To think Mumsnet is OBSESSED

[AccidentalKylie]

I used to read Mumsnet because it was a lot of clever, funny women talking about stuff I was interested in, but it's become a one issue forum. It's exhausting.

"It's not a campaigning site, nor a consciousness-raising site"

It does campaign though.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_campaigns

Plus if people want to consciousness-raise then they should be free to do so, obvs within the talk guidelines.

Without Mumsnet, I would have very little idea of the real impact of the the amendments to the GRA and self ID.

More (very) recently, I would've heard stuff on R4, GMTV and so on - but the Spartacus threads on here really made me aware of what was going on. And that was a year or 2 ago.

So I'm very grateful to hear such intelligent women talk about this - free from the abuse and harassment present on other platforms.

@MaggieTheCat1

Saying you're bored of trans threads on MN and you do see some transphobia doesn't mean you don't care or that you don't agree with a lot of concerns, it means you're bored with the same arguments that ultimately aren't doing anything except pushing some women towards switching off entirely.

I think this is an entirely understandable viewpoint - but how do we move off MN and into the wider sphere of influence without harnessing groundswell opinion from here, a site full of women?

The petition is supposed to push this mainstream. It’s innocuously worded - and yet it’s still clearly being viewed with suspicion and shouts of transphobia.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

I worry it’s switching people off. But I worry more people aren’t aware of what they’re “bored” by. They see the headline trans issues and think tolerance is needed - but not the wider picture of women’s rights.

How do we fix that?

BiologyMatters So why isn't it then mysoginistic and prejudiced to portray all gender critical women as if they hate transpeople?

Mysoginy is hatred or contempt for women, not disagreeing with an ideology that may be held by some women.

It probably is prejudiced however to portray them as hating trans people.

On another note one might be demonstrating prejudice by declaring oneself to be "gender critical". Because of course what they really mean is that they are gender stereotypes critical. Which is fine in the abstract but in the context of the trans issue this is basically the person implying that trans people, all trans people, only became trans because they realised that they had an affinity with gender stereotypes like prefering blue or giggling.

If MNHQ want to adopt something as a MN campaign, then that's their prerogative.

And yes, as linking as you don't break talk guidelines, you can post what you like. But that doesn't make MN a consciousness-raising site.

If you don't want to see that quantity is a problem, that's your view. and as I said, congratulations for ruining FWR by making it monolithic.

Intelligent women are found in all parts of MN btw. It's not unique or special to one topic or angle on that topic.

If you want to call me thick for not praising the overload of threads, then feel free to do so.

I agree with Maggie the feminist topics are flooded with Trans threads, apparently there is nothing else happening in the world that warrants our attention. The saturation does make me feel disconnected from feminism for the first time in my life, which is depressing.

Out of interest, do you start threads about other stuff?

"It's not a campaigning site, nor a consciousness-raising site"

Does that mean all discussion of politics is off limits? Or stuff relating to raising awareness of what your rights in childbirth are? Or pretty much anything to do with health?

Best all just about fluffy bunnies.

What do you think the purpose of a discussion forum is?

I think there were complaints about too many Brexit threads at the time of the referendum but in retrospect perhaps Brexit wasn’t discussed enough.

This is a current issue and policy is being changed now. Obviously many people don’t use mumsnet to discuss feminism and it is possible to hide the feminism board, but I don’t understand how it’s possible to discuss any aspect of feminism if it’s not possible to define what a woman is.

No Terf, I've been very aware of transwomen on here. I have engaged on many of the threads and enjoyed their contribution. Which I don't necessarily need to hear to educate me since I know several transwomen and men in RL.

I see a lot of hypocrisy though and an 'acceptable transperson' i.e one that agrees with our POV. On the threads about Paris Lees being on a MN panel (yes, I genuinely have been on these threads and around for a while, I'm not a man or a TRA or a handmaiden) there was lots of 'this MAN shouldn't represent women or MN, HE is whatever, I will never call a man a woman etc'. But when Miranda Yardley was posting, she was always referred to as she, people even going as far to say 'has earned our respect' or whatever. When as far as I know, Paris has had more surgical intervention - which a lot of people seem to view as 'more acceptable'.

I wasn't Spartacus simply because I wouldn't misgender. I agreed with many of the viewpoints but I use preferred pronouns. Jaycee and Truscum et al - I would have always referred to them by their preferred names and pronouns. Not just because I think they're an ally in some way but because I respect them and their choices and their identity.

So when I see posts about 'I'll never call a man a woman, just men in dresses, most TIM transitions are AG, Caitlin Jenner is just a privileged man, Lily Madigan is a spotty boy (all seen on MN) and you then say 'oh but some of these transwomen on MN agree with us and that means we're okay and not transphobic'.

I think - why aren't you referring to them as he? As you do for other transwomen you don't like very much. Why aren't you telling them they're just 'mentally ill men' as I've seen so often. That they 'never really pass'.

That you don't care about what they feel, or experience or what would make their lives better because they're just men trying to push their way into womens spaces and eradicate the meaning of women?

It smacks of the 1970s non-threatening gay men like Larry Grayson or John Humphries. Oh, they're alright but the rest are just poofter perverts who I wouldn't want my child to meet.

And it doesn't need to be said but an individual or a few individuals of a minority/opressed group can speak about their own views of what is an -ism or a -phobia. And that's all. It doesn't mean that -ism or phobia isn't happening.

For decades women have been told that some viewpoint or action isn't sexist because other women don't think it is and think it's just banter or whatever. There are threads like that every week on MN.

There have been threads on here with people from BME backgrounds objecting to questions of 'where are you from, London? no really where is your family from?' as racist and other people from BME backgrounds not seeing a problem at all.

Out of interest, do you start threads about other stuff?

Bingo!

If there is a "thread overload" on certain subjects - then it means it is an important topic for many posters here.

Do you want to be called a "Menstruator" by the providers of sanitary wear? Or will "woman" do?

When you give birth, do you want to be called a "expectant mother" or a "pregnant person"?

If your baby grows up to be gender non-conforming, do you want trans activist groups to have free reign on giving talks in school - saying that "if you think you are the opposite sex, you can take some pills and change into the opposite sex" at primary age? Telling them they are transgender at such a tender age. This has all been reported and discussed on these threads - the medicalisation of gender non-conforming children. Being told they'll have a "party with all their friends to celebrate their new gender identity and name". Literally brainwashing young children into the new gender ideology.

Noone is stopping any poster from starting a feminist thread that doesn't mention the trans issue at all.
Fill your boots and talk about all the other feminist issues that you find more exciting.

Noone requires any poster to read any threads
It's not like an old book club where you have to read a set number every month, or get expelled.

I avoid the vast majority of MN threads because as a 61-yr-old child-free woman & unsociable Aspie, they are totally uninteresting to me.
I'm "allowed" to do this.

I see a lot of hypocrisy though and an 'acceptable transperson' i.e one that agrees with our POV.

I think it comes down to a respect for WHY women feel they need feminism based on biological reason.

When that is not respected by individuals the same respect is not extended because women ask why they aren't having their concerns even acknowledged, much less supported.

Instead its an erasure of those issues as if they are unimportant.

That's the entire problem in a nutshell tbh.

That women's concerns are being brushed aside, without a drop of reassurance or compassion and a great deal of disrespect.

Its a mutual thing. If its 'intersectional feminism', then why are only some women's views valid? Its the same thing.

You can not move forward until this respect is found.

From a personal point of view, I don't feel I've ever been given that benefit even though I have tried to give that respect in the past. It gets to a point where patience wears thin and I think that's where a lot of people, particularly those who have been dealing with it first hand, have run out completely.

It wouldn't take much to reverse that, but it requires an acknowledge that sex is important. Which is totally at odds with the views of some TRAs.

I think most women can envisage the possibility that some men might id as women to get into a female changing room, etc. This may happen - accepted. However, as I said on a thread yesterday, the type of man who would do that is a risk anyway, regardless of what he identifies as. Self-id and hanging out in women's spaces will make him very conspicuous and easier to identify.

There will not be a sudden exodus of men into women's spaces. Why would there be? There are enough opportunities elsewhere that allow predators to harass women under the radar. No paedophile or rapist wants to draw attention to himself by acting out if the ordinary.

There will not be all this nonsense about men identifying as women to become girl guide leaders or whatever. A straight man or gay man (or woman) can get access to children fairly easily in a range of settings. No need whatsoever to self-id as something else.

I don't understand why lesbian women feel there is "pressure" put on them to have sex with a man who ids as a woman. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. It matters not what anyone else identifies as - if you still see them as biologically male, then that's that. The law can't dictate who you must have sex with fgs! I certainly don't feel under any pressure whatsoever to have sex with a woman who self-ids as a man! This is nonsense. Why the hysteria? Just do what you want.

This is why people get bored of the arguments. The truth is, the vast majority of people will rarely meet a trans person, far less one who suddenly ids as something else simply to get access to women's spaces. I did hide this thread this morning, but it's come back. Now I'll hide it again.

@SinisterBumFacedCat eh? Why is that bingo?

(No sarcasm, I just don't understand)

Self-id and hanging out in women's spaces will make him very conspicuous and easier to identify.

Yes of course it will. But you will be unable to do anything about it.

There will not be a sudden exodus of men into women's spaces. Why would there be? There are enough opportunities elsewhere that allow predators to harass women under the radar.

Because in this instance - you will be unable to do anything about it.

There will not be all this nonsense about men identifying as women to become girl guide leaders or whatever. A straight man or gay man (or woman) can get access to children fairly easily in a range of settings. No need whatsoever to self-id as something else

Previously, they had to stay under the radar. Now, just self id and there will be nothing you can do about it.

I don't understand why lesbian women feel there is "pressure" put on them to have sex with a man who ids as a woman. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything

Previously lesbians could say 'not interested', but now, there is nothing they will be able to do about it.

People will be unable to do anything about it - as being called a transphobe and the threat of being outed - publicly, or of losing your job - means people will just keep their heads down and do nothing.

This is why people get bored of the arguments. The truth is, the vast majority of people will rarely meet a trans person, far less one who suddenly ids as something else simply to get access to women's spaces. I did hide this thread this morning, but it's come back. Now I'll hide it again

Sigh. Yes of course you would hide it again. Just too boring for you.

Out of interest, do you start threads about other stuff?

Good question, I expect OP knew what would happen when posting this. Also, we have THIS thread literally every week too so I might start a thread about that

Biology has a massive influence on the lives of most women:
menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, miscarriage, stillbirth, menopause
all issues that men don't have

Women are aware of the biological differences and need freedom to discuss what these mean in our everyday lives, with women only if we wish, not men or transwomen who don't have the same experiences or (genuine) body parts.

Equality doesn't mean everyone always being able to do the same thing together, under the exact same conditions, in the same place.

imo, we should be kind to someone struggling with body dysmorphia, to the extent we would with any other mental illness, while placing limits on how much this should impinge onto our own lives.

We shouldn't rudely criticise rebuilt parts of anyone's anatomy, but we are fully entitled to refuse to consider a trans person as a romantic / sex partner.

Personally, I would normally use a person's preferred pronoun,
but I probably won't bother if they are male when they want to avail themselves of privileges e.g. exclusive golf club membership, but female when they want publicity and to enter women's spaces - that just seems posing, imo.

I don't understand why lesbian women feel there is "pressure" put on them to have sex with a man who ids as a woman

So a lesbian woman tells you she is being told in her LGBT circles to widen her dating pool to include men or she is transphobic and you don’t think that warrants pressure?
Lesbian women are talking about this actually happening to them but you choose to disbelieve them?

Do you think 18 year old lesbian women, away from home for the first time at uni and involved in the LGBT scene is strong enough to lose all of her friends and faces screeches of “transphobe” across campus for 3 years or will she submit to that pressure? If I as a 35 year old bisexual woman (who was close to leaving her DH last year and considered relationships with women) can be told I MUST include transwomen when I go out to dating and I felt very pressured to accept that way of thinking then GOK what an 18yo lesbian would feel pressured into.

You know what, mumsnet is the only place where I am hearing people represent my views on feminism and the trans issue. I couldn’t give a shit about rubbish MILs, who to invite to the evening do, baby names or parking. But this is really important to me and I am glad for a space to talk or read about it without the bullshit backlash on twitter. So just like I do with the stuff that I’m not interested in, scroll past or jog on. Because I think this is a crucial debate. And I am pleased that here at least there is some resistance.

At my previous job, I used to Skype a lot with a Indian woman techie (in India)

She told of the significant dangers she would face - from men - on her 2-hour train & bus commute if she traveled off-peak; hence why she was only available certain hours

She was so delighted with the increasing numbers of women's toilets being built in India
She said it would mean women being able to go out more, participate more in society, jobs etc, because they would be safer.

When my mother's family still lived in the Middle East, safe separate facilities for women were regarded as a prerequisite to enable women to have some measure of independence from male relatives.

It just seems some Western countries that have decided to turn back the clock on this

Of course men can smash their way into women's toilets, or just enter them.
However, there is a big difference: it would be illegal or against the local rules - and would bring unwanted consequences

In what other area would we say that a rule or law doesn't stop all of that crime, so let's abolish the law ?
Anyone want to abolish the laws against murder ?
Do you think it wouldn't increase the number of murders if we did this ?