Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

835 replies

womanformallyknownaswoman · 07/04/2018 17:37

I am concerned to see the message below from MNHQ at the end of the T thread. Regarding posts that I consider "goady", I have a personal policy of not feeding them, not engaging and not rising to the bait. I ignore them. OPs looking for conflict as a way to feed themselves won't get it from me. Firstly, it's exhausting-they are not interested in dialogue, despite what they say, and secondly the best way to deal with them, imo, is to starve them of attention and not rise to the bait. Don't give them what they want i.e. a fight and conflict.

My concern is I predict there will be a lot more new threads and OPs looking for a fight, as the public becomes more aware of the issues and the tide starts to turn against TRAs. They will want to try and get this Place closed down for discussion, and none of us want that to happen.

Personally I have found it empowering to learn how not to engage and to turn it back on them if absolutely necessary, by the use of ridicule and short rebuttals of their nonsense. I am happy to share some techniques if it will help plus learn more from others. There's no point in trying to score points and win all the arguments they make as it's the engagement down their rabbit holes they want - they literally feed off conflict. They're anti-social remember, so any attention is better than none. They want to keep you coming back and arguing, so they can derail, prolong, provoke and generally make life difficult for MNHQ - to force them to take action. The negative attention "turns on" those looking for a fight….so please don't feed them, ignore them and lets keep this place open.

Message for MN:

Hi all

Since this thread is getting near its end, this seems like a good moment to make a really serious point.

We've just made some more deletions on this thread, and we're pretty exasperated tbh - we feel we're running out of ways to say 'please stick within the TGs or risk losing MN as a place to discuss this issue.'

We're really proud of our commitment to free speech, and we put a huge amount of time and resources to enabling this debate to take place - as many of you have pointed out, it's one of the few places left.

To those who haven't yet been able to stop and look at things from our end of the barrel - please understand that you're risking this space for everyone; if you really can't debate civilly with those you disagree with, it might be time to consider that MN is no longer the place for you. We're sorry to have to say this - we don't like it one bit - but tbh nothing else seems to have got through so far: we're at a point of last resort.

Thanks to all those who modify their first instincts and manage to make their points in a calm, considered and civilised manner - even in the face of goadiness. We appreciate it (and so would Michelle.)

Thanks all

MNHQ

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
thebewilderness · 12/04/2018 01:37

It just suddenly occurred to me that AGP men think we wear pants and fought for the right to wear pants because we are all getting an erotic stimulation form wearing them.

CharlieParley · 12/04/2018 01:29

Yes AAP exists, but a) it's estimated that for 7 to 9 men with AGP there's only one woman with AAP and b) AAPs seem to report a much lower incidence of the sexual arousal connection (a small minority of AGPs report none either).

Maybe AGPs are just so much more visible and pushy because AAP were socialised female and therefore stay more hidden?

thebewilderness · 12/04/2018 01:23

If transgender identified males have AGP then women have to have AGP because it is the symbolic fetishes, silks, satin, big hair, slinky undergarments, that they identify with.

Italiangreyhound · 12/04/2018 01:17

Sorry.
're try... I think the idea women have AGP is a ruse because they have not succeeded in convincing us that AGP does not exist.

Italiangreyhound · 12/04/2018 01:15

I do think Autoandrophilia is a thing, but much rarer than AGP. Women cannot be excited by the idea of themselves as women. We may be women and excited but it's not AGP.

I think the idea women have AGP is a rise because they have succeeded in convincing is AHP does not exist.

AnotherQuoll · 11/04/2018 20:19

Autoandrophilia? I didn't think so until recently. But reading, and watching videos, particularly from one very prominent "trans guy" activist has convinced me that autoandrophilia is indeed a 'thing' with some TIFs.

Beyond11cisRetinol · 11/04/2018 19:12

If AGP is purely based on feeling sexual, then yes surely more than 30% of women have it? But do transmen have autoandrophilia? Or natal men? Confused
Why is it only a "thing" either for just some transwomen (cough fetish cough) or for transwomen-but-with-the-"women-do-it-too" clause?

Juells · 11/04/2018 19:11

They are really pushing this 'most women have AGP' thing.

How can women have AGP? I feel like wailing sometimes...

thebewilderness · 11/04/2018 19:07

Radical Feminism posits that the root of the oppression of women is biological. Our capacity to produce human resources. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that for over 500 years what passed for the medical profession taught that women were simply the sub human animal, or soil, men planted their human seeds in to grow little mini men. 1200 years later we are still arguing that we are autonomous human beings.

If 30% of women were AGP it would explain the sudden surge in girls calling themselves asexual. I thought it was to avoid performing sexual services on the lunch break for pornsick male classmates.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 11/04/2018 18:47

If female AGP is basically ' sometimes being sexually excited while also being a woman' I'm surprised it's only 30%

Juzza12 · 11/04/2018 18:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ereshkigal · 11/04/2018 18:23

It's bogglingly foolish.

NotTerfNorCis · 11/04/2018 18:20

They are really pushing this 'most women have AGP' thing. Do they think most men have APP?

Original poster
womanformallyknownaswoman · 11/04/2018 16:45

I think we have all done a great job of staying reasoned and calm in the face of much covert provocation on this thread. We had some great practice with sea lions. As long as we all keep our anger in check, we win, because though normal for the unrelenting provocation here and outside, it gives fuel to the faux-victims. So as long as there's enough of us, like geese flying in formation, if we take it in turns to take the lead into the headwind, we'll all get there in the end. When tired, we let go of the lead and go to the back to stay in the slip -stream of those in front and coast for a little well earned rest.

OP posts:
ZERF · 11/04/2018 16:14

I refuse to be reduced to traditional gender roles - pink brain/blue brain rubbish. That's what trans-ideology is reinforcing.

I wish I'd thought if that line in that twitter conversation!

It's also the "don't define women by their biology" - it's almost impossible not to do this. Until kids it was only my biology that differentiated me from males (periods, less strength and therefore more vulnerable to being attacked/ raped), afterwards it was hugely different; economically, physical damage of child birth, making to choice to breastfeed brought certain changes to lifestyle that my husband didn't need to do etc. Not even getting started on gender stereotypes in society.

I cannot fathom how a feminist cannot see that it's due to our biology that women get a shit deal.

There's a very difficult to read article about the history of women's oppression, but it makes the point that until farming, society was matriarchal (for a loooooong time). After farming, women were needed to create the children to work the farms and do the wife work. (Simplified)

ZERF · 11/04/2018 16:06

Going back to the original post that opened this thread - it is nice to be able to discuss without name calling and hostility. And I'm sure that can be the experience for the person with the opposing view.

Which is why we need this thread l.

AnitaLovesVictor · 11/04/2018 16:05

Sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy with this. We do not 'reduce' ourselves to our biology, we are oppressed because of it.

I refuse to be reduced to traditional gender roles - pink brain/blue brain rubbish. That's what trans-ideology is reinforcing.

ZERF · 11/04/2018 16:04

That was my revelation tea.

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 11/04/2018 16:03

I dont want to mention names...cos i cant remember it

But there was someone arguing yesterday that i agreed with most of the time and they seemed so lovely and agreed with other posters it was really nice to read

They had some stuff they were not going to budge on but seemed open to new thoughts

I say seem because it might just have been a massive trick Grin

I shoudve said something on the thread

Teacuphiccup · 11/04/2018 16:01

I don’t have children, but I work with pregnant women and women with new babies and the change that that makes to someone’s world view is inescapable. I’ve had lots of conversations with women where they say they feel they’ve basically been lied to their whole life’s and their bodies were only loaned to them until they’d had children.
The amount of talented, clever, amazing women being talked over and made to feel like they don’t know what’s best for themselves is shocking.

ZERF · 11/04/2018 15:58

But it’s not reducing women to biology to say that what makes a woman a woman is biological.

That's what I tried to point out using personal examples but she couldn't see my POV and swung it back to feminists attacking trans people.

ZERF · 11/04/2018 15:57

Oh dear. Chanel TGLWGH and apologise?

We ended up disagreeing and wishing each other well.

I did find it interesting that she doesn't have children. This is a controversial POV and I don't wish to upset anyone but I did wonder if that changed her experience. I must say I was very different as a younger, childless and single, professional woman.

Teacuphiccup · 11/04/2018 15:56

But it’s not reducing women to biology to say that what makes a woman a woman is biological.

I mean what do they think it is? Wearing a fucking dress?

Juells · 11/04/2018 15:50

I'm ashamed to say I told her to fuck off. Now I feel bad.

Juells · 11/04/2018 15:50

I'd love to meet all these feminists who think the word woman is meaningless. Wonder where they hang out?