own gratification - sexual/mental/notoriety/opportunity and these are some of the most ardent activists - ask yourself why that is?

If you were legally and biologically a woman - as thousands of trans women are

Biologically? How? Can you explain the mechanism of how a human being changes sex to me please?

Do you believe humans can change sex? I’d so how?

Do I have empathy for people suffering (and I do think they suffer) from genuine Gender dysphoria? Yes, absolutely.

Then why the fuck can't someone say their life would have been harder if they had been trans. Of course it bloody would. Don't be so disingenuous.

Atreidas the issue is that anyone who identifies as trans on whatever basis has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, so whenever we talk about this group in terms of rights we are talking about a group of mostly male people who are mostly fully male bodied, and that is what we need to consider in how we address the rights of this group.

At the moment the EA does provide for third spaces/suchlike for trans people where there is any conflict with the rights of women and girls, i.e. this provision allows for both groups' rights to be considered and addressed, and as a third option can address what trans people need in every situation where we have raised issues re our rights as a sex class, employing our sex based exemptions does not impact on trans equality. But the issue is the exemptions are hardly ever used regardless, and we need to address that (and many women's groups are, including the one I am part of).

What is of particular concern re self ID is that it would allow anyone - anyone at all - to change their legal sex for whatever reasons, and this would mean that the sex based exemptions that we can use in the EA in relation to men who identify as women would no longer be possible, that is unless that trans person is willing to disclose their identity. That is because along with a GRC and the birth certificate changes it allows, there are privacy protections that come with a GRC that mean no-one with a GRC has to disclose that they are trans. As of yet this has not been addressed by the UK govt in terms of how it makes the EA exemptions unworkable, and self ID would only exacerbate this (only 1% of trans people currently have a GRC).

There are many, many other issues as well.

Bowl I think it's just an attempt to derail, and they are usually successful...

MNHQ, why do you view such threads and unnecessary bullying rather than as a lifeline to isolated and frightened women who don't want to feel alone?

Yes. Why?

This is a question that is never answered. Would the reply be unpalatable, perchance?

vickyjgo - have you found the LGBT Parents board on here? That might be a good place for you to hang out (I find I only really go on 4 or 5 boards most of the time, that reflect my particular interests and issues)

See the OP hasn't been back.....................

@JustineMumsnet

First of all thank you for allowing the trans widows support thread to stand. Have you read any of the thread?

My STBXH is self defined as Trans. In old money he would be called a sexually motivated cross dresser. He's been abusive. He uses the narrative of oppression to bully me. He's not oppressed.

you know my real name, how long I have been here, my posting history.

He gets off on wearing woman's clothing, and from the power he has to make women (especially) move their boundaries to accommodate him. We all know that sexual crimes are about power and not sex.

I'm not sure why it is that my experience isn't relevant in this debate. Why women pointing out the massive holes in the legislation being debated, is seen as confrontational.

We exist, our experiences are real. Please if you can't help us, at least be fair

Even if you pay attention to nothing else - pay attention to this post and READ the Transwidow thread - it isn't an easy read but you may see what the issues are for women from this. You may also see that the trans umbrella has encompassed more than just those with genuine gender dysphoria and you may perhaps see that this is where the problem lies as well as with people who aren't trans exploiting loopholes in the law.

These women are being abused in various ways - I keep up with that thread and it makes me so unhappy for the women on it and proud of how they stay strong for their families. It really isn't as simple as all trans people have it harder than women (or indeed anyone) whatever the narrative has lead the media to believe.

@leyat

Yes I understand that and tbh that was the point I was making.

Hence my sentence "what is trans?".

It's now such large umbrella I can't see how any discussion and furthermore legitimate legislation can be framed until it's clear whose rights are under discussion.

In RL most women I've discussed this with have the notion that all people who Id as trans have had, or intend to proceed with gender reassignment hormones/surgery.

When I explain that this is not the case and in fact that the majority of men who transition retain their genitalia they are genuinely shocked/surprised.

They then slowly but surely start down a path of being GC.

To be clear I oppose self ID and I'm extremely worried that the legislation in it current form is being eroded and/or misunderstood.

@kitchenrollinrollinrollin

How exactly am I being disingenuous? I said I think life for people suffering from GD is difficult. The point being made was there are many people who identify as trans who are not dysphoric in the slightest and do not have any wish to transition meaningfully yet thrive on the attention that seems to give them. Hence my comment on the nuances.

Oh my god. I missed the thread in question and caught up with all of it today.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
As women, we are really not allowed any safe spaces at all are we?
Nothing that is just us.
I'm feeling sick, tired and depressed at the way this is all leading. Who would have thought biology could be so offensive

@kitchenrollinrollinrollin

Then why the fuck can't someone say their life would have been harder if they had been trans. Of course it bloody would. Don't be so disingenuous.

Justine's probably right, that her life would've been harder if she had been trans (in the old-school sense of wanting to medically and surgically alter her body so it ceased to cause her distress). Maybe even if she was somewhere else under the trans umbrella, though that's harder to say.

That's not the point.

The point is that if you take any woman at random, and any trans person as defined by the current very broad Stonewall umbrella at random, it is almost impossible to say whose life will be harder, and who will be more traumatised by a decision about whether people with male genitalia and socialisation are allowed in women's protected spaces.

And that's without getting into the issues around safeguarding, co-morbidity with other health issues, women's rights to talk about their biology and so forth that we're apparently supposed to hold back on because they're triggering.

You can't extrapolate from one individual's experience to a universal. Although this is a good basis for intellectual wankery like postmodernism, it is not a good basis for public policy.

Agree completely with what Kitty says, read the transwidows thread. See the issues for the transwidows and their children. The level of abuse is shocking.

Also agree with what Lang said about safeguarding. The changing of policy in the Girlguides to be "trans inclusive " (but only if you're XY trans, if you're XX you're excluded) rides roughshod over safeguarding protections.