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 agree the debate is not about individuals but there are often individuals that seem to incapulate the debate and when they do the amount of abuse they get is quite high and when it's pointed out then people claim. They are being silanced then the debate goes on and mostly. It is then conducted in a more reasonable tone and good points are made again this is.both sides. Its this I'm not going to be civil until I'm told to be and then I can quite easily do it and in the real world I would not do it. So why are peoples first reaction to attack others in this way

Not RTFT but had to stop reading the pile of bilge in the OP with the comparison of feminists to Nazis.

To the write of that crap:

How. Fucking. Dare. You.

My family were actually - literally - tortured, raped and murdered (in one case we believe buried alive) by Nazis. Do not compare our tragedy to the banning of the completely tautological prefix "cis" on a parenting forum.

Utter scum.

So why are peoples first reaction to attack others in this way

Its obvious that activists are attacking feminists in this way - probably because they have a degree of impunity at the moment. Twitter allows people to abuse women with no comeback for example. The targeting of posters on here is another.

They’re supposed come back statement is truly awful! Is that all they’ve got? It is hilarious!

Yes, Natasha comes across as a grossly entitled little shit, MnerXX.

Sorry confessions, I posted at the same time and my response looks crass after yours. That your family had to go through that is awful and that you need to say literally because of all the literal violence which actually isn’t violence at all is sad in/if itself.

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.

This.

So why are peoples first reaction to attack others in this way It wasn't. That's why the activists have had so much success in getting all sorts of organisations to act as though a law has changed, to reinterpret the Equality Act and disregard/erase sex as a protected characteristic. Because women did not bite back initially. We talked, discussed it, tried to understand, were nice or simply unknowing!

The time lapse has allowed the trans ideology to gain a lot of traction, to be taken for granted, to simply be the way things are. Pointing out the flaws now is proving to be quite difficult, especially as one side of the 'debate' refuses to engage and can threaten and attack, physically and verbally, with seeming impunity!

I agree that some activists also attack people first then debate after or not at all as I said its a two way thing. It's the thing about it being individual it's hard to debate without poeple taking it personally and the things that are debated will and do effect people individually

I think I feel about names and pronouns the same way I feel about loos. If we let them be they are like a smokescreen that we use a lot of time and energy over and which distracts us from the real, serious issues. And it makes it easy for activists to occupy the moral high ground. One of ds’s friends is a trans boy. I have known him all his life, and I was thinking about him yesterday and thinking that it would be the behaviour of a real arsehole for me to insist on calling him “she” and “Sophie” when he is now “he” and “Nat”.

I think there are really important issues. Crime statistics, prisons, women’s right to privacy, sport, women’s health to name a few. But I now don’t think names and pronouns are hills i want to die on.

What *Bertrand^ said.

Like many others I have not seen it as a matter of he/she, toiltes and changing rooms for quite some time.

It is about laws, changing the way society speaks about sex and diminishing all sorts of sex based provision - for men and women. For what? Why is this happening? Why?

The answer to that is baffling and pretty scary! The phrase "post truth" used to be an amusing one... now, not so much!

Thanks Bertrand for the reply. It is this that I am interested in how you manage your views on one thing while knowing someone individually who represents the opersite of them. Would you say this young lad is anything other than what he says he is or that he is wrong or a number of other things that are posted. On here about young trans lads or that he is what he says he is. This is not. A critical thing I don't want to judge that just if you can see someone in real life as they are and then hold. The view on here that ita wrong I find difficult to understand

And as an aside, I am still completely baffled at the traction of the trans movement and the speed and effectiveness of the campaign.

We are now in a position where one public organization is talking about “people with a cervix” but others won’t yet accept women calling themselves “Ms”. I find it utterly bizarre. How did it happen? Cui bono?

And as an aside, I am still completely baffled at the traction of the trans movement and the speed and effectiveness of the campaign

Yes, that was what made me have a serious re-think. It was like I woke up one morning and the universe had changed... and only I had noticed. Then I came back to FWR and found out what it was I had missed!

May I suggest you read trans Britain or pressing matters for a history of the trans movement and realising that this is not something we have just done but have been fighting for over the last 100 years. It may give a better context to some of the issues we are debating today

The two sides have entirely different MOs though.

The feminist angle is not to relentlessly persue individuals or to engage in extreme behaviour . It’s to point out and criticise actions in a context

So for example I might say that a Labour Party CLP women’s officer who focuses solely on trans issues and doesn’t cover the range of issues that pertain to women is not doing well in their remit. I’m annoyed about that and I have a right to express that criticism of their actions in the context . Just as I would with my MP if I felt they were remiss. I wouldn’t be engaging in personal attacks on either that CLP officer or my MP.

But that’s not what I’m seeing from the vocal activists - there I’m seeing personal attacks, reporting to drive people off twitter, theft of data from feminist discussion boards, threats of violence to individuals, verbal abuse, etc etc.

It’s a very postmodern stance to have the starting point that both sides are as bad as the other in behaviour. It’s also very rarely true. And when it’s very much not true - such as trump’s declaration in Charlottesville earlier this year, it shows.

If people can find me examples of feminists threatening transpeople with rape, punching them to the ground at speakers corner, hounding them off twitter, preventing them from meeting peacefully by donning masks and blocking them or threatening to sue, I’d be very interested.

Peaceful protests, and robust discussion is not a hateful act.

So you are saying the trans movement has been working for years to gaslight the world and erase women?

Reminds me of a movement that has been doing just that to women for many many many more years. 🤔

To boil it down to the essentials bespin I would ask;

What rights do you think transpeople should have that they don’t have right now?

And

Whether you support those extra rights if it means removing protections for women and safeguarding for children?

bespin That last pst by Bowlof is the very heart of the issue. The answer to those 2 questions is almost ALL that needs to be known in order for all of this crass stupidity to simply dissolve!

Oh, and in turn would you look at any of the excellent tomes on women's suffrage, to see why women are not simply accepting trans ideology as their fate?

No what I am. Suggesting is that to help you in your debate then reading those 2 books would give you a better understanding of the point we are now at I'm not suggesting them to change your mind that's upto you what I would like to do is have people understand the issues fully instead of manking a lot of assumptions about what as happened. I think you would actually be able to make. Better more constructive points if you did that, as you would be coming from a place of understanding instead of assuming. Honestly this does not help my cause but I would like to debate this equally instead of having to tell people what actually happened all the time.

having to tell people what actually happened all the time. I haven't read you explaining that. I would be interested...

Also I have read many books on woman's suffrage and have a keen interest in the working class. Woman of the movement who are only. Now. Being recognised for there infulance and work with in the movement and factories of the North

Bes I dont need educating by you.

But it is a very important question...what extra rights do you want? Transpeople have the same rights as any other protected category under the EA. What extra, specifically, should they have that don’t apply to religion, disability etc?

And should those rights come at the expense of protection for women and safeguarding for children?