They scraped Mumsnet again.

This is a public website. Anyone in the world can read it and copy and paste what you have written somewhere else. Why are you acting like your privacy is being violated? And if you think copy and pasting what someone wrote is defaming them then they shouldn't have written it.

Men can change their names and wear dresses all they want. I hope it brings them happiness, It does not make them into women, or give them legal access to single-sex spaces or activities.

Nothing gives men (or women) a license to act in an erotic sexualised way in public spaces.

Eh?

Could it just be possible that there are lots of people (some of whom are on here) who don't mind if men want to wear dresses or change their names, but DO mind if we are told that this makes them women, with all the risks this statement brings for women.

Could you entertain that as possible? Without the hyperbole?

Isn't self awareness a marvelous thing.

I cannot help but hear your post being said by the late great Tom Lehrer as an intro to a lost, lighthearted and painfully witty song in which a trans activist bemoans the trials of negotiating the rules of grammar in an anything-goes self id world.

@DeanElderberry

Agreed. And sadly women (of the traditional be-cunted type) also have to be aware of both the sexual nutter risk and the misogynist rage risk.

That's very irregular, I believe you may have queered that verb rather than conjugated it.
Conjugation is a challenge when you can't figure out your sex.

Anyone who posts anything anywhere on the internet needs to be conscious of the risk of doxxing.

There are some very strange characters out there. I have seen well-intentioned people fall foul of this on messageboards, sometimes because they made themselves identifiable by variously - describing their job in too much detail; describing a charity they were involved in; describing a niche hobby group they were hosting in their home; identifying a sport that they were involved in; posting a picture of the view out their window. Not all of those ended up with the cops being called in, but some of them did.

Agree with this. Though I'd also add that for many people in this debate, it's not even about standing up for female people, it's standing up for scientific fact versus anti-scientific lunacy. Calling people "right-wing" because they believe the earth is round or they know that astrology is nonsense is irrelevant. So what? You can be right-wing and have a sound understanding of scientific reality. The term "right-wing" is deployed as if it's an actual argument - "these people are right-wing, therefore they are bad" - when in reality it's simply a pointless insult.

I think anyone posting on FWR needs to be conscious of the risk of doxxing.

I don't especially want to out myself because a small number of Genderist believers are a toxic mix of closed minded, self righteous and vindictive.

However, I have never said anything on FWR I wouldn't stand behind IRL.

So while I don't run into social events giving an uninvited Gender Critical perspective because that is being unnessessarily antagonistic, if someone forced the issue by bringing something I've said on FWR into my work or social life I would own it, because there is nothing unreasonable or bigotted about a feminist standing up for female people.

@SlackJawedDisbeliefXY - The anonymization seems to be limited to blacking out the poster's user name whilst showing the full text of the post. I have not tried but I am guessing it would be pretty easy to just search on post text to find the original message. Does not seem a very effective way of anonymizing a poster's identity.

I did just that experiment on a MN post which had been 'anonymised' in another study (not based on FWR but on a different topic, IIRC). All that had been done was the removal of an irrelevant piece of information in the post. The remainder was so unusual that all I had to do was google it to go straight to the original post & hence to the username & everything else she'd posted.

It is very relevant to this thread, given the number of scraped threads likely to include discussions of cancellations and sacking brought about by an ideology espoused by elements of the far left (with some notable exceptions).

The problem with throwing terms like 'fascist' and 'far right' around like confetti is that they lose all meaning, so when we need to ID actual far right activity, we're out of words.

Rather like misusing the word 'woman'.

Did you see the Girl Guides thread, with someone saying that trans girls are really girls and belong with girls? I guess we have to assume that some people earnestly believe this nonsense.

"Far right" is used a slur. Facts are irrelevant here.

They say GC social media is now "obscure, invite-only spaces" and then they go on to "analyse" Ovarit (which I know nothing about, and this board, which is neither obscure nor invite-only. Basic lies just in the summary.

"GC activity on social media as it exists in the post-r/GenderCrticial [sic] era"
Basic spelling error in the intro.

"deploying far-right language and rhetoric."
Really? What far-right language are we using on here? I searched through the paper using "far right" (no, I don't want to read the lot!) Apparently:
"GC rhetoric was characterized by four key similarities with far-right rhetoric: an emphasis on 1) self-victimization, 2) “wokeism,” 3) “cancel culture,” and 4) a denigration of sex-workers."
"GC users likewise lamented being “silenced” and “canceled”—a term widely associated with the deplatforming of far-right figures"
"Much like manosphere and incel groups that denigrate sex workers and exhibit a puritanical concern with sexual deviance (Devries, Bessant, and Watts 2021; Monea 2022; Phipps 2021), GC users’ rhetoric consistently disparaged, targeted, and demonstrated enmity towards sex workers, who were referred to as “prostitutes” (nOvarit = 509; nFSG = 371) and accused of proliferating the “porn addicted” and “pornsick” (nOvarit = 1,350; nFSG = 482) conditions under which gender ideology allegedly proliferates. Denigration of sex workers is an established component of GC ideology."
"These overlaps are ultimately unsurprising: previous scholarship has suggested complex political entanglements between GC groups online and alt-right groups"

So many lies and misrepresentation that I'm going to throw in the towel and stop quoting right there.

I’d like to return to the previous derail about Monty Python. IANAP (I am not a programmer) but there are apparently numerous other MP references in the Python language, such as the use of ‘spam’ and ‘eggs’ as examples of identifiers in documentation.

Which leads me to the term ‘spam’, which was adopted in the eighties from the legendary Spam sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus to mean excessive unsolicited and unwanted messages. Which leads us nicely back to the current situation in this thread.

As for alleged calcification: it's appropriate to say that of the trans zealot side, but certainly not the sex realist side. Trans zealots have gone, reluctantly, from shut up, don't argue, no debate and death threats to, "Oh, it's so unfair! We're exclude from public life and aren't allowed to use toilets!"

Sex realist women (and a small number of men) have discussed and debated, increased their knowledge and understanding, helped to evolve arguments and data sets, taken cases to court and won. They have developed, fine tuned and improved their position, the exact opposite of calcification.

(Edited for authoritarian autocarrot)

Surely no one would give a grant to this? I would imagine it's a first year's attempt at something serious before they've actually done research methodology, stats or sampling strategy lectures at Uni. Maybe an A' Level student doing General Studies or whatever the equivalent is now?

OTOH I hope they didn’t get grants for this sexist twaddle.

I can’t see any funding statements, or conflict of interest statement.

Once more, for the hard of thinking:

1. There are only two sexes.
2. Humans can't change sex.
3. A man who claims to be a woman is still a man.
4. Women's spaces exist both so that women can have privacy and so that they can be protected from men who might harm them.
5. Women's spaces are for women only, not for men, including men who claim to be women.
6. Men who demand access to women's spaces are, by definition, exactly the type of men that women-only spaces were designed to exclude.

Did they txt frm Benidorm just for me? Swoons.

I hope they're enjoying thmslvs.

But presumably you don’t make liking fantasy your entire personal identity? They do.