To be shocked at the sheer amount of hatred and ignorance about transpeople on mumsnet

[Curiositykilledthecat113]

Specifically transwomen, according to the majority of mumsnet, all transwomen want to rape biological women, “steal their womanhood” and all sorts of other ridiculous, offensive statements without any factual backing.

So why is Mumsnet so intolerant and ignorant towards transgender people?

Can anyone link to sites which help explain what is happening?

That screenshot, and others like it were collated on several sites.

Those sites were what first alerted me to the sort of men who are pushing for this law.

Without exception, they have either been taken down, or become closed and secret.

The sites were relentlessly targeted by transactivists. I don’t quite understand Facebook policy, but it appears as though it’s a question of the number of complaints, rather than the content of them.

Consequently, transactivists would send out the message to complain in numbers.

These sites merely cut and pasted what transactivists were saying, but, nonetheless, were accused by them of hate speech.

I’m not sure, but possibly centring women and the critical feminist might still be going.

I haven't heard it, but I believe the Moral Maze on Radio 4 last night was going to discuss gender identity. Was it any good? That programme raises my blood pressure to dangerous levels on the odd occasion I hear it, so I'd want some convincing to risk listening!

It was interesting. But it seemed the panel felt they knew more than the experts!

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09dz416

I haven't heard the moral maze yet, but I did listen to the James O'Brian from LBC interview that's been doing the rounds on twitter.

At the start he talks about how gender roles are limiting and you think yes, he gets it, then he goes on to say people should be happy for transitioning children who are brave to slot into the opposite gender roles and you just sigh as he massively misses the point that the problem is those gender roles and people who force children into them, not the sex of the children.

It went downhill from there though as he got aggressive with a caller pointing that out and called her a right wing religious nutter or similar for not wanting to change in a cubical beside him...

FlaviaAlbia

The woman who called into that show, has posted on here. Thread below.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3087218-James-OBrien-what-a-twat

Ah, thanks Datun, I've spoken to her on a different site but I missed that.

It was awful, really aggressive.

I just see people moaning, rather than any hatred. Be who you are is my motto.

I just see people moaning, rather than any hatred. Be who you are is my motto.

I was really getting into Blaire White's argument on the YouTube link someone posted earlier on this thread and then at about 29mins, the moderator interrupts both by stating "I think we can all agree that Terfs are the worst" and all three laugh.

I just feel so hopeless about this. BW speaks such sense when she scrutinises the physical aspects of MtF trans folk but she spectacularly fails to follow this through with what the implications are for biological women.

I was also bemused to hear the other TW say that of course a TW's vagina is a 'real' vagina. "It can allow for intercourse" after all. So, a vaginas is a hole to be fucked then. Nowt else.

midnight

I think youve started this thread to be a GF OP - you should be ashamed of yourself. Were you bored?

Agreed, but take heart, GF's that run in and try to throw this kind of grenade are actually helping more and more people reach peak-trans.

They're actually shining a light on their weak arguments and mysogyni. Notice how many are willing to return? Notice how many can't hold their ground against wave after wave of reasonable MN'ers?

Bring on more AIBU's I say.

ShirellesFan

It seems bizarre this sense of outrage about .... well I'm not really clear what its about ...

You're an idiot then.

Priests/Rabbis/Imams etc. are exempt, I think under the 'genuine occupational requirement' rule.

I was wrong about this, they've got their own exception:

790.This specific exception applies to employment for the purposes of an organised religion, which is intended to cover a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion and a small number of lay posts, including those that exist to promote and represent religion. Where employment is for the purposes of an organised religion, this paragraph allows the employer to apply a requirement to be of a particular sex or not to be a transsexual person, or to make a requirement related to the employee’s marriage or civil partnership status or sexual orientation, but only if –

- appointing a person who meets the requirement in question is a proportionate way of complying with the doctrines of the religion; or,

- because of the nature or context of the employment, employing a person who meets the requirement is a proportionate way of avoiding conflict with a significant number of the religion’s followers’ strongly held religious convictions.

But it seemed the panel felt they knew more than the experts

That's every edition of The Moral Maze

medium.com/@oliviabroustra/dear-trans-women-trans-identified-males-5d62e0f2ce57