Article with sums up where we are now

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/flouncers_corner/1301008-Goodbye-to-Mumsnet

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1301368-The-departure-of-dittany

Dittany was banned.

Having thus decided to research anti-trans ideologies, the next question was how to do so without putting undue strain on my mental wellbeing. I understood from the outset that reading thousands of pages of material that questions my right to exist, processing it, and then making scholarly sense of it would inevitably be an emotionally laborious endeavour, and not one to be taken lightly." (continues)

You know, it really fucking pisses me off that politely challenging the inconsistencies in how the orthodox narrative explains trans identities is "questioning trans people's right to exist" but unilaterally redefining the basis on which most of the population understand themselves, denying their lived experiences and literally taking away the name of a group of people who for thousands of years have been oppressed, trafficked, beaten, treated as property and murdered in their millions is totally A-OK.

MN have hosted this topic when they didn't have to.

No, they didn't have to. But everything I have seen here over the past decade leads me to believe that hosting 'this topic' has been a business decision.

At some point MNHQ saw what feminists were doing on FWR, recognised there was a gap in the market and decided to 'host the debate' because clicks mean advertising revenue. I understand that they have been engaged in a juggling act ever since. On the one hand, more traffic to the site is good for advertising revenue, on the other hand allowing posters to say what they think scares off certain spineless advertisers.

None of that has anything to do with feminism.

'This topic' or 'the debate' are issues on which many people have opinions, on many 'sides', including those which have nothing to do with feminism. This is no longer a feminist forum and it hasn't been for several years. It's a part of MN that MNHQ have co-opted to host 'the debate' as part of their business plan.

I understand why they have done this but I will never not resent them for it.

#nothankyou

The difference in atitudes between AIBU posters and those on Feminism & Women's Rights board is referred to on the 2012 thread. Also, that at the time it was a significant topic of discussion,

There were other factors involved, but I'm sure there was a thread a few years ago in which some posters acknowledged that they'd reacted badly to posters around that time (and even earlier) for their warnings of what was to come. A number of those posters left (Dittany?) but have been retrospectively vindicated for their keen anticipation of what came to pass.

Women's History Network
'When sources hurt: Researching anti-trans ideologies as a trans person', by Rebecca Hickman
July 14, 2021
(extract)
"As a non-binary trans woman, I wondered at first if it would be possible to write this story without prolonged reference to anti-trans ideologies. However, I realised that, given the deep discursive entanglements between trans-positive and anti-trans belief systems, such a history would be conspicuously incomplete. Thesis and antithesis are too tightly bound.

Having thus decided to research anti-trans ideologies, the next question was how to do so without putting undue strain on my mental wellbeing. I understood from the outset that reading thousands of pages of material that questions my right to exist, processing it, and then making scholarly sense of it would inevitably be an emotionally laborious endeavour, and not one to be taken lightly." (continues)

womenshistorynetwork.org/when-sources-hurt-researching-anti-trans-ideologies-as-a-trans-person-by-rebecca-hickman/

Previous thread, OP TerfingHell wrote, Wed 21-Mar-18
"SWEARY GODMOTHER WINS!
Swim England have overturned the rule allowing men into women's changing rooms!

Just shows what you can achieve when you man-up and show the world you've got the balls!

POPPING OPEN THE CHAMPAGNE AT MUMSNET TOWERS

"

SwearyG
"I appreciate the credit but really @YesItsADebate did this. And we have only had it pulled from the website, but that's a bloody good start. I'm hoping that they will be rethinking and publishing something that doesn't put women and girls at risk if they continue down this avenue.

It does show that the smallest act can make a difference. Two (wo)men went swimming and brought something to the national consciousness and started to make people think about changes. This is something everyone can do.

Keep on with the minor acts of civil disobedience!"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3201083-SWEARY-GODMOTHER-WINS

Exactly Rowantrees. So did the author not realise/understand or deliberately withhold that information?

You cannot edit or delete posts. You can't block.

tbh, I'd welcome 2 of those (edit and block - especially if the latter has words on which to block). The edit should have an audit trail, of course.

For instance the author writes:

A thread from October 2012 asking which bathroom a trans child should use was met with multiple expressions of disbelief that the question even had to be asked: obviously, users concluded, the child should use the bathroom that aligns with their self-expressed identity.⁶

This quote refers to a discussion in 2012 on AIBU as proof that back then Mumsnet was a place where the majority of threads regarding trans issues were positive.

The difference in atitudes between AIBU posters and those on Feminism & Women's Rights board is referred to on the 2012 thread. Also, that at the time it was a significant topic of discussion, eg

"Not everyone on the FWR board takes the attitude MtF transgender people should be excluded from women's spaces, by any stretch of the imagination. If they did, that topic would not be an area of huge controversy on that board."

[quote R0wantrees]Hannah Clarke
#ManFriday
A Woman's Place is to be Inquiring: Hannah Clarke (Basingstoke 17 May 2018)

I have an ambivalent opinion of MN moderation policy but the URL of this topic says 'Women's Rights' and this topic is called 'Feminism' and I am always glad when women feel able to come here and express their opinions. I'm even more glad when men disapprove because it indicates that women's opinions are important enough to cause change.

Feel free to screenshot

The real problem with MN here is that it's-

Got a massive amount of traffic, a pretty broad variety of readers and posters across the UK due to its reputation as a good place for info, most current is by women for women. Hard to say it's a handful of (insert subsection here).

That the majority of posters are women, often mothers. Not a group generally thought of as radical extremists. Possibly because they don't have time!

Anyone can join and post.

You cannot edit or delete posts. You can't block. It's all there. If you get in a debate (argument) and say silly things etc it's usually there for good.

MN have hosted this topic when they didn't have to.

I love the way that women thinking it's a bad idea to have males in the limited number of situations that (used to be) single sex

Is extremism.

cor, that article is piss poor innit?

And badly researched, too. The main problem lies in the author's inability to understand the site. Particularly in that FWR is one of many messageboards and one that also existed in those supposedly golden days of lovely affirming Mumsnet.

For instance the author writes:

A thread from October 2012 asking which bathroom a trans child should use was met with multiple expressions of disbelief that the question even had to be asked: obviously, users concluded, the child should use the bathroom that aligns with their self-expressed identity.⁶

This quote refers to a discussion in 2012 on AIBU as proof that back then Mumsnet was a place where the majority of threads regarding trans issues were positive.

This is the thread in question:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1591015-Which-toilets-a-F-to-M-transgender-student-should-use

(As an aside, I don't understand why the author gives web addresses for the other references, but not one for the Mumsnet sources. These threads only showed up in a Google search for me and not on a Mumsnet search, so I am uncharitably wondering whether this is an attempt to make checking the author's claims regarding these old Mumsnet threads too cumbersome to bother with for Mumsnetters. But even at my most charitable I detest such shoddy referencing.)

Reading that AIBU thread now, two things are obvious: the first is that there is little regard given by most posters to the safeguarding duties of the college in deciding whether to allow a female 16 year old student to use the male toilets, the second is that the following comment shows that even back then FWR was known for insisting that women had a right to single-sex provisions:

I get where Kim147 is coming from. Switch the genders around and ask this question on the FWR boards and you will see why so many people do not identify with 'feminists'.

So if FWR even back then had women speaking up for single-sex provisions, and was derided for it by posters on AIBU, the real question is not how "poor moderation created a transphobic swamp" but what happened in the years since that led to FWR gaining such prominence and AIBU to flip from the majority of posters detesting the 'feminists' on FWR to agreeing with them.

Moderation has grown increasingly restrictive for those posters on FWR speaking out in defence of women's sex-based rights. (I don't want to discuss the whys or hows here, it's simply a fact that the guidelines are now some of the most prohibitive on the entire site.)

And yet, more and more women from outside of Mumsnet are coming here to looking for answers. Explicitly so. And they still find them, despite the strict guidelines. Like I did in 2017.

If I was researching the issue, I would want to know why that is.

'Fears were also raised about single-sex spaces, particularly the possibility that ‘a big hairy man with a functional penis between his legs’ could enter a women’s bathroom.'

Confused.

Is the problem with that statement that it should say woman rather than man?

I'll read the thread now sorry.

Yes sorry I wanted to read the piece first and then got over excited!

I'm in North London and we're a bit local round here! We have a very strong identity related to our stamping ground

I find their timeline very odd.

I've been here for um 16 years maybe.

The first dates 2008-2013 this topic was not at all well known generally. I can't remember when threads about it started appearing but I'm pretty sure it was after fwr board was created and small in number, taking a long time for the topic to gain more traction. In Feminism. It's a long time ago but I can't remember it was across chat etc much really.

Then Apparently what turned all the mums off babies and into bigotry was Louis theroux. It's all his fault.

I've watched a lot of his documentaries over the years and his style is extremely effective.

He is calm, non threatening. He asks open questions and then lets people talk. He relaxes them and his questions genuinely come from an interest in the people. What they believe how they feel. Why.

The result is people open up and answer in a usually unguarded way.

In general he gives the subject front stage and lets them tell their own story.

I think I saw that documentary and I remember feeling a bit sad for the children. Maybe I should watch it again.

The suggestion is that overnight the women/ mothers of the UK turned into people consumed by hatred because of Louis theroux?!

Hannah Clarke
#ManFriday
A Woman's Place is to be Inquiring: Hannah Clarke (Basingstoke 17 May 2018)

NiceGerbil The first #ManFriday action was at Dulwich Leisure centre in March 2018. A woman did the same at that time in Manchester (I believe). The Hampstead ponds action followed in May.

(extract)
"First transgender activists made a splash when men identifying as female invaded the women-only pond on Hampstead Heath.

Now feminists have hit back by attending a men-only swimming session in protest over proposals that would make it easier for people to change gender.

Amy Desir, 30 – one of two women to gain access to the South London pool last Friday – caused particular consternation by wearing just trunks and a pink swimming cap." (continues)

Hannah emailed the leisure centre in advance to ask what arrangements were in place for a woman who self-identified as male.

General manager Natalie Lane told her: ‘Any customer is free to use the changing room they feel necessary for themselves. We do our best to avoid modern prejudices. However, opinions vary given the diversity of our customer base.

‘If you wish to attend the Friday evening sessions you would do so with the full support of the team.’ (continues)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5514231/Feminists-self-identify-males-infiltrate-men-swim-session.html

HAMPSTEAD PONDS ARE IN NORTH LONDON AND ARE NOT A SWIMMING POOL!!!

R0 has covered those flaws, with references to accurate accounts of what happened, on pg4.

Oops got to the end!

Retract all that!

Apols to author.

'constructive debate requires some basic standards for factual accuracy and accountability'

HAMPSTEAD PONDS ARE IN NORTH LONDON AND ARE NOT A SWIMMING POOL!!!

(Unless I've missed a remarkably similar situation? I've never seen a pool have a men only event though. Unless this pool in South London is in a gay gym? Maybe ).