#TheStaniland Question

[Glinner]

Some chap got Helen Staniland a twelve-hour suspension for posting her safeguarding question. Twitter are literally making it impossible to discuss the safety of women and girls on their site. If you're still on there, can you please help get #thestanilandquestion trending for the time she's gone?

And please don't ban this thread, Mumsnet moderators, there is literally nothing wrong with it.

[334bu]

Outrageous

[gardenbird48]

I think I saw the thread - a rather rapey sounding person who didn't like the fact that Helen was making sense.

[EdgeOfACoin]

Thanks, Glinner.

Twitter gets worse by the day. Still, it shows you that Twitter would rather hide the question than allow people to defend the premise.

Helen herself said that when she has asked the same question using the 'right' language, i.e. 'a pre-op transwoman', the TRAs are prepared to argue in favour of that.

So why not argue in favour of a 'male bodied person with a penis'? It's the same as a 'pre-op transwoman', isn't it? Or do pre-op transwomen not have male bodies (in which case, how are they trans?)

Could it be that Twitter is scared of people seeing the question and concluding that male-bodied people with a penis should not be sharing communal changing rooms with teenage girls, regardless how that male-bodied person may identify?

[corkernewyorker]

Done.

[Winesalot]

Wowsers. I was just reading one of Helen’s conversations this in the wee hours this morning. I always find them interesting, in the extremes they will go through to avoid answering. That is why the question is so good. It highlights the lack of consideration anyone who thinks that males should be able to undress with teenage girls has for anyone other than their own validation.

I hope Helen gets out of twitter suspension soon.

[gardenbird48]

thanks @Glinner - it's there!!!

[Datun]

That question distils the ideology into the issue that everyone skirts around.

Validation, questioning someone's very existence, human rights, discrimination, inclusion, diversity. If none of it ends up facilitating that one action, then the question can be answered quite easily.

Let's have it.

[Toseland]

Twitter is so bloody sinister. I’ve pulled up quite a few people using the Staniland question, I think it’s brilliant.

[Glinner]

oh, you stars!!!

[gardenbird48]

that's made my day. I have a new spring in my step to get some work done (and maybe a bit of cleaning) and the sun is shining. Fabulous. Helen's question is a good question.

Absolutely crazy that she was banned for that.

[CatsCantCatchCriminals2]

That question distils the ideology into the issue that everyone skirts around.

I loved the pun even if it was unintentional. 😂

[NotBadConsidering]

This way of framing the questions is often under-utilised I find. Instead of TRAs asking why males should be excluded and the onus being on everyone else to justify an answer, there is not enough questions asked as to why males should be included. For example:

Instead of having to answer why transwomen should be excluded from women and girls’ sport if they’ve suppressed testosterone, the question should be do you believe that male born people should be allowed to compete against women and girls? Forget the testosterone argument, forget even the puberty argument, just explain how male born people qualify for women’s and girls’ sport in the first place.

Instead of having to explain why transwomen should be excluded from women’s prisons and refuges, the question should be do you believe that male born people qualify to enter women’s prisons and refuges? And so on, and so on.

Too often women’s rights campaigners are having to justify exclusion and not enough onus is on TRAs to justify inclusion. And the reason for that is the answer can only ever be because “TWAW” which then leads into the circular logic TRAs are desperate to avoid.

[Datun]

@CatsCantCatchCriminals2

That question distils the ideology into the issue that everyone skirts around.

I loved the pun even if it was unintentional. 😂

It was unintentional! My subconscious is obviously a lot cleverer than I am 😁

[NancyDrawed]

Too often women’s rights campaigners are having to justify exclusion and not enough onus is on TRAs to justify inclusion. And the reason for that is the answer can only ever be because “TWAW” which then leads into the circular logic TRAs are desperate to avoid.

Prof Rosa Freedman made a similar point at the WESC meeting last week. I'll see if I can find the time stamp

[334bu]

The same happens when women's rights campaigners accused of saying transwomen are all predators
They should reply by asking what evidence is there that the subset of males who identify as women are less likely than other males to be violent towards women.

[NancyDrawed]

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/dfc9f53e-2ac4-4c30-8712-e3df47938fd7

Not sure if that link will go to the right place in the proceedings, but it starts at 16.30.30

[NancyDrawed]

It doesn't, I should've checked.

The relevant Rosa Freedman bit starts at 16.30.30. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, need to be in the right frame of mind for the TRA contributors.

[RozWatching]

So why not argue in favour of a 'male bodied person with a penis'? It's the same as a 'pre-op transwoman', isn't it? Or do pre-op transwomen not have male bodies (in which case, how are they trans?)

And 'op' status is completely irrelevant anyway. A vanishing minority elect for surgery. This is overwhelmingly about males who retain their male genitalia, however they identify.

I still struggle to believe we're having to have this conversation and tech companies like Twitter try to censor it

[gardenbird48]

@NancyDrawed

It doesn't, I should've checked.

The relevant Rosa Freedman bit starts at 16.30.30. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, need to be in the right frame of mind for the TRA contributors.

I do remember her making that point, essentially if you are looking to change something so fundamental, you first have to prove that it is safe, fair, proper etc - not introduce it and then have the discussion about whether it is ok.

An excellent point and just highlights how bizarre this ideology is that such basic thought processes are thrown out of the window without a second thought.

The same with medicalisation of children, let's establish the evidence that it works and is safe BEFORE rolling it out to many children.

The same with social transitioning in schools, let's examine the safeguarding issues, the mental health issues, the possible long term effects BEFORE appointing LGBT ambassadors, that by all accounts are there to promote trans ideology.

[Thelnebriati]

Done.
But I prefer the way Posie Parker phrased it - should my daughter have the right to change in a penis free space.

[Datun]

@Thelnebriati

Done.
But I prefer the way Posie Parker phrased it - should my daughter have the right to change in a penis free space.

Very succinct.

[lionheart]

Here's a celeb answer:

www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a27331401/julia-roberts-gender-neutral-bathrooms-instagram/?utm_campaign=socialflowTWOPR&utm_medium=social-media&utm_source=twitter

[CatsCantCatchCriminals2]

Julia Roberts doesn't really address the Staniland question there tho..

I'd love a sleb or anyone to have a serious go at it. I won't hold my breath.

[EdgeOfACoin]

lionheart that's about toilets and public restrooms. I for one do not go stripping off in public toilets.

I do, however, get fully undressed in the communal changing room at my local gym, which is open to girls as young as 14.

Julia Roberts does not address this issue.

[EyesOpening]

I saw the Julia Roberts thing too, made me think that basically she would be happy for her 16 year old daughter Hazel, to go into the restrooms alone (because what 16 year old wants their mum to go in with them?) with the likes of Weinstein or Epstein