"Mumsnet statement on moderation with regard to..."

[RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling]

@MNHQ, I am wondering if the statement sticky at the top of this section needs a new, more accurate, less misleading title.

A large part of the difficulty that women encounter in discussing these issues comes from the framing of the issue as being about 'trans rights'. This implies that feminists are arguing against the equal rights of trans people, which of course isn't the case at all. It also disregards the fact that women and their rights have any stake in the issues being discussed - it makes it all about trans people having rights, or not having rights, and to the casual, uninformed observer that reinforces the TRA narrative that women are a privileged class denying the rights of oppressed transwomen.

In fact, women are the historically and systemically disadvantaged sex class, and so ha e a very large stake in legal and social understanding of sex and gender.

Might you give some consideration to changing the thread name (and OP as appropriate) to "...discussion of sex and gender" rather than "discussion of trans rights"?

Bump, so the thread doesn’t disappear

Thinking it should now say “mumsnet statement on moderation of women’s right to speak”

Agree.

Another voice agreeing with the OP.

Sex is a protected characteristic too.

Just highlighting this as I think it is an important point to remember.

and undermine child protection

Reading this with interest. I used to work with someone who was a feminine gay man when we met but then identified as a woman and grew long hair, wore make up, women's shoes etc. Embarrassingly I used to slip and say she most of the time before this anyway but then we had to officially change to saying her and she. Before this the parents did not see a big problem with this but when they were informed that they were officially changing sex some became really worried about them abusing their kids. The staff member ended up leaving in the end. This was about 2007 so times were a bit different but I personally didn't see how they would change from being safe to not being safe just because they were having a sex change.

Undermine child protection refers to the fact that, under trans-prioritising rules, male under-18s are allowed to share sleeping accommodation with female under-18s, and parents are not to be informed about it.

Questions

1. "That said, it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’. Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely. As we’ve said, context is everything – but it’s likely that going forward our moderation team will delete these expressions."

The people who want the rules relaxed, will they be offended if people use words like "cis" or "terf". I just googled terf and think I get the picture but "cis" is a word that is commonly used now I thought. I thought it was just the same as "heterosexual" is to "homosexual". I don't see the big deal with that word. Why do people hate it?

It is most certainly not the equivalent of heterosexual to homosexual. It is a false equivalence imposed by trans ideologues to make transwomen appear to be part of the group 'women'.

Woman is the default noun for adult female human. Black woman, Jewish woman, disabled woman are all included within the group 'woman'. Transwoman is not included within the group 'woman' because a transwoman is not an adult human female. A transwoman is an adult human male.

GailCindy I don't know about 2007, but today that staff member's right to keep their job despite transition IS protected.

I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that for instance, your feminine gay man who has now transitioned IS a threat. Are you saying that feminists are arguing against the equal rights of trans people?(as OP asks) This is a thread complaining about Mumsnet's statement on moderation with regard to trans rights... on a feminist board.

As to your questions, TIM is not allowed here although I see it everywhere on the net. It is at least factual (come on MNHQ, some things have to be able to be explained). But "cis" is used to make women a sub-set of women, not "real" women. Confusing, huh?

But earlier on, some people were saying that someone who was born a woman referred to herself as a transwoman before so I don't think it is as straightforward as that. The way I understand it cis just means not trans. As a women who is not trans, I cant see the big deal. Anyway my question was if people will see that word as fair game too.

The way I understand it cis just means not trans.

Woman just means not trans. I don't need to call myself a 'human woman' to make it clear to you that I am not a mermaid or alien.

@FTFOTFVille

Mumsnet said they would delete both TIM and cis on most occasions. Obviously that means that people dislike the word cis.

The bit I was quoting was to do with CP, the parents involved thought the nursery worker has become as CP threat JUST because they transitioned. Nobody put in reports to OFSTED and LEA before the transition and request to use she/her. That it was what I was asking, how are trans people are CP threat?

@JellySlice

No but I only refer to myself as a straight, white female in very specific conversations/discussions. I can't imagine I would need to clarify very often or even make it obvious that I only mean people who were born female. Why does it matter so much to you? I just don't get it.

Why might people not like cis?

Because insisting cis or trans is a binary view of gender, that many people find unnecessarily restrictive

Because some people have no innate gender identity and should not be forced to accept one.

Calling someone cis makes assumptions about someone's gender identity.

Many non cis identifying females would also not want to identify as trans, in my case out of respect for people who have serious gender dysmorphia problems

Because women are just women and no other identifier is needed. It is a complete descriptor in itself.

Do we gain anything from the adjective cis? Since we have the term transwomen to identify transwomen and women to identify women, so we don't need cis. We can use the words people or humans to include both women and transwomen ...because that's about as much as they have in common

GailCindy I can only speak for myself here but:

1. Re 'cis' - I'm not offended by this. It is simply unnecessary - I am the original default version of woman and don't need a further descriptor - and not a word I apply to myself, not least because it is used to describe people in terms of their 'gender identity' and I don't possess such a thing. If others chose to apply it to me they would be incorrect and I may politely ask them to desist, but I would not be offended by it or bother reporting them if they persisted.

2. Similarly 'TERF' is inaccurate since I - and I think I can speak for many/most of the women on this precise point - are not 'trans-exclusionary', we are male exclusionary when it comes to feminism. Feminism centres women, not men. Transwomen are a subset of men so I do not consider this issues are mine to solve. Transmen are different - they still suffer from healthcare inequalities based on their biological sex, the effects of misogyny etc etc etc and so are absolutely included in my feminism, because they are a subset of women. If anyone calls me a TERF I have no difficulty ignoring it as it doesn't apply, and it simply reveals the paucity of their argument that they have to resort to meaningless insults, but again I would not be offended.

IME people would prefer to use "trans identified male" as it makes it very clear that we are talking about a man who does not identify as masculine but who is transgender. There are still many people who get confused over the terms 'transwoman' and 'transman', thinking the former means a biological woman who is trans (I corrected someone on Twitter just this morning who had become confused over which way round 'transman' applies).

The reason transwomen object to 'TIM' is because they hate people being reminded of the fact they are male. Yet it is a simple fact, unlike 'cis' and 'TERF' which are inaccurate for the reasons I describe above.

Ultimately if the choice is being able to speak freely using precise language with the risk of occasionally being called inaccurate and meaningless terms, or not encountering 'cis' and 'TERF' but having to dance a linguistic fandango to express a simple point, I'll take free speech every time.

consider their issues...

the parents involved thought the nursery worker has become as CP threat JUST because they transitioned. Nobody put in reports to OFSTED and LEA before the transition and request to use she/her. That it was what I was asking, how are trans people are CP threat?

Re-read my earlier reply.

On the information you've given, that trans person was not a child protection threat. That sort of situation is in no way what MNers are refer in to when we talk about trans ideology being a child protection threat.

It sounds to me like someone saying they don't have to declare themselves straight because they have a uterus and that is designed to make babies with men so of course they are straight because they are a woman. It just sounds OTT to me. I'll use whatever words that don't get me either banished from my support network or sacked from my job. I don't mind if people say cis about me OR people like me, seems no real threat at all.

What's being straight got to do with being a woman?

You are being so obtuse, GailCindy, that I'm beginning to doubt your motives on this thread.

Given that the amount of men who commit sexual offences, especially against women, is very small and the amount of transwomen is even smaller, it doesn't seem very likely that the transwoman I bump into in the loos or in a rape crisis centre will be one of those people who are going to do something horrible.

I don't know much about this other than a few things in the media and work related training and experiences but from this thread, it seems like there is an equal amount of fear and extremism on both sides of the debate. A lot of knickers in a twist

It sounds to me like someone saying they don't have to declare themselves straight because they have a uterus and that is designed to make babies with men so of course they are straight because they are a woman.

You seem confused.

I am a woman because (among other reasons relating to biological reality) I have a uterus. My sexual orientation is immaterial to and separate from that fact.

I do not need to add the label 'cis' to my being a woman, because being an adult human female automatically makes me a woman. Again, my sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to this fact.

Conflating biological sex with sexual orientation is the sign of someone who either doesn't understand the difference, in which case I suggest you read some of the excellent resource materials on this sub-forum, or someone posting in bad faith to be provocative, in which case (in the words of MNHQ)...go well.

They say exactly the same thing about why we need a term for people with condition X and a group term for people with one of a number of similar conditions like ND but not one for people who don't have any conditions

GailCindy
The bit I was quoting was to do with CP, the parents involved thought the nursery worker has become as CP threat JUST because they transitioned. Nobody put in reports to OFSTED and LEA before the transition and request to use she/her. That it was what I was asking, how are trans people are CP threat?

It seems that in this case those parents were idiots, and it could not happen now and should not have happened then. I don't get why we have to answer for this issue? Trust me, we didn't do it! And I repeat this is a feminist board, not a trans-hate board. JellySlice has already answered with an example of the safeguarding aspect:

Undermine child protection refers to the fact that, under trans-prioritising rules, male under-18s are allowed to share sleeping accommodation with female under-18s, and parents are not to be informed about it.

and just a heads-up, we don't usually @ on this board, since if we are in the discussion we are here already