To think mumsnet is full of hate crime?

[Whyisthisacceptable]

The whole active thread list is always taken up by tons of trans bashing threads. How is it acceptable? Anything relating to anyone transgender is bashed. If this was against another minority of people, race, sexuality, religion it would be taken down and reported as hate crime. I don’t understand how the feminism board makes it acceptable?

@ ing people doesn’t work on here anyway. Or st least I never get a notification.

There is a lot of “but that’s not every trans person” and “but that never happens” and “don’t bring Huntley into this” in these conversations. But unfortunately that’s exactly the hand self ID deals us - it disrupts what has been a peaceful coexistence between women and transsexual men and invites any Tom, Dick or Harry in to join the party. And they hold the party in a woman’s space and yell TWAW and TERF at women who express concern.

Belief in gender identity is currently allowed to override safeguarding and 5 separate protected characteristics named in The Equality Act;

• Sex based rights and protections
• Protection based on sexual orientation
• The belief that you cannot change sex
• Religious beliefs including the need for single sex spaces, and that some activities cannot be performed in front of members of the opposite sex
• Cultural beliefs including the need for single sex spaces, and that some activities cannot be performed in front of members of the opposite sex.

This isn't hate speech. You just dont want to hear it.

I know. Unfortunately what it means to you to be a woman is not answering the question of what the definition of a woman is

Thank you for acknowledging I have actually answered.
Seeing as we're going to disagree though, it's circular and we're back to but you haven't answered the question of define woman yet"

You mean, you've found one objectionable person, Verbeena? I'm pretty sure you've been very clear about how we shouldn't be condemning whole groups on the behaviour of individual people

I didn't say I've found one objectionable person at all. I said I got it first from one prevalent poster. Then from others as well showing it wasn't a one off

When analogies or comparisons are made in discussion, why are they referred to as whatabouterie? What does that mean? Does it mean that the comparison is flawed?

Adriane whataboutery is, for eg, in a discussion about male violence someone says “but what about women/lesbians, they do violence too”. It’s an attempt to divert and draw attention away from the point being discussed.

See also NAMALT.

Aridane

Whataboutery refers to arguments where posters give another example to illustrate their point. Usually it's a valid example but if someone disagrees (usually because it proves them wrong) rather than discuss it they shut the debate down by dismissing it as whataboutery.

Whataboutery refers to arguments where posters give another example to illustrate their point. Usually it's a valid example but if someone disagrees (usually because it proves them wrong) rather than discuss it they shut the debate down by dismissing it as whataboutery

Yeah, that basically.

When we talk about what it means to be a woman we have to divide this into two things:

Sex and Gender.

Sex is biological - if you have a penis you are male sex and if you have a vagina you are female sex.

Gender is a social construct. As a transgender woman I have a sex of male but a gender of female.

And therein lies a problem I dont think can ever be solved.
A male sex and male gender is someone male.
A female sex and female gender is someone female.

But what is male sex and female gender (or vice versa) ? Which is the overriding characteristic ? I dont think we can ever agree on this.

However nowadays we go a step further....

What if I am male sex and male gender but have a fetish about womens clothes ? Or what if I gain arousal from the female body such that I am autogynephilic ?

Whilst we cannot agree here on defining man or woman can we at least agree that it is possible to be a different gender to your natal sex (without getting into what that makes you!) ?

Most people on the feminist boards tell you off if @ them. As Verbeena says, they tell you that it is rude, obtrusive etc.

Actually, I think it's just their way of trying to shut you up and show that you aren't welcome there but you know, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The only one I remember recently was where there was a back and forth discussion and someone was using @ in all of their replies. If you're in a discussion like that then there absolutely is no need, and I can see that people would find it obtrusive if they keep getting notifications.

Quite how you think being asked to not use the @ function is shutting anyone up I don't know. it looks to me like it's just something else you're attempting to use to show how nasty the feminist boards are.

I know. Unfortunately what it means to you to be a woman is not answering the question of what the definition of a woman is

The problem of the definition of "I am a woman because I feel I'm a woman" is that it also includes Ian Huntley. Is this what we want?

Gender is a social construct. As a transgender woman I have a sex of male but a gender of female

And that's where it goes round in circles - when people tunnel vision biology only and refuse to accept gender. Therefore, refuse to accept transwomen, because, sex.
I'm with you on this one (by the way)
with the difference being that I'm lucky to match up female physically and mentally.
Can't imagine what it must be like to have them differing.

The only one I remember recently was where there was a back and forth discussion and someone was using @ in all of their replies. If you're in a discussion like that then there absolutely is no need, and I can see that people would find it obtrusive if they keep getting notifications

Oh, it happens if you only do it the once. Can see it might be annoying if it was in all the replies, but it does happen if you literally do it only once.

Isn't what about why where one person is talking about poverty and war and children dying horribly and living in fear in Syria, and someone else says what about children in London? Don't you care about poverty closer to home?

It's coming up with something else to discuss and accusing the person you want to discredit of not caring about/ not accounting for every possible related and unrelated topic in order to try and weaken the point they're making.

You could say "trans people should use female spaces because they are at risk or feel vulnerable in men's spaces" and I could say "what about non transferable 11 year old boys? They are also at risk or vulnerable in men's spaces, why are you not campaigning for 11/12/13/14 year old boys to be welcome in women's changing rooms and refuges/ retreats with their mothers?" Whataboutery.

Quite how you think being asked to not use the @ function is shutting anyone up I don't know. it looks to me like it's just something else you're attempting to use to show how nasty the feminist boards are.

Because rather than respond to the point you made they ignore your post and just tell you not to @ them. It's a way if closing you down.

And the @tting wasn't in the way you have described. It's very difficult to address one post out of many without copying the post. It is easier to reference a poster by tagging them, as people are doing here.

Interesting how when someone reprimands you for using @ on those boards half a dozen people join in the chorus of "yeah don't do it, it's rude" yet on here people are all saying "what's wrong with doing it?"

Now username tting is somewhere cursing @weetabixandshreddies

You can reference people by putting an on each side of their user name without a gap Weetabixandshreddies* - an @ sends them an email so is far more intrusive and used only for when its really important to you that that specific poster is alerted to your post.

People generally use the @ sparingly and use the Weetabixandshreddies (but without the spaces) either side * to highlight who they are replying to.

@VerbennaBeeks

"And that's where it goes round in circles - when people tunnel vision biology only and refuse to accept gender. "

And indeed where people tunnel vision gender only and refuse to accept sex! Certainly the TRA's do it. As much as my gender is female and I do not and never have identified as a male I was still born with a penis (as much as I loath this defect) and I dont think that can be entirely overlooked at times.

I know. I didn't realise that until it had posted. I won't do that again.

And I apologise whole heartedly if there is a tting on mumsnet anywhere. by way of an apology for them.

I've never seen anyone getting their knickers in a twist over the @, far less en masse. Having said that, now it's being brought to my attention, I'll probably see it all over the damn place now.

I would have no problems with disagreeing with one poster or 20 on the issue. I like the @ function.

What I don't like is posters who soliloquise into the abyss, with no bolded quotes, far less a @. Presumably you're supposed to just know who they're talking to, what they're talking about, etc.

What I don't like is posters who soliloquise into the abyss, with no bolded quotes, far less a @. Presumably you're supposed to just know who they're talking to, what they're talking about, etc.

Preach, sister!

Drives me mental.

ButchyRestingFace

Honestly it's a thing. But I've only seen it on the FWR boards and only ever against posters who disagree with the majority view there.

@weetabix if you dont like the @ feature ask mn to get rid of it. Until then I think i will @ at my pleasure. Also your argument seems to be that you @tted someone, they were a dick to you about it, so now you will be a dick to other people. oookaaayyy, whatever floats your boat, but ill still use the @ feature when i feel like it. Your not the god of @ttery.

Also im pretty sure Stonewall would categorically state that disagreeing with Self Id is transphobic. Are you saying you know better the determination of transphobia than Stonewall, the influential, leading in all things trans company who the government relies upon to show them the way. You know and have better judgement than them?

And indeed where people tunnel vision gender only and refuse to accept sex! Certainly the TRA's do it

Exactly, and them doing it isn't any better either. It's no good from either side.

Different posters have different feelings about @ing. I don't feel it's necessary in the middle of a conversation and the convention is generally to bold a username or quote and has been for a very long time on MN before @ing was even possible.

I have asked people not to do it on occasion because I don't really like it. It's a simple enough request, and considering I am compelled to use particular pronouns, I don't think it's too outlandish to ask people to not do something that will clog up my inbox for no reason.

I have also had posters do it repeatedly after being asked to stop, and so I'm a little less inclined to be accomodating when someone with certain views does it even once now, because it's been used as a harrassment tactic. I'm sure it's not going to silence or shut down anyone to respect my boundary request, and if you feel it does, then I suspect that you probably miss the point about respecting any female boundaries, which is the essence of the current issues on FWR.