Fck it. Just going to identify as agender as a GC feminist.

But I wouldn't.

Because even if I disagree with views, I wouldn't mock them and call them ridiculous. You can disagree without completely invalidating them and being nasty.

I think you’ll find that the lived experiences of many women on mumsnet means they know very well what sealioning and DARVO are (and there if anything is a marker of someone who hasn’t spent any time on MN outside these boards).

Just dropping this graphic here again:

If i started a thread about womens' concerns about something being silly and ridiculous, I'd be piled on.

Feel free.

to you.

Yes. No need for you to join in!

FWIW, I don't believe ANYONE's view is ridiculous. I might not agree with it, but that doesn't make it ridiculous.

Btw - no one has a clue what you mean about sealioning and DARVO. YOu're not in a university debate, it's a bloody internet forum.

Many people know full well what sealioning and DARVO is on Internet forums, this is hilarious. It's not exactly a novelty here on FWR.

to you.

If i started a thread about womens' concerns about something being silly and ridiculous, I'd be piled on. So how is it OK to other groups?

I’ve started identifying as quoigender. Shuts people up as no one knows what it is. And is actually fairly accurate in terms of my feelings about the whole gender thing.

nonbinary.wiki/wiki/Quoigender

But thats apples and oranges - I've never once said i think anybody should be in anyone elses space.

What i said was, I didn't like the mocking, sneering and nastiness. Shocking.

Sorry female spaces. We need an edit button

And you know im not on twitter how?

Btw - no one has a clue what you mean about sealioning and DARVO. YOu're not in a university debate, it's a bloody internet forum.

All this rhetoric about how trans people are hugely oppressed by women being “mean” on Mumsnet misses the entire point. There are quite clearly whole tranches of gender ideology which are deeply silly and ridiculous.

Exactly.

But isn’t the whole point of transwomen accessing fe,ales because they are not safe in male spaces. If, as you say boys are more accepting, surely transwomen would be perfectly safe in male spaces? Or is it not about safety but ‘validation’. In which case why should make feelings trump women’s rights to privacy, safety and dignity?

Aromantic rabbits, that's a new one

I'm not smearing you. I'm clarifying if thats what you meant.

So far you have been unable to clarify what you meant, so you can't really blame posters for making their own assumptions given that you are not able to make a clear argument.

It’s really noticeable on FWR at the moment that there’s a big influx (as there periodically is) of posters derailing threads with sealioning, DARVO etc. and it always seems to coincide with times when there are critical news stories about genderism.

Anyway, to bring it back to the thread topic. I’m reposting something below that I posted on a similar thread about gender labels, which popped up on my Tumblr feed yesterday morning (sorry I can’t seem to copy the rabbit graphic that goes with it):

“[Image description: Five rabbits are gathered under an umbrella. The umbrella is coloured like the aromantic flag on the outside. On the inside it is coloured like the frayromantic, demiromantic, lithoromantic, recipromantic, and aroflux flags. The first rabbit is wearing an aromantic allosexual shirt, the second is wearing a nebularomantic shirt, the third one (who is holding the umbrella) is wearing an aromantic shirt, the fourth one is wearing an oriented aromantic asexual shirt, and the fifth one is wearing a cupioromantic shirt. End description.]
There are a lot of ways to be aromantic.”

I mean, come on. [—Just to save you the effort of looking it up, “Lithromanticism (also known as akoiromantic or apromantic) is a romantic orientation on the aromantic spectrum. Lithromanticism describes romantic attraction without the desire for reciprocation. Lithromantic experiences may include: Feeling romantic attraction that fades upon being reciprocated.”]

There’s plenty more all over youth social media where this came from. Gender identity is about all these labels like agender, aro etc. (Or microlabels as they’re called). But these labels are hardly great progressive vehicles of sexual freedom for historically deeply oppressed sexual minorities who have now found a way to live their true identities, are they now?

Has anyone in history ever fought for their civil rights not to be criminalised, shunned or socially marginalised for their inner identity of “going off your crushes when they start liking you back”? Or fit being “cupioromantic” (which is the opposite?)

All this rhetoric about how trans people are hugely oppressed by women being “mean” on Mumsnet misses the entire point. There are quite clearly whole tranches of gender ideology which are deeply silly and ridiculous.

The OP and others are perfectly well allowed to gently mock them, and the idea that making fun of gender labels like being agender or Cassgender or “cupioromantic” et al is terrible dreadful violence to transpeople is simply ridiculous.

Moreover, it’s likely to turn out to be hugely counterproductive, since we can all see with our own eyes that much of the gender label/identity bandwagon is completely risible.

If you really want to stand up for trans people, you could hop on Twitter or Tumblr and maybe suggest to them that their social justice cause is not well advanced by hopping up and down with manufactured outrage, hyperbole, name calling and trying to shame others into not speaking about the whole edifice.

Well, the problem is you're not making a clear argument.

You say a small number have gender dysphoria , based on I'm not sure what exactly, but seem unable to tell me what you think the rest of them feel.

Again, it doesn't give you carte blanche to make up what people have said to smear them.

like you did.

and this is MN, it's not question time. Your arrogance is ridiculous.

Well, the problem is you're not making a clear argument.

You say a small number have gender dysphoria , based on I'm not sure what exactly, but seem unable to tell me what you think the rest of them feel.

You clearly believe that trans people are either delusional or have bad intentions, you've said that.

Stop lying about what I said.

It's not judgemental, it's pretty much what you said.

You need to stop trying to put statements into peoples mouths. It's poor behaviour in a debate.

the poster you seem to be implying I am isn't me, however, I would rather be them, becoming 'emotional' over a massively sensitive issue for so many people, other than someone on the internet sitting on my lord status chair criticising other people for "wasting my time" and prioritising "rational" argument over people's actual feelings and lives, every day of the week.

It's not judgemental, it's pretty much what you said. You clearly believe that trans people are either delusional or have bad intentions, you've said that.

So do you think the minority of people have gender dysphoria, and the rest are chancing it? Genuinely?

Your words, not mine. Quite judgemental of you. But I personally don't believe in "trans" as an innate thing other than the small number of people with GD. Read the essay, it's good.