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?

Wtf

Laydees rather than ladies could work well.

Gibberty, saying 'I am a woman not trans' would get one of us deleted.

Gibberty, saying 'I am a woman not trans' is actually meaningless now. They have mangled the definitions of women female and sex to such an extent that I don't actually know what they are saying or the point they are trying to make.

Actually laughing at Gibb's explanation of a man being a woman whose body does not live up to 'the ideals of some people'!

Good one Gibb - keep them coming wont you?

Worth bearing in mind that Justine’s husband is Ian Katz at c4. Responsible for the car crash that was the Genderquake debate where the GC women on the panel were shouted over while the individuals born male who identify as female were allowed to drone on ad nauseam.

Her position is hardly surprising in that regard.

Pretty sure Justine's her own woman. She put her neck on the line when she didn't have to.

Justine and Justine's husband are not the same person. They are allowed to work in different ways and hold different opinions. Strange that I find myself saying this on the feminist board.

She did put her neck on the line initially but has now back pedalled and banned us from speaking the truth and naming biological facts.

But regardless, she is not her husband and she should not be judged by his actions.

Justine loves the mumsnet women, I'm sure. A male CEO would consider them punters. Justine has to consider the money but she doesn't think of us as punters. Maybe, rose-coloured spectacles but I am sure of this. For example, her support for FWR was not just an article in the Times. Considerable amounts of money have been ploughed into taking a difficult road. That is legal fees, extra moderators, special training for mods, loss of advertising threats etc. It would have been easier to cave, because after a bit of publicity, the TRA would swarm over the corpse and onto the next victim. They
are dancing on a pinhead there.

Yes, I agree they should invoke equality Act on protected space or something, kick off the goady ladies, delete posts that are flat out lies about the law. But, this is the best cross-over platform feminists have, and it's still here. VIVA.

So we have no word now for transpeople who are male, is that right? But we are still allowed to say transwomen are men? We just can’t call them trans identified males/ male trans people/ trans people with a penis?

Can we say transwoMen?

We can say transgender males, right?

Pretty offensive to Justine to assume that she and her husband are one and the same! Sexist too.

Justine Roberts & India Willoughby were interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer back in April. This is what Justine Roberts said:

"I think the problem with this is that the trans lobby have confused an issue about people quite rightfully sticking up for the idea of hard won women's rights around....(interrupted but previously JR gave women's refuge and rape counselling as examples)

The upshot of the change to the legislation that's been asked for around self-identity, is that you are putting women, including transgender women quite frankly in vulnerable positions potentially.
We need to be able to discuss if we are changing legislation, and for very good reasons because I am totally in favour of recognition, equality and fair treatment of all individuals and letting them live how they live.
But we need to be able to discuss these competing rights and it needs to not just be shut down....and I'm afraid and to be honest India you've got to see the other point of view, you can't just plough on with the [position] 'our issue is the only important one''

Interview followed The Times article:
' Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts: Transgender activists try to curb free speech on site'

"The founder of Mumsnet says transgender “thought police” are pressurising advertisers to withdraw from Britain’s most popular parenting website because it allows the discussion of trans topics.

Justine Roberts said she had been approached by three significant advertisers who had been threatened by trans groups....
The website had told the advertisers that it “works hard to keep the discussions civil” and was determined to let them continue.

“What’s worrying to me is the thought-police action around speech and the shutting down of the right to be able to disagree and immediately labelling it as transphobic,” Roberts said

“We have some guidelines, we keep people within [them], we ban anyone that’s persistently mean and that’s the way we’re handling it for now. Hopefully we’ll be able to hold that line because we think it’s important.”

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3222459-Justine-stands-up-for-FWR-in-The-Times

James Kirkup, 'If Mumsnet can stand up for free speech, why can’t MPs?'

"As I and others have noted before, it can be hard to talk about the politics and policy of gender and sex if you aren’t prepared to simply repeat, without question, a certain orthodoxy (some tenets of the faith: “transwomen are women”; self-defined gender trumps biological sex; some women have penises.) Because when you question that orthodoxy, some people call you names and maybe even threaten to do bad things to you. Especially if you’re a woman. Hence lots of women who do indeed question that orthodoxy find it hard or frightening to raise their concerns openly. Instead, they talk via Mumsnet, where the “Feminist Chat” forum is heaving with women (and yes, some men) discussing reform of the Gender Recognition Act, single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act, the safeguarding policy of Guiding UK and other issues that arise when you let men take the right to be treated as women on the grounds that they say they feel like they’re female. I’ve learned an awful lot by following such conversations.

The prominence of that forum has been growing in recent months and some people don’t seem to like that. Recent weeks have seen a visible increase in new users appearing in discussion threads and saying things that appear intended to goad users into saying harsh things about transgender people. Such comments are then adduced as proof that Mumsnet is a place where hate-speech against the trans community is not just tolerated but encouraged. Some (and I stress some) transgender people and trans-rights campaigners talk about Mumsnet the way the Daily Mail sometimes talks about radical mosques, painting it as an incubator of violent extremism. As a regular reader, I do not recognise that picture..... continues

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/if-mumsnet-can-stand-up-for-free-speech-why-cant-mps/

Great point Pratchet, it's hard to see how they can object to transgender males, surely they don't intend to disallow being able to talk about transgender in relation to sex at all...

THere are plenty of trans women who know they are biologically male and are realists. It’s their truth you are shitting on MN, as much as women’s. The myth that MN is full of ‘transphobes’ is being supported by these new rules. The vast majority of us concerned by the implication of self-Id aren’t afraid of trans people, don’t hate anyone and support the right of anyone to live how they chose which doesn’t need to impact anyone - if only it wasn’t for the bullying, misogynistic few who insist we must lie.

I am appalled by this.

The easiest solution is to back away from all things trans. We do not have to stop talking about women’s rights, the impact of self-iD on us and our children.

We should stop centering trans people and focus on our rights on and how we are going to uphold them in this political climate.

I have no interest in TRAs, or anyone who actively seeks to dismantle women’s rights whilst appropriating womanhood. My priority is supporting women’s representation and safety. Some prominent trans women are our allies and uphold our rights, some chose to fight us for them.

MN is letting us all down here.

Honestly, if MNHQ could just spend an hour coming up with a term that we can use then they'd save a helluva lot of time deleting stuff. Just a humble suggestion there.

Men who claim to be women? Is that okay? So adult human males who claim to be adult human females?

Of course not all men who identify as transgender claim to be women. Miranda Yardley does not claim to be a woman.

How about Mirandas and non-Mirandas?

So men who identify as transgender but who acknowledge that they are male? That makes them Mirandas. And men who identify as women and consider themselves female (even though we know that is impossible). That makes them non-Mirandas.

@MNHQ
Males say theyre offended being referred to as their natal sex, so thats disallowed.

Women say theyre offended when males are referred to as the female sex, woman.

Yet you still allow women to be insulted and offended daily.

Can you explain the reasoning for this, please?

So transgender males is ok to say?

What about non-woman? I quite like that, reclaims the insulting “non-men” phrasing that is popular with the Green Party.

@MNHQ
Males say theyre offended being referred to as their natal sex, so thats disallowed.

Women say theyre offended when males are referred to as the female sex, woman.

Yet you still allow women to be insulted and offended daily.

Can you explain the reasoning for this, please?

I would like an answer to this too please.

Yes, why is offending natal males so much more appalling than offending natal females.

Oh. Wait.

Same old sh*t, different day.

It's why feminism exists, fgs.

When Gina Ford and Mumsnet had a run-in, a decade or more ago, she was referred to as SWMNBN (She Who Must Not Be Named).

Surely there's scope for a similar acronym - "S"WMNBN?

TWMNBN?

Just Voldemort