New guidelines - we aren't allowed to refer to natal sex

[Maryz]

According to KateMumsnet:

"We also thought it might be useful to clarify our thinking about general terms for trans people. Having said that TIM is not okay, it seems a bit illogical to allow other terms which hang upon natal sex."

Well that's that really, isn't it.

We are all being told to pretend that men have become women.

Am I going to be deleted/banned for this post?

Did you know that the female athlete Caitlyn Jenner was awarded medals in the men's category?!

Crikey, she must be really strong to compete with the men. That's amazing. And just goes to show that if she can do it, well, other women can too.

I thought the statement was a joke, but now reading here I realise it is not. Hmmm. I have recently joined, but will not have anything to do with an organisation that claims, first off, that we are a "minority". I don't think Justine got that right at all. And not just here but in the real world, women know these males are not women. It's not an affront to them any more than saying that the sun is not water. It's just a fact. Secondly, this statement seems to want to appear 'objective', striking a balance between these words we say and those words they say.

Let's examine the words:

Women TAs
TiM cis
TIF TERF

On the left-hand column you have a descriptive that is biologically correct and that does not capitulate to the madness which demands that women carry out males' fantasies. All my mates who are trans would not deny that they are trans, nor that their birth sex is altered in any way. So these terms are fair and truthful. On the right-hand column, you have a term that places gender as a 'natural' (cis) and a meaningless label to refer to anyone who disagrees with the trans narrative that is also similar to 'turf'. It is meaningless because by pointing out reality I am not excluding men from living, as per their lie. By calling the sun extremely hot, I am not slandering cold or blue objects. It is a fact that should not be mandated into a perverse distortion. Add to this that most of the people they call TERFs are not even radical feminists. Again, meaningless, inaccurate, and hence offensive.

Left hand, descriptor based on fact, right hand, epithets. How Justine Roberts sees this as a "compromise" amazes me. It is like saying that if a cybercriminal breaks into your bank account and steals your entire savings and the "compromise" is that he gives 50% of it back.

@samanthastephens

I was initially surprised by the term "minority" but in fairness MN will know what proportion of their customers do or don't care about this.

certainly my real life experience has been that women haven't thought about it or don't care about it. That's with me being very careful about raising the topic with anyone.

It does look like reddit is going to be our choice unless we can get a forum up and running. MN is closing down free speech so we need somewhere new.

I'm totally confused - is this the last word from MNHQ or is there more tweaking? Can we have an update on the guidelines if so. I'm comfortable refering to transwomen or transgender women but will not be dictated to any further. Transwomen are not in the same category as natal women and there must be the right and means to state that clearly and simply without screams of transphobia or ridiculous linguistic gymnastics.
KateMumsnet

Hi all

It looks as though some people haven't seen our posts earlier, and may have the wrong end of the stick. To reassure you, we've been discussing the collective nouns that posters use to describe trans people as a group; we're not preventing anyone from asserting that transwomen are born male, or expressing a gender critical position.

We do, though, think it's right to be civil when we refer to other people. Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex.

Look, we honestly do know that words are important here; but this is a complex issue, and it's probable that everyone will have to live with some contradictions and compromises in order for a dialogue to take place.

Thanks
MNHQ

Gibberty - stop trying to ‘educate’ us about the different ‘types’ of women there are. Ive noticed you do this a lot. ‘Women’ is not a selection of categories for you to choose from. It’s not a novelty catalogue for you to pick the kind you want to be. Women have female dna and anatomy. It’s not an umbrella term for a species with variations of biology.

I only started posting on MN because of the commitment to free speech. I'm going to hang around for a few days and see how this goes, but if it's clear we can't discuss issues that matter then I'll be off.

To reassure you, we've been discussing the collective nouns that posters use to describe trans people as a group; we're not preventing anyone from asserting that transwomen are born male, or expressing a gender critical position.

These two things are inextricably linked.

It is like saying that if a cybercriminal breaks into your bank account and steals your entire savings and the "compromise" is that he gives 50% of it back.

And ask him how many sugars he takes in his tea!

Oh ffs Mumsnet, I thought you were better than this.
Silencing biological women so the that the poor men aren't offended. Shame on you.
I love mumsnet but if this is allowed to stand I'm out of here. I'm sure the numerous advertisers on the site will be delighted when we all leave in droves.

"I only started posting on MN because of the commitment to free speech"

oh hi Sarah, yes I remember now, I have NC since then. I love your posts.

Agree re the theft and 50% too, excellent analogy.

I do like Gibberty's unintentionally funny posts about bodies not confirming to the standards expected of women.

I'm another, if this is not at least up for debate within a few days I'm also gone. I will NOT TOLERATE being treated like a child who needs mummy to make sure I don't swear. BOLLOX!!

Kate Mumnsnet Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex

I agree with this in part. Where sex isn't relevant, we should not define people by their sex. I understand that many trans people find any associations with their sex distressing. However, I also understand that many gender critical people find associating them or defining them with any kind of construct of gender distressing.

Banishing references to sex seems as reductionist as banishing references to gender. Both deny people the ability to be thought about and referred to in ways they find acceptable. There is a time and place for both forms of categorisation.

Surely we need to operate both categorisation systems and use them judiciously according to context.

I'm totally confused - is this the last word from MNHQ or is there more tweaking? Can we have an update on the guidelines if so

I agree. Can someone who is a bit more ‘on’ this (MNHQ would be ideal) explain what’s going on please? I’ve read the Talk Guidelines and they, so far, just state that Transphobic comments will not be tolerated. Well that sounds fine. But there’s no explanation as to what constitutes Transphobic as far as MNHQ are concerned. Right now, for me, it could be literally anything. You only have to check my posting history to see I am an inoffensive, supportive and, hopefully, amusing poster who never wishes anyone any harm, judgement, or nastiness. I always, despite the flow of the thread, try to post genuinely supportive or good advice based comments. I’ve never been accused of an ‘ic’ or ‘ism’ in my life (possibly because I’m a member of various groups that could be subject to ‘ics’ and ‘isms’). I am however an avid reader of the FWR board (thanks to which I realised I wasn’t as Feminist as I thought I was and have been enlightened, I may be turning a bit ‘Rad-light’) and I am critical of Self ID, not Trans, but definitely Self ID. I don’t want to be tripped up by Newspeak or Doublethink and I don’t want to be accused of being something I’m not by a (to me) faceless entity. Basically, I’m nice. I’m nice, but I’m not fucking stupid and I won’t be treated like this and take it.

Nuts!!!!

If we can't define classes of people by their sex then we can't do feminism. The end. Are mnhq seriously proposing to ban feminist discussion on fwr?

I haven't been here in a long old time but I've had to log back in to express my utter disappointment. MN silencing women. WTaF?

People will do it and not get banned

I'm actually now thinking of what would have happened if these new guidelines weren't issued.

is it that there were legal issues, personal threats and concerns etc etc.

I used to belong to a board run by volunteers. It's now defunct but I'm guessing that's the kind of place where full and frank discussion can be conducted. Before it closed - the main person running it fell ill - there was a lot of concern about people's DC and some of the "facts" they seemed to be hearing at school and some of the actions they might try to undertake if they felt unsure of certain personality aspects.

yes, I did phrase that in a very clunky way but I had to!!

Those who make conversations impossible, make escalation inevitable.
Stefan Molyneux

Kate Mumnsnet Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex

So let's have a collective expression for them which reassures them that the uppity women are going to be made to submit to their demand for validation. Because if facts are inconvenient or upsetting, we'll ban anyone for stating them.

FFS.

You might as insist that posters call each other hun and be done with it.

The guidelines might be useful, because they'll encourage any trolls or malicious people to report a lot, in the hope of getting us banned, and then they can be banned themselves for malicious reporting.

**So let's have a collective expression for them which reassures them that the uppity women are going to be made to submit to their demand for validation. Because if facts are inconvenient or upsetting, we'll ban anyone for stating them.

FFS**

Sounds like a good collective expression to me