Mumsnet Says They Are Trans Friendly; What do you think?

[Nightinghawk]

I’m coming over from Twitter since @/MumsnetTowers has encouraged people to join, promising that they would not ban people for using the word “cis” and also that they think “Campaigning against trans people’s existing human rights and legal protections is transphobic” is “an interesting question and a debate [they’d] welcome seeing on the boards.” When asked if they believe that trans women are women, trans men are men, and nonbinary people are nonbinary, they responded with “We believe adults have a right to say what they think about matters of active public debate.” However, they do say they do not tolerate hate speech, malicious content, sweeping negative generalizations, derogatory or aggressive content on their site.

Given the conflicting messages I’ve seen from them in the past, and the fact that they to this day think campaigns against trans people’s rights could in any way not be transphobic and their hesitance to affirm trans people’s autonomy in our self-description and our gender(s), I’m hesitant to believe that Mumsnet the site is actually trans friendly. I mean this as no disrespect to the mod team or others in position of authority; it is merely my opinion (and lived experiences) that any online forum that doesn’t immediately consider campaigns against trans people’s rights as transphobic tend to have (accidentally or otherwise) cultivated a transphobic customer base on their forums. I say this as a trans person who has been leveled all kinds of harassment in a variety of online forums, where those which had not condemned transphobia had immensely more transphobia in quantity and in vitriol.

All this is to say, I’d like to hear your (Mumsnet’s users’) opinions on the matter. Is Mumsnet really a trans friendly space? Do you believe that advocating against trans people’s existing rights is transphobic or anti-trans? Do you think these existing rights for trans people are “interesting” enough for “debate”? Do you think the term cis should be censored? Am I safe asking for/providing advice here as a trans person? Why? Why not?

For reference: I am nonbinary trans and use xe/xem pronouns. I understand they can be difficult to use or to remember to be used for some people. If you don’t want to use my pronouns, then please use my username: Nightinghawk, or NH as shorthand.

You know, it would never occur to me to sign up on a site for American trans people and ask them if it was a female-friendly space.

I dunno, Nellodee, I think even if I was in the US, I'd object to things like the San Francisco Public Library hosting an "art" exhibition from a transactivist group with a range of weapons specifically designed to attack women who disagree with them, and a host of other material reinforcing the message:

I still don’t really understand what the point of that exhibition was and who thought it was a good idea?

That's appalling @ArcheryAnnie

Oh that makes me feel sick @ArcheryAnnie

ArcheryAnnie That is horrible, but these TRAs are misogynists and work in tangent with the MRAs. They are so full of hate and violence, then again that tends to come from testosterone, which comes back to the point of protecting women from men. These people supporting that hateful and violent exhibit are either very brainwashed and needed a bandwagon to jump on as an outlet for their violent hatred, or so full of hate for women.

@WaverleyOwl

For god's sake. It's like arguing with a mirror.

People are not oppressed because of how they self-identify in their own minds. They are oppressed because of how others see them.

Women are oppressed due to their sex. We have rights to combat this.

Trans people are oppressed due to their presentation (if it is contrary to their sex). They have rights to combat this.

Feminism is for biological women ONLY because we are oppressed due to our reproductive capacity. Something that trans women don't face.

Intersectional does not mean that we have to include every man and his dog in feminism. It introduced the idea of including less represented women in feminism, like WOC. Not men that feel like women.

The interesting thing I'm noticing with this argument, which I've seen in different words from others, is that, ultimately, you are saying that both women and trans people are oppressed due to their sex (quote: "Trans people are oppressed due to their presentation (if it is contrary to their sex)"). I honestly was under the impression that GC/trans-exclusionary people wouldn't be on board with this, but count me pleasantly surprised.

(For more context, though I wasn't initially planning on sharing it: I was assigned female at birth.)

I have to argue on the concept of feminism only for "biological women," since I feel that creates exclusion and, depending on the definitions or views loaded in the term, would exclude people who have lived as women their entire life, particularly with how it at times clashes with intersex experiences. I've seen a lot of GC people say that "biological" relates to body parts, reproductive organs, chromosomes, facial features, and I personally find that incredibly reductive for the concept of women (particularly with regards to how beauty standards, anglocentrism, and fatphobia factor in) and inherently exclusionist toward intersex women while attempting to only exclude trans women.

Relating feminism to strict biological categories but also against the oppression of female reproduction seems somewhat counterintuitive to me (though there is truth in women being oppressed due to biological differences), since it appears (in my understanding of it) to relegate women to mere bodily functions rather than expand women beyond the patriarchal expectations constructed around those bodily functions. My understanding of the last few waves of feminism has been to distance the patriarchal concept of defining women by their reproductive organs, while still taking pride in our bodies as a middle finger to the patriarchy.

I do not find trans women to be men, so I do find that the last section of this is a rather moot point; we'd merely be arguing TWAW vs TWANW all day long, for which I'd want a much longer period of time to consecutively work on putting together (which I do not have at the moment). I will try to get to explaining how I see TWAW, but I can't guarantee it'll be anytime soon due to my schedule.

Apologies if some of this sounds a bit awkward or isn't phrased particularly best. There's a lot of noise around me at the moment and it's a touch hard to concentrate.

@ArcheryAnnie

I dunno, Nellodee, I think even if I was in the US, I'd object to things like the San Francisco Public Library hosting an "art" exhibition from a transactivist group with a range of weapons specifically designed to attack women who disagree with them, and a host of other material reinforcing the message:

Well yeah. The fundies had nothing to do with that. At least they don't threaten to kill me.

OP why are you here?

Anyone is welcome here. Most tend not to make a fanfare about it. Pick a user name and join in.

I assure you nobody cares that you are trans. Nobody.

When I first came here, I didn't make a new thread talking about my pronouns and debating it. Why do you feel the need to do so? The navel gazing is precious and unnecessary.

Just post like the rest of us.

to relegate women to mere bodily functions
As a woman my bodily functions are an intrinsic part of me and nobody has reduced me to merely those functions but for instance if I need medical attention then I need to be treated as a woman no matter how I present as my medical needs will be different to natal men. I also think I am entitled to privacy from natal men regarding my bodily functions.

Hopefully you’ve managed to see that even the FWR board of mumsnet is not transphobic. It’s really not. It’s really just about centring women (biological females) in societal policy. The trans topic gets a lot of air time because it cuts across almost every other issue, from healthcare, to institutional safety, to work, and sport.

You talk about focusing on women’s reproductivity as being reductive, but I don’t see it that way. It’s the schtick we have been beaten with for millennia, and still are. Whether a woman chooses to reproduce is irrelevant, her ability to will mean discrimination in the workplace, or that medical professionals are unlikely to take health issues seriously. We cannot allow other groups to overwrite our needs and rights, but we are very happy to find a compromise that benefits everyone.

To be quite reductionist myself, the issue has always been, and continues to be, patriarchal values, and men in general. And we are hurtling towards a world where we will end up with a categorisation system that is basically ‘men’ and ‘not men’, and that honestly won’t benefit anyone other than men.

to relegate women to mere bodily functions

The only people doing that is the proponents of faux 'inclusive' language menstruators, vulva-owners, cervix-havers, 'black birthing bodies' are some particularly egregious examples. It's certainly not gender critical feminists.
Oddly enough, the equivalent dehumanising terms are almost never seen in relation to men.

Women's bodies are relevant to feminism when they relate to necessary specific sex-related rights. Maternity, woman's sports etc.

Hopefully you’ve managed to see that even the FWR board of mumsnet is not transphobic. It’s really not. It’s really just about centring women (biological females) in societal policy.

Yes to this. Also agree with pp that you are welcome to post generally as anyone is. Why would you not be

[quote NewarkShark]@Nightinghawk as you’re in the US, could I ask your view on my concern that US feminism is so focussed on rights for trans women (and being vocal about how transphobic the UK is), that other rights for natal women based on their sex, such as the attack on abortion rights etc? And the fact US maternity tights are generally fairly shit.

I get the sense from social media that these issues are rather taking a back seat in favour of trans issues, but that’s what I glean from social media. Be interested in your views on the ground.

Also whether or not you believe that feminism does need to have a big focus on sex based oppression, and that trans women’s rights should not be a bigger focus than these?[/quote]
Honestly, the amount of campaigning (in quantity and quality) has largely been in favor of abortion rights, if we're talking about which one gets more attention or not. Trans rights at the moment are being brought up by Republicans/GOP/the far right because it's easier for moderates to digest as problematic/aggressive/harmful (regardless of information to the contrary) and as a result easier to radicalize those moderates further into the US right. Abortion rights campaigning has, for quite some time now, taken precedence and has gained the majority favor in the US (over 60% support nationwide, 36% within the GOP), so it's more difficult for Republicans to run on that without losing at least some portion of their base or souring public opinion further. Trans rights is a much easier wedge issue for them to use, which is why it's a much more vocal matter, particularly right now with the Equality Act on the table.

Strangely enough, maternity rights are pushed as the concerns of worker's unions and related groups (from what I've seen) and are ridiculously tossed to the sideline all too frequently. I'm not particularly sure why (aside from the obvious reasons). Although! Good news, it has been brought up quite a few times here and there through more progressive channels, and are often included in more progressive candidates' issues, so it certainly isn't something that is completely static and unchanging and there are movements working to expand and gain traction on the issue.

When it comes to feminism and focusing on sex-based oppression, I'm of the opinion that all feminism does indeed focus primarily on sex-based oppression already (and historically, of course), but that sometimes gets lost in the vocabulary that is used. For the US, as far as I can tell, discussions of gender inherently include sex, which seems to muddy the waters, particularly with regard to how things are discussed in the UK. The logic for this in the US is that in order to discriminate against a person's gender identity (which may or may not be congruent) there must be a conception of the person's physical sex. It isn't particularly an easy yes/no answer.

This things about "reducing women to bodily functions" seems to miss the point completely.

Our bodies are what make us women, just as a female sheep's body makes her a ewe.

Everything else - what goes on in our minds, hearts and souls - is unsexed.*

Otherwise, we enter the realm of fluffy pink lady brains and classic, overt sexism.

*(That's an exaggeration. There are obviously patterns and tendencies, socially influenced to a degree still being argued over by neuroscientists, that cluster around the two sexes. And then there is the differing life experience of the two sexes, which will exacerbate those differences. But the point is these are not binary and we don't want to build society around the idea that those with the fluffy pink lady brains do this, and those with the tough blue manly brains do that).

@ErrolTheDragon

to relegate women to mere bodily functions

The only people doing that is the proponents of faux 'inclusive' language menstruators, vulva-owners, cervix-havers, 'black birthing bodies' are some particularly egregious examples. It's certainly not gender critical feminists.
Oddly enough, the equivalent dehumanising terms are almost never seen in relation to men.

Women's bodies are relevant to feminism when they relate to necessary specific sex-related rights. Maternity, woman's sports etc.

Spot on.

I'd add that men as a class have always reduced women as a class to "mere bodily functions", and so it's interesting that when we try to organise as a class about the oppression we are under as a result, this term is weaponised against us. We are screwed coming and going. What a surprise.

Everyone should be able to voice their views . I respect free speech. I fear the use of the term hate speech stifles free speech

Pro-women's-rights is not 'anti-trans' unless trans rights activism is specifically targeting women's rights. Unfortunately it is - the ideology behind it is harmful.

Being aware of this has nothing to do with wanting to take rights away from anyone or to 'deny their existence' or any other hyperbolic phrasing that is used.

Your right to express yourself ends at someone else's nose. Gender ideology, in its current state, is leaving women with a lot of bloodied noses.

How is this not sexism? Pure sexism, wrapped in sophistry, by way of dead-end individualism?

I have been wanting to be even-tempered about this, but I find the underlying philosophy genuinely disturbing.

I'm sorry, but this thread finally made me make an account after a year of lurking.

I am a trans man from the USA. As a note, I don't care what pronouns you use for as I don't agree with the concept of compelled speech. I would prefer he/him, but it's not my place to tell you how to refer to me. I have experienced gender dysphoria from a young age and have legally and medically transitioned.

The idea that trans people are oppressed in the USA is questionable. I have never been denied healthcare due to being trans. In fact, getting hormones only took one short appointment due to informed consent here. For top surgery in my state there are very few requirements and you do not have to have taken HRT or have medically transitioned in order to have it covered by insurance. I found I was actually treated worse in the beginning stages of my transition when people still viewed me as female. I think people are confusing "oppressed for being trans" with "oppressed for not being gender conforming" or "oppressed because of homophobia" (many people still assume that trans women are simply gay men.)

This statement gave me pause because it seems to be contradictory in nature:
"My understanding of the last few waves of feminism has been to distance the patriarchal concept of defining women by their reproductive organs, while still taking pride in our bodies as a middle finger to the patriarchy."

Your reproductive organs are still part of your body. It's part of what makes you female. Consider this: it's not uncommon to talk about/hear about male genitalia online, but have you noticed that it's often considered gross/taboo to talk about female genitalia or things like periods? Why do you suppose this is?

I consider myself to be a realist. Despite presenting as male, I know I am still female. As a female human being, there are problems that will affect me and other female persons that a trans woman will never face. This is where my identity as a "man" conflicts with reality. I may present as a man, but at the end of the day I am still female and share more in common biologically with any woman than I do with any trans woman. Women's rights usually focuses on women's reproductive issues or issues that affect women due to the biological reality of their sex, so while I may identify as a man, they are obviously quite important to me because of this. Before, the trans community had an understanding of the difference between gender presentation and sex, but it seems like it is becoming muddled ever since we started coming up with many other new genders and ways to be "trans."

I apologize if this entire post seems hypocritical. I know I have takes that are considered very unacceptable from the trans community. I am trans for my own personal comfort, but I know that does not make me a "real man." There are women, men, and trans women and trans men. We all have our own unique needs and to lump them all together seems like it will cause nothing but harm to one group or another, especially considering medical needs. While this fantasy that you are magically another sex if you simply say so is great in theory, it is not grounded in reality. If I get medical treatment under the assumption I am biologically male it could be potentially deadly. I have not had bottom surgery, so if I have sex with a man I can still get pregnant because my body is female.

OP you say you identify as nonbinary with xe/xem pronouns if I recall? How is this any different from identifying as a woman or how does it affect your life? When I see any nonbinary person with non-standard pronouns it is typically safe to assume they are AFAB, and many other trans people I know have commented on this as well.

So what does being a woman mean to you? What does non-binary mean to you? Do you believe you face discrimination as a non-binary person rather than as a woman? If so, how can someone else tell what your gender is if you have not medically transitioned? Also, how does saying you are not a woman help advance feminism or women's rights? Do you feel like being a woman is inherently negative?

I don't care what pronouns you use for as I don't agree with the concept of compelled speech. I would prefer he/him, but it's not my place to tell you how to refer to me.

Despite presenting as male, I know I am still female.

There are women, men, and trans women and trans men. We all have our own unique needs and to lump them all together seems like it will cause nothing but harm to one group or another,

Bravo. And Brave. Welcome, really nice to read your post.

@kaineus bravo! Thank you for sharing 👏

Out of interest, do you think MN is inherently transphobic? I’m sure there are some transphobic people around, but not all of us. Is centring women transphobic?

@kaineus
Welcome to Mumsnet and thank you for your post which was very refreshing to read. I don't find it hypocritical at all.
Please feel free not to answer if you'd prefer not to discuss it on this thread (or at all), but I would be very interested to know what you think about the current trend of erasing the word "woman" from communications about medical services for biological females. As a trans man, how do you feel about services that you might need (relating to menstruation, cervical screening, contraception, abortion, pregnancy, childbirth etc) referring to "women", do you find this offensive or triggering or are you comfortable with it? Do you think it's ok for the word "woman" to be erased and replaced with "person" when it comes to female biological functions?

I have very strong feelings on this subject and I've tried to ask as neutrally as possible, but I have a theory that this trend has not come about as a result of accommodating the wishes of trans men (or non-binary people who were born female), and I would be very interested to know what you think - whether you agree with me or not.

@Flamingolingo

I feel like there are some posters here who are transphobic, but that Mumsnet moderation really works hard on keeping conversations civil while still allowing people to have a discussion and express their thoughts and I'm thankful for that. While sometimes I don't agree with some of the viewpoints, I've gained a lot of insight from reading the threads here.

Woman is not a concept. Gender is.

Woman is not a gender because gender is sex role stereotypes. Females do not have to perform femininity to be women.
Woman is simply the sexed word used to describe adult human females.

Funny how TRA's never tell men that 'man' is just a concept or a gender.

No one is assigned anything at birth. Their sex is recorded.

Feminism is for females, not feminine presenting males who are not oppressed because of their sex and will never be controlled by men because of their reproductive capacity.

Telling women that talking about their bodies in relation to feminism or female right is reductive is pure misogyny. Our bodies are the source of our oppression.
We cannot fight this when adult males insert themselves into our sex class then tell us we must centre them.