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 think they make some fair points actually and I'm gender critical. Mumsnet have tied themselves in knots with their attempt to 'evenhandedly' ban certain terms. It was bound to end in nobody being happy. I think trying to pin down what 'offensive' means in this context in generic as opposed to case-by-case terms is on a hiding to nothing.

I'm not here. To educate you that as I said is upto you. I just suggested two books. That would give you the context of this current debate its written from the trans side as I don't think. Anyone as written books. On the other side we'll apart from the transexual empire. I would suggest reading that also for historical context.

Rights I don't want any extra right no one does. They are already there thia is not about extra rights again this is an assumption that as been made

transexual empire ???????

hey are already there thia is not about extra rights again this is an assumption that as been made ?????????????????

“having to tell people what actually happened all the time”

I am desperate to be educated! If you’ve had to do this before, can you link so I can read it?

I would like to know what rights trans people want that they don’t have already.

The transexual empire is early. Gender critical work by Janice Raymond

Sorry but i need to work so will have to leave for now been nice to have a civilised discussion thank. You all

@CuriousaboutSamphire transexual empire ???????

I think it's a new series on Sky Atlantic.

Shots

Its not about extra rights

So its just about men wanting womens rights then?

I’ve just ordered Trans Britain.

But I noticed in the synopsis an example of one of my own particular betes noir. “If Joan of Arc were alive today you might be asking what pronouns they preferred.”

So brave, outspoken women must, by definition, be trans? I deplore this simplistic gender stereotyping.

Rights I don't want any extra right no one does. They are already there thia is not about extra rights again this is an assumption that as been made

Ok so that’s good. So you dont support self ID then?

“If Joan of Arc were alive today you might be asking what pronouns they preferred.” There was a Marie Curie version of that somewhere, too! Like, you know, women can't be good at science.

So her daughter, 2nd nobel science winner, was erm, well...

I would not waste good money on a book that tells me smart courageous women must have been men really

Look, if both sides are complaining, that makes me think MN have got it about right.

Agree

“I would not waste good money on a book that tells me smart courageous women must have been men really”

I don’t know whether it will tell me that. I’ll let you know when i’ve read it. Frankly, I am flailing around looking for proper information at the moment - i’ve seen this book recommended several times so I thought it was worth a go.

I've recently heard a lawyer try to outline extra rights. There was an implicit acknowledgement that there really weren't many missing. One was maternity leave style time off for your medical treatment one was about intersex people and the rest was a lot of guff about the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

Yes, checked back. This was at a trans conference. The gaps ste
No specific protection for intersex and non binary people
They should get a specific protected period like with maternity rights for transition
Also people should get a lot more opportunity to fill in discrimination surveys

That was it

“I would not waste good money on a book that tells me smart courageous women must have been men really”

Nor would I, it's offensive and anachronistic.

I prefer to read a book before I decide whether it was worth reading it or not!

I'm with you there, Bertrand There's a phrase for that, isn't there?

Don't judge a book by its cover

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.

I looked that up Bespin, the description says:
'A comprehensive account of the milestone events which shaped the transgender community over the last five decades...'

Whoops, five decades does not a century make. Or is that a 'transcentury', fifty years that feels like it is a century?

Sorry, but no dice. Trans have a very long habit of re-writing history (and transing the dead). You would have had more credibility citing a book written mid-20th century, than one written last week (figuratively, January 2018 has barely had time for the ink to dry).

And the reason I am challenging your claim of transgenderism doing this fight over 100 years - it was barely even a thing a couple of decades ago. Transsexualism was, for written history, but not transgenderism. Huge difference, seeings many transsexuals now don't want any longer to be under your newly formed 'trans umbrella'.

I certainly wouldn’t have an objection to transfolk having a defined in law statutory period similar to sick pay/maternity pay to cover their recovery from medical transition, nor a shorter period (a couple of weeks similar to paternity leave) for a social transition.

Those rights wouldn’t be in conflict with women’s sex based rights at all. It’s only when the conflict occurs that I object.

Hence the need for rigorous impact assessments before changes are made.

Yes, cultural appropriation seems to be a trans “thing” . Fortunately some of us were around in the 70s and have long memories for the good and the bad. The bad including many women diverting their attention from the ongoing fight for women’s rights to the new and shiny gay rights movement. Men always seem to get what they want, including women to do the typing and make the tea.

Whoops, five decades does not a century make.

They identify as a century.

I prefer to read a book before I decide whether it was worth reading it or not!

I agree! But if a book openly states that it discusses whether/suggests that certain historical women were trans, then it isn't a book I would wish to read. I'm a historian, I find that kind of anachronism offensive to my discipline even without the more overt insult to individual women and women as a class.

A history of the trans movement without this element would be very interesting - I haven't come across such a book (although I'm sure they exist), but there are some interesting academic papers about the subject that do not indulge in populist anachronism.