Q&A thread for New Posters

I finally understand what sea-lioning is from this definition. The cartoon, which I've seen before as an explanation, doesn't make sense to me at all, and seems to be about something completely different

Agreed. The definition makes sense- the cartoon makes no sense in explaining that definition. If anything the cartoon is more a visual representation of no- platforming- there is an unreasonable blanking of a reasonable question.

What’s the distinction, 12frogs? And what makes you say that?

Oh yeah. Thanks for clarifying that.

You're still here then? Not reporting us to the prevent strategy? Or finding something else to do with your time that doesn't equate to being a monitor of what women are allowed to do.

Gender and gender identity are not.

A person has the p.c. of Gender Reassignment if they are undergoing, proposing to undergo, or have undergone a process of gender reassignment. This means that they cannot be treated less favourably than someone who shares the same biological sex as them. What the p.c. of gender reassignment does NOT do, is give that individual free access to the single sex spaces of their target gender (sex).

If a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) there are some concessions, but an individual can have the p.c. of gender reassignment without having a GRC.

[quote Mrsmorton]@12frogsincoats for someone who thinks feminists are the hitler youth, you sure do spend a lot of time hanging out with us. Maybe you need a new hobby?[/quote]
I never said you WERE the Hitler Youth. Just very Hitler Youthy.

To find out more about what's being taught in schools you could look at transgender trend and safe schools alliance.

I suggested substituting "radical feminists" for sea lion and then thought it wasn't a good example as people choose to be radical feminists or men's rights activists. People don't choose to be black and sea lions don't choose to be sea lions.

All that cartoon does is validate the member of one group's right to hate all members of a group with different characteristics for no reason other than the different characteristics.

If you (general you) think that cartoon is a ringing endorsement of your position you might want to think again.

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley you won't get a flaming? Gender isn't a protected characteristic so as
Long as you don't try to defend the truth twisters who say it is...

I've not seen any genuine poster flamed on FWR, ever.

I have heard bad things about what is being taught in schools about gender. I saw a jelly baby chart. Teenagers have always been dreadful for sharing inaccurate sexual information and schools have attempted to counter that with SRE.

Where can I find out more about what is being taught?

People get uppity on here if you say that gender is protected under the Equality Act. What's that all about? How do I avoid a flaming?

Oh, and about cis:

We on this board are Homo Sapiens, human beings. (I assume; on the internet nobody knows you are a dog, and so on, but for the purposes of the argument...)

If some members of the species Gorilla Berengei decided for their own reasons that they were now Trans Homo Sapiens, and that we were in future to be called Cis Homo Sapiens, I feel that we might possibly say "no, sorry, we have been Homo Sapiens since well before you existed as a subspecies of a different genus, and if you want to rename something, maybe rename yourselves?"

Correct sex pronouns are permitted if the male in question is deemed to be a very bad man. This is fairly arbitrary, and if you want to be as certain as possible (no one, sadly, can be 100% certain) most of us will use neutral 'they' or the individual's name. It can be clunky and hard to read/write/understand, and makes communication very challenging, but it is apparently the brilliant new inclusive way.

I correctly sex for the most part elsewhere. I will, however, always use someone's preferred name, because I do consider that a common courtesy.

One of the big ones is “there is no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights”.

There absolutely is, and most reasonable people understand that rights frequently conflict, and the only way to resolve that is by discussing how the two sets of rights can be balanced for fairness. My right to build a massive extension conflicts with my neighbours right to light in her kitchen. If I insist that there’s no conflict, I’m saying her rights don’t exist.

If you’re saying there’s no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, you’re saying women’s rights don’t exist. Clearly, there is a conflict and clearly, we need to discuss how to balance that.

Historically, you would have what has been coined an HSTS (homosexual transsexual). An effeminate gay man who was railing against homophobia. To the extent that he would reject his anatomy and everything to do with being male. This is what most people think of when they hear the word transsexual, a man trying to just get on with it under the radar.

The other type is an autogynephile (AGP). A heterosexual man man who is sexually aroused by thinking of himself as a woman. Akin to transvestism and cross dressing. (See transwidows).

So the first type actively reject masculinity, but the second, actively embrace femininity.

It's the difference between I don't want to be thought of as male, how do I go about that? And I must be thought of as female, how do I go about that?

Two distinct motivations.

Stonewall expanded the umbrella of what it meant to be transgender, when they officially included cross dressers and transvestites.

It would appear that a lot of this stems from that.

You will notice that there is a distinct push to deny that AGP even exists. But since it's plastered from one end of the Internet to the other, that doesn't really wash.

I have seen posts deleted for misgendering and dead-naming. I have also seen posts calling Jessica Yaniv Jonathan Yaniv and calling her a him.

Is it OK to misgender and dead-name? How do I ensure that my posts stay up?

There are reasons apart from just Ian Huntley for people who want to work with or supervise children to have to have a DBS check before they are allowed to do so.

If there is no legal reason to prevent a predatory male from uttering the magic words "I identify as a woman" and thus gaining unfettered access to all women's safe spaces, what is to prevent him from doing so? He wouldn't even have to change the way he is dressed, far less do anything more personally inconvenient like shave off his beard, take drugs or have surgery; and he could revert to identifying as a male the following day, or an hour later, at no cost or inconvenience to himself.

Well, for a start, I do not need a qualifying definition according to how some else defines themselves.

But this definition of cis is not the one used in most trans terms glossaries. In those, we are told cis means that you 'identify with the gender you were assigned at birth'.

I am a feminist. I was a tomboy as a child, I became embroiled in conservative Christianity and was forced into a straitjacket of feminine gender - in clothes, in role, in behaviour. It was a cultural and religious fiction and it took me a lot of work to break free.

I do not have a 'gender identity' as a specific part of myself. My sex is female, and via that I find solidarity with other female humans and the issues we face. Some of us conform more to society's expectations, and some less. To say that I am 'cis' because I know that I am a woman is saying that the only permissible way to challenge the straitjacket of the gender system is to deny I am a woman. It also assumes there is a correct way to be a woman, which is performative nonsense.

Why is cis a banned term? Why do people get so cross when it is used on here?
Because 'cis' requires women to be put into a gender-conforming box or not really count as a woman at all (trans/nb).
This is a feminist board and most feminists have problem with the idea that being a woman is about how much we conform with gender stereotypes.

Mildly it couldn't be more wrong

Therefore there are women and transwomen. There is no need for the label cis. Its use also assumes that everyone has a gender identity, which many don't.

Twitter tells me Mumsnet opinions are those of straight white middle-class English women, right wing, Christian (evangelical). It is full of "Karens".

I'm a left of centre bisexual atheist. I am white and middle class but am not English. I am not called Karen.

Do you think the Twitter characterisation of Mumsnet FWR posters is valid?

Regarding the use of 'cis':

notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/objections-to-cis/?fbclid=IwAR0Nz5kSFVhauvDJZgaVfsGaY2xz9YkpENKO2xuXOogo4NUhK0TTVfp562w

2 reasons. Cis implies that there are two types of women - cis women and trans women. There are not, women are adult human females

Secondly definition of cis women’s is a woman whose gender identity matches their sex implying that cis women identify with the oppression that goes with being a woman.

I am an advocate of patience, and you are brilliant at it. I'm always impressed with your detailed and irrefutable posts.