Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

469 replies

MsJeminaPuddleduck · 09/11/2018 08:22

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (@RadFemLawyer)
09/11/2018, 08:16
Have just seen this. Argument is Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues. pic.twitter.com/WVkBMxZeqv

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
Knicknackpaddyflak · 09/11/2018 10:45

The aim would be to close FWR

Which truly would prove what LM innocently blurted out a couple of years back: that in certain circles the concept of women having rights is itself seen as transphobic and should be ended.

Yes, I'm all for that being explained to the general public and MPs. Crack on please. Get it right out in the open and let's be honest about what the aim of this game is.

LangCleg · 09/11/2018 10:41

The aim would be to close FWR. Which would be an own goal because then the topic would be spread all over the other sub-forums and therefore much more difficult to stalk, keep track of, or complain about.

But strategic thinking doesn't seem to be a strong suit here.

PineappleSunrise · 09/11/2018 10:39

If they did succeed in closing down MN with vexacious legal cases, they'd single handedly manage to peak all the S&B, Telly Addicts, Relationships and AIBU regulars who hid FWR years ago before all this started up. You literally couldn't buy publicity like that. Grin

Budgieinaberet · 09/11/2018 10:29

Trans briefs Grin

LangCleg · 09/11/2018 10:29

Grandiosity is as grandiosity does.

RedToothBrush · 09/11/2018 10:25

I'm guessing the true purpose of the 'case' is really about costing MN money in an effort to close the forum down through vexacious harassment via legal means.

In which case, if they do try and take on MN, I hope MN are wise enough to seek legal advise along those lines and have a counter case which includes their costs.

I am willing to bet the law could be used to MN's favour...

deepwatersolo · 09/11/2018 10:21

Sorry but I've been treated with nothing with respect since I started posting on the boards.

Yeah, Hamster, but you probably also don't feel like being literally anihilated out of existence if someone disagrees with you.
This is about people with a very unstable sense of self imo.

But, yes, if there is any sanity left in politics, this open demonstration of the problem should be a good thing.

RedToothBrush · 09/11/2018 10:19

Ok, so how does that work with talk about discussion of safeguarding frameworks and medical ethics? Are they completely off limits?

Honestly, was that crap written by someone with a law degree? Cos that university needs investigating if they do!

Bowlofbabelfish · 09/11/2018 10:15

Ahhh... the evil of freethinking women, eh?

Been reading from the malleus maleficarum have we?

MsBeaujangles · 09/11/2018 10:13

I can see why some people experience the board as transphobic - but that doesn't mean it is!

I think it is fair to say that this board tends to focus on:

  • posts that focus on preventing changes in the law that trans people see as being about improving their quality of life
  • posts about articles that highlight criminal and deviant behaviour of trans people and do not highlight positive stories about trans people
  • focusses on TRAs who behave in ways that are damaging to women and not on those who conduct their activism in an appropriate manner

If you switched 'trans' and 'women' in the above list that may give a flavour of what I mean. However, the interest/focus isn't on trans people here but is on women's rights and interests. The aim is to highlight and evidence problems for WOMEN.

There is no requirement for interest groups to be balanced and to promote the interests of all. In light of this, there is no requirement for positive trans stories to be discussed and promoted.

I do have sympathy and understanding for the many decent people who perceive hatred and threat on these boards as a result of the focus on the posts. However, I think their perceptions are skewed because they do not, or will not, understand that the focus is on natal women's needs and interests not on undermining the needs and interests of trans people.

However, from my perspective, posts on this board aim to combat the narrative that proposed changes in legislation are not threatening to women, there is no threat to women from trans people and that women are not being silenced. Posters seek out evidence of damage, violence and threat to evidence that there is a problem.

R0wantrees · 09/11/2018 10:02

It's funny (but not original) that some people think trying to close a forum amounts to stopping women talking and thinking and meeting. I imagine they'd explode with rage if they stopped to consider that women and men in RL express views all the time, have meetings with politicians, write to organisations etc.

Spectator: 'Mumsnet and the British media aren’t ‘transphobic’'
by Robert Jackman
(extract)

This is why many British newspapers have expressed concerns about the GRA reform: not because of any underlying bigotry but because it seeks to apply a fringe ideological conviction to an immensely complicated question.

Oddly, the Outline lays the blame for this supposed media bigotry at an unlikely door: Mumsnet. The article claims that some of Mumsnet’s 14 million users have developed an “obsession” with transgender issues. It’s true that transgender issues are frequently discussed on Mumsnet – but why assume this is down to bigotry, rather than the fact that many of these concerns (the housing of male sex offenders in women’s prisons, for example) resonate deeply with the women of Middle England?

The writer isn’t wrong that Mumsnet holds deep influence – just not necessarily with the media. When I spoke to someone who knows the consultation well, they mentioned the “Mumsnet effect” – the fact that the Government had received cautious responses from women all over the UK, representing all ages and backgrounds. The responses calling for the more ideological system, however, tended to be concentrated in smaller clusters, usually from London and university cities – places which typically vote Labour.

Ultimately it will be this kind of political pragmatism which will probably persuade ministers against uprooting the GRA system." (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mumsnet-and-the-british-media-arent-transphobic/

Noteworthy that LAWS (Let A Woman Speak) London meeting sold out within days:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3412631-Radfem-101-LetAWomanSpeak-is-coming-to-London-Friday-30-November

ShotsFired · 09/11/2018 09:55

Isn't this "Nick Griffin on QT" all over again?

Let the person with the, er, "unusual", views come forward and and say their piece. And then the rest of the world can then see then for what they are. Same for this "lawsuit". File it, go on. File your claims and let the whole world see through them for the transparent wastes of time they are.

Or perhaps just wind your necks in with your pathetic empty threats and bullying. That would save everyone a lot of time.

JessicaJonesJacket · 09/11/2018 09:48

Drat was it Jeffrey?! I can never remember the names of men who are threatened by women's agency.

mackerella · 09/11/2018 09:46

Dr. Adrian A. Harrop
@DrAdrianHarrop
We wonder - having reviewed Sections 26 and 29 of the Equality Act, 2010 - whether there would be grounds to take legal action against them?

Indeed, it certainly is an interesting & important question.

And of course, the outcome is far from certain.

Watch this space

Alex
@MUM*_Wandsworth
Might want to run that past an actual barrister or solicitor first.

Paul 🐝
@DaveDavidDave_
Bigot - ignore her Ade, someone who identifies as a lawyer will be fine - trans briefs are briefs!

JessicaJonesJacket · 09/11/2018 09:46

It's like Jeremy and the MRAs all over again except they're trying to use the law rather than hacking. Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.
It's funny (but not original) that some people think trying to close a forum amounts to stopping women talking and thinking and meeting. I imagine they'd explode with rage if they stopped to consider that women and men in RL express views all the time, have meetings with politicians, write to organisations etc.
They foolishly think if they try to control social media they control the population's opinion. Does anyone know who is funding their 'proposed' litigiousness?

PineappleSunrise · 09/11/2018 09:43

Given the endless threats towards MN for hosting women who talk about things, I feel it's an opportune time to review the old Harry Enfield classic:

Women: Know Your Limits!

LangCleg · 09/11/2018 09:42

Sorry but I've been treated with nothing with respect since I started posting on the boards.

Being a decent person with an ounce of self awareness does help, Hamster!

heresyandwitchcraft · 09/11/2018 09:41

Umm... I'm quite sure MNHQ has a real legal team who would already have carefully looked through this.

R0wantrees · 09/11/2018 09:34

April 2018 Times,
'Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts: Transgender activists try to curb free speech on site'
(extract)
“Transgender activists have contacted Mumsnet advertisers and said they will be organising a boycott of their products if they don’t remove their advertising from Mumsnet,” Roberts said.

The website had told the advertisers that it “works hard to keep the discussions civil” and was determined to let them continue.

“What’s worrying to me is the thought-police action around speech and the shutting down of the right to be able to disagree and immediately labelling it as transphobic,” Roberts said.

The threats are the latest move in a campaign by transgender activists to inhibit discussion of potential legal changes that would allow people born male to self-identify as women.

Feminists say the plans threaten women’s rights and protected spaces. Trans activists say that to oppose them is bigotry. They have pressurised dozens of venues into cancelling meetings on the subject.

One meeting that went ahead at the House of Commons led to a complaint to the parliamentary standards commissioner against David Davies, the MP who organised it." (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mumsnet-founder-justine-roberts-transgender-activists-try-to-curb-free-speech-on-site-z3sr3nf6q?shareToken=b2eb62822dd26aecc0f88653978ed23a

AIBU thread in response to Justine Roberts' statement:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3222471-AIBU-to-be-extremely-proud-of-Justine-Roberts-Mumsnet-right-now

Interview with Justine Roberts (& India Willoughby) by Julia Hartley Brewer that week:

R0wantrees · 09/11/2018 09:29

Glosswitch NewStatesman article May 2018:

'The demonisation of Mumsnet is just the latest incarnation of witch-hunting
Naturally, it frightens people to think of what a group of mothers might actually demand.'
(Extract)
"The deliberate withdrawal of women from men has almost always been seen as a potentially dangerous or hostile act, a conspiracy, a subversion, a needless and grotesque thing.” Thus wrote Adrienne Rich in 1976’s Of Woman Born, her seminal exploration of the politics of motherhood. From the workers gossiping in the spinning circle to old wives passing down knowledge of contraception and abortion, women gathered in isolation have long been considered untrustworthy. What might they be saying? What could they be plotting? And how, above all, might they be controlled?

It’s a problem that’s never gone away, though the context has changed. Anxiety over women’s speech – fuelling violent backlash in the form of witch trials and scold’s bridles – arose at a time when, to quote Marina Warner, “women dominated the webs of information and power; the neighbourhood, the village, the well, the washing place, the shops, the stalls, the street were their arena of influence, not only the household”.

One could say things are different in 2018. Changing work patterns and the greater separation of public and private space have led to a fragmentation of female-led domestic communities. As the protagonist of Elisa Albert’s 2015 novel After Birth puts it:

Two hundred years ago – hell, one hundred years ago – you’d have a child surrounded by other women: your mother, her mother, sisters, cousins, sisters-in-law, mother-in-law. […] They’d help you, keep you company, show you how. Then you’d do the same. […] Now maybe you make a living, maybe you get to know yourself on your own terms. […] And then: unceremoniously sliced in fucking half, handed a newborn, home to your little isolation tank, get on with it, and don’t you dare post too many pictures. You don’t want to be one of those.

She’s right. While the work of gestation, birth and mothering hasn’t gone anywhere, the gatherings that sustained it – and scared the hell out of men in the process – have disintegrated. Still, though. There’s always Mumsnet." (continues)
www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/05/demonisation-mumsnet-just-latest-incarnation-witch-hunting

Anlaf · 09/11/2018 09:28

Oh dear. IANAL but am itching to correct that- which perhaps is the point.

Women and MN spend ages arguing the wrongness of their wrong points.

Like trolling through legalese.

MNHQ should refer them to the response given to the claimant in Arkell vs. Pressdram 1971

Hamster00 · 09/11/2018 09:28

Wait, what?!?

Sorry but I've been treated with nothing with respect since I started posting on the boards.

I've never been "ridiculed", "dehumanised", "abused" or "defamed".

Neither to I find this board "intimidating", "hostile", "degrading" or "offensive" towards me.

...and if someone calls me "he", oh boo hoo. I've got more important worries in my life than the fear of "literal violence" at being misgendered. Uugh.

See it's shit like this that tars transsexuals like me with the same brush as these idiots people. (Better not use "idiots", cos I'd be dehumanising, harrassing and abusing them).

I agree with Lang, it's free advertising, and something for us all to have a little bit of a laugh over.

Word for today: "Desperation"

R0wantrees · 09/11/2018 09:25

"One cannot ignore the differentiation between those who cover what little there is left of their own hair with horsehair and those who do not.

It starts with the words, 'My friend' and 'My learned friend,' the former referring of course to a solicitor-advocate and the latter to a member of the bar."

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/understand-the-judge-and-skip-a-wigging/41037.article

MsJeminaPuddleduck · 09/11/2018 09:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.