TRA response to Mumsnet new pro trans guidelines

[Southfields]

As many on here predicted, they are STILL not satisfied. They believe the new guidelines from Justine are transphobic.

So, MN feminists don't like the new guidelines and nor do the TRA.

Where do we go from here?

By transwoman Natasha Kennedy:

Wednesday, 13 June 2018

False equivalence on stilts: Mumsnet's new censorship.

Today Mumsnet have come out with some badly transphobic guidelines which can only be regarded ill-considered at the most generous, profoundly transphobic at worst. They have said they are going to ban transphobia, terms like "TIM" ("Trans-identified male") and the like, although transphobes on Mumsnet are apparently already trying to find ways of producing new abusive and transphobic terms in order to get round this. How many hundreds of mods Mumsnet are going to employ to monitor this is unclear.

However for false equivalence they have decided ban the term "cis-". This is not only ridiculous, it is profoundly transphobic and reflects the institutional transphobia endemic at Mumsnet. "Cis-" as a prefix, they claim is offensive to "feminists", swallowing the rhetoric that "cis-" is somehow a form of abuse (in fact it is only a form of abuse if you are a transphobic bigot). Mumsnet are exposing their bias here and it isn't pretty.

The prefix "cis-" was first used in relation to gender by Dr Ernst Burchard, a cisgender doctor - and one of the earliest campaigners for gay rights - in "Lexikon des Gesamten Sexuallebens" published in German in 1914 and the term "cisgender" was first used by a cis male academic called Sigusch in 1998. It was created in order to provide a counterbalance to "trans-" so that people didn't have to say "non-trans" or "normal" when referring to someone who is cisgender. "Cis-" is effectively like the prefix "hetero-" in heterosexual. We don't talk about people who are not gay men or lesbians as "normal" people, so why should be have to do just that for trans people on Mumsnet?

In effect Mumsnet have censored trans people from using their discussion boards because we can no longer name people who are cisgender except in a way that Others us, pathologizes us or marks us out as somehow "abnormal" or not valid. In effect this is an Orwellian kind of censorship at a lexicon level (like "doubleplusgood") from a media platform that has complained noisily about Orwellian "censorship" when trans people called them out on the abuse we have been receiving on Mumsnet.

So it doesn't just reveal Mumsnet's institutional transphobia but their profound hypocrisy also. They cried foul to that other transphobic media platform, The Times, about being held to account for the transphobia in their forums yet have now banned some elements of the very behaviour they said trans people were threatening "censorship" by complaining about. In other words by their own standards of a few weeks ago they now are "censoring" themselves. This is not merely hypocritical, it is pathetic.

They are effectively excluding discussion by trans people and our allies by denying us legitimate terminology; banning a term that is, by the way, in the Oxford English Dictionary. Without being able to use a term like "cisgender" they are effectively making it impossible for trans people to engage in any meaningful debate in important areas. Their attempt to appear even-handed has ended up being oppressive and effectively taking the side of the oppressor. False equivalence is the name of the game, something trans people are very familiar with in the media, particularly broadcast media. And something the CEO of Mumsnet should be very familiar with since her partner is a senior commissioning editor in Channel 4, which recently produced an abusive and demeaning "debate" about my right to exist.

Mumsnet have got it badly wrong, they have demonstrated that

they are institutionally transphobic and in Desmond Tutu's terms are not even taking the side of the oppressor by being neutral, they are taking the side of the oppressor, period. Their motivation for this...? The only conclusion I can come up with is that they want to maintain their abusive transphobic user-base while avoiding complaints of abuse to advertisers; screenshots of transphobic abuse next to adverts make advertisers nervous. It is worth noting that trans people have been complaining about this kind of transphobic abuse on their site for literally years and they have arrogantly ignored us and brushed us off.

But the implications of Mumsnet's censorship go much further into dangerous territory...

As an academic the last place I would ever want go to discuss my work is of course Mumsnet, but now even if I wanted to I would be unable to since my most recent peer-reviewed publications, and some soon to come not only use terms with the prefix "cis-" ("Cultural cisgenderism" and "Cis-mythologization") throughout but they use them in the title. In effect my research is now banned from Mumsnet. No great loss from my point of view but should we should regard this as the modern equivalent of book-burning?

When the Nazis started to burn

books in Berlin University in 1933, among the first into the flames were those of Magnus Hirschfeld, a researcher into trans people. The comparison is too obvious not to make. Indeed I am not the only academic some of whose work it is now prohibited to discuss on Mumsnet; Gavi Ansara's and Peter Hegarty's award-winning research publication "Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008" (which originally coined the term "cisgenderism") is also banned under Mumsnet's new regime as are works by both transgender and cisgender academics including; Dr Ruth Pearce, Prof Dean Spade, Dr Julia Serano, Prof Rogers Brubaker, Prof Susan Stryker, Dr Jemma Tosh, Dr Diane Ehrensaft, Asst Prof Z Nicolazzo, Asst Prof Tobias Raun, Prof Sara Ahmed, Dr Meg-John Barker, CN Lester... I could go on and on...

To go from complaining to mainstream media about "censorship" to implementing a thoroughly Orwellian censorship regime of its own is quite a feat of hypocrisy even by Mumsnet's own pitiful standards, and something trans people are used to as pretty much the default setting of transphobes. However banning a term that is the equivalent of "heterosexual-" is not only bizarre but profoundly oppressive, the fact that it prevents the discussion of work by a wide range of academics is, in practical terms no great loss, Mumsnet is really just a cesspit of hate and ignorance. The symbolism of it however is very significant indeed.

uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2018/06/false-equivalence-on-stilts-mumsnets.html

Thank you thebewilderness

kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

I agree with Bespin. We should all read everything we can about what transactivists have achieved 'quietly' over the years.

Only by being aware of what they have done in the past, and how, will we be in a strong position to say 'hang the fuck on' and resist things being changed 'quietly' (i.e. without our input) in the future.

The days of transactivists getting things changed quietly, under the radar, without us noticing, are over.

To CosmicCanary: Thank you for your kind words.

The days of transactivists getting things changed quietly, under the radar, without us noticing, are over.

To be honest I don't think they want to any more. They want to rub our noses in our lack of power.

I know how it feels to be frustrated. It has earned me deletions in the past. It may have earned me some more tbh but as I dont check my emails I dont know

I hope you're right, Ereshkigal, I hope you're right.

I loved TheUterati. If somebody starts a thread asking for reinstatement over in Site Stuff, let me know. I'll sign on.

Jollygrandma , I’m sorry your friend was banned. Nothing you have said tonight should result in a ban. Enough of the pandering and BS. We, I at least, have been sympathetic and sensitive and understanding of the trans socialisation worries. Women’s kindness in this regard have been spat on. I will continue to be be polite on an individual basis but enough of the appeasement at society level. I’m delurking. I have always felt others said it better, more succinctly and more clearly than I could ever articulate. I still do. If they are being deleted (Attlee would be proud. How did that work out?) than I and others will delurk to call BS on this whole first world, self indulgent, self important narcissism. It’s nonsense. It really is.

A quick spin through tumblr will give you a quick list of the women in history who have been posthumously transitioned by the transgender advocates.
Not surprised someone wrote a book to justify it.
That is probably what they want the Vancouver Women's Library to carry instead of the long list of books by women about women the transgender advocates demanded be removed.

I believe my friend, TheUterali, may have been a test case. She is a strong, lovely mother of a little girl. She has reason to be deeply concerned. As do I as a grandmother.

With your permission, LangCleg and anyone else who wishes to, I will send along your kind support and desire to get my friend reinstated.

Also, if there's a method to start a new thread with support for getting TheUterati reinstated, please can someone guide me through the steps? I'll start one, if no one else has, yet.

jolly

Go to site stuff in the topic section

At the top it says 'start new thread in this topic' press that and write what you want

*With your permission, LangCleg and anyone else who wishes to, I will send along your kind support and desire to get my friend reinstated.^

Please tell her that I miss her already.

I have messaged her LangCleg, and I have also asked her if she'd like me to start a new thread to have her reinstated. Thank you, people.

We can’t say that transwomen are BLEEP. But weall know that women can’t become transwomen. I was born with a vulva, and for that reason alone, I cannot be a transwoman. Only people born with penises can. Which makes transwomen a subgroup of you-know-who, previously known as BLEEP.
And as for the not-all-transwomen thrown at Jolly, we do know for a fact, that people with the type of body previously known as male, socialised into a male sense of entitlement, are a lot more dangerous to women, that women are to men. And the only study to date, to look at criminality rates for transgender people, found women transitioning to men, acquired a male rate of criminality, and men transitioning to women, maintained a male rate of criminality, including violent and sexual crimes. There is noreason to assume transwomen are safer than men.

Yes, Fallingirl. Agreed.

TheUterati says thanks, but she wishes to move on.

However, I may stick around, even though I'm a grandmother.

Hi fallingirl, the study that you quote as a number of issues from. Sample size and timescale to not allowing for other factors and socioeconomic factors. It also does not explicitly say violant or sezualoaed. Crime. But insinuates that this comparison can be made though it does. Not have that evidence exactly.

The Swedish study is indeed flawed, not least because it only looked at transsexuals, who are a tiny subset of the rapidly growing disparate group of people under the 'trans umbrella'.

How astonishing that transactivists have never sought to conduct any better research to prove their extraordinary claim that tw are less violent than men.

Leaving the Swedish study to one side, Bespin, are you aware that of the transwomen currently in British prisons, 41% are sex offenders? This compares to 17% in the general population.

I'm just someone who is debating this topic with people you seem angry and emotional

It’s very interesting that that is always thrown at women isn't it? That we are hysterical, emotional and angry.

And yet when you look at it dispassionately you come up against the statistic that only 2% of violent crime is committed by this section of angry, emotional hysterics called women. It’s almost as though we aren’t the ones incapable of allowing our emotions to harm others isn’t it? Funny that. Doubly ironic when we are using science and logic to debunk a movement based on feelings.

Of course it’s also a centuries old ‘shut up’ technique isn’t it? Silly women. Hysterical women. Just shut up.

And frankly no. I shan’t. If you’d like to call me angry you can. I think my posts are fairly calm. If you’d like to call me emotional as well you can. It doesn’t impact my argument, which is sound, and based on cold, hard, dispassionate facts

Are you aware that the 41% is not correct either but it's early and I can not remember to maths to demonstrate that also the 52% of young people suiside rate is floored too as they all are as someone as said we need to define what we are looking at first and yes I would welcome stonewall spending some of its money on this as I would. Much rather argue from a point of reality than just assumptions which is what I have been saying in my previous posts.

I also do not think. That all other woman are angry or emotional, but if you actually read the thread you will see unless the posts have now been deleted that jolly did appear every upset for very good reason if you read the post and we were trying to suggest that she take a minute before she got herself banded I think in that context that saying that is a kind thing to do. Maybe you think. Differently. If you want to attack people then that's upto you

Are you aware that the 41% is not correct either

Can you provide statistics to rebut that? The ones I’ve seen are solid. 41% is correct.

People disagreeing, even disagreeing strongly with you, is not attack. It is not hatred. It is argument and disagreement, which are necessary to thrash out consensus in a free society.

Women are worried about the implications of self ID and we are speaking up. If disagreement and argument and debate upsets someone, they are free to step away from the debate if it upsets them emotionally.

But what I’m seeing here is women arguing their case and being met with extreme emotion from the other side. It’s not us directing angry personal abuse at transpeople. The vast majority on this board want transpeople to be able to live and have the protections they have under law. What we do t want is self ID or any law changes that reduce safeguarding for children.

Another point about bringing emotion into it. The current university climate of no platforming, #nodebate etc has removed the ability to debate. When I went to uni, we’d go to see speakers we didn’t agree with, sit politely and listen then we’d let rip in the Q and A with hard questions. We sharpened our debating claws. We listened to opinions we found distasteful and debunked them with logic, data and argument. This generation has almost lost that, and that’s a HUGE own goal for them. Because now they have no way of persuading other than to shout ‘bigot! TRANSPHOBE!’ And direct personal abuse at people. Massive own goal. Look at how people like Greer can argue - I do t see any of the aggressive activists able to bring that level of skill to the table.

That will lose them the argument, because when you’ve got no facts, no data, your position is based on feelings and emotions and you can’t argue well, you’re going to lose, as long as your opponents keep making their voices heard.

The GC critical side in this is not the emotionally incontinent one.