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?

If lots of people find something offensive I don't think you can call that opinion

Ok, using your logic then it's not opinion that it's offensive to call trans men she, or trans women he.
It's fact that they're offended.
Just like it's fact that you're offended if you're called cis.

Call the waaaahmbulance.

Yes.

That’s the thing with free speech, everyone has a right to be offended and everyone has a right to say offensive things.

No one has a right to prevent anyone speaking.

More than when, I want to know how he went from being a man to being a woman as sex in humans is determined at time of conception and is immutable.

Original

I think we're supposed to believe that our attitudes toward chromosomes are culturally constructed and therefore:spectrum.

Which is interesting as I'm fairly sure that attitudes toward the planet Venus are culturally constructed but no-one says that it isn't there or that Venus is a spectrum. And if it didn't exist as a material reality then there would be nothing to have any attitudes toward.

Dylan Mulvaney is an idiot whether male or female.

Unless I'm missing something here, the argument seems to be that transpeople and their allies want to control speech they find offensive but people who don't subscribe to gender woo aren't permitted the same courtesy. Is that right?

Would appear so @Clymene.

Trans people and their allies must be allowed to dictate what speech others use about them and to them and also dictate to others what speech will be used about them and to them. Total control as per the usual authoritarianism from them, all must comply and they have the cheek to chuck the fascist/Nazi label about.

Insisting that no trans people are cis reminds me of my Catholic childhood friend insisting I must be Protestant. She couldn’t imagine anything as whacky as ‘neither, and not very interested’.

And needed.

A win-win. Unlike your posts.

That is a good summary, yes. Along with "be kind" applying only to women who are GC while TRAs and their allies are ok with women being cancelled, no-platformed, threatened and physically attacked for standing up for their rights.

Oh I think I see? So it's not a case of accepting that either we can all have freedom or we can all agree to respect each other's beliefs equally.

It's that it's like insisting on the right to say the moon is made of green cheese to say anything but identity beliefs? It's just plain wrong?

But this is a belief no different to insisting that if you do not embrace Christ as the one true saviour then you are factually wrong, and you must be made to say it because it is the truth. As opposed to your personal truth. And you must accept the label of infidel or damned sinner if you resist the truth.

I do not hold and share your beliefs. I respect your right to hold them, but I do not give them greater value than my own. You don't believe I'm right. I don't believe you're right either.

This is probably why we need to accept HQ's decision that some words are just not ok, because of the need for mutual respect. I'm willing to offer that respect and do some living and letting live. Are you?

I couldn’t give a shit if someone wants to use the word cis about me. I’m not offended by it and if they insisted on using it once I’d told them I’m not cis I’d just think they were a bit dim or strange, but the word has no meaningful application to me in my life. It would be the same as if they insisted on calling me a heretic or a Martian, or insisting that my behaviour was influenced by my star sign; it speaks volumes about their belief system but says nothing at all factual about my life.

The right to believe in gender ideology is protected under UK law, and so is the right not to believe in it. That’s great, and as it should be. You (generic you) have the right to apply all the language of that ideology to yourself…but you don’t have the right to insist I apply it to myself, or even apply it to you if I choose not to - and I do choose not to when that language is contrary to the material reality of the immutability of biological sex and the words used in common understanding to describe or refer to the sexes. I will not lie that a man can become a woman and you can not compel me to do so (however much some may wish they could).

"[Gender Critical people] only think that "cis" is a slur because they use "trans" that way"

I saw this quote on Twitter, I think it has a point.

Well, I disagree.

Sigh.

There's really no point in trying to have a conversation, is there?

Most of us who don't wish to be described as "cis" don't use trans as a slur. We simply don't want terms applied to our identity that we don't agree or identify with. Surely if the trans argument is to have correct pronouns etc recognised, then that should apply to everyone not just trans people. If I tell you I am a Roman, then that's what I am. Not "cis" nor any other moniker or abbreviation you might want to apply. The hypocrisy you're displaying is astounding.

Trans is not a slur

Cis is not a slur when it's used to describe someone who identifies that way

But calling people Something they are not , making assumptions about their identify based on their sex encapsulates all that is wrong with transgender activism

I suspect its so problematic to transgender people because none-CIS gendered women are by the stonewall and trans /cis opposites definition .... transgender ,

and by their very existence these GC /transgender women are showing another path to the rejection of default gender - another way of transgender living that doesn't fit the current default narrative

They show that they don't need r change themselves to live their whole honest self
They show they don't need any gender , they can pick and chose their own personality ,

They don't need to spend a fortune on dodgy surgeries and hormones
They just go about living their life free

But they damn well refuse to be put back in the gender cage

I suspect its so problematic to transgender people because none-CIS gendered women are by the stonewall and trans /cis opposites definition .... transgender

yep

merlin has already said that someone without a gender (what stonewall calls agender) is cis

So

Agender is transgender except when it isn't ?

Is this a puzzle like what goes up a chimney down ?

Apparently 🤷🏻

who knows, its all very confusing

What a surprise that Twitter is where you get your view from.

Threads like this are clumsy attempts at trying to present fantasy as fact.

That’s just daft. You’ve got pages and pages of people telling you that they see ‘cis’ as meaningless, so there is your answer re: trans too.

GC people (and obvs I cannot speak for all) generally see ‘trans(gender)’ as meaningless a term as ‘cis(gender)’ is because to us trans(gender)+woman = a man who says he’s a woman and trans(gender)+man = a woman who says she’s a man 🤷‍♀️

I’d be perfectly content never to use the word trans again and instead refer to ALL adult males as ‘men’. I only use ‘transwoman’ or ‘transitioned male’ as a compromise (because MN’s rules are Nilsmouse’s ‘option 2).

FWIW, I don’t use ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as slurs either - they just mean adult human male and adult human female. No hidden meanings.