To encourage Ocado shoppers to read this

[Estellesylvia]

If you are an Ocado customer, you should be aware that they consider defining ‘woman’ as an adult human female to be hate speech and not ‘in line with their values’.

They threatened to pull advertising from Primesite unless Primesite took down a billboard with the OED definition of woman on it.

They have received hundreds of complaints from women since, but have refused to apologise.

Just in case you might want to consider not giving your money to a company who consider the word woman to not be in line with their values.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3376466-ocado-boycott-after-support-of-primesight-action

And if you do decide to boycott, tell them why.

That comment was to @A0001

Oh yes, go head and boycott them, I will have much more choice with the Christmas delivery slots. I would be more inclined to boycott the companies who are registered outside the U.K., and don’t pay any taxes here, despite making millions profit.

ScienceIsTruth Sat 29-Sep-18 11:21:00

It's someone that lives in a stereotypically feminine manner, and conforms to a man's idea of femininity.

Brilliant - and it even avoids the circularity of having to use the word 'woman'.

@ShovingLeopard

Yes, I am calling out the thread as a while and the motivations if the OP and the woman in the story. I've also researched the concerns raised. Many of the facts pushed are not accurate and are often based on implausible/ unlikely premises.

I don't agree with the central premise often used in many arguments which boils down to anyone who is/ has been possed of a penis is inherently abusive and sexually predatory.

I also do not believe that people would choose to be trans given the option. A lot of the arguments used feel like those used to justify homophobia in the past. Someone does not choose to be gay, lesbian or bisexual. Nor do they choose to be trans. People do not seek out to be marginalised and criticised, abused and stigmatised for shits and giggles.

The premise of the new law also does not fundamentally change trans rights as they are. It is a bureaucratic tidy up to allow people to more easily change their birth certificate and passport. It also does not have the way for predatory men to pretend to be women in order to attack them in women's spaces. A gender recognition certificate means you are changing gender. It is not actually practical for this hypothetical predator to switch between man and woman in an attempt to rape the vulnerable. Nor would the law support this. Also, women are far more at risk of being raped in a woman's space (li ake a toilet) by a cis man. Also transwomen are also at a high risk of being assaulted by cis-men.

I agree with some posters that many feel they cannot discuss legitimate issues or raise complaints about obnoxious activists who are being nasty. Legitimate debate and discussion should not be silenced.

But so often these threads are not about legitimate debate and discussion. They are used to say that 1) there is only one type of feminist. Those who agree with excluding transwomen. This is palbably false. 2) that transwomen are really predatory men hoping to sneak into women's spaces in order to rape. 3) that all men are rapists.

I could go into a longer spiel and better argument but my six week old has been cluster feeding since 2am and I am finding it hard to construct the argument as well as I would like (soo tired!)

I shop with Ocado, have looked at a couple of threads quickly. Agree that the definition of the word / words is vitally important but won’t be closing my account.

I am at trustpilot reviews - all those one stars must be hurting them - I’m surprised there isn’t some sort of we need to sort this meeting going on (well yesterday at least)

I think I was already aware from all the previous threads (including an AIBU) about this,

I have skimmed through the thread now. I see it's just another thread about men and their penises...

I have the utmost sympathy and respect for someone who has struggled with their male identity all their life and who, as an adult, has taken the painful, gruelling decision to have the thing that makes them male removed and have undergone years of hormone treatment to become more 'woman like'.

Having ones male genitalia removed does not make someone female. It makes them a Eunuch. However, if someone has gone through all this to present as a woman (and let's face it there are times when we wouldn't have known they were once a man), I would be the first to accept them as female and be happy to call them a woman.

A bloke with a penis, loaded with testosterone does not deserve the right to be called a woman because they are the complete opposite- male/man. All these blokes with penises do is make a mockery of genuine trans people and take the piss out of women.

Penis = Man

TBH I was surprised to discover it was against the talk guidelines and when I read through the link I was sent my MN HA there was nothing there explicitly stating that using the term was again at the guidelines.

I used it in context and accurately. Yet several layers here keep using the term handmaiden to attack any women or fellow feminists that do not share their views on the inclusion of transwomen.

That's far more offensive.

I also do not believe that people would choose to be trans given the option.

They don't have to BE trans.

They just have to say the magic words and bingo, they are considered women.

What exactly is 'female' about these ladies?

I don't agree with the central premise often used in many arguments which boils down to anyone who is/ has been possed of a penis is inherently abusive and sexually predatory

Nobody says this, though.

Saying that men as a class are responsible for the vast majority of sexual assault and abuse doesn't mean that you think all men are like that. That is feminism 101 - basic class analysis about men-as-a-class and women-as-a-class. It doesn't mean that all men are rapists: it never has.

The point is that women are not able to distinguish between nice men and rapists, and for that reason, we sex-segregate where women are vulnerable and/or disadvantaged as a safety measure. All decent men get this, and understand that it is not meant as a personal slight against them.

And the issue with sex self-ID is that if you stop sex segregating in order to let in dysphoric transsexual people, then you also by default weaken the safeguarding that helps keep out not-decent men.

Mixed sex facilities are bad for women. We need another answer for trans people that doesn't make things worse for women.

You want to destroy a company that employs 12,799 staff for an ill-judged tweet?

I didn't stop shopping there because of the ill-judged tweet but because of the response to it (or rather their lack of response). As a long term customer I felt entitled to know what their values are that mis-align with defining women as a biological sex class rather than a feeling or stereotype. I asked for a link to their values by email and by 2 live chats. The email was ignored and both of the live chats were ended by Ocado without an answer. This is why I cancelled. Again, I was asking for their values, not ranting about the misogyny and homophobia behind the TRA/MRA movement because I don't think Ocado should be forced to wade into that discussion because one/a few employees gleefully jumped in with both feet with a few tweets. As a business owner myself I do feel responsibility towards my own employees, but Ocado's not so much. They need to manage their own business, not expect a load of random women to do it as some sort of charity programme. Besides, I'm hardly starving on the street. Since I've cancelled my smart-pass I have been to the local butcher, Sainsbury's for a "big shop" (to replace cancelled Ocado delivery) and couldn't get mushrooms so called in at Tesco. I have an online delivery booked for Sainsbury's next week and Waitrose the week after (my wee bit of market research) and my Christmas order is booked at Waitrose. Why do Ocado deserve my ££ more than Sainsbury's, Tesco, the butcher and Waitrose?

I think I have their definition of woman figured out:

It's someone that lives in a stereotypically feminine manner, and conforms to a man's idea of femininity.

How's that? So that obviously means most of us cty types aren't women! Bet most ppl know who to approach,ie, what kind of woman they need, for the continuation of the human species though.

Yeah, sounds about right.

Interestingly, I saw on Twitter once, men who were posting very trans positive messages be questioned on whether, given their firm belief that TWAW, they’d be open to having a sexual relationship with one (pre-op)

They simply couldn’t understand or accept why, when answering in the negative, they were being transphobic’.

Trans allies in the Tweets... transphobic in the sheets. 🙄

Morning, everyone.

Just another reminder that we're happy to host these discussions but we are having to delete a lot of posts here that are PAs or break talk guidelines in other ways, and if the thread becomes a doily we'll have no choice but to take it down.

Please keep comments civil and in the spirit of polite debate.

Thanks.

being ‘transphobic’

Earlywalker I find your thinking very muddled.

Your examples where you think posters have 'tarred' transwomen are no such thing. Saying a trans woman is not a woman does not 'tar' them, it is simply a statement of biological fact.

If posters were saying 'all transwomen are doing it because they are sexual predators', that would be 'tarring' them. Nobody is saying that.

YANBU. I won’t be ordering from them again.
Same goes for any company which finds the term woman offensive.
As an aside, The Times article on the billboard issue this week mentioned that the government is consulting on whether to expand the legal definition of the word “woman”. No mention of whether they will also do the same for the word “man”. Does anyone have any information on this?

it's well documented that people can be born in the wrong body

Do you mean that humans, or some sort of immutable essence or uncheangable identity can exist separately from their bodies? Does this mean that the existence of the soul has been proven?

This is a major breakthrough in the history of humankind.

Please could the pp provide a link?

Woah I’ve learnt a few things on this thread! I didn’t realise that there could be such a thing as a lady dick?! Really?!

According to h* tweet, Danielle Moscato would like you to suck h if you don't agree with h*.

Oh, Bibi, so many misunderstandings, straw men, and twistings of both fact and what people are saying, that I don't really know how to start.

I remember the early bf days, and the horrendous sleep deprivation, but really, you are not reading and comprehending the actual content of posts accurately, if that is what you think posters are saying.

I understand your desire to be nice and sympathetic to trans people. I share that desire to be nice and see the best in people generally. But please switch your brain back on after the cluster feeding has ended, and engage with the detail of the concerns. It really, really isn't the black and white issue you appear to believe it is. You, and others like you, who see 'prejudice' and then fail to drill deeper into the issue to formulate a fully-informed opinion, are causing us to sleep-walk into a situation where women are genuinely at risk of losing their hard-won rights.

This is not a merely a question of establishing equality for trans individuals. Self-id is not a 'tidy up'. By colluding with self-id, you are saying that the rights of trans individuals should be prioritised so that they trump those of women and girls. Surely that is not really your position?

The UK is still supposed to be a free country, where people are allowed to hold and express their opinions. With a very few exceptions, there's no legal right to not be offended.

The content on that billboard is a statement of truth, displayed with a political intent, which is entirely legal and being able to display it is something everyone who believes in a free society should support. You may not agree with the message, but if you don't support the legal right of someone to display a legal political message, or speak a personal opinion, then don't complain when your own message, and your civil rights, are suppressed.

Remember Martin Niemöller's sermon; it's just as relevant today. Also, according to the OED:

Bigot
noun
A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

The intention of the billionaire investors behind this sudden anti-women campaign is to exploit the medical needs of trans people for profit. Trans people with genuine needs for help and support, are being exploited for profit. See Jennifer Pritzker and others like him. Women and our rights are being suppressed because we get in the way of greed. Without words to describe correctly what we are, we disappear. You can't speak about something you don't have words for.

Research the 'educational foundations' these big investors support, teaching in a way that swings the debate towards the needs of trans people while eliminating all differing opinions. Research how much big pharma in the USA spends buying legislators' votes. You'll find this as difficult as I did, because when limits on private donations to political campaigns were removed in 2010 (the Citizens United case), it was legal for donors to hide all their campaign spending. Jane Mayer's Dark Money is very detailed on this and much more that's relevant, it's worth taking the time to read if you can. And want to, of course.

Earlier this week I posted in a national newspaper a comment critical of Adrian Harrop; it received a fair number of recommendations. The automated email I had from the newspaper told me it had also received a number of comments which had all been deleted because they breached the newspaper's terms of publication. Presumably they didn't agree with me. The number was in double figures, I can't remember exactly how many because I've deleted that email, it's not the kind of thing I need to keep. I received this email stating how many comments on mine had been deleted, within 10 minutes of my posting in the newspaper. There's a whole army, presumably paid by vested interests, or an automated system, probably both, ready to try to squash any opinions contrary to their interests.

@Molokonono

No, they have to apply for and pay for a GR certificate to legally change their birth certificate and other legal documents. They are choosing to be legally male (if transmen) or women (if transwomen). The current UK proposals do not allow for gender fluid/ or no gender as an option. To get the certificate a transperson has to give up their birth sex.

To get the certificate a transperson has to give up their birth sex.

What ridiculous nonsense. No one can "give up their birth sex". A GRC is a legal fiction that allows a person to be legally recognised as being of a different gender from their sex.

As a biological woman and mother of 2 DDs, I am happy for a biological man to wear a dress,
I am happy for a biological man to change his name to Sheila
I am happy for a biological man to follow traditionally female pursuits and activities

I am NOT happy for a biological male to;

• be in female changing rooms
• be in female toilets
• be in the female top 100 women in business
• be in female prison
• work in roles where females are vulnerable such as rape crisis or with domestic abuse victims

No, they have to apply for and pay for a GR certificate to legally change their birth certificate and other legal documents. They are choosing to be legally male (if transmen) or women (if transwomen). The current UK proposals do not allow for gender fluid/ or no gender as an option. To get the certificate a transperson has to give up their birth sex.

I know how it worked.

they don't 'give up' their birth sex, that is impossible.

However what I asked was, what was female about those ladies?

@Bibijayne

I don't agree with the central premise often used in many arguments which boils down to anyone who is/ has been possed of a penis is inherently abusive and sexually predatory.

I have a penis. I don't agree with that premise either. Good job no-one has posted it.

Also, women are far more at risk of being raped in a woman's space (li ake a toilet) by a cis man. Also transwomen are also at a high risk of being assaulted by cis-men.

So clearly you do understand the point that is being made: that sex segregated spaces exist for valid reasons and those protections are primarily about protecting women.

Genuine questions:

• Do you honestly think that self ID women like Pippa Bunce are women? If so, in what sense?
• Are there any circumstances where you think segregation by sex is valid?
• Do you really think we are all motivated by transphobia? Does this include the transsexuals opposing self ID?