Article with sums up where we are now

a habitual plopper? yep.

It sums up brilliantly where we are now

Dunno where the ‘we comes from either

historian of queer identities’

Ha ha ha

It's because they know they can't debate their position. Because the position they have taken has no rational debate. Thus the only option available to them is to plop and run.

Well,that was two minutes (not nine) of my life that I won't get back.
No thank you

2015 is where it all started going wrong. We watched the Louis Theroux documentary on trans children and thus started the radicalisation. The author is a PhD student and a ‘historian of queer identities’. Xe has done at least a couple of hours on the Advanced Search for some very thorough desk research so don’t knock it.

This OP never wants discussion

No. They are quite well known not to be.

This OP never wants discussion. It's always goady nonsense. DARVO.

To be fair i think it would be absolutely fine if the OP wanted an actual discussion…thats also what MNHQ want I’m sure

But thats quite obviously NOT the case with this thread

[quote happydays2345]I found this article online, and thought I would share it.

It sums up brilliantly where we are now! 😊

aninjusticemag.com/mumsnet-how-poor-moderation-created-a-transphobic-swamp-adf391ccf9fc[/quote]
How does it sum up where we are now?

Even if I agreed with the author, I would still not gain an accurate reflection of the site from reading the article. It doesn't even reflect the current set up on Mumsnet FWR, and at no point does it specify that the debate lambasted in that article takes part in a tiny corner of the whole website, and barely spills out into the other messageboards.

So how does it sum up where we are?

we have somehow changed their mind that this 'sums it up brilliantly' and they now agree that it is not very persuasive at all.

The posters here are to be commended for the way in which they've leaned in to be of some assistance to the OP and the author friend or object of admiration.

I exclude myself now that I realise that my intent to do that has been compromised by my hegemonic oppression in re: forms of argument that invite useful scrutiny.

But yeah, it's us...

Of course it is 'us'. Posters who will read this piece will have already made up their mind as others have said. It is all about reinforcing prejudiced belief. Those who will believe it, have outsourced their critical thinking to self identified thought leaders. Hence they simply can never add any evidence to their one liner posts that can only ever virtue signal to others.

I look forward to OP's response to our critiques. So far, they have told us how happy it has made them. Maybe they will break the mould and actually engage with what they posted and tell us exactly why they think it is such a good 'sum up' article and point out where we are wrong.

Otherwise, all they have done is left the thread open for everyone to read and leave with the impression that OP has a very low bar for evidence in their thinking and that our critique has made them happy because we have provided them some excellent points to evaluate to build a stronger argument, or that we have somehow changed their mind that this 'sums it up brilliantly' and they now agree that it is not very persuasive at all.

I'm guessing this is going to end up on a twitter thread with much frothing at how horrible we all are. Maybe this is what the OP considers research.

The entire piece is classic DARVO-style attack mode, avoiding even the slightest explanation or justification for their position. But yeah, it's us...

These article responses also delightfully help. Thank you ladies

How dare you misgender me 😡

#NoThankYou

Well an OP who thinks it is OK to ridicule a rape victims need for privacy is exactly the type of person who would post such tripe.

Teflon much.

Not a particularly well-argued article.

And seems to think that serious matters of public policy affecting more than half the population are a matter of pro- or anti- and that, furthermore, conflicts of rights are best sorted out by the trans group “dominating” the discussion.

Coherent thought, arguments that can be scrutinised and, to be frank, skills themselves are hegemonistic and serve merely to facilitate the oppression of marginalised identities. Your wish will be a vain one.

I realise that my motivation is irrelevant when perspective is all. - I wonder if you have, however, highlighted a new non-crime incident around unthinking hegemonistic oppression.

It's feasible that a number of offenders such as myself would fail gulag reeducation because it is not enough to have a superficial civility when others claim to know our thoughts.

In addition to my blunder above, perhaps I'm be classed as an incorrigible recidivist and offered a therapeutic lobotomy to destroy my capacity for thought as well as conversation. Purely as a Minority Report measure.

Oh it's OK for OP to be goady #MNHQ allow it.

It’s amazing that such a progressive person would come onto a feminist board and refer to “ladies”, which women have been complaining about for many years, or did you miss that kind of feminism, too?

You’re right helleofa, plus ça change…I don’t think I’m learning anything from this thread…

My wish for the author of that piece is to acquire skills to write arguments that lay out coherent thoughts and arguments that can be scrutinised for their support for the wholesale abolition of women as a sex class, the extensive revision of legislation, the introduction of compelled speech etc.

Coherent thought, arguments that can be scrutinised and, to be frank, skills themselves are hegemonistic and serve merely to facilitate the oppression of marginalised identities. Your wish will be a vain one.

These article responses also delightfully help. Thank you ladies

That is very presumptuous of you! Who said that any of us are ladies? Who said that all of us are female?

FFS maybe you need to acknowledge your own prejudices.

I too hope that you feed back to the writer. Maybe it will mean we get a better analysis where the writer's bias is not so clearly demonstrated as to miss some glaring inconsistencies that undermine any credibility they were striving to attain.