To let you know what the lib dems think of you?

[MsMcWoodle]

I don't want to worry your fluffy little heads:

That doesn't mean it's sexist and calling it such devalues the word.
Saying that questioning a woman is sexism is absolute nonsense. He wasn't questioning because of the sex of posters but because of the lack of qualifications.

Maybe he's read the spurious 'legal advice' often given on the forum and realised that most clearly have no idea.

"He was questioning what 'legislative qualifications' millions of women have and strongly insinuating that we mustn't be adequately qualified to pursue this issue."

Yes. Nothing wrong with that and I suspect he's correct. Being a woman is not a qualification.

"all the intelligent, well informed women that post on here."

I'm sure there are some but they seem to be in a minority based on the majority of the posts - especially in AIBU.

Mumsnet is in no way representative of most women I know in real life. Do you think it is? Do you think most (anti) trans threads on MN have self-selecting contributors and that the aggressive person in the OP who childishly said "check MN if you don't believe me" has yet to understand the fallacy with her logic?

I don't think being a woman is a qualification but if you were to take a random sample of 7.5 million people I would assume that a reasonable number of them would have the competence and capability to sensibly question a piece of legislation. Do you seriously think he has spent time reading the ridiculous posts on AIBU or the questionable advise on the legal board to come to his conclusion that we aren't adequately qualified? I don't think so somehow and even if he did, what about all the really well informed and sensible things that are posted in equal measure on serious threads? This would indicate that you can't generalise and dismissing MN as a collective does seem to me to be fundamentally sexist.

I don't think MN needs to be representative of your friendship group as a) your friendship group almost certainly isn't accurately representative of the British Female population either and b) people have different interests so aren't all going to be interested in issues such as women's rights even if it does directly affect them. I do think MNers who are raising awareness on this important issue are doing all women a great service, because at the very least they are educating people about this issue and what it means for women. I and my friends generally are very pro trans people so originally saw the whole GRA through the lens of progressing trans rights and helping a vulnerable minority group. Thanks to this forum I understood the wider ramifications of the GRA and what it meant for women's rights and passed this awareness on to my friends. So now the MN vocal minority that carry on this campaign against the GRA do represent me and my friends.

No idea where you got the 7.5m people from. Surely not registered users on this site. I also don't know where the "random sample" comes from. If it is users of MN then it's the very antithesis of random.

"Do you seriously think he has spent time reading the ridiculous posts on AIBU or the questionable advise on the legal board to come to his conclusion that we aren't adequately qualified?"

Obviously not but Mumsnet (and by extension, its users) have a certain reputation and it isn't one of calm and reasoned opinion based on evaluation of evidence.

"what about all the really well informed and sensible things that are posted in equal measure on serious threads?"

Equal measure? Surely you don't honestly believe that? Of course there are educated and intelligent users who have really helped me (SEN board in particular) but both the users and the replies are few and far between hence people twisting any question into an 'AIBU for traffic'.

"This would indicate that you can't generalise and dismissing MN as a collective does seem to me to be fundamentally sexist."

No. I still disagree. He is not saying you're all wrong because you're women. He's asking what qualifications some quite radical (self-declared in all the xxTERFxx usernames) forum users have in a specific field. I suspect that qualifications in a related area would be quite a bit lower among MN users than in the general population.

I and my friends would never describe ourselves as pro or anti trans. It seems like a strange position to take. I'm neither pro or anti any group of people and I don't trust anyone who feels the need to make a statement like it. It seems quite similar to "I'm not racist, right, but ...".

"So now the MN vocal minority that carry on this campaign against the GRA"

I'm glad you were honest. So many users disingenuously call it a "discussion" or "debate" yet hound opposing opinions out of their anti-trans discussions.

You also spoke about a minority whereas the person in the screenshot acts like they speak for all women. This pisses me off. All this "we women ..." and "we see you". Who the fuck are these people to think they speak for me.

tl;dr he questioned anonymous users on a parenting forum as to what their qualifications are. This is not sexist as his reason for asking them is not based on their sex or gender in the same way calling Obama's second term as pretty useless does not make someone racist.

What 'legislative qualifications'? I'd say being a voter is a very good 'legislative qualification". But maybe he is just saying that he doesn't care abut women's votes. Thank you OP for making us aware of his attitude to women.

Just found his twitter page. He calls himself a feminist. Maybe someone should explain to him that it isn't just a random buzz word.

I can't see anything wrong with that? . Seems to be saying fairly politely that posters on Mumsnet might not have the experience of someone actually doing the job. I feel the same sometimes when people make comments about teaching.

Soluna I can't find my original source for the 7.5 million figure but MN themselves say they have 12.2 million unique users each month. This odesnt necessarily mean that they are registered but they are still users of the site.

Yes, I do think there are at least as many sensible responses to threads as there are ridiculous ones. Lots of threads are about trivial issues but that doesn't mean that they are created by unintelligent people. We are all capable of talking about a range of serious and non serious topics.

I generally find the posters on the more specialist boards the most informed and knowledgeable about particular issues and the feminist board is no exception to that so I just can't get my head around this statement:

'I suspect that qualifications in a related area would be quite a bit lower among MN users than in the general population.'

What qualifications are we talking about here? I think if anything the opposite accusation could be made of MN (and probably especially the feminist board) where the educated, middle class are generally overrepresented.

And yes you can be pro trans as you can be anti trans or transphobc. Do you think just the latter exists?

Wow. No wonder the Lib Dems have hardly any MPs. ‘Legislative qualifications’? That post just screams misogyny. How dare silly little women and mums at that care about their rights and their children’s rights to be safe from predatory men.

It's Office for Parliamentary Counsel who draft amendments to primary legislation, not politicians. I can't even imagine what a mess would be created if the politicians drafted it themselves!

There are lots of qualified and well informed lawyers on here. The Lib Dem's are a joke party now anyway so none of this matters.

@bumpityBumper

"We are all capable of talking about a range of serious and non serious topics."

Definitely not. There are a hell of a lot of morons in the world and any internet forum tends to attract more than its fair share.

"I generally find the posters on the more specialist boards the most informed and knowledgeable about particular issues and the feminist board is no exception"

As I mentioned in a previous post, the SEN board is excellent with some really nice, intelligent users although it's very quiet. It's the only 'specialist' board I've ever really visited. I have occasionally read some of the feminist threads but they're shouty, aggressive and misandrist. Is 'feminism' a specialty?

To explain my comment 'I suspect that qualifications in a related area would be quite a bit lower among MN users than in the general population.'

"related" meaning something legal or political

"qualifications" meaning something beyond A LEvels / IB.

I think the rest is self explanatory. I think that a MN user is less likely to have a related qualification than a non-MN user (as a percentage). I suspect that the intersect of women (as you seem determined to make this a sex issue) with related qualifications who use MN is a much smaller fraction than women with a related qualification who don't use MN.

"[feminism boards] where the educated, middle class are generally over-represented."

It's fascinating how we can have such different opinions of MN's typical demographic. For a start, I imagine over-invested feminism is the preserve of the working class and less educated. I'm not looking to cause offense, it's just my observation.

"And yes you can be pro trans as you can be anti trans or transphobc. Do you think just the latter exists?"

Yes. I'm not too sure how to explain why, but I do. I don't see what there is to be 'pro' about. I'm not 'pro woman' or 'pro black people' or 'pro homosexuals' because there's no need to be. The opposite of it is being a horrible bigoted arsehole and I don't feel the need to declare that I'm not one of those.

I'm trying to say (badly) is that being 'pro' any group of people is usually not pro, just not against. 'Pro' is the common and expected standpoint when talking about another normal* human being. To be 'pro' something, I think you have to be 'anti' something else and being anti any 'normal' group of people makes you a cunt.

What do you think pro-[insert minority group here] means and how is it any different to treating everyone equally?

*normal being not a murderer, evil dictator etc

soluna - I think that a MN user is less likely to have a related qualification than a non-MN user (as a percentage). I suspect that the intersect of women (as you seem determined to make this a sex issue) with related qualifications who use MN is a much smaller fraction than women with a related qualification who don't use MN.
You're funny! Anything to back up your 'suspicions'?
Personally, I have more qualifications than you can shake a stick at.

"Anything to back up your 'suspicions'?"

No, hence my saying 'suspicions'.

"I have more qualifications than you can shake a stick at."

Of course you do. Doesn't everyone on the internet?

My BSc, MSc, MA, PhD, NPQSL (and a few other letters) don't mean I am in any way whatsoever qualified to talk about any political subject such as trans rights. I have a few layman's opinions.

It's a shame that your plethora of qualifications didn't help you understand that your achievements have no bearing whatsoever on my assertion.

Do you have any information to suggest my suspicions are incorrect?

My BSc, MSc, MA, PhD, NPQSL (and a few other letters) don't mean I am in any way whatsoever qualified to talk about any political subject such as trans rights. I have a few layman's opinions

As someone who as been through the process the Lib Dem person is talking about, I have the insight to know when they are talking crap on their twitter feed and are misleading people about the changes.

I've also got a few qualifications and letters after my name and am perfectly capable of reading the GRA and knowing that 'getting a GRC' is not like getting a driving licence in your new gender ID as a GRC is a totally different legal status.

'Soluna' Do you have any information to suggest that they are correct? You are the one who made the assertion.
You can believe what you like about my qualifications. They will still exist. I do know that I enjoy Mumsnet because it is full of super smart women who can make coherent arguments and back up their assertions.
I do wonder about you though. Are you actually the person who made the post in the picture?
If so, I'd stop now. You're only making yourself look worse.

They will still exist. I do know that I enjoy Mumsnet because it is full of super smart women who can make coherent arguments and back up their assertions

Full?? Full?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The author of the tweet doesn't mention having any actual legal qualifications themselves, which makes me suspect this particular MNer is more legally qualified than they are...

Re TerranceandPhilip - oh look - they're sending more of them over here to alienate the voters!

"Are you actually the person who made the post in the picture?"

Am I the MP? No.

The other person in the screenshot told the Lib Dem guy to "check out mumsnet". He asked what qualifications this entity had. How is that unfair?

I think checking the qualifications of someone is an important part of giving weight to anything they say. Don't you? When I speak on an issue my qualifications are mentioned in my introduction. I've already said that none of mine are relevant here though; I think my opinion is worth less than someone who does have experience or qualifications. There are other areas where I think my opinions are worth much more than other peoples's.

Maybe he could have pointed out that MN doesn't have a single identity or thought about an issue and he could have mentioned the many trans threads which descend into bunfights as proof. Do you think there's an MN consensus?

"Do you have any information to suggest that [your assertions] are correct?"

Still no. Which bit of 'no' is confusing you?

Nope. Niet. Nein. Nay. Hindi.

Non je ne le fais pas.

(that's me out of languages to say 'no' in)

"You're only making yourself look worse."

Because I don't think questioning users of a website is automatically sexist or because I don't think MN is a hub of brilliant minds with PPE Degrees?

I do get that you were looking to shut down any opinion which doesn't match your very witty and clever "I don't want to worry your fluffy little heads" but you seem like a prime example of someone who says a lot without saying anything of substance.

Whether you agree with me or not, at least I have tried to explain why I think what I do. Something you've failed to do.

Because I don't think questioning users of a website is automatically sexist or because I don't think MN is a hub of brilliant minds with PPE Degrees

MN has a lot of people with a lot of knowledge in the areas of law.
It also has people with experience of the GRA.

This spokesperson dismissed that experience in that tweet.

Oh - and they are lying about the effect of the proposed changes to the GRA

soluna -'you seem like a prime example of someone who says a lot without saying anything of substance.'
That's a bit rich, considering the amount of wiffle coming from you.
You think that mumsnet is full of stupid people. I don't. I know why I am on here. Why are you?

Re TerranceandPhilip - oh look - they're sending more of them over here to alienate the voters!

Ah the old "you don't agree with me you must be a" man/mra/handmaiden.

You're now adding lib dem to the list!

Not proving the guys point at all. The vast mind power of mumsnet and that's the best you can come up with?

You think that mumsnet is full of stupid people.

I don't think that MN is full of stupid people but I do think that, soluna's, posts on this thread stand out as being intelligent, well argued, logical and non reactionary.

And I think she's right.

Huh! 'well argued'!???? Even soluna admits she can't back anything up!