Clarification of rules

[MerlinsLostMarbles]

Asking in a new topic to avoid derailing any threads. Is it still against the Mumsnet forum rules to deliberately misgender/deadname a transperson?

There is probably little point in trying to get someone to understand your reasons why the word they wish to apply to you is not ok. (Although you would think that someone so committed to the T movement would understand this better than most.)

So the point is: there has to be one rule that works for all.

There's a choice.

Either everyone gets to use the words for others that they themselves choose - and that will include 'cis' and 'man' regardless of the fact that some will find this offensive, because of the right of the person to believe their own narrative and to speak factually as they see it.

Or there are words that while many may not see why another would find it offensive, they do not use here on MN because of respect for others and not causing offense.

Most women would probably prefer the first, but are happy to go with the second as HQ's choice for their forum.

The problem is with this, that the OP I think is in fact arguing for a third way, which is a caste system. Where some are entitled to more respect, control over others and freedoms than others, and get to punish and silence the lower caste members.

So what is it you're asking for, OP? Options 1, 2 or 3?

If you’re making a list, @MerlinsLostMarbles , I object to being called cis when “woman” is perfectly sufficient, thanks.

Started reading the thread, then realised who the op was. Why am I not surprised, but I will read the rest with interest.

I object to cis too. No need for it.

It is also a word which many people find deeply offensive and have a great dislike of being referred to as such. I have just checked in my dictionary (published in 1979) and the word does not exist at all. Therefore, it is a word that has been invented since then to categorise people, whether they like it or not.

"Cisgender" presupposes a belief in an ideology I don't share. It's like people who believe in Scientology going on about Thetans. If "cis" just meant "non trans" then a "trans woman" would be a biological female person who identifies as a man, because outside of gender identity ideology, a woman is simply an adult human female.

But you yourself literally misgendered every one who doesn't buy into your ideology by insisting that "cis" is an acceptable term to describe anyone who isn't trans.

Its literally doing exactly what you are complaining about- I'm baffled you still aren't getting it?!

It's rude and presumptuous to co-opt others into an ideological belief system they don't share, and indeed think is harmful.

Absolutely this.

I’d prefer 1 but I accept 2 because MN is the host and ‘my house, my rules’ is a concept that I (and probably most other parents!) recognise and respect*

I sometimes go elsewhere for 1.

3 can also be found elsewhere, if Merly isn’t fully satisfied with 2.

*I sometimes wish those rules were a little more explicit because ‘not in the spirit’ can be bafflingly meaningless for ESL or ND posters but a) I realise you can’t please all of the people all of the time and b) at least Mumsnet has proper moderation staff and isn’t at the mercy of volunteers with personal agendas.

The problem is with this, that the OP I think is in fact arguing for a third way, which is a caste system. Where some are entitled to more respect, control over others and freedoms than others, and get to punish and silence the lower caste members.

Like many of these people are accustomed to practically everywhere else.

It's the caste system thing.

A belief that some have freedoms, entitlements and immunities that others most certainly are not permitted, and that those lower caste others should be tightly disciplined, controlled and Animal Farmed at all times.

I don't somehow see HQ, women, or in fact society in general, thinking this is a great idea that will lead to sunshine and rainbows.

The problem is with this, that the OP I think is in fact arguing for a third way, which is a caste system. Where some are entitled to more respect, control over others and freedoms than others, and get to punish and silence the lower caste members.

As ever you've hit the nail on the head, @nilsmousehammer. Just can't hide their authoritarian streak.

Indeed, and it's something that is overwhelmingly expected by a certain demographic who are used to the entitlement which comes from being raised in a society where their ideas and wants are naturally prioritised.
It seems that identifying out of that demographic doesn't mean identifying out of the entitlement. Funny that!!

If I was offended by the word "table" or "chair" would I be able to ask people stop using it if the topic was about furniture?

IMHO this is just "manufactured offensiveness". The word isn't offensive at all, it's only offensive because you want it to be because the existence of cisgender acknowledges transpeople exist (cis and trans are opposites).

Transpeople exist and so do the words cisgender and transgender. They aren't going anywhere regardless what you think of people who aren't cisgender.

The literal violence genocide denying existence claims made by transactivists like you @MerlinsLostMarbles are what is manufactured.

Correctly sexing a human being is not offensive, demanding other human beings be made a sub class of their own sex class is.

Enforcing your ideology on others is more than offensive.

Do you know what really is manufactured offensiveness?

Misgendering.

I think I left mine on the train the other day.

I've always found your posts obnoxious and ill-formed but this is by far the stupidest.

No, it's not a debate on whether or not you can use that offensive word because you feel you can justify it. We could all do that.

It's three options.

1. Everyone uses all their own chosen words. You get to call people cis regardless of whether they identify with it or find it offensive. And people get to use the word man and woman and him and her regardless of whether anyone else finds it offensive.
2. Everyone follows the HQ rules that some words are regarded as offensive by some, and therefore regarding personal feelings those words should not be used by anyone.
3. You would like a different system. Which appears to involve some people getting to use whatever words they like regardless of causing offense, but that other people are policed to the nth degree in the way you would like and must only use words you approve.

I'll support 1 and 2. 3 is right out.

ill-informed

Using "cis" suggests that there is more than one category of woman, beyond those born female. That's not true and is therefore unnecessary and offensive to many. It's really very simple.

It can be if it's in bad faith.

After Elon Musk removed misgendering from Twitter's terms of service a number of threads appeared just to make a point of posting pictures of transwomen and gleefully misgendering and deadnaming them. There is absolutely no need for this at all other than to bully.

This is debateable. You can't say someone's opinion is offensive just because it's different from yours.

Pot, meet kettle