Why the hate?

oh.... it is Aqublu!

We have asked them for some evidence to substantiate their claims on a couple of threads lately.... maybe that is hate?????

No answering posts so I don't know if it is an established pattern (one or two posts and then leave) or was it because there was no evidence to be posted.

Anyway OP. I too am here and looking forward to seeing examples of the hate that you accused MN of hosting. Please be specific.

But as a collective this is what is being done. As individuals we dip in and out of the data sets. As a group we collate them for use by one and all.

No hive mind needed. Just a loose sisterhood of like minded, anonymous women.

'Hate'?

So you think you were born male and now are a woman? A woman who has become a man? A girl who is changing to become a boy? Neither male nor female? A blue-arsed flying cat with polka dot wings a dick for a tail and a thousand lonely green eyes? Be my guest. I don't care.

I might think you're as daft as a brush. Lots of people are daft. No skin off my nose. Really, I don't care.

Hate? Hate? Get over yourself. Hate indeed.

True enough, if you don't piss off and leave me and my kids alone, I might start despising you. But hate ? You're not that important.

Then, @maddy68 given that the OP is one of those who will not explain, could you tell us what it is that you have seen that is so upsetting?

Because, unless it is the factual statements about sex being immutable etc, then I am at a loss!

The simple fact is that 98% of sexual crime is perpetrated by males, and no one can give any evidence for what the objective point is at which transwomen cease to be male.

I don't believe that God exists. That doesn't mean I hate Christians. I would hope they would afford me the same courtesy.

I dint believe transwomen are women. That doesn't mean I hate transpeople.

You've missed the point of the It Will Never Happen thread. It's about people abusing self ID.

I'm an atheist. I do not hate people who believe in god/s. I disagree with them about the existence of gods. I don't mind them going to places of worship or reading religious texts. I certainly don't mind them living their lives peaceably with their religion.

If they were to campaign against say, abortion rights then we'd be on opposite sides of a campaign. But I don't want them to not exist or not be allowed their religion etc.

I am gender critical. I do not hate people who put store in gender identity. I disagree with them about the significance of gender. I don't mind them living their lives peaceably with their gender identity.

If they were to campaign against say, single sex spaces for women then we'd be on opposite sides of a campaign. But I don't want them to not exist or not be allowed their gender identity etc.

It is not hate to believe that because single sex spaces and sports are about our bodies that they should be segregated according to biological sex (objective, verifiable, permanent etc) and not gender identity (subjective, fluid, unverifiable).

If someone feels their personality is more stereotypically feminine than masculine and want to present more in accordance with that, crack on. Absolutely don't be restricted by outdated sexist stereotypes. But they don't get to dictate that other people should flawlessly perceive them as the opposite sex or that they should suddenly be allowed into single sex spaces designated for the opposite sex.

Because they haven't changed sex.

Catholics shouldn't donate communion wine to the blood bank. Sometimes reality matters more than metaphor and belief.

Another plopper, and going by the writing style, teenage.

How original.

They has gone to shake it off.

Where did the OP go?

If any other demographic committed violent and sexual crime in the numbers men do and the proportion men do, there'd be mass hysteria and we'd do nothing but talk about it.

This is the only parallel I can see but men are not a minority.

If there was objective evidence that lesbians committed violent and sexual crimes at the rates men do then I wouldn't consider discussion of that to be hateful.

It's a parallel argument about what a person might consider constitutes 'hate' towards a minority group.

What is it parallel to?

FWR isn't collecting evidence that a particular group are prone to criminality. Putting forward that theory will get you a strike.

FWR is putting forward the argument that Self ID policies are exploited by criminals to endanger women. The debate is about public policy and law and how they protect women or not.

If any other demographic committed violent and sexual crime in the numbers men do and the proportion men do, there'd be mass hysteria and we'd do nothing but talk about it.

When it's men it's 🤷‍♀️

It's a parallel argument about what a person might consider constitutes 'hate' towards a minority group.

Would the example that I have given - of people who are (erroneously to my mind) hugely concerned about the risks posed by lesbians and want to gather evidence to show why everyone be concerned, and so start a resource thread of examples of crimes committed by lesbians - would this constitute hate against lesbians in general?

Would such a thread, entitled 'It will never happen- resource thread - lesbian crimes' constitute hate against lesbians?

The thing you don't seem to understand is that most transwomen don't want the 'right' to get their cock out in front of women or compete in women's sports. Most trans people know what sex they are.

The people arguing for the right to identify as the opposite sex do not speak for trans people.

..And they used this to make a case against lesbians, looking for segregation in jails along the lines of sexuality, and started a resource thread with posts
**
@suggestionsplease1

That's not a parallel argument, lesbians are women.

A parallel argument would be if some adults wanted to be treated as children and we argued for 'segregation' of things like nursery, play parks and getting your nappy change on the basis of age.

Link didn't seem to come through on that post, maybe now

www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/lbq_women_prisons_jails.html

@GiveMyHeadPeaceffs I have to laugh when I see the usual suspects on Twitter call MN a transphobic hate site. It’s a parenting site! I assume they are including all the boards which have discussions about puppies, getting babies off to sleep, MILs, weddings and jobs. Hateful, all of it!

Let's make a parallel argument...

Say there was another forum out there that was deeply worried about harms lesbians might cause to each other or straight women - and they unfortunately could get stats to back some of their assertions up - studies that show women in relationships with other women are more likely to experience domestic abuse than women in straight relationships, lesbians being vastly over-represented in American jails www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/lbq_women_prisons_jails.html, (and making the case that this over-representation was due to increased inherent criminality in lesbians rather than due to any factors like discrimination, minority stress experienced by lesbians etc) and also referred to stats about assaults sexual or otherwise by women on women in jails. And they used this to make a case against lesbians, looking for segregation in jails along the lines of sexuality, and started a resource thread with posts like:

metro.co.uk/2021/05/04/killer-who-hid-flatmates-dismembered-body-in-suitcases-jailed-for-life-14517153/

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6855299/Lesbian-killer-prostitute-insists-disappearance-brother.html

Would such a thread, entitled 'It will never happen- resource thread - lesbian crimes' constitute hate against lesbians?

@Aqublu

Did you mean to post this in the LGBT section? This board is about women's rights.

What hate? This is people discussing a serious topic of public interest.

I wonder when the OP will return.

🤔

I agree. I find the toxicity so upsetting

Toxicity is what brought me here. When I started to be worried was during a women's conference. They'd made it biological women only. I was quite shocked, that seemed wrong. But the reason was that when discussions on FGM, abortion, rape and other biological issues were raised, there was a chorus of 'exclusion!!!' and 'triggering'. And I couldn't understand why the obvious biologically centred women's issues couldn't be discussed by women. Either invite transwomen and be told you're triggering and exclusionary, exclude transwomen and be told you're discriminatory and exclusionary, or shut up about women's issues entirely.

Which is least 'toxic'?