Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask for your views on this article about Mumsnet:

79 replies

busyboysmum · 12/02/2018 11:41

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/jeremy-corbyn-has-a-new-enemy-mumsnet/

Mumsnet is fab and full of serious, interesting people talking about serious, interesting stuff. For an increasing number of them, that means gender recognition, self-defined gender and the implications (practical, social, political and philosophical) for women — by which I mean, people who were born female.

OP posts:
YourVagesty · 12/02/2018 14:28

I was just thinking that maybe it's appropriate that it is the centenary of the vote for women this year.

Up until now, I was thinking that it's a bit of a piss take that every article I read about the vote/ the Suffragettes seems to feature the obligatory trans.

But maybe women are on the threshold of another historic win for feminism so perhaps it's timely.

Everyonematters · 12/02/2018 17:51

Yey mumsnet.

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 12/02/2018 19:44

I really feel like people are starting to take notice now. And people who were previously too scared to say anything are stepping up.

And soon we'll reach our critical mass.

OlennasWimple · 12/02/2018 19:47

It's so frustrating when Mumsnet users get derided and dismissed as a load of middle class mummies more concerned with whether Tarquin is getting his daily quinoa ration than anything serious or political (see the comments underneath the article, and indeed any article that mentions MN)

Anyway, great job James, keep it up!

TheButterflyOfTheStorms · 12/02/2018 19:53

As an aside, I think The Times and The Spectator are also happy about possible defections from the Guardian. Which is also letting women down as clearly has been for some time. As in life; so in the media.

So Times and Spectator - keep on publishing.

Somerford · 12/02/2018 20:00

Interesting read, thanks for the link. It's a strange time at the moment, I think the majority of politically active people across the spectrum don't really have a party that represents them. Most people are swallowing a lot of rather unpalatable policies to back the best of a bad bunch and increasingly people are having to turn their backs on it completely because the best of a bad bunch isn't anywhere near good enough. That isn't a problem confined to Labour members and voters either. I don't really understand how we've ended up here but it will surely have to change.

EmpressOfJurisfiction · 12/02/2018 21:14

Look at this tweet. I'm increasingly impressed by James Kirkup.

To ask for your views on this article about Mumsnet:
bambambini · 12/02/2018 21:40

Good article and will be better received than if a woman had written it. I also won’t be voting Labour if they continue to insult and punish women who speak up about this and who refuse to buy into an ideology that demands that we say and think that a woman can have a penis, that a woman is just an identity.

Hidingtonothing · 13/02/2018 05:22

Fucking hell that tweet! He actually, properly gets it doesn't he? Smile

laudanum · 13/02/2018 05:39

Oh it's the Spectator. It'll be bollocks then.

EmpressOfJurisfiction · 13/02/2018 07:07

Have a look laudanum, you might be surprised.

IntelligentYetIndecisive · 01/03/2018 21:39

James Kirkup's latest blogpost on the matter.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-violent-misogyny-of-the-gender-debate/

IntelligentYetIndecisive · 01/03/2018 21:45

The violent misogyny of the gender debate - James Kirkup

Journalists and politicians talk a lot about freedom of speech, and rightly so, because the ability to express thoughts and opinions without fear or restraint is the foundation of democracy. We must be free to question, free to doubt, or we are not free at all.

But for journalists and politicians, ‘freedom of speech’ can feel a bit of an abstract concept, a debating point not a matter of personal safety. We talk about curbs on free speech as things that make it harder for us to do what we do – write and talk. We rarely think about them in terms of physical fear.

So a couple of weeks ago, whenI wrote here about the way fear is chilling the debate about Britain’s laws on sex and gender, I really meant the fear of reputational damage. I referred to the fear that MPs and journalists feel that if they question moves to allow people to decide their own legally-recognised gender they will be accused of transphobia and bigotry.

That fear is real, and troubling, but there are worse things to be afraid of. Fear that you will lose your job and your livelihood. Fear of physical attack.

And that is what some people in this debate feel here. They fear that if they are seen to speak out and question the trend to change the law to allow ‘self-identification’, they will come to harm. Real harm.

Some of those people are meeting tonight in London, to discuss those changes in the law and their concern about them. I can’t tell you precisely where because the location of the meeting is being kept secret. The people organising and attending the meeting are scared of what might happen if some of the people who disagree with them turn up.

The people organising the meeting call themselves A Woman’s Place UK. They say the proposed changes in the law raise questions that are not just practical but existential. They worry that if a man can become a woman just by saying so, with no external check or verification, then the very term ‘woman’ becomes meaningless, and a group of people with no meaningful name or identity will in time lose all standing in law and society. For them, womanhood is a matter of objective biological fact, one that subjective feelings cannot change. Most, if not all, of them call themselves feminists.

Some of the people who disagree with them use a different name: TERFs. It technically stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist but if you follow online ‘debate’ you’ll see it’s become a term in its own right, and an abusive one. Follow the utterances of the most committed advocates of trans rights and you’ll find frequent references to violence against Terfs: punch Terfs, kill Terfs.

There are lesser threats too, to use more subtle means to inflict harm. Social pressure is used to threaten the employment of those considered Terfs:read this Mumsnet thread for a disturbing litany of what happens to women who ask questions about the self-identity agenda in the workplace, especially in academia and the public sector. In politics, women who question the self-ID agenda have faced censure and expulsion in Labour, the Greens and, yes, the Women’s Equality Party.

It is hard not to conclude that such things are at least partly the result of a concerted attempt to stigmatise and demonise women who attempt to raise concerns about a policy that they feel poses risks to their safety and even their fundamental existence.

To be clear at that point, I note that the following two statements can both be true, at the same time. Neither fact justifies the other. First, some transgender people suffer unacceptable physical, mental and social abuse that causes them real and unacceptable harm. Second, some women who question the move towards self-defined gender feel real and unacceptable fear of physical harm at the hands of some people who advocate that change in the law.

Perhaps you think a Woman’s Place UK are over-reacting, or talking up the threat for political purposes. If so, I suggest you search online for ‘punch terfs’.Or follow a case of alleged assault currently awaiting trial.Or review the history of the group’s Edinburgh meeting, where one of the protesting groups has demanded that the venue that had the temerity to host a bunch of women talking about feminist theoryhand the proceeds of the eventover to a group that sayspunching Terfs is a moral duty akin to fighting Nazis.

Against which background, I suggest that it is depressingly understandable that some of the women involved in tonight’s meeting feel genuinely threatened, and threatened over the simple act of attending a political meeting.

And for all that this might upset or even offend some people, biology does matter here. Biological males are, on average, larger and stronger and more aggressive than biological females. Biological males commit more acts of violence — and more serious acts of violence – than biological females.

For these sadly rational reasons, among others, women are more likely to feel afraid of men than men are of women. Hence the existence of those spaces and places that law and convention reserve for women: changing rooms, refuges, hospital and prison wards.

Would the safety of those spaces be compromised if any man could gain the legal right to enter them simply by saying the words ‘I am a woman’? That is one of the questions the women who meet tonight are asking — keenly aware that some of the people who might take up that legal right are currently issuing threats against them.

I don’t know the answer but I think the question is a valid one and deserves a considered answer from anyone who proposes to change the law to allow such a situation. But it appears that some of those people don’t want to answer the question. They don’t even want it to be asked.

So the story of tonight’s Women’s Place meeting is this: a group of people who were raised male and in some cases retain full male anatomy areperpetuating a narrative that harm – including physical violence — can and should be inflicted on womenwho question the things those people say are true.

This debate about gender and sex and identity may seem terribly modern, a product of our times, but really, this is a story as old as they come: women who do not know their place are threatened and punished. Britain in 2018 is still a country where women who speak out risk a smack in the mouth.

The post contains links to other articles and blogposts.

busyboysmum · 02/03/2018 00:02

JK gets it. His articles have been excellent.

OP posts:
pedigreeRacer · 02/03/2018 01:05

Amazing how MN and it's anti-trans stance is so aligned with the centre-right and far-right isn't it.

@yorkshireyummymummy

"I feel so proud to be a woman"

Why do you feel proud to be a woman now? I think I've missed the connection you've made.

busyboysmum · 02/03/2018 01:19

I don't think MN stance is anti trans. It's certainly pro women. And pro biology. And pro reality. And very much anchored in what the majority of the population of the UK is thinking.

The problem there seems to be coming from mainly leftie men and some women is their unthinking promotion of the trans gender issue without acknowledging there can be other points of view.

OP posts:
NoqontroI · 02/03/2018 01:20

I don't think MN is anti trans racer. Far from it in fact. But you have clearly missed the point, or alternatively have chosen not to understand it.

pedigreeRacer · 02/03/2018 02:41

The last (anti) trans thread I read I reported 8 posts before giving up and all were removed. They were the ones which transgressed the fairly liberal rules. There are always the smug posters who stay just on the side of acceptable with 'report me if ...' replies. Then there are those who ask to be shown the anti-trans replies; well, they're deleted so you can't be shown.

"And pro reality"

What is this supposed to mean? Please don't say anything like "the reality of being a woman" or something about "lived experiences". It makes no sense and sounds like something a Womens Studies 'teacher' might say when they don't know the answer.

"And pro biology"

You mean women and men are different from the neck down but any differences from the neck up (innate gender differences) are illogical and can only be social constructs, not biology?

"pro women"

Who is anti-women?

"anchored in what the majority of the population of the UK is thinking."

I do love a good baseless assertion! Where have you got this "majority" from?

"without acknowledging there can be other points of view."

I completely acknowledge other points of view. I just think they're wrong. Don't you think that when you're aligning yourself with some fairly reprehensible people it's time to question your own views?

A famous bon mot asserts that opinions are like arse-holes, in that everyone has one. There is great wisdom in this… but I would add that opinions differ significantly from arse-holes, in that yours should be constantly and thoroughly examined.

We must think critically, and not just about the ideas of others. Be hard on your beliefs. Take them out onto the verandah and beat them with a cricket bat.
...

Most of society’s arguments are kept alive by a failure to acknowledge nuance. We tend to generate false dichotomies, then try to argue one point using two entirely different sets of assumptions, like two tennis players trying to win a match by hitting beautifully executed shots from either end of separate tennis courts.

TheButterflyOfTheStorms · 02/03/2018 03:23

Thing is @pedigreeRacer the pro self-ID people like yourself never stop to think why MN feminists, who are generally fairly liberal, leftie, right side of history appear to be so wrong here.

Critical thinking. If we campaigned against apartheid and boycotted Nestle and fought against Thatcher and section 28 and striked and did all those things and SUDDENLY we're bigots... about this one issue... maybe there is something to pause and think about.

All these measured, intelligent, feminist women. All suddenly narrow minded, right wing bigots about just one issue. I'd be trying to work out why.

tinkywinky2018 · 02/03/2018 03:33

Amazing how MN and it's anti-trans stance is so aligned with the centre-right and far-right isn't it

Wrong wrong wrong. You are a misogynistic bigot.

pedigreeRacer · 02/03/2018 03:48

@tinkywinky2018

You cheapen the words "mysogynistic bigot" with your lack of understanding and intelligence.

Not being a TERF is not misogyny. Be a good little poster and if you're going to insult someone, put a bit more effort in.

@TheButterflyOfTheStorms

No idea why you think it's right to lump all "pro self-ID people like yourself [sic]" and tell me how I think and act when you don't know me or much about my opinions. I absolutely think about opposing views and question them and am not afraid to change my mind when I think I'm in the wrong.

It was a little offensive to suggest I don't or that all people who disagree with you are the same and can't consider opposing views.

I didn't call you a bigot. I didn't use the word. Where are the measured and intelligent women (agreeing with someone does not make them intelligent)?

Who is the "we" who fought Thatcher etc? Feminists? Feminism now is unrecognisable to the movement 70s and 80s which is why it's being deserted by ever increasing numbers of men and women and is seen by 25% of women as an insult.

charlestonchaplin · 02/03/2018 05:10

pedigreeRacer
You mean women and men are different from the neck down but any differences from the neck up (innate gender differences) are illogical and can only be social constructs, not biology?

My understanding of the science is that there are differences which are small but statistically significant. You have to look at a large number of brains, both male and female, to see the differences between the groups. You can't look at any one brain and determine that it belongs to a male or a female. It's like height, where men in general are taller than women, but individual women are taller than individual men.

The differences are largely thought to be due to social conditioning. But even if they aren't, that is absolutely no help to your cause and your argument. Since any given brain can't be categorised as male or female, how does that help those who argue that their bodies are somehow wrong and that brains should be taken as the true determinant of their sex/gender? What makes the body wrong and people's feelings about their minds right? We have the (almost always) clear and relevant markers in the sex organs. You want to ignore these in favour of a completely unclear picture where the brain is concerned.

I say relevant because the penis is frequently used as a weapon against non penis owners. It is used as a weapon against penis owners too, but much less frequently, and penis owners are generally much more able to protect themselves from assault, including penile assault than non penis owners. So it makes sense to segregate penis owners and non penis owners.

If self-identification becomes law we may as well abandon all sex-based segregation designed to protect women. It will be meaningless. I'm not sure why trans penis owners are considered different and harmless to women. Hardly a week goes past without me being informed here on mumsnet of another trans penis owner with a history of sexually assaulting women. So much so that Lord Patel invites one to speak in Parliament. Couldn't he find a trans person who hasn't committed a violent offence? I'm sure he didn't try hard enough, but there do seem to be a worrying number of transwomen sex offenders. The old idea of transwomen having gender dysphoria and wanting rid of their penis is no longer the case, hence the push for self-identification.

You seem to be desperately trying to make the facts fit with your position, because if you'd thought it through, your argument is half-baked and just doesn't hold water.

InfiniteSheldon · 02/03/2018 05:28

Be a good little poster showing your true colours there your posting instantaneous misogynistic and exemplifies the reason self id is dangerous for women.

InfiniteSheldon · 02/03/2018 05:28

Is rampantly not instantaneous....

TheButterflyOfTheStorms · 02/03/2018 05:31

Oops @pedigreeRacer your misogyny is showing. Sorry for engaging. Not worth it for either of us!