Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Oh look, it's those guidelines making no sense whatsoever again!

691 replies

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 04/11/2019 17:09

So, I got an email about a comment in which I said that I wanted to know why genderists keep comparing trans identified males to black women and lesbians being deleted. I think this is absolutely barmy, and have said so to HQ. I'm also baffled as to how this breaks any guidelines and thought perhaps it was time for us as a group to revisit the guidelines and explain once more to MNHQ why they're not working.

What's actually happening here is the the obsessive trans activists who monitor this site are attempting to pick off posters one by one. We lost Orchid last week, and she was just the most recent of many. I'm not sure in MNHQ realize that's happening and welcome it or if it's somehow escaped their notice, but it's a pretty messed up thing for them to be allowing to happen to their users, in my opinion. Are they going to allow this to continue until the only commenters left in this forum are the TRAs who want the entire site shut down?

I know the people who despise the women here would very much like this to all happen under the radar, and that's exactly why I'm not allowing it to play out that way.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Sunkisses · 07/11/2019 12:04

...but also, like everyone, waiting for clarification from @MNHQ that they will not allow their mods to ban decent women after mass reporting by TRAs, and that women must be able to talk about SEX, the protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, on a feminist forum without fear or sanction

Creepster · 07/11/2019 18:26

Conservatism: "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time."

I think we all know where we fit in the regulatory framework.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 08/11/2019 07:49

Pretty sure HQ are hoping this thread will die soon while throwing darts at a board with my name on for starting it tbh.

OP posts:
EmpressLesbianInChair · 08/11/2019 08:14

Well, it’s only at 330 posts. Plenty of room left.

MrsSnippyPants · 08/11/2019 09:02

Well @MNHQ must be having a very long chat about providing answers to our questions. Perhaps we have to wait for them to run out of Biscuit before getting back to us.

HorseWithNoFucksToGive · 08/11/2019 09:06

Please address this issue Mumsnet.

I am a member here and concerned about this.

louiseaaa · 08/11/2019 09:08

Another neuro-diverse person who struggles to get thoughts down on paper clearly at the best of times. I compensate for that by being fairly blunt. Can't do that here. Don't post much here - too much added mental load when neuro-diverse people already carry increased load.

Not to mention the additional load of having a neuro-diverse child to manage.

But a lurker who listens here and does a lot of in real life discussions.

I can see that the rulez are being inconsistently applied by moderators who appear to have their feminine socialisation intact. The rules in fact are applied consistently if you look at it from a male perspective - anything they say is the law.

LangCleg · 08/11/2019 09:22

The rules in fact are applied consistently if you look at it from a male perspective - anything they say is the law.

Astute observation, Louise.

LangCleg · 08/11/2019 09:24

Pretty sure HQ are hoping this thread will die soon while throwing darts at a board with my name on for starting it tbh.

It appears to be the pattern with this type of thread. A mod post saying We hear you, will discuss it and get back to you - then crickets. One would have thought, if the team has it all clear in their minds and are operating as one, our objections would be relatively simple to rebut.

TheChampagneGalop · 08/11/2019 09:36

I suspect that the moderator team do not have a united opinion. It's weird that the deletions and bans of FWR posters increased in a seemingly random way after Justine made a statement to defend speech here and said that Upfield/Flora were bowing to pressure from a handful of activists on Twitter.

HandsOffMyRights · 08/11/2019 10:26

@MNHQ
Hoping your delayed response means that you are carefully considering our requests for clarity regarding posting.

MichaelMumsnet · 08/11/2019 10:42

Hi all. We've read the whole thread and and are continuing to discuss the many questions raised. As the topic concerns the Talk guidelines and much of our moderation approach, it's not something that can be resolved quickly. Please bear with us for a while longer.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 08/11/2019 10:49

Thanks for the update MichaelMumsnet

Waiting with much interest

FleetsumNJetsum · 08/11/2019 10:59

ditto

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 08/11/2019 11:15

Well, if I suddenly disappear I guess everyone will know why.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 08/11/2019 12:03

Thanks for the second holding response, Michael. However, I do note that this is not the first thread to be concerned about the guidelines and consistent, clear application of them by the mod team - there have been several both here on FWR and in Site Stuff. We have yet to get any further than holding responses.

Meanwhile, posts you delete are going viral on other platforms with significantly bigger reputations for censorship on behalf of genderism than this one.

Can we at least look forward to something substantive this time?

Catmaiden · 08/11/2019 12:36

^^
What @LangCleg and others said. It would be good to know the rules were going to be applied consistently.

Cascade220 · 08/11/2019 13:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Coyoacan · 08/11/2019 16:40

I've been waiting since Monday to see what MNHQ will say. I hope they consider reinstating some of the unfairly banned posters too.

testing987654321 · 08/11/2019 16:53

I really hope they are thinking about what the culture is generally on the site and the fact that women should be able to express opinions freely.

Pointing out a man isn't a woman isn't hateful, no matter how that man identifies.

I have no problem with transgender people wearing the clothes they wish, along with heavy makeup which seems to be the fashion. But I do draw the line at pretending that they are actually women, because it simply isn't true.

Michelleoftheresistance · 08/11/2019 17:07

There is very clearly a significant problem here with clarity as most regulars getting deleted and banned don't actually want to lose their ability to post. This can only mean that the rules are not clear.

Agree. I try to hold the guidelines in mind, I try hard to follow them. I've been deleted twice, and both times have had to ask someone at HQ to explain what I actually did wrong. Both times it was nuance, or an implication that someone obviously found offensive.

TalkingintheDark · 08/11/2019 17:45

(Very long post alert - have been trying to formulate these thoughts since the guidelines first came out, and it has been very challenging... but here goes!)

My problem with the guidelines - apart from the lack of clarity and consistency - is that they are predicated upon a fallacy.

The fallacy is that it is biologically male trans people who are the vulnerable and oppressed minority, and, ergo, women who are the invulnerable/powerful and oppressive majority.

That is the clear subtext of the opening statement. Trans people are the “vulnerable and oppressed minority”; women - not vulnerable or oppressed - are just cross at having our free speech curtailed.

This denies and disregards entirely the reality of so many women’s lives, not just in the rest of the world but here in the UK. Women as a group are still ourselves vulnerable and oppressed. Despite being just over half the population, we are still a minority when it comes to positions of power and influence, political representation, equal wealth and status; our freedoms and rights are still massively curtailed and blighted by the shocking levels of male harassment, violence and sexual violence against women and girls.

This denial is the TRA narrative, canonised. It’s propaganda, and it’s untrue.

I know Justine made that comment about her life would have been a zillion times harder if she’d been trans. I don’t even understand what she meant. Did she mean if she’d still been a female person who was trans, or a male person who was trans? Because they’re very different realities.

And the reality of the life of the truly vulnerable biologically male trans people - the ones who really do, or did, live their lives in fear of attack and assault (by men), who were/are constant subjects of ridicule, who really couldn’t find a safe place in society - that reality is very different also from the lives of people like “call me Caitlyn” Jenner, Pips Bunce, Dr R McKinnon, Shon Faye etc etc etc.

As a society, we have been so quick to embrace the narrative that biologically male trans people are the most vulnerable, oppressed minority ever; and yet we are in stubborn denial about the extent to which misogyny is still embedded in our culture. (And correspondingly about the extent to which male privilege is enjoyed by all males relative to females.)

The very fact that “transphobia” is now an excommunicable offence in the liberal world of today, while “misogyny” barely elicits a yawn, is a direct result of that male privilege.

We still live in a male-dominated world, a world where it’s written into our everyday language that the default human is male, where male people are vastly over represented in positions of power, the media, the creative industries, sport... everywhere. (Except childcare and “sex work”, of course.)

We still live in a world where women are vulnerable relative to men, where a woman’s word is worth less than a man’s, where all the existing societal structures have been created by and for men.

Women still can’t get justice when we’re raped, sexually assaulted or abused. Or killed in a “sex game gone wrong”. We still disproportionately bear the impact of austerity measures, are still the ones more likely to be the carers if our child has a disability or SEN, still far more likely to be the victims of DV, still have to struggle to make our voices heard in so many settings - remember Obama bringing in that policy of affirming what women were saying in meetings because otherwise they were just being talked over and the credit for their ideas given to men? How many times have we heard women telling the same story right here on MN?

I don’t even know how to begin and end a list of the ways in which women are still negatively impacted by being female in a society which is intrinsically biased against us, and of the ways our female socialisation works against us, it is so extensive and far reaching. Women write whole books about it, FGS. There even used to be entire uni courses about it - till they all became “Gender Studies”, of course. Because heaven forbid we women have anything for ourselves.

This is the backdrop against which a minority group of male people is being positioned as vulnerable and oppressed, and female people as all-powerful oppressors.

This is the backdrop against which women are, once again, being silenced, told to watch our words, told our opinions and the way we express them are unacceptable.

The guidelines say “We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people.” (Nothing about posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards women.)

But this is NOT a conflict between “vulnerable trans” and “powerful women”, with the concomitant expectation of women that they cede some of their “power”, and tread softly around trans vulnerability. That is the lie that has been peddled by trans rights activists, the lie on which the whole edifice rests.

Trans rights activism must necessarily hide and distort the true power relations between the sexes, it must invent the notion of female people having “cis privilege” over biologically male trans people, it must make us out to be the aggressors and trans people our defenceless victims. There is no trans rights activism without this conjuring trick; the reality of the power relations between the sexes is too stark otherwise, to those who would see themselves as liberal and progressive, at least.

This is why we HAVE to be able to talk about and name the sex of those activists. This is why it is pertinent to every single part of the discussion. It is not being “mean” or “uncivil”; it is the single most vital piece of information there is on this topic. MN guidelines say we mustn’t go on about it because it is “an aspect of their identity that they have explicitly rejected”; I say a person’s sex in not an aspect of their identity but a matter of physical and sociological reality, and in terms of this “debate” it is the one thing that MUST be transparent, that HAS to be constantly referred to.

It is women who are under attack here. Female people under attack from male people, male domination of and control over female people, just like the rest of the sodding history of the world.

All the threats of violence - actual, literal, physical violence - have been one way. As have the acts of violence. All the attempts to shut down the “debate”, to silence the opposition - one way. GC feminists have never tried to stop any trans people from speaking; trans rights activists are hell bent on trying to stop women who challenge them from speaking.

What is actually happening to women here is a form of persecution.

There is a concerted attempt by members of the group that already has more power to take away rights and protections from the group that has less power. It is bullying and emotional abuse of women and girls. And, in a classic display of DARVO, we - the genuinely less powerful victims - are being framed as the bullies, the mean girls, the ones who just don’t want to give our “power” up. And then being monstered, threatened, vilified for trying to speak up.

So - not only are we being abused, we are being punished for protesting about our abuse.

That’s what’s going on here. That’s the point that the Guidelines ignore or deny.

This is a familiar pattern for those of us with too much experience of abuse from those with more power than us. Look at what happened to Savile’s victims, the ones who tried to speak out before the world was ready to acknowledge what he was. The girls in the home that he abused, who were punished for saying he’d abused them.

The reason we have to keep referring to the fact that biologically male trans people are male is because that’s the whole crux of the matter. It’s not their “transness” that’s the issue here, that was ever the issue. This isn’t about “transphobia”. The issue is their maleness. And the privilege and power that gives them in relation to those of us who are female.

Why is it that there are literally no ways in which men as a group have been negatively impacted by the current trans rights movement? What rights, freedoms, protections have they lost, do they stand to lose? None whatsoever.

Men who don’t want to share their gym changing rooms with a “transman” don’t have to. Gay men who don’t want to let “transmen” into their sauna don’t have to. Men’s sports records are perfectly safe from biologically female athletes, no matter how much testosterone they take. Male primogeniture was specifically safeguarded and excluded from the GRA.

Men are not being referred to in NHS/charity information as “ejaculators” or “prostate havers”. They can still use the word “man” to describe themselves, without being accused of being exclusionary to anybody.

Unlike their male counterparts, biologically female trans prisoners are not clamouring to be housed with prisoners of the opposite sex - and we all know why that is. It is disingenuous to pretend we don’t.

We live in a world where male people hold the balance of power. Where male people still have power, both physically and socially, over female people. Where female people are still very much the second sex. You cannot take this historical and ongoing reality out of the equation.

There is no symmetry. And because there is no symmetry, it is not and never can be socially just for any male person to “identify into” womanhood/femaleness.

It would be good not to be the second sex on our own forum, in the movement for our own liberation, in our own consciousness. In other women’s consciousness. Obviously MN wasn’t founded to be a feminist rallying point, but the FWR board is intended to provide that space. And MN wouldn’t exist at all without the work of all the feminists who went before.

Come on Justine and MNHQ. Wake up. Please. You will actually one day find yourselves on the right side of history if you do.

EmpressLesbianInChair · 08/11/2019 17:52

Talking, I hope you have a copy of that post. Because if it gets deleted, which would be a travesty, I think a lot of women are going to want one.

LangCleg · 08/11/2019 17:53

Brava!

TheChampagneGalop · 08/11/2019 17:57

👏👏