Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Mumsnet Grass Account

535 replies

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 06/05/2018 11:08

Have just grassed you up for banning them @MNHQ

They said "Mumsnet you left us no choice"

I think you are supposed to hang your heads in shame Grin

Mumsnet Grass Account
OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Wanderabout · 08/05/2018 13:44

A request to rewrite history. On a feminist board of a website for mums. To replace facts with fiction. To remove the language to describe the distinct category of biological woman.

Not in any way sinister, chilling or unreasonable at all then.

Wanderabout · 08/05/2018 13:47

A request to rewrite history

Massive, massive alarm bells should be ringing here for everybody.

whoputthecatout · 08/05/2018 13:50

Oh my goodness Assigned

I keep being reminded of W B Yeats poem "The Cloths of Heaven", which ends

"I have spread my dreams under your feet:
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"

A group of activists who have no hesitation in chucking the vilest insults at those they randomly accuse of being TERFS while pretending they are the most delicate of creatures themselves.

But, I think their Twitter reporting is very helpful in informing the wider public about their agenda.

Wanderabout · 08/05/2018 14:00

@MNHQ we need to retain the ability to identify and discuss the category of biological women as distinct from all other categories when posting. Whatever the new guidelines are it has to include this, or it takes away the ability to discuss women's sex based rights in any meaningful way. Having the basic language to discuss women as a sex class is NOT transphobic.

We also need language to discuss the biological differences between men and women. Without this we cannot discuss safeguarding issues for example or women's experience if sex-based violence or assault, or women's right to consent to whether or not they undress with someone with a penis. The basic ability to do that is not transphobic.

Ereshkigal · 08/05/2018 14:01

We have to be able to say that they are male.

BlooperReel · 08/05/2018 14:04

The twitter account is bonkers. I read through all the posts, and bar one, possibly 2, saw no evidence of transphobia. I think they need to look up the meaning of it.

@MNHQ give an inch and they will take a mile, your guidelines are fine as they are, and allow for tone, nuance etc.

Wanderabout · 08/05/2018 14:04

@MNHQ are any gender critical women involved in agreeing and feeding into the guidelines?

I am worried that if they are not the guidelines may end up being designed (accidentally or otherwise) as being a form of effective censorship of feminist discussion.

Of course trans people must be respected. But everyone must be able to state their beliefs within the rules - otherwise this is not so much about equality and respect, but becomes a set of 'blasphemy rules' for the many, many people who do not believe a man can become a woman because he says he feels like it (or at all)

I also think that removing all past posts due to new guidelines is a very, very slippery slope to go down.

Ereshkigal · 08/05/2018 14:08

I also think that removing all past posts due to new guidelines is a very, very slippery slope to go down.

I would hope MN treat that arrogant, entitled little demand with the respect it deserves. I.e. none.

AnnUnderTheFryingPan · 08/05/2018 14:11

Frankly I’m more concerned that someone has the time and energy to take on the role of Thought Police.

Let’s just change the name to Transnet, take down the feminist boards and commit to never talking about anything as unwomanly as our reproductive systems so as to ensure we are not taintent with terfness.

Wanderabout · 08/05/2018 14:14

The twitter account is bonkers. I read through all the posts, and bar one, possibly 2, saw no evidence of transphobia. I think they need to look up the meaning of it.

This is the problem - there is no commonly agreed meaning. Some would say it's transphobic to say you don't believe a man can be a woman, that research should be one into issues of medical ethics etc. But critical thinking, research, being able to state different beliefs and name reality are important and need to be retained.

TRAs are very keen that only they can define transphobia. And then it is used to mean anything that doesn't suit their agenda. So today it was leaflets pointing out biological women are at an unfair disadvantage in sport.

Mumsnet (and society) can't be run on not saying things TRAs define as transphobic, because that becomes a way of censoring anything women say that relates to the differences between biological males and biological females. Which is the BASIS of feminism, and of women's protections in society and law.

And that becomes effectively censorship of feminist thought and discussion of women's sex based rights.

Talk guidelines (and law and society) need to make sure that doesn't happen. If TRAs or gender ideologists write them it's pretty much guaranteed it will.

@MNHQ

AnnUnderTheFryingPan · 08/05/2018 15:12

I don’t understand why this silly little Twitter account is the subject of huge thread.

It’s giving it importance it doesn’t want and suggests MN is answerable to it, while it bugs itself up as the thought police.

Ereshkigal · 08/05/2018 15:15

Yes, I think you have a point.

Bowlofbabelfish · 08/05/2018 15:23

This is the problem - there is no commonly agreed meaning.

I would define it the same was as I would any racist/religious type discrimination directed at an individual or group of people.

So for example:
Jane doe is Christian and Christians are stupid.
Kill all Christians,
let’s go rough up some Christians, = discrimination.

Criticism of Christian doctrine in an abstract way = not discrimination. Discussion of hownchrostian extremist doctrine can infringe on individual rights = not discrimination

Now swap for trans.

Criticism or mobbing of an individual for their looks or beliefs, a statement designed to incite hatred or violence against a group = not ok. Discussion of ideology in abstract non individual terms = not discrimination.

There is plenty of case law I’m sure for discrimination on race and religion grounds.

Use that, keep the guidelines as short and simple as poss, and do not pander to theblobby that wants to remove discussion of ideologies, or infringement on others rights.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 08/05/2018 15:25

I agree and I started the thread.

I started it because I was taken aback at the 'Look what you made me do' tweet in the OP. Classic abuser stuff.

But I have to admit to being fascinated by the sheer arrogance of it all

OP posts:
Greymisty · 08/05/2018 15:34

YY OP I'm fascinated by the arrogance to! I'm like that IRL though sometimes I forget to run away from arrogant assholes because I'm too busy going "but how do you do that?!"

LangCleg · 08/05/2018 15:35

Any new guidelines will enrage the transactivists for not being sufficiently draconian and piss us off for prevarications and lack of clarity. You can't square a circle, I'm afraid.

TERFragetteCity · 08/05/2018 15:37

As pretty much everything is transphobia in their eyes, you may as well just shut the site down. You will never win.

Bowlofbabelfish · 08/05/2018 15:37

So do MNHQ actually need new regs? I’d say discriminatory behaviour is well defined in their existing talk regulations and we’ve all seen posts that are off colour get zapped in any boards - why does trans need a set of minutely detailed rules if they can deal with racism with simple rules?

The answer is it doesn’t, but the fact that TRAs want it is telling.

AnnUnderTheFryingPan · 08/05/2018 15:59

It seems to me that engaging (and I do, regularly) is like placating a tantrumming toddler (which is also often about ego, not having an understanding of others and wanting their own way, regardless of if appropriate or rational.

It’s quite a lot to do with being an actual functioning grown up with a place in, and an understanding of, society.

R0wantrees · 08/05/2018 16:31

I trust those elsewhere who are concerned by discussions of children's genitals will be contacting Pink News with regards their article today,

'Mother’s upset as six-year-old trans girl ‘tries to tear off her penis’

(I'm not linking to it)

Greymisty · 08/05/2018 16:39

Saw it on Twitter but I'm not reading Pink News. Poor child is obviously in distress they dont need an article they need support.

OrchidInTheSun · 08/05/2018 18:16

This is why it's really shit to tell children they can change sex

Offred · 08/05/2018 18:42

Just popping on to say the ‘sex’ board is always an option for GC rebellion Grin

leyat · 08/05/2018 19:10

Personally I think the thread was worth it just for the title :D

ReluctantCamper · 08/05/2018 19:12

Offred Grin

It's surprisingly busy over there, and I'm not sure I'm open minded enough