I am going to ask what is hopefully a very clear question about the new guidelines...

[BeyondSceptical]

We have been told - as I interpret it - that we can only refer to the sex of a transperson if it is directly relevant to the post.

However, in the feminism section, surely the biology and socialisation of a person will always be relevant? Whether (to nick two examples) the post is about what sex someone providing intimate care is, or whether the post is about how someone behaved in the queue at Sainsbury's.

This is what is confusing me, and as far as I can see what is confusing other posters too.

Yes, the whole point about feminism is that women are discriminated against and treated differently because of our biological sex. Once you take that out of the equation it will become impossible to talk about any of the issues women face.

My understanding of the guidelines is that they only apply to threads about 'trans folk' not to those of us who are just the boring old cunty type of woman, so it shouldn't present a problem when talking about the checkout at Sainsbos but will prevent us from easily talking about trans issues. Hmm well that's an interesting turn up isn't it?! So the rules are really only for certain types of thread and certain subjects in certain categories. And therefore not really rules at all, hey?

Here's a suggestion.... maybe when discussing feminism people could try holding non-trans men accountable for patriarchy or oppression.

I know it may sound novel, but non-trans males make up ~50% of the population.

Maybe, as many actual feminists in fact do, centre the discussion on non-trans males who benefit most?

There are a plethora of feminist sites that barely mention trans people, yet somehow it seems to long-time mumsnetters feminism discussion is impossible without denigrating trans people.

The discussions of feminism and patriarchy including non-trans men makes up such a tiny fraction of the output on these boards, it feels almost as like it's just a cover for attacking trans people.

It's not about "denigrating trans people" it's about challenging the erasure of women as a disadvantaged sex class.

However, in the feminism section, surely the biology and socialisation of a person will always be relevant? Whether (to nick two examples) the post is about what sex someone providing intimate care is, or whether the post is about how someone behaved in the queue at Sainsbury's.

I think it will very often be relevant to the matters being discussed. If I have understood the new policy correctly (and nb I don't claim to be an authority) it will often be a matter of the way things are phrased.

For example, I believe it would be OK to say something like:

'[X transwoman] has said [Y] on Twitter about [Z]. I do not believe they understand the impact of [Z] on women because [eg they were raised with the benefits of male socialisation/they do not have the same reproductive issues as women/they are likely to be more physically able to defend themself from men compared to women.]'

But it would not be OK for example to say:

'Look at what [X transwoman] has said on Twitter. He is so stupid. Did I mention that he is biologically male and always will be?'

You get the idea...

Yes. What Erishkigal said. That's why it's important to us.

No one would give any kind of shit about trans issues, except in wanting everyone to have good happy lives, if we weren't being asked to budge up, make room, centre men.

That's my understanding too Ally.

I would like clarification on this as well.

I understand about the acronyms and I will abide by that. I will not use he to describe a named transwoman either, as per guidelines.

What I’m worried about is a scenario like for example if someone is talking about prisons and I want to point out that transwomen remain male, most remain male bodied and they retain the offending patterns of men. There I’m referring to sex.

I guess what I’m worried about is careful factual language falling foul of the guidelines.

That's my understanding Ally.

Just like how in the hypothetical queue at Sainsbury's situation, on any of the boards a comment like:
Some old bat shoved past my kids to get to the till before me
Would be rightly shot down as being ageist and misogynistic - the sex and age of the till-barger holds little relevance in the context provided.

A post like:
I was in the queue in Sainsbos and a man barged in front past my kids. He could have just been an arse, but his manner around the other customers (men) in the queue suggests that he probably wouldn't have done it if it was my DH who was there and not me.
Would be fine because in that example, the sex of the barger is relevant in the context of their treatment of women in comparison to how they act around other males.

I think.

Bowl

I posted this when the new guidelines came out and then reported it to MNHQ to ask if my understanding was correct. They have confirmed that it is

We can still say that a man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female, transwomen are biologically male, transmen are biologically female and that a man cannot become a woman, and vice versa. We can still say that autogynephilia is a thing, that a biological male - regardless of how they identified - viciously assaulted a 60 year old woman for wanting to attend a meeting.

We can still say that Ian Huntley is a child-murdering piece of scum who was, is and always will be a man.

So your scenario would be congruent with that We can still say that transwomen are biologically male

I haven't followed all this very closely but I suspect that the only new thing that will be enforced is deletion of posts using the acronym we've been told not to use (and presumably a suspension of any poster who persists in using it).

It will take up too much time and energy for HQ to trawl through all threads checking for posts that remind trans persons of the material reality of their reproductive sex.

And even if posts are reported HQ will have a hard time justifying anything more than the deletion of the usual personal attacks, etc that already formed the guidelines.

I think the policy is a bit of arse covering by HQ so that they are being seen to do something. I really don't think much will change.

I don't think much will change

I'm not so sure.
Thebewilderness had about 5 posts deleted in one thread that were nothing outside of the supposed acceptable range. Known GC names are being targeted either by increase in reports or knowingly by HQ themselves.
A lot of known GC names will be gone soon under the three strikes rule which is yet to come.

No your right, I take that back. I've just been deleted on another thread for a comment I made about transgenderism (as in the ideology / movement).

Really - 3 strikes and barred? So no free speech on mumsnet ? What is the world coming to when men can say they are woman and women are ciswomen and not allowed to talk about our reproductive biology using the word woman in case it excludes women who identify as men or men who identify as women.

Beachcomber can you give the gist of what you said with repeating it?

without I meant

I made a statement as to what type of ideological movement I think transgenderism is.

It was a 4 word sentence. No swearing, bad language or slurs.

I'm unclear as to which actual guideline it broke. I suppose it could come under an umbrella of "opinions which genderists don't like and which hurt the feelings of people invested in transgender ideology".

See, that ^^ is what is making me antsy about posting anything. Yay for the kind of feminism where women have to police their own thoughts...

Well, I think transgenderism is a regressive, misogynistic, homophobic cult.

I don't think that the vast majority of transpeople are any of those things but the TRAs certainly are.

BoreOfWhabylon. What I posted was along those lines. Just without the adjectives.

@Beachcomber could you ask MNHQ what it is about your post that breached guidelines?

Yeah, OK I will. I've contacted them twice now however to ask if they could email me the content of the whole post (they only quoted the bit that got me deleted). I haven't had a reply yet but they're probably busy.

I have just posted about this on the thread in site stuff and suggested that perhaps my deletion could be used as an example on that thread to explain a little more what we cannot say.

deletion of posts using the acronym we've been told not to use

I haven’t read the new guidelines. What is the acronym we aren’t to use?

What acronym aren't we to use...would be a bit unwise to answer that!

It’s ok, ive just found the thread and of course it is the only fucking accurate acronym that we aren’t allowed to use. Of course it is. The only factual one. It’s 2018. The year of arse about face, Black is white and trump’s a genius. Of course it’s that one that we can’t say.

I made a statement as to what type of ideological movement I think transgenderism is.

I know the one you mean. And agree. It's a sad day when we can't express an opinion about it.