AIBU in thinking the special talk guidelines are out of date?

[TinselAngel]

Post Forstater and in the current climate where the assault on women's rights is being discussed everywhere, AIBU to say the special FWR guidelines are no longer necessary?

MN no longer needs special rules to appease the activists who monitor the site, in order to maintain its ability to host the debate, when it is no longer the only site where the topic can be discussed.

I posted the something on the Trans Widows Escape Committee thread a couple of days ago, and it was deleted, it was my first ever deletion on that thread in 6 years. As an experiment I posted the same thing on Twitter and nobody batted an eyelid there.

Is it time we women of FWR, and in particular trans widows, were allowed to speak freely?

The reason why the word castration is targeted is because everyone knows what it means, and the very concept is a shock to a lot of people.

Using words that most people may not understand will not convey what is happening.

Hence the reason to censor the word.

In my opinion, (obvs), it's got fuck all to do with civility.

And everything to do with clarity.

Completely agree, Datun.

Been checking out the on line thesauruses(thesaurii?). Amongst other words they offered caponise and gonadectomy. I think there's a phrase 'genital ablation', which iirc describes complete removal of the external genitalia.

However, I agree with @Datun the word castration is widely understood. It doesn't softsoap what's done, like 'gender affirming care' does. Which is why it's reported.

You’re right. I have been on these boards for a few years and hadn’t connected ‘gender affirming care’ with castration

Yup.
It's not a radical complete bilateral mastectomy, it's "top surgery". It's not a penectomy with inversion and castration, it's "bottom surgery", it's not a radical arm or leg muscle excision followed by construction of a non functioning flesh tube not resembling a penis in any way. It's "phalloplasty" or "bottom surgery" again. It's not exogenous cross sex hormones, it's "HRT". It's not synthetic testosterone, it's "T".

Get with the veiled language or be a bigot.
My very very clever 20 year old niece believed , until I put her right, that there is in existence some sort of penis transplant for FTMs that gives them a fully functioning penis.
These are the lies and misinformation that is being fed to kids and the "be kind" brigade.

Yes, of course. Thank you!

When my 15 year old came out with ‘titty skittles’ as a euphemism, I realised that using these ‘kind’ alternatives was fucking dangerous.

Trying to position a medical term as ‘derogatory’ is simply ludicrous. And it really adds to the harm. I can assure you all at 15 I knew exactly what castration was, and yes, whatever species you are it is fucking brutal. There is a reason for that. It is fucking brutal.

Saying it ‘depends on the context’ is still trying to hide the truth. This is the common medical terminology, if it fucking offends someone, that is on them.

Obviously I am agreeing with you feline

Late to the party but agree 100% with you Tinsel.

It feels very anachronistic here now to police terminology. I also think that contentious issues can't really be modded by the standard MN approach because the system is too easily gamed. It's a fact that TRAs have made concerted efforts to pick off individual posters.

It also bears mentioning to newer posters that there are a number of members here who have been here for years but namechange every year or so. Their sole reason for being in MN is trolling women on FWR and trying to get them banned.

I have been deleted many times. Once it was for using the word amputated to refer to the removal of healthy breasts. Some people argue that the word should only be used for limbs but the amputee coalition say that the removal of any body part often involves profound psychological and functional changes.

YANBU

Castration is a term that refers both to orchiectomy and also the loss of testosterone. It is used for the physical process and also for the drug induced process. There isn't really a better word.

This is a really helpful post for me and I'm sure others will find it useful too. It sounds like it's been quite the battle-ground. I was ignorant (not to be confused with naivety) of the fact that posters have been picked off and targeted in the past. Definitely something to be wary of.

I guess the balance of clarity, directness and language choice is very personal when it comes to how people debate. For example, here is one statement said two different ways:

Transwomen are men
Personally I never say this because I'm aware that some people believe that transwomen are women. I won't ever be that directly dismissive of someone else's belief. No matter how much I disagree with the harms that result from people believing that gender identity is real.
Some people will value the direct clarity of the statement and find it beneficial as a debate point. Some people will hear it as hateful and won't even bother listening to anything else the person says.

Transwomen are transwomen
This is what I say. I then go on to qualify that statement and say that I accept that some people believe that there is such a thing as "gender" (a gendered soul) and for them this is important. Often more important than biological sex. However, it doesn't change the fact that they are male-bodied. I then talk about the impact of this on other people's boundaries and the harms being done to children. I accept that it takes a lot longer to get there than it would have done if I had been more direct - in fact some of the things that I say will sound like a word salad to others.

My view is that if a Be Kind ally is ignorant of the issues of boundary crossing and harm associated with gender identity, I would far rather use words that will pull them in to listen to the issues in detail than words that make them turn away. I'm just as resolute as those that speak more directly on this issue. My biggest concern and personal interest is in the harms done to children but I will inform myself on and speak about other issues too - it's all interconnected.

And on the word castration: I use it when I describe a child or adult who has had "gender reassignment surgery". Depending on the way I use it, I may or may not state the biological sex of the child/adult. It's going to depend on whether that is easily understood from what I have said. However, I'm in total agreement with @Flickersy that there are some occasions where I wouldn't use this word. Just as in Flickersy's example if a male relative of mine needed their testicles removing because of cancer, I would not use this word (no matter what the NHS says), unless my male relative had explicitly chosen to use it himself.

And to link back to the original question - on reflection, I do think it's possible to stay within the current rules. However, I can completely understand why the transwidows threads are more challenging (and that anyone who values directness may feel sensored) because of the nature of what is being discussed between women to help and support each other. This has been a helpful thread. Thank you for starting it Tinsel.

And I am sure that you are aware, just as I have said to the other poster, that is your own choice. And that is your own view. It should not be the basis of moderating posts when it is used correctly simply because you have an issue with the context.

Do you also think the word ‘castrated’ is derogatory to use? Knowing that there are posters who are very keen to silence women who disagree with them and who will report posts for usage of these words? And knowing there are posters who contribute nothing to threads except to scold posters who they feel are hateful and phobic?

This was common practice in countries like Turkey, Persia and China but not the West.

We know transactivists don't want the word castration to be used.

The Denton report makes absolutely no secret of the fact that euphemisms should be used wherever possible in order to sanitise the issues.

The first time that Posie Parker was arrested, after all the threats and pressure she was subjected to, it turned out that the main problem was her use of the word castration.

The 'it does what it says on the tin' aspect of it will not be appealing to a movement which relies on mangling as many language definitions as possible.

I mean, there is a report available that explains, in black-and-white, how important euphemisms are so that the general public doesn't know what's going on!

it's right there!

Personally, the very first thing I want to do, is use as many words possible, that do describe exactly what it says on the tin.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4059873-Deep-Dive-on-the-Dentons-document

Absolutely Clymene.

We have lost so many great contributors due to being banned or just through the constant need to pretzel our words. I agree that we can achieve what needs to be said, but the strain of pretzeling our posts does make it exhausting over time. So I also know of many who have just given up MN.

Some of us have adopted to use particular styles to overcome the talk guidelines after being targeted. I always used to laugh at the extremist posters who would announce they have reported all my hateful posts and then…. Nothing. Because I, like so many others, worked so hard to make sure I was not attacking, backed up posts with evidence and was merely disagreeing and pointing out the flaws in their arguments one by one. You have done it yourself clymene, so many of us have.

The end result when we all add to those contentious and labouring threads with our links and pointing out the issues and flaws is that it is so much better for those reading. Accurate and clear language is very important to understanding. Using unclear language is not ‘kind’ when people have to then work out what others are saying. And having to go look up words and then parse the meaning looking at context… well can be the opposite to ‘kind’ for numerous reasons. Time and ability due to device or other limitations are two that strike me immediately.

But it is exhausting and I have so much less time to do this now than I did so I don’t put as much effort in over the past months. Having more freedom to be direct would help others I am sure.

I am very happy to support any suggestions to make changes to the guidelines and particularly ones that Tinsel will find helpful to continue her amazing work. We can work within the guidelines or we can leave. If the guidelines need to be modified, then let’s get to it.

Blimey. I forgot that about Kellie Jay’s use of the word castration. You are right.

Yes, saying someone is taking their sixteen year old son to be castrated, is very clear and shocking. Saying they're taking them for bottom surgery, or the even more deceptive, gender affirmation surgery, isn't.

The whole point is that it IS shocking.

Yes, there's a very clear intention to shift language. The term inclusive does a lot of heavy lifting, not just in erasing women's words to talk about ourselves but in seeking to shift public perception.

Transwoman is a case in point. It used to be transsexual. Then it became transwoman, now trans woman, in a deliberate move to decouple the trans and make it into an adjective. So tall woman, short woman, trans woman. It's not natural evolution of language, it's a concerted effort to push gender ideology.

Incidentally, my spellcheck always flags transwoman as a typo.

Yes ‘bottom surgery’ could be a hemorrhoid surgery.

I find in real life, when people tell me ‘but that is such harsh language, I wouldn’t word it that way,’ I ask them to tell me what was wrong with the statement. They think about it and most often cannot find better alternatives without speaking around the issue rather than tackling it directly. Or using words that require a depth of knowledge that people generally don’t have.

And I am sure that you are aware, just as I have said to the other poster, that is your own choice. And that is your own view. It should not be the basis of moderating posts when it is used correctly simply because you have an issue with the context.

Indeed. Everyone chooses their style and words, hopefully while being aware of the impact that this will have. Sometimes the impact will be exactly what the poster intended. Sometimes it won't.

Do you also think the word ‘castrated’ is derogatory to use? Knowing that there are posters who are very keen to silence women who disagree with them and who will report posts for usage of these words? And knowing there are posters who contribute nothing to threads except to scold posters who they feel are hateful and phobic?

I think the word castration is important to use. Whether it's perceived as derogatory or not will depend on how it's used and how clear or ambiguous the post is.
Reflecting on my own deleted post, I expect that it wasn't the fact that I said the Three Letter Acronym that was the issue, rather it was the choice of words that I had used which had presumably (perhaps maliciously, perhaps through genuinely feeling a personal attack) led to it being interpreted differently from my intent and reported.

I note that a thread on a Scottish sports centre allowing self identified males into women's changing rooms has been deleted as the OP broke the talk guidelines?
Does anyone know what was said that's forbidden?

My spellcheck also keeps putting a space in, hence I actually stopped using the word altogether! That and the argument that the space meant that this trick of linguistics supported the philosophical reasoning using postmodern theories that these male individuals should be considered female for all purposes in life if they called themselves ‘women’.

It was further reinforced by Ivy/MacKinnon’s deceptive use of pronouns to claim they were ‘female’ because most people accepted they were indeed a woman. It would only be a cruel person to deny that they were female. So therefore they should compete in female sports.

I realised just how much linguistic acceptance was being leveraged in law and policy making.

I see nothing wrong with the word castration, if the TRAs think accurate wording is bad then they are clearly aware that it's a bad thing and that's why they want it hidden.

Malaga airport is another one that baffles me, there are plenty of transwomen out there who are very vocal about it so why the constant denial? TRAs, own up that it exists and do something about it.