How to discuss BBC 100 women list?

Yes, I remember! I shan't mention any names because MN don't like that.

The Ministry of WrongThink is not going to like that at all. You'd best turn yourself in now before you have PC Gull knocking at your door explaining lady brains to you.

Presumably everyone knows that the first case of 'transphobia' to reach our courts was by a woman against such a transwoman? It was rather spectacularly unsuccessful, iirc the judge slung it out with a flea in the CPS's ear, but obviously very stressful for the transwoman.

A bit odd, when some transwomen are very clear that they are male, and that they are not women. 'Transwomen are women' denies their existence.

The Ministry of WrongThink is not going to like that at all. You'd best turn yourself in now before you have PC Gull knocking at your door explaining lady brains to you.

We can usually say something as a corollary after transwomen. Indeed it is important that we do as, in a few threads recenty, newer posters have assumed that a transwoman is a female wishing to trans to male (always been a thorn of the nomenclature, but hey ho!).

So we do need to find a way MNHQ will allow us all to say what we want to say in an easily read manner, no matter how many feelings are hurt - because that particular demand for care and courtesy has only ever been a one way street.

I was censored for saying the same. What other biologically true statement or dictionary definitions are you not allowed to mention. It's insanity. I can't believe they are standing by these decisions. They like to give the appearance of neutrality but they've sided with the men's rights activists against the women.

I wonder how long it will be before moderating rules change to "You cannot say that transwomen are not women" because that will invalidate their identities. After all, I was modded for saying "transwomen are male" because it "denied their existence" making it "hate speech" and "not having a place in civil debate".

So, biology is debatable.

It's just really quite awkward because they are male. We all know it. They know it. Mumsnet knows it. But we can't say it. Even as our rights and privacies are eroded. We mustn't say it. Men's hurt feelings are more important than women's rights.

'We don’t wish to prevent anyone from asserting as part of their gender critical position that transwomen are born male, and as ever, there is room for mods to exercise their individual judgment. But we think trans people will feel unwelcome if users habitually use a collective term which defines them by an aspect of their identity that they have explicitly rejected, so we’ll usually delete collective terms for trans people which centre on natal sex'

For those who don't want to wade through a lot of waffle, this is the message: "Don't refer to transwomen as male, men or having penises because it hurts their feelings".

Yes I noticed they were up there. Still need revising in view of legal judgements. Shedmistress yes I know . However there are always replacements if some of us fall by this particular wayside.

I asked MNHQ to consider repinning the Guidelines as they were a bit hard to find and newer posters weren't always aware that they existed.

I looked at them yesterday and again today and don't think they have changed.

It looks like the talk guidelines have been revised - they weren't pinned to the top of the board when I went to find them yesterday and there is a couple of wording changes which I've noticed, including a mention of biology and research being allowed to be discussed. I am confused (and I can see that others are too) how this fits in with a statement by MNHQ earlier on this thread which said - 'We don’t wish to prevent anyone from asserting as part of their gender critical position that transwomen are born male, and as ever, there is room for mods to exercise their individual judgment. But we think trans people will feel unwelcome if users habitually use a collective term which defines them by an aspect of their identity that they have explicitly rejected, so we’ll usually delete collective terms for trans people which centre on natal sex'. I genuinely don't know which wording would be allowed in a discussion with someone who is stating as fact that human beings can change sex or discussion about who can access single sex spaces, for example.

And it then affects your mental health when you can't talk to anyone about it.

It's a wonder more women haven't lost it and gone on rampages.

I think the special rules for us biological women should be revised in view of the Forstater judgement, and in recognition of the aggression and abuse that we have had to put up with when we mention anything that might hurt men’s feelings. We are upset and depressed nearly all the time about what is happening to us and our mothers and daughters and now we will no longer be kind or whatever it is that is expected.

I used to spend quite a bit of time on the philosophy, religion & spirituality board. There were some pretty robust debates - no personal attacks obviously, but iirc generalisations were mostly ok.

I wonder if it would be ok to refer to XX people and XY people in discussions like this.

Or would some object to that?

Poor old Brian! He wasn't allowed to identify out of his fate.

I'd still like to know the answer to my question: Do you censor Jews for saying that Jesus was not the messiah?

Am I allowed to say something fundamental to my faith, that directly contradicts something fundamental to another faith?

lol I would like to return your smiley santa but I'm now worried about an escalating spiral where neither of us knows if the other one thinks we're being passive-aggressive.

Here he is and he is sincere.

The , I mean. We're crossing posts here due to my slow typing.

Oh, that looks a bit passive-aggressive! Sorry, really didn't mean it that way.

And also, since my post was deleted and no one has any idea what I said, I would just like to add the following.

Another important bit that I think applies to several posters on this thread (not getting at you)

I didn't take it as an attempt to get at me, since it doesn't apply to anything I said.