Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

Why Mumsnet? Why 'TERFs'?

Because we have reasonable concerns.

I think we can stand up for ourselves without being abusive. It's actually more effective and some posters are brilliant at it.

It reminds me a bit of some of the martial arts (which I dabbled in many many years ago) in that if you lose your temper you're probably going to lose the fight. Self discipline is key.

Exactly. If I say "X is a man", I don't mean "X is a terrible person and I hate him". I just mean "X is an adult human male". If X looks very male then my brain is always going to go "man" even if I try to train myself not to say so. If not saying so becomes a requirement either socially or legally then we've been put permanently on the back foot and in a situation where we're inevitably going to get it "wrong". Accepting that framework has very serious implications.

Kate was clear, it's antagonism that is the problem. It's obvious that HQ will be dealing with an inundation of complaints, accusations and demands for deletions, that's a well known tactic. It will take up a LOT of HQs time and energy. What Kate was saying is that when the tone of MNetter posts becomes antagonistic it gets hard for HQ to defend and stand up to the accusations and demands to stop allowing these conversations. It gets hard for them to say this is civil discussion and free speech, and to protect themselves.

This is what I took from it also.

Look, I failed female socialisation. I'm straightforward, blunt, don't mince my words. I have absolutely no talent whatsoever for doing emotional labour so that my responses to GFs do more to mind their feelings than rebut their GF goads.

But I'm not a child. I have control of my tongue and my typing fingers. I can be plainspoken without being personally antagonistic. Since that's what's being asked for, I'm more than happy to commit.

I agree Ellen. I am concerned by how much of the debate we forfeit if we allow ourselves to be strong armed into accepting language set by trans activists.

We know that there is a concerted effort to push the boundaries that women are expected to accept - we've gone rather rapidly from a position where we've accepted transwomen in women's toilets as a form of courtesy, to being told that transwomen are women, to now being told transwomen are female.

At which of those three points do we draw the line and at what point does refusing to conform become transphobia? I agree with keeping debate polite and civil, but we are at a point where many trans activists believe stating facts is hate speech.

Because we're women.

In reality the feel of the place to many is transphobic.

As a business I'm not sure I would want the reputation that this place has gained, and as an advertiser I sure as hell wouldn't put an advert here.

This just shows the standard to which women are held and the topics they are expected to stick to. Never question, never say anything that isn't 'kind', never stand up for yourself.

There are loads of places on the Internet where there is real, rife transphobia. I have seen it, it's absolutely disgusting, I can't even repeat it. Now I know its not a race to the bottom, but I do wonder why Mumsnet and TERFs are always singled out as the enemy of trans people? Why not go after the thousands of men who say horrible, transphobic stuff all over the Internet, in FB comment sections and on Twitter, as well as less savoury places like 4chan, Reddit and ARRSE or whatever its called.

Why Mumsnet? Why 'TERFs'?

It used to be that referring to trans people as a group by their correct pronouns was OK. So referring to an anonymous transman as she - fine.

But singling out individual trans people and not using their preferred pronouns could get you deleted. Apart from anything else it's rude, which is why I try not to do it.

SimonBridges I've been thinking we should use posts in the Feminism Theory board for that. Then people can link to them.

Could we have a statement that sums up our views that we all keep somewhere and just copy and paste that statement?

That we it comes across as a placid ‘no coment’ kind of post while actually saying what we think.

The problem there is that describing a trans child who's male as a boy is deemed offensive by some people. Would that get deleted, if someone complained? Would "male" be OK but "boy" subject to deletion? Certainly "man" for adult male trans people has caused an angry response and complaints before. That language could easily be framed as antagonistic, even if it wasn't intended that way, and that kind of gets to the core of the whole debate, the fact that to most GC people we're just using the words that make sense and seem most logical and accurate, whereas to the people coming from the opposite perspective it's an attack and intended to hurt them.

I'm not sure how MNHQ will deal with this, deleting the posts will leave the username visible.

They should ban them. They've banned other people for inflammatory usernames.

Yes, I've stopped opening the Lily Madigan threads. I know she's hurt a lot of people but it just feels like bullying. I wish people would stop posting threads about her.

Apart from anything else, she's so obviously a GF, that the attention probably encourages her, and may well lead her to actions that could damage her life in the long run. I don't think any of us wish that for her.

Some things are becoming illegal to say, if they are said about a specific group, or biology. Even if its a scientific fact. Its already happened in in Canada. It can be a hate crime.

Really, Upstart Crow? What are they or how do we find out what they are?

Rather than reducing the number of posts, perhaps we could move some of the debate on from being about trans people.

This is a great point. For example, discussing girl guides policies our interest is in ensuring girls aren't expected to share showers or sleeping areas with boys, especially secretly from parents.

Mner No, there are actual legal implications. Its what we've all been posting about for months.

Some things are becoming illegal to say, if they are said about a specific group, or biology. Even if its a scientific fact. Its already happened in in Canada. It can be a hate crime.

It has legal implications for the people that run this website.

Kate was clear, it's antagonism that is the problem. It's obvious that HQ will be dealing with an inundation of complaints, accusations and demands for deletions, that's a well known tactic. It will take up a LOT of HQs time and energy. What Kate was saying is that when the tone of MNetter posts becomes antagonistic it gets hard for HQ to defend and stand up to the accusations and demands to stop allowing these conversations. It gets hard for them to say this is civil discussion and free speech, and to protect themselves.

I appreciate the flak HQ must endure on this, i appreciate they are willing to put in that work and take the hassle to protect free speech. I don't want to make it harder for them by using an antagonistic, angry tone. I don't need to, I can make my points calmly. If they're points and not giving way to rudeness.

I only started posting on here a few months ago after lurking for about 2 years and this will almost certainly be my longest to date. I've definitely noticed a change in recent weeks, possibly since Man Friday. It's a lot busier with a lot of new posters (I know some regulars name change but the voices are new) some of them in good faith and some clearly not. There's also a lot more sarcasm and a lot less patience.

Like many women, I came to this topic thinking 'what's the harm?' and fearful of being called a bigot (still am if I'm honest). What brought me round was the quality of the arguments plus the endless patience and good humour. I was struck by the way even goady posters were treated respectfully. If I were a new lurker now, I'm honestly not sure what I would think.

I'm not going to tell other new posters what to do but personally I am very conscious that this isn't AIBU where you can write any old crap and no-one's going to take a screen shot. There are a lot of people watching.

Up to a point, I think it's important to respond to goady posters but to engage with the argument, not with them personally. Some people are really good at this. I don't think biscuits help - it just looks like we don't have a coherent answer. I normally write my post then leave it for a few minutes and think about whether I'm really contributing anything. If I'm angry I often write something angry but then delete it.

And I have to say, the threads about Lily Madigan make me cringe. I know the history but the argument shouldn't be with Madigan but with the Labour Party. I no longer open them as I just can't bear it.

Maybe some of MN advertisers are threatening to pull the plug?

I didn't post on the T thread because I read the OP and thought they were either sincere but bonkers or a troll and life is too short for that. If they've taken screenshot to twitter then I guess troll.

I've reported posts I've thought went too far in the past and I think I've only ever had two posts deleted since I started posting years ago so I'm not hoping for a free pass to fling insults. I just worry that now there's basically a blueprint to get discussion shut down here and it will be taken advantage of.

There do seem to be numerous posts today which are not in line with what was being posted prior to yesterday.

I fear attempts will now be made to get MN closed down in this way.

The ones I saw had nothing to do with the OP but were people repeatedly using slurs against transwomen

But nevertheless were likely the result of that OPs continued offensive posting. The comment about 'reaching out to infertile cis women' was a real low point. Women are enraged, quite naturally.

MsBeaujangles I think that's a good idea. Use this energy to work towards changes that we need as a sex group. It's a shame WEP are still towing the TRA line at least publicly as this would have been a good opportunity to work together.

And there's a new problem this morning, a poster has created an account with an inflammatory username, obviously in the hope of discrediting the site

I noticed that as well.

I would like to know @MNHQ whether the OP of the T thread is banned for coming onto MN, deliberately goading up a storm and taking screenshots of selected parts of the conversation to Twitter in order to further their own agenda of shutting down the debate

Looking at the perspective of the OP, she would say she came on here as a transwoman to try and explain the position as she saw it and then had lots of people explain to her how it was wrong. She then put it on her feed which has very few followers in an attempt to rally support - but I shouldn't imagine many people saw it on her feed.