I don't identify as a feminist - so why does this get on my nerves?

Sophie my apologies. I have derailed your OP. I was taken by the references to the celebrity of Caitlyn Jenner and how that celebrity had coloured the choices in the original list. I just wondered what a debate would be if the transgender woman was less celebrity and more mundane... and flawed.

It seems I now know

BR sadly yes, I have. And not all of them remain cowed and damaged. Some do work through the damage done and rebuild their sense of self. I don't have such a low opinion of women as to assume that any individual would not have been successful in doing so!

That's not a 'wildly nasty comment' though Lou - it would be seriously concerning if a jury member wanted to take that into account! It has nothing to do with 'a poor view of women' - whether she has written off, excused, forgotten or otherwise decided that the incident isn't worth leaving her husband for, that is still a thing that he did!

I am not really trying to be nice, Yonic. I was simply responding to posts such as

"I seriously hope you are never on a jury in a domestic abuse case"

It appears that it is OK to make such wildly nasty comments if you are agreeing with the majority of posters. But not OK if you are disagreeing.

And I don't know what 'making a PA' is! Sorry of it offensive. I am not trying to be.

Innocent you know no such thing. You know what has been reported, what you have seen/heard in the media, all of which is cut to taste. My whole point was that, if we are going to discuss such things we should, perhaps, come at them from a less entrenched position.

I know that some think I am excusing KMs actions. But that is not true. I am simply not condemning out of hand. I am stopping to wonder why, amongst other things, Tracey Maloney is not condemning KM? Not assuming that she has been brainwashed. I actually find that more offensive than much else that has been posted. To assume that she is only acting as she is because he has trained her... really? You give no thought to her have determined for herself any good reason not to vilify him?

You have a very poor view of women!

"But I would take into account the fact that KM and her ex wife remain on friendly terms."

Really? Have you met many abused women?

"Sadly the continued comments here simply go further to proving that MN RadFems give no quarter to any man who wishes to be a woman. The dismissiveness, mealy mouthed, nasty certainties voiced here really do help reinforce the opinion that today's feminist is really quite an unpleasant bigot."

You don't think this is a nastier point than any the "MN Radfems" have made on this thread? Really, Lou?

"know you have read my explanation on another thread, where I also explained why I had stopped posting in here."

I don't recall this, although i don't dispute it. I don't have a photographic memory.

As the OP is making statements disapproving of KM, I assumed perhaps you were including her in your generalisation. Of course, if you just want to use this thread to rehash other threads rather than taking the current discussion at face value, I can't stop you. I do feel you made a PA with your post, though.

I agree with all of sophie's recent posts, for shorthand. It is hard for someone who does not wear make-up or feminine clothing, but still feels they are a woman (mainly because of ovaries, uterus and stuff), to understand how, for some, this is what makes them a woman. It seems fetishistic, in the case of Bruce Jenner, especially the point of 'stealing' someone else's underwear rather than buying his own.

I am not a "mumsnet radfem" whatever that is supposed to mean, I consider myself a feminist by definition in that I believe in equality between the sexes, and would speak and act for that end in given circumstances.

There are many people who have undergone gender transition, or had deep problems in any walk of life, who do not use violence against others. I am not 'condemning' KM, it is not my position and my level of interest doesn't extend that far (though honestly further reading isn't particularly edifying), but there must be other examples of people more worth your time and analysis. (Lana Wachowski for eg, just calmly got on with things without fanfare and attention seeking, and as far as I know hasn't attacked anybody, or been racist)

I really don't see all that much difference between KM and BJ, they have a similar trajectory and are similarly problematic. They are just currently in the tabloids, they have not achieved anything of note as 'women' that I can see except to serve their own desires, sometimes at the expense of others.

Yes, I do see that it is offensive. FMs actions were wrong, where have I said otherwise? KMs defence of her actions are also inexcusable. But I would take into account the fact that KM and her ex wife remain on friendly terms. I would have to accept that they know more about that time than I do and would also accept that if Tracey Maloney can bring herself to come to terms with what happened then I have no higher moral right to disagree with her... to read her say that, whilst she would have done so many things differently, she is still supporting Kellie to move on, is, in my opinion, to see a very strong woman acting in a most compassionate manner. Tracey is, imo, behaving in a most dignified and humane manner. I would take my lead from her rather than the piss and vinegar postings here.

I have not called any individual a bigot. I have said that many statements made on threads such as this are bigotted, show little empathy, are often vitriolic and sometimes seem to follow a cant I do not hold to.

Am I supposed to ignore it, not to mention it because someone will take offense? OK! That's that debate stifled.

Sarah Vine is poisonous...

oddfod see my above post. I said nothing of the sort. It is that kind of lazy debating that I find so disappointing.

Yes, I know you could go back and paste a snippet of a previous post, that would prove you are right. But it would be, at best, disingenuous, when the meaning of my posts have been clear when read as a whole.

I thought my post was pretty clear, but on reading it back, it isn't... my apologies.

In context, transgender males, in a wider context individuals, any individuals... any and all aberrant behaviours need to be understood if we, as a society are to be able to ameliorate / punish or eradicate them! And I don't mean the act of gender reassignment, before anyone screams at me!

Yonic, I have been clear, I didn't say OP was a RadFem, just that some pps here come across that way. This is a fairly regular observation and I know you have read my explanation on another thread, where I also explained why I had stopped posting in here. I have stated clearly I do not seem to fit the prevalent/current definition of feminist here. There is no lack of logic, I am being as transparent as I can be. And I will continue to post stating my disappointment with some of the 'RadFem' posting until you point out the rule that says I cannot. Or are you simply trying to stifle debate, silence anyone that has a slightly different viewpoint? That was the basic point of the other thread wasn't it? Why do some people post/not post in here....

It is interesting that despite having very clearly stated that I don't consider understanding a behaviour to equal forgiving or excusing it, posters are still typing as though that is indeed what I meant.

I really object to being called a bigot because I don't believe that changing gender gives you a get out of jail free card for past misdemeanours.

FWIW I don't personally know any transwomen who've ever committed any violent acts. And I suspect they'd disagree with you too.

And it is not bigoted to judge someone who seriously assaulted their spouse and has never apologised. Some people who commit crimes do have a number of issues, mental, cultural, whatever. Provided they have capacity in the legal sense, they are still judged and punished for those crimes.