Deleted/censorship on mumsnet now!

[HermioneKipper]

My thread asking about transwomen/transitioning/penises has been deleted.

Why are we not allowed to discuss this? It’s a genuine question and extremely relevant to the debate about transwomen entering female spaces.

There was no abuse of trans people that I could see aside from a few people attempting to derail by saying that they couldn’t see why women might be concerned about having to share their space!

This isn’t right

@FloralBunting

Mumsnet are in an awkward position. I have sympathy for that. A lot of us do. But this is the first thread I have seen where a moderator has had a pleasant, open conversation with the women who provide the content for the site, and given the amount of time this has been going on, the fact this stands out is half the problem.

It's refreshing to see some proper response to criticism. If it happened more often, MNHQ may have the support of more of us. As it is, I suspect lots of women find the arbitrary guideline application extremely hard to navigate.

Agreed Floral and I think it helps nips a lot of speculation in the bud if MN mods can come and point out what the problem actually is.

I read the first half of the original thread, and it was informative, not goady and had a TW give a brief account of their view.

Playing devil's advocate, it had people trying to suggest reasons for TW's choices, sometimes evidenced but I guess sometimes not? I don't know. The solution to having to 'guess' would obviously be for TRAs/TW to come and discuss openly and actually answer questions - believe it or not I do want to understand thought processes, motivations, views, as I've said numerously on here. I still struggle with understanding what physical bodies (which have a sex) have to do with innate gender identity (which apparently aren't linked to sex, or at least not in all cases?) but I'm resigned to remaining confused.

Agree. TRAs and their supporters can call me all the names they like, can accuse me of whatever - right-wing, transphobic, in the pay of the Christian Right - their accusations are baseless and I couldn't, and never did, give a flying fuck.

Same for me. I don't really care what they think about anything, because I don't set much store by the opinions of people I consider credulous or self-interested. Or other things which I won't go into.

I've reported my post.

Wish rules were clearer its an important topic

Wow. Even though I've been aware of this nonsense for a good while now I feel like I'm in some sort of dystopian world. I actually live in a world where I have to be careful how I assert my view that people with a penis are not women and that men can't declare themselves to be women. And I'm hateful for thinking such things. And I can be removed from a site for some unintentional contravention of the ever changing rules. Its such a mindfuck.

Its such a mindfuck.
It sure is. I saw someone who posted elsewhere "when I say women I''m including trans women" get set upon for being transphobic!

We very much are living in a dystopian world, and it will only get worse if more people don’t wake up.

JaneJeffer

Someone got caught in a purity spiral, did they? Thought they were doing the right thing, but forgot that some people consider it othering to be not considered a woman without needing a prefix.

For being considered exactly the same as females.

@AdaFuckingShelby

Wow. Even though I've been aware of this nonsense for a good while now I feel like I'm in some sort of dystopian world. I actually live in a world where I have to be careful how I assert my view that people with a penis are not women and that men can't declare themselves to be women. And I'm hateful for thinking such things. And I can be removed from a site for some unintentional contravention of the ever changing rules. Its such a mindfuck.

All of this. Mindfuck indeed.

We don't ban discussions about AGP - but suggestions that it's the main motivation for transition does not sit within our guidelines.

But Becky, with respect, this should not be.

Gender critical beliefs are now protected in law, as per the Forstater case. These beliefs include a lack of belief in the concept of gender identity.

Without gender identity, why are men "transitioning" and calling themselves women? The clear framework for those of us who have a protected lack of belief in such a thing as an innate gender identity is the Blanchardian one: the motivation is twofold depending on whether the man is straight or gay, with the straight ones motivated by AGP. Since 90-95% of men are straight, it follows that most men who want to transition are AGP.

So why would it be outside the guidelines? It's not being mean: it's just a numbers game. And it fits with a now protected belief.

Good point. And in fact it’s always been a protected belief. Forstater case merely clarified it. So MN are surely discriminating against those who hold it by not allowing them to discuss AGP being the main motivation for men to transition.

this article was linked to on the previous, deleted thread

womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/

A really interesting point in there was a quote from Christine Burns about a choice that Press for Change made to talk about 'trans' This allowed them to conflate 'transsexuals', understood as people with a medical issue with, well, a whole bunch of other people:

We knew in our hearts at that time that policymakers and judges weren’t yet sophisticated enough in their understanding to contemplate rights for people whose difference appeared self-identified or impermanent or maybe even optional

drawing attention to the potential motivations of that whole bunch of other people makes some monitors people really unhappy

It put me in mind of the attempted forced teaming with people with DSDs that Gendered Intelligence attempted.

Yes and it’s utterly ridiculous that every single mention of any of the many aspects to this problem for women and children apparently must be accompanied by a disclaimer that ‘NATWALT’.

That should be, and is, obvious.

For the purposes of protections of women and children we must be allowed to discuss the TRUTH and FACT that many men are like that, in terms of predation and violence. Regardless of how they identify, what sex they’re attracted to, what words they say or how they choose to present.

This is not actually about the T. This is about males demanding access to female spaces, figuratively and literally.

It is not okay. And I do not consent.

well, a whole bunch of other people

LOL! AGP is spectrum?! I suppose if sex is....

Don't delete me, MNHQ! Just highlighting the dissonance!

onelittlefrog says 'People on that thread were talking about whether they felt it was permissable for a human being to keep a part of their own bodily anatomy.

'Think about what that thread was actually saying. That people should remove a part of their body. Judging whether or not a person should remain in tact, without knowing anything about individual trans people's journeys, lives and experiences.

'It's horrific, and it was coming from a large majority of people who are not themselves trans. Many of them may never have even spoken to a trans person, or got a trans person's side of this debate.'

1. Thank you for mansplaining our ignorance to us. Much appreciated, I'm sure. Obviously no-one here has ever so much as been in the same room as a transwoman or transman and has no idea what trans people say about themselves.
2. No-one is advocating that people mutilate their bodies; indeed, that is why so many of us here are deeply opposed to transitioning for children, who cannot consent to such mutilations or other medical interventions.
3. However, this site is for women to discuss things that affect women and girls. One of these is the actuality—and it is a reality, not just the possibility—that XY people, including ones who have penises and have not undergone any sort of medical intervention, are being allowed into spaces in which XX people should be safest, should be protected and feel at their ease. If such places are not safe, this is going to be even more scary for XX people than their usual experiences dealing with unpleasant, entitled, threatening, abusive, or violent people who behave in these ways because they are XY. This is especially the case because, as everyone knows, penises have a life of their own, especially where straight men [and here I include soi-disants lesbians-with-penises] are in the presence of half-clothed or naked women and girls (not to mention some more pervy behaviour to do with loos).
4. Even people who somehow "feel" they are female without being XX must surely agree that, unless they surgically altered their bodies and started taking powerful drugs in childhood, they themselves do not have any first-hand experience of what it is like to grow up without a penis, or to have to engage with people who do when they do not. Hence, they really ought to stand back and respect the experiences of unbepenised people and their reactions to seeing a male-bodied person in places that are meant to be safe for XX people. That is why the question of transwomen keeping their penises is relevant to us. We are not demanding they chop off their members: we are demanding that, if they don't, they should keep out of our spaces, and, if they do, asking them to take a moment, just out of respect, to consider what it might mean for a woman to see a large, powerfully-built male-sized person in a female space.

In short: if anyone is out of order here, it is you, mate.

Ziggy7, I don't think "protected beliefs" are protected to the extent that private websites are compelled to allow them in comments. But if they are, the Guardian will be sued for a lot more money than MN.

@ZIGGY7

Good point. And in fact it’s always been a protected belief. Forstater case merely clarified it. So MN are surely discriminating against those who hold it by not allowing them to discuss AGP being the main motivation for men to transition.

Honestly, while I have no doubt it exists and is behind some or even many male to female transitions I do think there is a line crossed by saying it's the main motivation.

I have no doubt that many young males who currently identify as trans women are motivated by an entirely understandable rejection of the traditional male gender role which has found an outlet in the trans narrative. The younger adult trans people I have spoken to seem to base their identity on similarity to their same-sex trans identifying peers more than similarity with the opposite sex.

Maybe AGP was the most prevalent motivation when Blanchard was doing his research but the big push in a certain type of trans narrative in schools, media etc has changed the social context.

That's not say I agree with banning any discussion of the subject and its likely relationship to at least some trans women's motivation. On the contrary, it highlights how important it is to fight against this dominant, reductive narrative that all trans identities are equal and innate and any attempt to understand trans people as individuals with their own unique narratives is transphobic conversation therapy.

It’s interesting to consider the juxtaposition of how many young girls/women are desperate to identify out of femalehood, against the many middle aged men attempting to identify into it.

I don’t at all think it’s unreasonable to posit that the motivations are very likely to be entirely different in nature. In fact I imagine the chasm between the two will be quite expansive.

Does anyone have stats as to breakdown of male/female ratio in the former group compared to male/female in the second group?

@WhatKatyDidNot

We don't ban discussions about AGP - but suggestions that it's the main motivation for transition does not sit within our guidelines.

But Becky, with respect, this should not be.

Gender critical beliefs are now protected in law, as per the Forstater case. These beliefs include a lack of belief in the concept of gender identity.

Without gender identity, why are men "transitioning" and calling themselves women? The clear framework for those of us who have a protected lack of belief in such a thing as an innate gender identity is the Blanchardian one: the motivation is twofold depending on whether the man is straight or gay, with the straight ones motivated by AGP. Since 90-95% of men are straight, it follows that most men who want to transition are AGP.

So why would it be outside the guidelines? It's not being mean: it's just a numbers game. And it fits with a now protected belief.

This ^.

Also

We don't ban discussions about AGP - but suggestions that it's the main motivation for transition does not sit within our guidelines.

I've already asked this, but had no reply. If HQ are of the opinion that AGP is not the main motivation, and saying so is a generalisation, then where is their information coming from? They know it's not a generalisation, apparently, so could they share that source with everyone else?

If they are being told it's a generalisation, could they ask that source where they are getting their information?

It would solve the problem in one fell swoop.

We would all be singing from the exactly the same hymn sheet, and no one would be falling foul of a guideline, as we all have the same data.

Well said.

Yes, freedom of speech is important.

Anyone is entitled to go out on the street and spout their anti-trans spiel as much as they like.

Mumsnet does not have to facilitate that kind of hate.

Protecting women's rights and defending women's rights and needs as a sex class is not hate. In a democratic society, any group which wishes to lobby for their own purposes are entitled to do so. Insofar as those rights affect themselves and do not diminish those of anyone else. However, when they lobby for 'rights' which encroach upon and disbenefit another group, that is where their entitlement ends. At that point they are not looking for changes which just affects themselves. They are seeking to reduce the rights of another class of people.

I would regard any movement which disproportionately, and possibly uniquely, disbenefits women as a movement whose aim is the oppression and repression of women. I may be wrong (but don't think I am) that those behind this movement which seeks changes which reduce the rights, safety and fairness for women seems to be made up primarily up of males, even if they don't always identify themselves as men.

It is a very old story. Regression, not progression.

It is a very old story. Regression, not progression.

Indeed. The absolute, telling point is that if gender ideology gets its way, there will be no collective nouns for humans that share a sex, no recognition that they have something relevant in common, no legal rights for them due to the needs of their sex, and any coming together of female people to support each other, fight sex-based oppression or simply share stories of life lived in a female body will be classed as an act of hate.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

this article was linked to on the previous, deleted thread

womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/

A really interesting point in there was a quote from Christine Burns about a choice that Press for Change made to talk about 'trans' This allowed them to conflate 'transsexuals', understood as people with a medical issue with, well, a whole bunch of other people:

We knew in our hearts at that time that policymakers and judges weren’t yet sophisticated enough in their understanding to contemplate rights for people whose difference appeared self-identified or impermanent or maybe even optional

drawing attention to the potential motivations of that whole bunch of other people makes some monitors people really unhappy

relevant thread, OP Anlaf wrote Sun 30-Dec-18

"I was having a footle - back in 2007-2008 there were a number of submissions to Parliamentary committee on laws relating to hate crimes, and on extreme pornography.

They are pretty interesting. Shall we have a rummage?

Here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/cmpbcriminal.htm

And here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/cmpbcriminal.htm

First up: Press for Change publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/cmpbcriminal.htm

What's most interesting here is that PfC draw the transgender umbrella very wide:

In the broadest use of the term, a transgender person crosses the conventional boundaries of gender; in clothing; in presenting themselves; even as far as having multiple surgical procedures to be fully bodily reassigned in their preferred gender role.

In this report we will normally use the term 'trans people' to describe those people who might be described as falling broadly within this context, as it has become the term of normal use since the coining of it by Press for Change for their 1996 mission statement: "Seeking respect and equality for ALL trans people"[2]. People who identify as transsexual are a small part of this spectrum and may or may not have had medical treatment to alter their physical appearance

What's also interesting is that PfC's prime example of hatred is an elderly woman who (in the quoted newspaper article) does not want a male-born carer (with or without a GRC):

Example 1: "Exclusive Fright Nurse: Sex-swap carer

A pensioner was horrified when a "strapping" 6ft sex-change carer turned up to bathe her. Frail Kathy Yates, 88 specifically requested a female to assist her at home. Daughter Kathleen, 48 fumed: "When the carer came through the door, I nearly keeled over. "It looked like a man dressed as a woman. Talk about an overdose of make-up! He was 6ft with badly bleached blond hair. "He had shoes that must have been size 11, huge hands - and insisted I call him Sue." The carer said she moved from Cornwall to Blackpool, Lancashire, to start a new life after his op. "I said, 'You won't be showering my mother, sonny boy.'" Blackpool Council said 'Sue' had been a female legally for more than a year. A spokesman added: "It is unlawful for her to be treated in any other way." [11]

Transphobia is very specific and will not be protected by any measure to provide protection on the grounds of sexual orientation alone. In all probability the daughter's transphobia, and what she may or may not have said to her mother, manifested itself as the "incitement to hatred". Transphobia is pervasive within the majority in what became a very public example of incitement to transphobic hatred by its repetition in the press,

By having good law to support them in resisting this kind of incitement, not only employment policies and practices, local authorities are empowered to assist in stamping out this kind of irrational hatred and intolerance. In the event it should be noted, the mother in this article never did make an official complaint.

Also finally of note: Engendered Penalties showed that the suicide attempt rate for trans people is very high, far higher than the rate for one of the most mentally vulnerable groups; people with ongoing mental health problems as a result of childhood abuse or trauma.

According to the evidence in Engendered Penalties, 35% of all trans adults have attempted to commit suicide once as an adult, over 14% have tried it at least twice. We have no idea of how many succeeded.

Respondents who reported attempting suicide, or self harm, because of being a cross dresser, transgender/transsexual or because of other people's reactions to them being trans.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

[quote Waitwhat23]@BanditoShipman the second one. Mountaineers might use it. The word which must not be named on here....[/quote]
Dare I ask why?

It's apparently (according to an incredibly badly written article I read about the meaning of the term we are referring to) used as a hateful term by transphobes. So the misogynistic monitors who seemingly constantly monitor these boards will report any instances of the use of the word we may not name.

Sunlight is pouring onto this issue and there are those who don't like the fact that people are starting to question what's going on.

*Think about what that thread was actually saying. That people should remove a part of their body. Judging whether or not a person should remain in tact, without knowing anything about individual trans people's journeys, lives and experiences.

It's horrific, and it was coming from a large majority of people who are not themselves trans.*

Can we just take a moment to appreciate the irony of us being told not to discuss something we have no experience of... As if that's not the exact thing women have been requesting. Literally all we want is for male born persons to cease dictating how we should feel about situations they have no lived experience of.