Telegraph interview with Mumsnet founder

What disadvantages do women face? I can't think of any that are not linked to our biology I.e. being female. So nobody is really able to opt into those disadvantages (in order to be so "embraced").

Exactly. That's why transgenderism couldn't happen until AFTER women had secured all their legal rights to votes, property, etc, etc. A prerequisite for it is that a man doesn't lose anything by doing it.

(The one remaining wrinkle at the time of the GRC was male primogeniture, and they wrote that in specially).

Without Mumsnet, the UK would have self ID, or be well on the way to. There are some amazing feminists out there fighting the good fight on Twitter and organising things like WP. But Mumsnet is what got those viewpoints in front of ordinary women, it’s why English politicians especially sat up and took notice, and it’s why the sensible journalists now write on this issue. Mumsnet was the wedge. Let’s give Justine that I think.

I agree with this.

Maybe the Telegraph, where they have platformed both sides, deliberately chose someone a bit clueless to write it for impartiality?

Yes agree the article isn't well written.

It feels a poorly-written and clumsily-edited article. I can't quite put my finger on why. The errors, the erroneous square brackets, the obvious omissions, the weird choices of words (eg As Mumsnet’s spokesman, Roberts has become the de-facto voice of all women. )

Yes. I've never thought Justine fully grasps the issues. Odd really, given her unique position.

But, if that's so, she's gone above and beyond to keep the dialogue going.

I was just about to say exactly this! She's never really understood what any of it is about, but I admire her steely resolve not to censor it.

No, it’s actually the highest possible bar at the moment, on this issue.
Without Mumsnet, the UK would have self ID, or be well on the way to. There are some amazing feminists out there fighting the good fight on Twitter and organising things like WP. But Mumsnet is what got those viewpoints in front of ordinary women, it’s why English politicians especially sat up and took notice, and it’s why the sensible journalists now write on this issue. Mumsnet was the wedge. Let’s give Justine that I think.

Yes. I've never thought Justine fully grasps the issues. Odd really, given her unique position.

But, if that's so, she's gone above and beyond to keep the dialogue going.

It's one thing to provide a space for women to talk about this if you feel the same. It's quite another when you're mainly doing it out of, I don't know, even handedness?

It's an odd one. Because I would totally understand a spot of fence sitting as a strategic measure given the reliance on advertising. But I get the feelings it's less a tactic and more not really getting it.

I thought the same. I’m amazed politicians haven’t used that when asked similar questions.

Because it's not enough, they'd still get monstered for stating that MTF trans people aren't exactly the same as women.

"Feminism: Sex and Gender” topic, where a dedicated group discuss transgender politics, with the vast majority taking a “gender-critical” stance – in other words, believing someone’s sex is “biological and immutable”. Their uncompromising posts led to The New York Times describing Mumsnet as “transphobic”, with one transgender rights campaigner describing the site as “Terf [Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist – an insult] Island”

✊Good morning "dedicated group".✊

Right, best quips, words and provable data at the ready. We may get tourists coming for a look see.

Has anyone polished the "Please do feed the animals lots of biscuits" signs.

Helle? Has anyone seen her? She may be required to do "here's 20 sites that prove beyond a doubt you are talking out of your bottom" posts at double time. Can someone make sure she's in a comfy chair with tea and that foot massages are available on tap.

Me? Ooh yeah....I'm waiting on the map of Anger, going to try to get a nice clean 11000 shot, there's only another 54 to go so it needs my full attention. Honestly! No. I'm not making excuses!! As if!

Did she really say "cis"?😱

But yes, I still respect that she didn't pull discussion completely. It's rather a low bar, isn't it?

I thought the same. I’m amazed politicians haven’t used that when asked similar questions. Justine must have better advisors 🤣

What disadvantages do women face? I can't think of any that are not linked to our biology I.e. being female. So nobody is really able to opt into those disadvantages (in order to be so "embraced").

Of course, the flipside to that argument is that if I, a small-ish female declare myself to be a man, I will suddenly have "male advantages". Doubtful.

Quite.

And this! I also think the word we can't say here, there, plus the square brackets can become the focus. Justine didn't write it. And without her, I think we'd be in a far worse situation. I wouldn't have known about the self-ID consultation. Over 100,000 people responded. I'm sure MN and FWR had a massive role in that.

I'll judge Justine on what she's done, ie provided a space to enable debate to take place leading to valuable spin-offs from that, rather than finding fault in her words. Especially since those words will have been carefully chosen to limit the amount of attacks they'll inevitably attract

This. But LOL at the Telegraph thinking "cis" means heterosexual.

“Cancelling an opinion that you can’t change sex, which five years ago pretty much everyone would have felt, won’t lead us to compromise. For the majority of our users it’s not the biggest issue on the agenda, it’s a minority who feel very, very, very strongly about it.”

It's not be the biggest issue, but 'pretty much everyone' agrees?

I mean, it just about makes sense. But ignores the reason why many people go from merely agreeing with the gc view, to feeling 'very, very strongly' about it.

Learning more about it is one reason. And, of course, being directly affected is another.

And the AIBU threads which are 97 percent supportive, with many non FWR comments would also belie the 'it's a minority'.

The reporter doesn't get it either. 'Cis' doesn't mean heterosexual. It's nothing to with sexual orientation.

And yes, the 'vitriolic' comments about her own users. Bit Gerald Ratner.

“We know 20 per cent of users are undecided [about how to vote], and we know that half of those take a political steer from Mumsnet, so that’s 10 per cent of votes up for grabs, but politicians still tend to slightly underestimate us,” says Roberts. “There is this perennial view that mums are kind of dull and boring and stupid. But I think in some ways Mumsnet has slightly moved the dial on.

Also, how ignorant does a politician have to be to actually not care about voters choices because they 'underestimate' the person voting?

If Justine's statistics are correct, politicians sexism is overriding their ability to count.

Odd article altogether.

I agree with this

In articles like this, square brackets, ie cis[heterosexual], usually indicate a clarifying addition by the journalist Wallowingwendy. Although in the case of the Telegraph article, the addition is actually erroneous.

I'll judge Justine on what she's done, ie provided a space to enable debate to take place leading to valuable spin-offs from that, rather than finding fault in her words. Especially since those words will have been carefully chosen to limit the amount of attacks they'll inevitably attract.

Oops sorry. Should have read it first! I see the vitriolic views refers to MM!

This is the full section and an archive:

https://archive.ph/H52SR

"Some have argued that one section of the site that should be more vigorously moderated is the “Feminism: Sex and Gender” topic, where a dedicated group discuss transgender politics, with the vast majority taking a “gender-critical” stance – in other words, believing someone’s sex is “biological and immutable”. Their uncompromising posts led to The New York Times describing Mumsnet as “transphobic”, with one transgender rights campaigner describing the site as “Terf [Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist – an insult] Island”. In the fallout, some firms pulled advertising from the site.

Yet Roberts – who points out the site also has a support thread for parents of transgender children – refuses to shut the discussion topic down. “Obviously it’s controversial we allow that discussion, because lots of people would rather we didn’t and I’m sure commercially it’s not been very wise,” she says. “But we’re not owned by private equity, we don’t have to chase profits and our values are that the site is unfiltered – we don’t do that Facebook algorithm thing where you see what you’re interested in. Anything you see is a true and fair discussion. If an opinion is legal we will host it, because that’s the only way of understanding the other side’s point of view.

“Cancelling an opinion that you can’t change sex, which five years ago pretty much everyone would have felt, won’t lead us to compromise. For the majority of our users it’s not the biggest issue on the agenda, it’s a minority who feel very, very, very strongly about it.”
On a personal level, Roberts sighs, “I wish it wasn’t an issue that created so much anger. For me, if you want to choose to be a woman, with all the disadvantages that entails, I’m going to embrace you. But biologically is a trans woman the same as a woman? I would say no.”

Yet, she adds, all this squabbling is missing the bigger point. “There’s this tension because both sides are rightly worried about safety. Trans women feel they are not safe in male spaces because of male violence [if they’re forced, for example, to use male lavatories] and cis [heterosexual] women are nervous about that because they think this might be exploited by violent males. It gets my goat that women – and trans women are included – live with this spectre of male violence and no one politically or otherwise seems to saying: ‘this is the real issue.’”"

Although I do appreciate she is trying to be balanced and if she does have other thoughts really it would incur the wrath of the MRAs to express them.

Well we all know that men also suffer from the spectre of male violence too. I wonder why she singles out transwomen for special concern? I'm also surprised that she doesn't appear to realise that saying that transwomen are not biologically women is considered a 'vitriolic view'. I'm not sure we've said anything more 'hateful' than that in these discussions!