The Angels Forum

The point of the exercise isn't to be right, it's to protect the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. And that means bringing as many people with us as we can.

There are TS people on here who do not manipulate and use our female socialisation against us. I welcome their voices.

There are also people on here - hello Crisp! hello Rat! hello Supermatch! - with whom I fundamentally disagree. We have robust exchanges of views and we are sometimes snarky and rude in that robustness. Nobody flounces off crying meanie meanie to try to stifle that disagreement.

These are both great things for a wide range of viewpoints leading to healthy debate.

That is not what has happened here. I object to being used for narcissistic supply and am certain it is not a dynamic that leads to healthy debate. I assert the importance of women naming this dynamic when we see it.

I know this conversation makes a lot of women uncomfortable but I think it's an important conversation to have.

This conversation isn't about you, spontaneous, it's bigger than that. I'm not sure how to explain that any more clearly.

Earlier, sapphireflower said...

I was wondering what you thought about compassion and empathy being something that could move things forward?

And before that, summed up the Spartacus thread as "separate by biological sex because all men are threats", in a mocking way that clearly implies that women's feeling that men are a threat to us is ridiculous extremism.

So, sapphire, how compassionate and empathic do you think that comment that you made was? Is it your belief that comments like that, which frame women's concerns that way, reflect your stated commitment to "hearing what people have to say and being listened to and valuing what they say"?

And on this thread Sweary turned up and explained what was going on and changed people's minds.

Others don't have to agree with to those who notice and point it out, but sometimes the disapproval of our doing so has been palpable.

That's because socialisation is so heavily ingrained.

It literally feels wrong and mean. Even examining and analysing your own motives sometimes doesn't help.

It's only when you see the same process repeated, that it starts to make sense.

And, of course, the other huge reveal is when you don't do it, and the person who's been expecting it goes off alarming.

That does tend to make the socialisation goggles fall off instantly.

AngryAttackKittens When I read JC's posts I took them as her explaining her life as a very early transitioner. I took the me, me, me tone in her posts as explaining all of this. I suppose I thought that she couldn't put across what it was like to be an early trans person without being a bit me, me. Was I wrong? Possibly - probably with hindsight. There again hindsight is a wonderful thing and I would have sailed through life if I had had it.

I have now realised what JC was all about but continuing to make me feel bad isn't helping as I feel guilty enough as it is even though I didn't realise JC had been horrible.

What about when every conversation they participate in ends up centering them? What about when that's in large part because of the ways they're using women's socialization against us?

This isn't about calling out any individual commenter for not realizing that JayCee had form for acting very unpleasantly towards some women here. It's about the pattern, and the fact that it keeps happening. It doesn't happen with say TruScum or Pigeon because they don't expect to be centered in that way.

What I'm getting at is that with the trans people who come in and make themselves the center of the conversation, thus derailing discussion about impacts on women and girls, it's not an accident that those conversations go that way. Others don't have to agree with to those who notice and point it out, but sometimes the disapproval of our doing so has been palpable.

Nextloorejext

Yep, and one of the things I love about the whole of mumsnet is the way men's posts tend to be cordially ignored unless they've said something bloody stupid.

But if you're talking about transsexuals and a transsexual turns up to talk, it's right to give them some attention. Not centre them certainly. But take what they say into account. It's fine to discount it if it's BS, but that shouldn't be automatic.

I stuck up for JC because I had no idea she had done what she did to Sweary. I stuck up for her because I saw her being bullied on Angels and it was horrible. I made a mistake. I spoke to Sweary in private last night and apologised to her personally. I owed her that once I saw what had happened.

Can we please stop the blame game? I feel guilty enough over something I just didn't see, I can't help that. Yes, I was warned but I didn't see the attack on Sweary, so had no idea JC had been behind anything nasty. I acted on what I saw and Sweary herself accepted that. Thank you Sweary for understanding we are fallible human beings, but we can learn through making mistakes.

How can we protect women and girls if we repeat the pattern where the moment a male enters the room everything re-centers around him and his needs/feelings?

a bunch of other women come in and tut at you for having the temerity to point out what is very obviously happening

I get this. But I spent a long time on the thread I started in chat when we got muted defending this board, saying we're not interested in being an echo chamber. If you've got valid points to make come and make them. So if I see signs that we want to chase away people with conflicting opinions that worries the hell out of me.

The point of the exercise isn't to be right, it's to protect the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. And that means bringing as many people with us as we can.

But I also know that I'm still feeling my way here.

Yup

What's funny is that so many people don't seem to realize that that socialized tendency to soothe ruffled male feathers, punish the woman who ruffled them, and restore harmony by preventing any further ruffling is a huge part of how TRAs were able to create the situation we're dealing with now.

I like being told that someone is derailing

I have usually spotted it but thought i was just being mean so its nice to get validation

I certainly wouldnt tell another poster off for giving the thread readers a bit of a heads up

Or at least i hope I haven't

Yep Angry - being admonished for being mean when you point out the derail is infuriating

And then to add insult to injury a bunch of other women come in and tut at you for having the temerity to point out what is very obviously happening, and reassure the derailer that of course they're valued and important and we all want to hear more.

I have seen few TIM, either here or on trans websites who don't want to redefine women to include themselves. It just seems to become a question of which TIM should be classed as women, rather than keeping women as a distinct class separate from all men.

I completely agree with this. The only reason I would accept a stringently gate kept GRC is because of numbers. Making them negligible will reduce the problem.

Transsexuals are no more women than transvestites. They may not be the same as each other, but neither are women.

And frankly, the compulsion and profound determination behind a transvestite/AGP to be accepted as a woman, frequently demonstrates a commitment just as strong as that of a transsexual.

It may not be the right kind of commitment, but it's commitment nonetheless. Because it can be every bit as much of a compulsion.

But a a man's commitment, determination, or compulsion to be a woman, has nothing to do with women.

Oh goodness yes, Lang the derailing is so obvious and manipulative. I fell for them a few times before having a lightbulb moment of how is that relevant here and seeing how it derailed the lot.

Seeing someone talk about their tragic translife and how many people have been mean to them when we’re talking about how many men refuse to see what a threat men are to women is just so blatant.

My beef is the dynamic in which interesting and productive discussions focusing on women and girls here are interrupted by lengthy autobiographical posts designed to manipulate female socialisation and the focus, on thread after thread, is successfully diverted away from women and girls. I find this doubly annoying when it is discussed by the derailers elsewhere.

Some posts seem to promote the idea that the more authentic transperson knows from an early age, has medical intervention early and has surgery. I think that's wrong, I think healthy people should only have surgery and hormones as a last resort, not as a way to become the opposite sex. Some post come dangerously close to encouraging children and very young adult into transition.

And this topic would make anyone feel like a lie down - it's such a major backlash on feminism and women's rights, women and girls safety, I can't think straight.

Posie's speech at Bristol keeps making me think so much. "Does my 11yr old daughter have the right to go into a changing room and not see an adult penis?" It's so ludicrous that this even has to be posed as a question...

Sorry for derail. I've had a read of the ANgels forum - there's a fair bit of Terf Terf Terf rhetoric there, but definitely some reasonable posts too. I don't think it's an unreasonable stretch to realise that we're talking about women & girls - rather than hating all trans people. We don't - I feel fairly protective of trans people actually, I don't with them any harm. But they are being harmed by the insistence of TRAs that anyone who says they are a woman, is a woman, and should automatically be accepted as such. Because that is nonsense - an abuse of our language, an abuse of women.

Ian Huntley transitioning to "Lian' or "Nicola" (or whatever name it is this week) and experimenting with makeup in prison should be ample evidence of this.

"Segregate people by biological sex because men are threats!"

A proportion of men are a threat. That is why we have some sex segregated spaces.

Why did you think we have them? Do you disagree with having them?

We don’t have many - ours is generally a law abiding society. We aren’t saudi arabia. The spaces we have are legislated for to protect the safety of women and girls.

Since that proportion of men remain a threat, we still need the segregated spaces.

The ‘both sides are as bad as each other’ tripe simply isn’t true. There are no masked feminists blocking corridors at meetings of trans groups. There are no 60 year old feminists punching TRA activists. There are no feminists writing you tube ditties about smashing TRA teeth in with bricks.

There are plenty of feminists putting their opinions forward on boards such as this and in real life (go sweary!) all in a non violent manner.

The ‘awful on both sides’ thing tries to create equivalence where there is none.

I'm getting really tired of the dynamic where a new trans poster turns up, declares their intent to engage in constructive dialogue, and then, like sapphire just did on this thread, dismissively handwaves away women's need for sex segregated spaces. Which then leads into this.

I have seen few TIM, either here or on trans websites who don't want to redefine women to include themselves. It just seems to become a question of which TIM should be classed as women, rather than keeping women as a distinct class separate from all men.

There are definitely exceptions, but they're the minority. I'm not sure that constructive dialogue is possible with someone who can read dozens of posts from women explaining exactly why we want sex segregated spaces and airily dismiss them as silly, hysterical, extremist, etc. And I can't help noting the irony in terms of identifying as a woman but not with women.