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

Why can't they just eff off? What has Mumsnet got to do with them anyway? Even the fact that they're targeting it must say something about their intentions, surely? Because I don't see TRAs "contributing" to any other sections but Feminism.

Excuse me being Pollyanna but there's progress in that they have decided to steal our language and our references to relaunch the attack. It's almost as if they realise our language and our references are an effective and dare I say it a winning strategy.

pratchet

Trouble is its really insidious

Get the medical information changed bit by bit to be inclusive (not inclusive to women obviously no no no) and the majority of people are going tothing its just medical jargon

No one will notice the subtle changes, until words that used to mean something dont anymore

Yes I see your point exactly. Maybe I'm too hopeful.

I’m so glad a couple of people have brought up the admittedly minor point that a word being in the fucking dictionary doesn’t make it okay. I mean, ‘fucking’ itself is in the dictionary, but I’d get absolute hell from my mum if I said it in front of her.

Like I say, minor, but it’s a way in - here are people who reckon a word isn’t offensive because it’s in a dictionary. What else could possibly be wrong with their thinking?

Syn women and anti women? Think that could work?
Works for me!

Didn’t someone say that if you have to reference The Nazis you’ve already lost your argument?

"Godwin's Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which posits that "if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in."
Origin

Mike Godwin coined his observation as a "natural law of Usenet" in 1990. "

I just don't get it. They're very upset about being denied their 'legitimate terminology' but they can't see that that's exactly what they're asking of women.

Even though this gets on my wick...

I think this could absolutely work in our favour. Acronyms are confusing for the casual observer. The casual observer is who we want to convince.

One thing I'm struck by when I read anything written by a a trans person is how full of jargon it is. My inner mind is thinking 'bla bla bla bollocks say what you mean'

We're better than that on here.

Oh, and I don't care about cis. I don't like it but it makes you look worse than me, Natasha.

So there I agree with you

I think Godwin was not necessarily "mentioning" the Nazis - but internet arguments eventually getting to the stage where one side calls the other Nazi's - and then they've lost the argument.

So I would say that Natacha Godwinned, without even entering an argument - Natacha called the other side Nazis right from the outset.

Sorry, I mis-spelled Natasha.

Natacha

Sittingaround1 - precisely, ltb!!

What these whining narcissistic men do not grasp as that they are never ever going to shut us up.

We adapt. Mumsnet tell us we can’t say TIM, we find other expressions. Being banned from saying certain words will not make us capitulate and say ‘she’ and woman. This has made me even more resolute if anything. I will never ever call a man a woman. These idiots have started a backlash that is just beginning to grow with their abusive, misogynist behaviour.

As far as I’m aware the Forbidden Terms are not in the dictionary in the way they use them. errol points out how they are correctly used in chemistry above.
In genetics, the c and trans words are used to show how the control elements for a gene are placed (closely or remotely) so a gene can be activated ‘in trans’ for example.

What a surprise. Men not happy because women are still allowed to speak.

No doubt MNHQ will come back with new rules where all we can do on the boards is post receipes and cleaning tips

They've deleted at least one thread because us posting recipes in response to a misogynist rather than engaging politely with his "points" was not in the spirit of, or something like that. Recipes can be rude and goady, apparently?

I just don't get it. They're very upset about being denied their 'legitimate terminology' but they can't see that that's exactly what they're asking of women.

Because they want to have their cake, eat it, and then have yours too.

I think in Natacha's article the references to Nazis go far beyond Godwin's law. There isn't just a suggestion that someone is behaving in an authoritarian manner, it is is directly implied that disagreeing with Natacha and co. is analogous to the systematic murders of millions people, which is incredibly offensive.

I do think that this, combined with an apparent inability to comprehend the fact that inclusion in the OED does not mean a word is not derogatory shows how weak their argument is. They are relying on false analogies and melodrama to make their point. These things should be highlighted whenever they occur because the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus will see straight through them.

And embroidery.

Yes orange! We are just turning round in our basket at the moment trying to find the words that fit us nicely. It's never going to be women and she, though.

Because they want to have their cake, eat it, and then have yours too.

It's greedy and unladylike to want cake! Also, ladies should share, and by "share" we mean "give me what I ask for or else".

I think it's anti-Semitic to appropriate the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust. Same as it's racist to appropriate discrimination against people of colour.

I must put a word in for the much maligned yarn arts! The yarn/knitting/sewing/quilting community as a whole is actually VERY feminist! Very much so.

Amazing how women speaking is such a threat. We will all be in scold’s bridles by the year end.

So just cleaning tips allowed then?

I have decided to use male and female only. No trans stuff no woman or man just male and female. Factually correct and clear. Humans cannot change sex and male and female relate only to sex not gender so no misgendering.

For example Caitlin Jenner is male. Kim Kardashian is female.

I will obviously be deleted unless the words male and female are not banned by MNHQ yet?

The overarching principle seems to be that you may not say anything to a trans person that they don't like or agree with. This is going to work out great.

"Good morning!"

"How dare you? My morning has been shit so far and it's all because of bigots like you."