Just when you thought Everyday Transactivism could no longer surprise * title edited by MNHQ*

Mirror, love your work

"Six Ways Why Brain Tumours Are Exclusionary To Those Who Don't Have Brains."
😂

😂😂

I identify as a fish - "net" is triggering

Arf.

I identify as a fish - "net" is triggering

Oh gosh yes, I didn't think of that. And of course any conjoined twins.

Some people aren't 'one' though and might be triggered because it excludes their split personality otherkin furrie so we'd just have to call it 'net'

EveryoneNet is the only possible name

Don't want to literally murder the non-parents

ROOMBA: Reproductive Owners of Ovaries; Menstruators with Breast Anatomies.

'Gestational-Surrogate-Net'
'Host-Net' (being topical)

What should we rename Mumsnet?

Parentsnet?
Caregivernet?
Non-man-net?
Hole-net?

Maybe we could start using "roomba" for "the group formerly known as women" on the grounds that we'd quite like a word of our own and it's not pink and sparkly enough to get appropriated. [Heavy irony emoticon.]

Ha! yes. Sigh.

Ah, well, still not cultural appropriation then, because I suspect they're not so keep on appropriating those particular bits. (LOL).

women don't have a specific, universal culture, so there is no culture to appropriate

Yet again erasing all the stuff that is common to womanhood, across a vast majority of cultures, because who cares about all that domestic shit, we just get in the cupboard and wait for the man of the house to return from the hunt/work after doing all the chores and preparing a delicious dinner don't we? Kinda like a Roomba.

How convenient. The whole "transwomen are women" bollocks is stupid circular reasoning. Obviously anyone with common sense realises that not every time a man says he is a woman he is necessarily telling the truth or correct in that view. But common sense and reason is sorely lacking in this ideology.

Ouriana, this was something I tried to reconcile too, so I went to do some reading. The gist was that it wouldn't be classed as cultural appropriation because a) trans women are women already, so how can they be appropriating anything, and b) women don't have a specific, universal culture, so there is no culture to appropriate.

I'm looking right now at my bookshelf which has a lovely section on feminist writings, books I have from the modules I did on female fiction writing and female artists and thinking - well... maybe all that there just doesn't exist.

Nice positioning. Lucky that I don't think that when my mates do Moovember (or whatever it is) or any of the other things that don't affect me. Men have as much traction as they always do, and as usual, they can't be bothered unless it directly affects them

Yes - I did a double-take at this.

Hey women I'll come to what is tacitly your space and I'll take up your time. I'll then glibly announce that it's all about gender politics as if this were something external from me and I had no role in and then Iill bow out of what I name as your battle. Bollocks men don't have traction. In the gender hierarchy men have the power. The hierarchy benefits men and they profit from it (not all in the same way or the same degree, but they all benefit). men's voices are powerful voices. Men's voices carry. Men can be supportive of individual women or of women's causes more broadly. In the case of trans men can write to MPs, they can stand up in workplaces against gender-neutralising toilets or other spaces. Yet, the irony is that it is women who are told that they have 'cis privilege' and who in the trans debate and in other domains they are told to take a back seat while those allegedly higher up in the hierarchy of the oppressed (including some men) get their issues addressed first - and we are supposed to drop our own battles to fight those of others or we are phobic, white, middle-class etc. Maybe this should be on the 'men who come here' thread, but my view is don't come here and use us like men have always used us before going on your merry way with your power intact and our energy more depleted. Almost scared to say this, but if a white women tried that on a race board she'd be fucking trounced - yet when men do it we're supposed to just say 'oh bye then - wish us luck'.

The multiple gender identities really seem to discredit the whole idea of this immutable gender essence which overrides physical characteristics somehow. There is so much cognitive dissonance, it's a headache to attempt to follow the arguments, bizarre concepts and bewildering terminology. But when you get onto these ideas about people being multigender or mirror gender or whatever then it becomes an unworkable nonsense. If someone fluctuates between being a man or a woman then what does it mean to be either? How do you know which one you are? How does it manifest itself? I haven't read any definition of what gender identity actually feels like. If you are gender fluid, does this just mean you sometimes feel like wearing a dress and makeup and sometimes like wearing trousers? That's meaningless. I can understand the concept of dysphoria. I can see what Helen Highwater or Miranda Yardley say about how they feel and that makes total sense. But someone threatening to rape children with their 'girlcock' - that isn't a woman, that isn't someone I want in women's spaces, that isn't someone who I want protected by equality legislation which would give them access to girls and women - by saying something like that, that person surely exemplifies the reason why 'terfs' exist? There is such an incredibly flimsy narrative supporting the delusions of extremists like this and it's terrifying to see that men threatening rape are getting support from women who consider themselves feminists and managing to portray themselves as victims and the recipients of their violent threats as their oppressors. None of it makes any sense at all.