Deleted/censorship on mumsnet now!

The trans widows thread is not a debate Imasoulman. It's interesting that you think it is. It's also interesting to know that you follow it.

Complety missing my point though, I am hoping things can change in respect of women's rights not Trans rights.

I wish people would understand not all Trans people are in favour of what's happening, why do we all have to be the enemy.

I'm not telling anybody what to think, I'm simply sharing my thoughts within a debate.

I don't think I have ever belittled anybody ! Unless expressing a different view to yours is considered belittling !

Saying that you are bowing out of a debate and then linking said debate into another where you can continue with only like minded people re enforcing your argument says a lot about you though.

I don't seek to minimise your or anyone else's experience I simply say that not every journey will follow the same path.

There is a consensus. No men in women's spaces. That's it. Born male? Then go to the male place. Or campaign for separate provision. I don't really care. I don't even want to help you with that anymore as I care so little. The only thing I know is that trans 'rights' is not our problem.

I believe if would be useful all round to return to a point where there is a very clear distinction between a person who in simpler times would have been a "transsexual" and the rest of the people under the trans umbrella.

You seem to be doing your best to tell us what to think. It's increasingly apparent why you were keen to belittle Trans Widows Voices on a different thread.

Oh there very much is a consensus. No men in women’s spaces.

Perhaps I didn't word that very well, it hasn't come across as I meant.

I was trying to suggest that legislation should be changed to take cross dressers, self id'ers and the like out of the equation as far as safe spaces go.

I believe if would be useful all round to return to a point where there is a very clear distinction between a person who in simpler times would have been a "transsexual" and the rest of the people under the trans umbrella.

I feel exactly the same - I’m not interested in being part of any ‘we’ that I myself haven’t initiated.

Leave me well alone!

The article on forced teaming was particularly interesting for me as I have autism. I don't feel a need to 'belong', be accepted or to feel part of a community and immediately feel suspicious of people who use 'us' when I clearly don't feel any affiliation with them.

I appreciate you feel that way, as do many autistic individuals I know. However, I have also seen others refer to the autistic community as a means to bully other autistic people - "The autistic community believes that... ergo you are wrong".

The article on forced teaming was particularly interesting for me as I have autism. I don't feel a need to 'belong', be accepted or to feel part of a community and immediately feel suspicious of people who use 'us' when I clearly don't feel any affiliation with them.

This came up yesterday - either on this thread or another on the Feminism board - and made me very uncomfortable about the poster (about whom I had already had reservations).

Why, who were you thinking of?😆 This is the point isn’t it? People talk a load of bobbins openly in public but we have to tiptoe around here wondering if we are allowed to talk about the bobbins or not.

That deletion was ridiculous, maybe the monitors were all having a quiet night in last night.

That wasn't who I thought it was

Of course, many thanks.

Elliot Page on Oprah.

Or do an interview with the most famous talk show interviewer in history

Who is that?

I agree, Aparallaxia and I am sorry that your perfectly reasonable thread was deleted.

Yes there are number of people who can publicly say things but we can’t publicly rebut what they say. Even if, for example, they’re attempting to become a Member of Parliament. Or do an interview with the most famous talk show interviewer in history .

MN deleted a thread I started about a TRA who was asked to sign a GC petition and had a fit of the vapors as a result. This wasn't 'in the spirit' either. I don't know what this means. Maybe 'in the spirit of being nice to people'? even people who hate us.

But look, MN, I didn't run across her in the street and decide to mock her because she was upset: she had a very public melt-down on Twitter, telling us she was sitting on the bus or tube weeping. She made it public herself. Therefore, I am allowed to comment publicly on her meltdown, and that includes commenting critically. I did not advocate or threaten violence towards her. Surely I am allowed to say that I think her behaviour was excessively self-regarding and self-promoting, in fact a performance of being upset rather than actually being upset. When people are actually upset they crawl away and hide for a bit, like animals do. They might come back later and tell you all about it. But they don't immediately advertise it to everybody on Twitter while it is still going on!

I was also skeptical of her being so upset about being simply asked to sign a petition. She talked with the person who was conducting the petition, she said. There was apparently no heated exchange, certainly no coming to blows. So, why get all weepy about it? Why not just report the exchange, and say, as she said she herself thought, that you think you had the best of it?

Lastly, a number of people on MN not only shared my reactions, but wanted evidence that someone had been collecting signatures for such a petition. Threats against GC people, both generally and against specific named individuals, have been made on Twitter and other public venues. It would take a brave person indeed to try to get people IRL to sign a petition of this kind. Who were they? Would they come forward, please?

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

As "Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'" therefore surely a male of any age may thus, and should for clarity, be described as a man and vice versa?

This comes back to mumnet censuring the more accurate description "Trans identified Men" - they do so on the basis it offends TRAs. But it isn't about offence - it is about colonisation. Mumnets handed over womanhood because men said so. A huge coup for TRAs because it hides the reality.