Is Mumsnet shutting down GC views? FAO Justine Roberts

The other thing about the rules is that you are not allowed to generalise, but, on the other hand, you're not allowed to be too specific.

Which is genius, when you think about it.

I read HTH as a word these days

like a little self satisfied exhalation

oh the irony of the deletions on this thread

Women have been polled tho.

unless you just don't believe in polls. Which is fine.

when people do polls, they results are viewed as representative. They don't actually ask every single person in the country.

That wasn’t actually helpful at all.

HTH!

I'd just really like an explanation and definition of transphobia

The label is an easy get out and catch all for all things that 'someone might not like'

@Helleofabore

Can you read? I said no one knows what the majority of women feel.
I then gave my opinion and stated it was my opinion.

The difference between us is that I didn't (unlike you) try & state that my views are representative of the majority.
Maybe they are
Maybe they are not.

Until every single woman is polled, we comply don't know. You are talking in bad faith and once again

You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion
You are absolutely not entitled to make up your own pretendy "facts" aka misinformation.

HTH

BonfireLady

you can ask HQ exactly why it was deleted, and they will tell you. You may disagree, but at least then, you will be aware of exactly which bit strayed into the rule breaking.

I referred to a woman as she the other day and was pulled up by someone else , who told me I should be using he.I had had no interaction with her so had no way of knowing. Actually she seemed to be hanging out with the lesbians so I had no reason to question my assumption. I was cross that I was expected to accept this when this was clearly a woman. I may well run into her again so is my choice to treat her as a man, in which case I would probably avoid her or actually talk to her about why she needs to call herself she when she has taken advantage of lesbian support and sisterhood. The main difference with this situation and dealing with a man is that I am not in any way intimidated or threatened by her sex . And ai still won’t fall into line and pretend I believe in the lie.

Good lord BonfireLady. Your post about AGP has been deleted.

What were the chances!

I can't help feeling responsible. It didn't look delete worthy to me. But who knows?

Perhaps we ought to stick to talking about shops which sell jeans and Ben Sherman shirts 👕 👖

That sounds like phobia to a lot of people.

Oooh, sounds like you're being phobiaphobic.

Phobiaphobe.

Do you extend the same logic to excluding/avoiding men, eg as those attending women-only spaces, events, training etc do?

If not, why not? Why dp you feel it's ok to exclude men on the basis of a characteristic they have but not anyone else?

Indeed. And despite my vehemency sometimes, I do strive to try and be calm when explaining.

I'm fully aware that people are coming to this at different stages, with different experiences and perspectives.

Eg, a mother whose child identifies as trans is going to have a completely different outlook, to a man who cross dresses and demands entry irrespective of women's consent.

But to be honest, the relentless violence and threats that women have had to endure just to be able to speak, have propelled many women, including me, beyond any concept of patience known to humanity.

It's why we all drink 🤣

Nobody has been able to give a single reason why this man and similar men are not able to use the mens facilities.

What does “not in the spirit of the site” actually mean?

Does it mean we all have to go along with a lie like the emperor’s new clothes?

It would be more helpful if mumsnet hq left the thread in place but highlighted any posts they deemed contravened the site rules so we could understand what sort of comment is being censored.

And it is for this reason that I am here.

Respectful conversation, which can and inevitably will lead to some respectful disagreement. Whilst learning some different perspectives along the way.

well yes this actually. This is part of why I was looking for clarification of what people were objecting to with the word 'avoid'.

Not my cup of tea / I don't think we'll be friends is not equal to cannot behave professionally or politely with such and such.

It's my understanding that we allowed to talk about AGP as a concept, but depending on the context, HQ might take a dim view of you directly accusing someone of it. A known person, not some abstract 'random bloke at work' that no one knows

Just trying to avoid the comment being deleted 😁 I went with the idea that if you know, you know.. 😉

AGP men 😁. Unless you're referring to those who work in a clothes store.

However, I respect that some people do have a strong sense of their own gender identity and that for many of those people, my comments are transphobic.

Ah well, that's probably the difference between us.

I don't respect trans ideology. Quite the opposite. I have nothing but contempt for the ideology, including advocates for it, and proponents of it, as it has wreaked untold damage on children, teenagers and women's rights.

I disagree with it, profoundly as it is based on sexism. But also when it is used as a justification for cross dressers to require women to validate them.

Because, and I've said this before, men who demand specific access to women's facilities are not interested in the actual facilities.

It's the women in those facilities who provide the validation. If all the women got up, left and used a completely different toilet, the focus would switch to the new toilet. Because the women are crucial. Without them, it's just a room with four walls and ceiling. Hence a third space never being something that TRAs are interested in acquiring.

Any ideology which advocates the use of women as a resource for the benefit of men, does not deserve any sort of respect, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean, on an individual basis, that I think men who identify as women should be denied any basic human rights, of course.

Just not women's rights.

Perhaps you could have started another thread to take the issue forward in a way or manner you preferred?

It was the OP who presented the issue of a new male member of staff using the women's toilets in a thread starter. Who is to say her expresssion or description of her issue is wrong and 'inappropriate' for discussion?

Nope. I don't think that at all. However, the transwoman's (wigged and frocked) appearance and
(giggly) mannerisms were irrelevant to the subject being discussed. It would simply have been enough to state that they a transwoman.

The description of the transwomen in the original post on the toilet thread (which has now been deleted) was unnecessary IMO and invited a whole different theme in to the conversation. I think that this is what went wrong.

I would have very much supported a discussion about "GAP", men and risk in single sex spaces.