Well, that's us told

Is Katie an American person? She seems to think British mothers are unsupported.

My mate lives in America, she had to save up her (ten days) annual leave when she had a baby, and her baby entered full time daycare aged three months. Her ordinary birth cost thousands of dollars because of 'copays' whatever the fuck they are.

They don't have maternity leave and they charge forty grand for straightforward childbirth so with respect, I don't think British women are doing too badly by comparison.

Well, maybe if she could come and present some cogent arguments (as opposed to circular definitions and repetitive mantras), there would be less 'radicalisation' going on.

Yep 100%. The author writes a long-ish article worrying about "radicalisation" but never tries to address the key issue of whether identifying as a gender really means someone should be treated as equivalent in nearly all scenarios.

The author seemed to think that some of the concerns had legitimacy (what exactly?), but was dismissive about the risk of violence in female prisons. They really don't think anyone is going to get raped if they let males self ID into female prisons? There is no risk to that!?

Have you seen their "about" section?

‘On the weekends, I’d read headlines in both the liberal Guardian and the conservative Daily Mail questioning whether trans women have the right to identify as women.’

Really? The Guardian raised these questions? In actual headline news?

I read it all. It doesn't reflect who I am or how I came to mumsnet or why. The points she makes about what sort of person I am are all wrong. I don't accept I'm terf or a hater or a bully or a right wing judgementalist or a left wing...whatever. I don't have a problem with people living happy lives. I'm just an average, greying, funny, indignant, exasperated nearly-pensioner, somebody's wife, somebody's mum, ex-employee, reader, gardener, sketcher, hiker who remembers the feminism of the 1970s and worries that all that will be for nothing if I can't do something. Lurking on mumsnet is about as rock and roll as I get nowadays. But I feel like I'm listening & learning & collaborating with like minded women in my own very small way. If you multiply all of us normal 'not-terfs' on mumsnet we're probably not a minority of middle aged, middle class women. She definitely got that bit wrong. Now for a cup of tea (builders, not earl grey) while I pot-on my chilli plants.

The thing I always get a bit stuck with is this sort of thing.

'TERFs believe that women are defined by their biological differences from men. They want liberation from gender stereotypes, but don’t think it’s possible to be freed from biological sex, and argue the latter goal is not just naive but hurts efforts to combat sexual violence and discrimination.'

It's just put there as if everyone knows that women are defined by something other than biological difference from men. The second part, there's no argument given as to why it's not true.

Then the author goes on to say

'It seemed to me that was exactly what was happening on Mumsnet: some of these newly “gender critical” Mumsnetters were relatively privileged women who had never felt marginalized until they gave birth and came to feel isolated in their nuclear households and (rightfully!) outraged at the lack of support for mothers in the U.K.'

Which agrees that there is at least one thing that happens to women that is not good and is due to their biology.

So that's confusing. I suppose the privilege stuff is to try and frame it as these women have it better than everyone else and so when they have a baby what they see as problems is actually just them being moved to where everyone else is? Not sure.

Most people tend to stick to 'bathrooms' and don't want to discuss prisons so that's really honest of her. Although obviously women have been assaulted in prisons and the stats around the applications for transfer to women's estate and what cohort they come from are available so either she's not aware, has ignored them

I think it's almost worse that she may be aware of those issues and doesn't investigate further. Suggesting that all is fine in Argentina and Ireland when we know there are serious concerns about mtf prisoners being incarcerated in both countries. It highlights how poor the journalism is.

"If Mumsnet’s women’s rights forum is popular because it responds to the experience of being stuck at home without support or community"

I wish! Aside from 2 maternity leaves I’ve worked full-time since I graduated. Some of us have jobs that have meant leaving the house to go to work throughout the pandemic too! 😱 What a muppet! Sounds like projection to me. 😄

Um. So the silly mummies have gone a bit potty in lockdown, have we?

Well, I guess that's a slightly original take...

I quite enjoyed it! It was one of the better things I've seen.

At least there was a acknowledgment that not all those who have concerns are evil, and there was an attempt to think about why non evil people (women) would have concerns.

The noting that women often first experience real issues in society when they have children is true, I've seen lots of women say that over the years. Although framing it as a loss of power/ privilege is very peculiar. I suppose that is to tie in with the idea that all women on MN are white mc etc etc.

I mean it's all wrong but at least she tried!

And also she was honest about this-

'At first, I was surprised to find in these threads the same paranoid and repeatedly debunked fears about trans women assaulting cis women in bathrooms and prisons that I associated primarily with right-wing U.S. senators'.

Most people tend to stick to 'bathrooms' and don't want to discuss prisons so that's really honest of her. Although obviously women have been assaulted in prisons and the stats around the applications for transfer to women's estate and what cohort they come from are available so either she's not aware, has ignored them, or it's just a matter of belief that no harm can come and so therefore it can't have done. Iyswim.

Optimistically if anyone else actually reads the article they will come over here and start reading, and will see for themselves all the blatant.... common sense and articulate and logical and legally sound things that many of the brilliant posters here actually say.

But then, that is me hoping that people do read it and apply any critical thinking!!

The answer, she tells us, can be found in ContraPoints' ridiculous youtube video.

You do surprise me

It's another tick box exercise. Can't any of these 'journalists' come up with something original? They all just end up rehashing anti GC Twitter threads:

Silly mums
Prams, baby bottles, canine conundrums
White middle class feminism
Fox News
Self ID is fine because Argentina and Ireland
Wilful ignorance of the paucity of achievements of US feminism
Paranoia
Removing the word woman from everything is FINE, because who cares
Mixed sex spaces are lovely
Motherhood schmotherhood
Victim complex
Women who had kids are a bit dim and their understanding of politics is limited

Couldn't be arsed to read beyond that point although did skim read this Pearl:

"If Mumsnet’s women’s rights forum is popular because it responds to the experience of being stuck at home without support or community"

Does the author think her generation of women will be the first to have children and jobs? Where does this disconnect come from. What I mostly see when I come on this board are women making cogent and evidenced arguments battling superficial and repetitive nonsense like this.

I didn't realise FWR had such sway with the media. Anyone told the Guardian yet? Or the BBC? Independent, anyone?

I think this article will backfire on the author/ journo. MNers stance makes sense. That's if anyone actually reads it.

I applaud anyone who got to the end of that drivel.

Read like someone who wants to be s journo when they graduate. Very long so sorry gave up. Made the very basic mistake of thinking "all of mumsnet is this, or that." It makes me laugh when we are deemed a hive mind who all think the same. Really lazy. Not exactly a clever evisceration of FWR. Some clumsy insults at wider MN made me smile. I did like the bit where she claims we are embittered by being mums and losing the privilege we previously got from our class or being well educated.

Precisely the sort of people who shouldn't have a view on anything, yuck, I'm nothing like THEM. Burn them! Something, something, imagine not believing that men can be women! Tut.

Also there's already a magazine called Lux: it's a "luxury lifestyle" magazine.

Oh my god, we've been outed.

Research shows that nearly all Mumsnetters are women. More specifically, they are believed to be mostly white, middle-class, heterosexual women

The horror! The horror!

It puts me in mind of the thread "Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba" and how the journalist discussed there took to twitter and the comments below his article to scold women for not understanding things as well as he did.

Is this what the new generation of journalists is going to be like? To be less keen on the facts and focused on telling the readership how disappointed they've made the journalist?

Thanks for the archive link, I don't like funding hate . Katie seems horrified by the very idea of women being actual human beings with our own interests as opposed to background support units. I'm sure she'll get plenty of head pats and the boys will be nice to her now she's denounced those awful women who want rights and stuff. Or perhaps not. Oh well, I'll be here when she needs us.

You know what else is ironic, WaitWhat? If she’d done her homework, she’d know that bizarrely the Skeptic movement are largely male and mostly are very much in favour of saying men are women. They certainly aren’t radicalising us wimms!