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

"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."

Oh god, you're right. It's not that they can't see it, it's that they're doing it on purpose. It's worse than I thought.

'of course I condemn murder and rape threats but I'm not going to do that here, with you'

Mmmmmmmm
yarn arts
Mmmmmmmm

Angry

I disagree with a couple of earlier comments saying both sides were upset at the new mod policy. GC feminists, yes. But what I saw of the trans posters, they were "great, now can we also ban..." (which rather shows their tactics).
All a bit lopsided really.

I graduated from Goldsmiths not that long ago. The identity politics helped me to reach peak trans.

Tbh, the more acronyms get banned, the more we have to spell it out in exact and scientifically precise terms, the more people (I reckon) will be all when they realise exactly what it is we're talking about.

It's not just the old guy in your town who has cross dressed for decades and has never harmed a fly and who says morning to the cashier in the corner shop and walks their dog in the park just like everyone else does.

It's the aggressive sjw males minority group who are specifically coming after the spaces, facilities, endowments, language and accolades meant for your daughters and grannies and mums and friends in the name and pretence of being of that old guy in your town

When people see and understand the reality, that's when the mass "wtf" moment starts.

yeas *Shots^ - That's what I mentioned earlier

It's good for us, because the women on here are good at that.

Acronyms are handy and were essential back in the day. But now with decent predictive text it's no great hassle to spell things out. However Stonewall uses the acronyms MtF/FtM so am assuming that's acceptable. Surely MNHQ won't penalize us for using Stonewall approved terms?

Well, I suppose if we took those acronyms to mean Male to Feminine and Female to Masculine they might pass muster with GC feminists. But they're supposed to be Male to Female and vv, which is biologically impossible. And according to the urban dictionary, MtF is considered incorrect by some 'because it implies that trans women were originally men, which is considered cissexist'.

The irony is that genuine trans people are being hurt the most by this ridiculous nonsense.
The trans people who had spent much time, shedding many tears making sense of their identities.
These people were quietly living their lives, freely acknowledging their biological sex, and were generally well regarded members of society.

All this bollocks is dragging them into a shitstorm.
They want no part of this argument, which proves that the trans activists are not well intentioned.

MsSensibleWay

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

And then complain that YOU ate all the cake, leaving them none, and that's transphobic!

So if I refer to women and XYwomen, is that acceptable to MNHQ ?

Wouldn't say they're being hurt the most tbh

An XY woman would be intersex (and not really a woman tbh) and that's not trans.

I want trans XY but nobody liked it. I don't know if it breaks the rules. I want the ability to compel speech like wot trans people have.

And then complain that YOU ate all the cake, leaving them none, and that's transphobic!

You got it

I have a question to all the woman who say they will never call a man a woman or use female pronouns. I'd that in the real world too? I'm interested in this as when people do it at work unintentionally they are really apologetic. Mortified if they have caused someone offense but your all saying you will actively do this. So are you all willing to lose your jobs over this or is this just Internet talk and in reality you will do what most people do and be polite and respect people.

I will use chosen pronouns in public simply to be polite and if I am aware but tbh I mostly just skirt round it and use they, them or their name. If I get it wrong it will depend on the persons reaction as to whether I apologise or not.

I will never say a man is a woman or male is female.
I refused to do a project at work that involved Stonewall. I informed my managers that they are unsupportive of lesbians and promote child endangerment.
The project was dropped and I still have a job.

Work situations are not the point. The debate is not about the individual it’s about the class. The general rules and the legislative changes that affect women and children as a class.
When people are insisting on their right to use correct terminology they are not doing it to upset the transwoman in accounts - most people would treat any and all co workers with the same respect and professionalism as any other. thats not the point.

The point is that the ability to call an issue, concept or ideology on what it is is vital in a free society. Without that we are on a very dangerous road

I’m an atheist. Would I talk in work about my multiple criticisms of religion? Nope, because it’s not appropriate and could be construed as creating a discriminatory atmosphere for any religious colleagues

Should I be banned from expressing those atheist ideas on a forum like this or in a lecture to an interested audience or an article? absolutely bloody not

There is already legislation in place to deal with discrimination on the grounds of religion or transgender staid at work. That does NOT mean we need blasphemy laws on top or the equivalent for any other ideology

people are protected - ideologies are not

Do you think we should have blasphemy laws, bespin ?

Well I’m self employed so no risk of losing my job
As a matter of courtesy I would say “she” when referring to a trans woman in their presence but if it as absolutely necessary to say what they were I would say trans woman . However I can’t imagine ever being in a situation when I would need to refer to it
“ this is Karen, she’s a trans woman “
I wouldn’t actively avoid any pronouns or saying what they were in front of them but I would be polite and respectful as long as they were

Staid? Status. Autocorrect

Thanks was interested in the use of never so most would use they as this is an adstract debate and its not about individuals who you would treat with respect in the real world but on here people don't have to do they are not going too so does.it mean you do it because you have to or because it is polite. I also feel that there are some trans activists who also would not say the things they do in the real world so I'm not one sided on this I'm just interested in how people deal with the reality of this debate.

The individual is not the debate though.

I’m an atheist, I have a list of criticisms of religion as long as your arm, but I also have Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu friends. I’m not friends with them because I have to be or to be polite, they’re my friends.

To say that the debate is on the individual level is too much like ID politics for me. It doesn’t say anything about the fact I really think patriarchal religion is toxic if I go for tea and scones with a friend who is Christian...

Bespin lots of posters have said, endlessly, that there is no issue with trans individuals, though sadly that may change over time as this current fuckwittery continues to gain ground!

Preferred pronoun, maybe not. I too would simply use their preferred name at all times. Polite to them and never having to say that a man is a woman is a man!

As Bowlof said, it is about the class action. One group of highly active, aggressive individuals demanding that another class of individuals hand over their hard won rights and shut the fuck up!

As an ideology it is proving to be spectacularly invidious, mainly because women, as a class, are, as you said, programmed to play nice, to avoid upsetting people. Guess who is using that to their advantage?

Basically, is there any other political movement that demands all dissenting voices to be made illegal? Is there any other political movement that issues threatening statements via social media and is protected from censure? Could you personally tweet or facebook an individual who disagrees with you and tell them you are going to punch them in the tits and set fire to them and have absolutely zero comeback?

No, of course not! But guess which class of persons is doing that right now...?

does.it mean you do it because you have to or because it is polite I do it because know the individuals quite well. I use preferred pronouns about a transman because I have known him as a man for decades longer than I knew him as a woman. For individual who are passing acquaintances I would, as I said, use the name they prefer and would avoid he/she ing.

A year ago my answer would have been different. I would have been polite and used whatever pronoun they wanted. I have deliberately eschewed that politeness more recently, wholly due to the behaviours of activists and supporters, thinking or unthinking, I have met on line and in real life!