Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

"In the past, some feminists used to take a line something like "I don't care if the facts hurt your feelings; here are the facts.""

Can I just add: this is in no way a criticism of talking in that way. Hearing it has been vital to my consciousness raising. I am very sorry that I am talking about wrapping this stuff in cotton wool, in the way I am forced to do at work, which is because of gendered power structures and who has all the money and how I get to be allowed to make a living.

It is exactly because it is crucial to preserve places and virtual places that can dispense with cotton wool and have woman to woman "here's the thing" talking, that we need to be so careful at this precise moment in history. Am I weakening the very thing that is so important by advocating for the cotton wool? Could "here's the thing" talking cease to exist if the very people who know what it is for why it is important, stop using it?

A brilliant example of "here's the thing" talking that moved me to tears recently was that statement by the women in Deptford. This is the sort of thing that has to - HAS TO - be allowed to exist

This argument - when used by people with legal training rather than by those who might just be a bit fuzzy thinking - is blatant emotional blackmail. there is NO logic in it. You are simply being emotionally appealed to, to prioritise someone else's fear above your own.

Absolutely. It's imperative to keep calling it out in a way that shows it up for what it is.

On a more serious note, I think "folks" started as a rather clumsy attempt to appropriate African American vernacular by gender identified white kids trying to appear woke, and spread from them to a wider variety of TRAs. It's fairly common usage in parts of the southern USA. Sounds remarkably silly coming from Brits.

I think that message is MNHQ's way of saying that when they eventually ban us from discussing gender ideology it will be our own fault.

If it was a matter of individuals posting inflammatory things, surely MNHQ would just go on deleting them individually as they have done for years?

I've seen a lot of these threads, and most people are just concerned about what's going on. Very little abuse or goadyness.

I always think of troops of merry woodland hedgehogs and squirrels and bunnies

"There are, however, important difficulties with abuse-focused objections to self-determination."

We've seen those difficulties here before, put in a less prolix way. They tend to be around:

• it won't happen, it doesn't happen

I think we need some snappy statistical soundbites around this. It's part of a generalised "reasonable" "measured" societally condoned denial of male violence. It's hard to name male violence because pretending it doesn't exist is one of the things that keeps society trucking along in the way that it does. This isn't some odd anomaly that we suddenly bump into in this context - it's how EVERYTHING works. Thinking about tackling this is about thinking both small and big - we need something snappy and little and numerical and true AND we need to think about how to address the bigger picture of why women have fought for women-only spaces and how precious they are.

In the wider world I tend not to use "abuse focused" arguments because I think normal people find them alarmist and alienating. I usually just ask if people think that women and girls only spaces should exist? - most do, tho they don't necessarily know why they think this - and take it from there.

In some contexts, however, it is necessary to defend women's spaces as a certain subset of people are now saying they don't actually matter. I see that more online, to be honest. It's more of an activist position.

• it's insulting to transwomen and / or men to suggest they're abusers

It's really important how you talk about the reality of gendered violence in such a way that people don't have an excuse to feel personally aggrieved. We knew this already from a determined refusal to understand class analysis (but ONLY in the case of "men") that feminists have always been up against. At least - if you want to win over that particular individual, it's always been important; now we have a whole very sensitive situation where it's more widely important, for reasons we all know. In the past, some feminists used to take a line something like "I don't care if the facts hurt your feelings; here are the facts." Nowadays we can't start with not caring about people's feelings. We are simply not allowed to talk in pure factual terms without couching everything in cotton wool about people's feelings. I have built a career on enclosing facts in cotton wool and therefore being allowed to include them; it is annoying to have to do so but in most cases you CAN get the facts in with enough care to the cotton wool.

• transwomen can't be abusers as they are people legitimately scared of abuse

I really do not understand this point. Without saying anything about the likelihood of transwomen as a class, or any particular transwoman, to abuse: how can any person argue that there is NO ONE in the intersection between abusers and those who fear abuse? This argument - when used by people with legal training rather than by those who might just be a bit fuzzy thinking - is blatant emotional blackmail. there is NO logic in it. You are simply being emotionally appealed to, to prioritise someone else's fear above your own.

It's just the kind of slightly twee language gender identity enthusiasts on social media use to make the ideology seem lovely and warm and friendly.

Also, the garble a quote from Sir Terry, the long drawn out note that must precede every performance to give potential listeners fair warning and time to run away.

Interesting

See, I was thinking of it more as an allusion to the friendly Folk of the Faraway Tree (although the Angry Pixie scared the beejezus out of me) Or 'little folk' - elves, leprechauns and the like.

I hate it when people try and patronise women by unconsciously appealing to our love of fairies.

This is good on how predators take advantage of female socialisation:

fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/another-post-about-rape-3/

The harms that occur to women under patriarchy occur because of our sex. Nobody harming or exploiting or discriminating against us because we are female stops to check our gender identity first. Therefore, we need sex-based protections.

This is not to deny the existence of gender identity, or its possible biological underpinnings, or the absolute right that everyone should have to express it (insofar as it doesn't harm others) without fear of violence or discrimination. But that's a separate issue and requires a separate solution.

AngryAttackKittens - And the finger in the ear. Don't forget the finger in the ear.

How many times has a women paid the ultimate price because she didn't want to appear rude so she held the door open to the block of flats for the guy who forgot his key, or said 'sure, I'll show you where the bus stop is" or accepted the lift home from the work colleague she had always felt a bit iffy about...

Yes Ted Bundy, for instance pretended to have a broken arm to take advantage of this.

To me folk is a musical genre involving twangy guitars and men in unfortunate jumpers. Not sure what it has to do with "gender".

This idea that women are being a bit hysterical about male violence and just need to stop being such 'scaredy cats' and mean to poor men has my head spinning.
How many times has a women paid the ultimate price because she didn't want to appear rude so she held the door open to the block of flats for the guy who forgot his key, or said 'sure, I'll show you where the bus stop is" or accepted the lift home from the work colleague she had always felt a bit iffy about...

I'm a woman-I'm 5"3 with all the upper body strength of an amoeba. If a guy takes me on, he'll win. I'll happily cross the street at night if I sense a man walking behind me or move further along the deserted platform if it's just me and a strange guy-and if the guy gets a bit sniffy, quite frankly, I couldn't give a shit.

yes, why are trans people 'folk'?

LightofaSilveryMoon said A person's feelings, however strong, cannot be codified in law

They have been in the GRA and the equality act.

LightofaSilveryMoon continues

and given priority over basic physical reality.

This is what we are arguing about now.

I often think 'this is not right', but I can remember two past political events where I've had a really strong visceral feeling, as soon as I heard they were about to happen, that they would have serious long term damaging effects.

The first was the decision by the Thatcher government to sell off council houses. The second was that of the Blair government to invade Iraq.

I've learned to trust my gut, and my gut tells me this is a third.

On the subject of the thread, having MN a as space to discuss this is vital. We can do what's being asked without losing vigour. It's very important that we do.

I wrote a response to you last night Sue then took my own advice and deleted it. Other posters have already said most of what I want to say but I'm going to repeat it anyway, as courteously as I can, because I am seriously pissed off that your response to male violence and harassment is to tell women they should try harder and love more.

I am really sorry to hear of your experiences and I'm glad you've managed to make your peace with them. But there is a big, big difference between love, respect and blind faith. Put it this way - I also try and see good in everyone but I still lock the front door every night.

The solution to male violence and harassment will only come when the overwhelming majority of decent men stop and take a good look at themselves. In the meantime, women are absolutely right to be cautious around them, to want our own spaces at times, especially when we're vulnerable, and to want separate statistics kept for crime.

It is deeply, deeply fucked up to tell us we should ignore our own instincts when these are the very instincts that help us survive.

Trans 'folk' usage - useful sealion indicator

You forgot to copy and paste in your links (here here and here).

Changes in society are hard for many people but it is not hard to treat all people with respect and dignity.
And here we are back to “why can’t you just be nice?”. Good chat, Sue. You clearly have no interest in actually discussing what you’re saying.

Yes, I would support a third gender neutral space.