How has the media conditioned people to 'be kind' re transgender debate?

Oh and my personal favourite 'be kind' shaming script:

" I personally have no boundaries, and/or am privileged enough to not be personally disadvantaged or affected by X and apparently lack capacity to know or care about any other women who are not me/whose life is not as privileged as mine and are affected by X, so I speak for all women and say X is fine!"

It's a version of the 'let them eat cake' misquote from Marie Antoinette, supposedly due to her being unaware that poor people shouting about their need for bread weren't merely having a whinge about the baguettes being slow out of the oven.

I'd start with the guidelines and moderation here on FWR, OP, while keeping it in mind that this is has for years been the cutting edge of open mindedness when no one else would host the conversation here at all and HQ have dealt with endless flak, attacks, shaming, loss of income and legal threats.

Women have only been permitted to talk at all if they talk using the prescribed terms issued by male people which frames everything to their advantage.

Stating reality by using words such as man and male and correctly sex pronouns are regarded as acts of intentional harm.

Language has had to be twisted through many hoops to be able to talk about it at all.

Any themes that the political lobby in question found too threatening (did not want people to see or think about) were deemed as unacceptable and people have been deleted and banned: specifically including child safeguarding.

Any thread here gaining traction will have at least one person shaming and ridiculing and trying increasingly bizarre pokes to make women annoyed enough to break the guidelines and be deleted (or to get a thread removed when it's turning out to be very inconvenient), and shouting mantras. The script includes things like (with tedious predictability) All normal people do x and don't complain! There's only a few of you and you'll be dead soon. Black and white extremism: if you don't let me say X is fine then you're guilty of Yism. You smell and were seen consorting with Satan (association with any number of random agencies which are supposedly 'bad' and are usually not actually in existence in the UK).

The evidence is all over most of the long threads and goes back years. Link it to coercive control, then look up political capture, then do a bit of reading of Lundy Bancroft and ChumpLady's blog, then look up a bit around advice for women coping with toxic relationships/abusive and/or addicted relationships. S'quite interesting what you'll start to notice. You could write a PhD about it, but you wouldn't be allowed to get very far because to discuss it wouldn't be 'kind'.

Sharing womanhood is such a trite awful phrase

No a man can’t borrow some of my XX chromosomes

They’re male. There’s nothing they can do to change their biological reality

We all know that sharing womanhood is not about the shit bits of being a woman.

I genuinely thought it would end in divorce for me when I became aware of all this, my Husband couldn't believe all these 'good guys' could be in the wrong if sensible people he respected were saying let's all just be kind it must be the terfs who are the evil baddies.
Thankfully after lots of look this is happening and this is happening (things he thought couldn't possibly be actually happening) and if our daughter wants to compete in sports competitively are we really evil for saying hold on a minute that is not fair and he came round but initially due to all the media bollocks he thought I'd turned into a transphobe and I thought he was being a mindless sheep but he listened so I've stayed married to him, he's a lucky man.

I'm not sharing my womanhood with men.

If that means I'm not being kind, I don't care.

Ugh.

I think it is part of a wider lack of contextual thinking that has disproportionately benefited trans rights, rather than completely planned by TRAs.

For example, we as a society used to be able to discuss issues at a population level, without people taking things personally. Having social media and everything recorded means the line between a discussion point and a personal attack has become blurred. There is a difference between talking about healthy diets for children and going up to kids eating sweets and shouting in their faces that they are disgusting and going to die early. This context has been lost and the concerned medic is now lumped in with the school bully.

Similarly, the cancer research adverts that wanted to raise awareness that obesity was associated with cancer risk, were accused of being fat shaming, because a few obese people were upset by them. People can no longer see a wider point without putting themselves in the middle of it. I think being dysphoric might exacerbate that trait, in the way that anorexic people are more affected by thin celebrities etc.

The trans rights movement capitalised on this by always making the issues personal, always have India W arguing "would I scare you in a toilet? - sad face" rather than allowing anyone to discuss things rationally. The media forced the experts to insult people to their faces or back down, a horrible position to be in as you can't win, but it might make for better telly.

You cannot change sex, so no-one is doing that. Changing reality is not acceptable especially when it impinges on children who are then confused. Everyone is of equal worth, so don't go round saying there are more than two sexes, for there are not. One of those sexes is female, women, and we get fed up with men using our spaces, places and faces.

But it's what you mean by that.

You shouldn't call someone overweight "fatty" in the street, because that's unkind.

But it's not "unkind" to be critical of their lifestyle depending on the context. Like a doctor isn't being "kind" to tell the overweight person that it's a great thing and a healthy lifestyle.

https://transmediawatch.org/approaches-to-avoid

Trans Media Watch chaired by Jane Fae, have been micromanaging every word the media publish for a long time now.

Much of this is okay but as we know the extremes of referring to rapists as she has brought this approach into serious disrepute.

OP, have you seen this blog post on the weaponisation of kindness? It doesn't directly answer your question, but contains relevant thoughts.

https://www.flaneurnotes.com/post/on-weaponising-kindness

Why not start your own thread instead of using this one for your personal intentions which are different to the ops?

Shouldn't everyone be kind to everyone...
Surely that's not rocket science

I think according to Matt Walsh, even Fox News have blacklisted him for being transphobic. He still got on a few times with Tucker Carlson however.

This. It's been a long term goal by lobbyists.

Yes, was just my view and I can respect others' different opinions

As a woman, I embrace the idea of others sharing womanhood with me

But they can't can they Jane? They can share dresses and nail varnish, grow their hair long etc. i.e. do some aesthetic stuff to imitate women, but they can never share womanhood because they are not and never will be women. They have never had, nor will ever have, the experiences that women have. It is not unkind to say that. It is truthful and we so-called transphobes are simply refusing to collude in the lie that trans activists are trying to force us to collude in. It's never going to happen.

It's neither of those things.

Fair point.

Back to the OP then. I have no idea how, or more importantly why the media has conditioned people to believe it is unkind and transphobic to state the obvious.

My best friend, who is otherwise an intelligent woman, said she thought it was unkind to refer to trans women as male people. But they are male people. How can it be unkind to discuss biological sex using scientifically accurate language?

I am unable to share womanhood as it doesn't belong to me.

I feel like this thread is getting derailed/busy with an off topic conversation about the basics of why gender critical women have an issue with trans ideology.

@janeinthewild Obviously you can post whatever and wherever you like, but it might be better to let this thread discuss the issue that the poster set it up for. You can read: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me if you're interested in the basic gender critical position. You could also start your own thread asking your original question, but it might be worth looking back through the archive as there have been many, many similar threads in the past.

Exactly this.

Even if you define "women" as "adult humans of the female biological sex except the ones who genuinely believe they identify as men or non binary plus adult humans of the male biological sex who genuinely believe they identify as women", you cannot legislate for that or base people's entitlement to use single sex spaces on that, because it is completely subjective.

You cannot have a women only space which includes genuine trans women who wouldn't harm a fly and also excludes male perverts who are just saying "I identify as a woman" so they can go in women's changing rooms and watch women getting changed. Tell us how you would write and enforce that rule. Both of them are male bodied people saying they identify as women and we have to take their word for it.