To be angry and feel the Scottish Gov’s Twitter header is an attack on women?

[Badmoonsarising]

i’d like them to clarify exactly what their definition of “transphobic” is because it seems to have become a slur these days often aimed at anyone but mostly women who are critical of or question in any way the recent upsurge of identity politics. I just feel they’re doing a knee jerk, ignorant, unnecessary huge fuck you to women.

In response to answering earlier questions, obvs they were ignored though and "are you answering questions now?"
Was answering all along.
Fink some must have been the "wrong" answer though which is why they weren't seen.

Verbeena do you believe humans can change sex?If it is transphobic to not believe that, you should have no trouble answering.But you can not.You know a male can never be a woman.

There is literally no point engaging with you when you flat out refuse to there may be something more than biology. As well as the something else. No point.As you'll never see as you never seen it yourself, ergo then it can't exist.

you when you flat out refuse to there

flat out refuse to believe that should say, sorry

The definition of transphobia in the context of this poster would anything that could legally be considered a hate crime. For transphobia, I believe it just slots in under LGBT so any criminal activity which is carried out and targeted at a person because they are trans or because of their sexual orientation. Nothing I’ve seen on mumsnet would be classed as a transphobic hate crime, regardless of the transphobic attitudes behind some comments.

Misogyny is not currently a hate crime! I believe it should be. Both the UK and Scottish governments are considering making this.

I don’t know why this one seems to have prominence on Twitter, maybe they are going to cycle them around. Maybe they think it makes them look cool. Maybe they are genuinely worried about trans people as they are a smaller minority and generally less accepted. I saw this series as posters on the Glasgow subway trains and thought they were pretty nice.

AdamNichol

although you have probably run off

Why is it that a group of people that insist on those around them call them by their chosen pronouns, don't understand that people don't like to be called by their made up term for them.

Surely if you what to be called she, he, they, them you should start by respecting those that don't want to be called/labelled cis?

'nothing I've seen on Mumsnet would be classed as transphobic"

well that figures, not surprised some can't see any going by some of the responses on here.

Has cis been used by anyone on this thread? Fair enough if it has I hate that word myself, but I've read the whole thread and haven't seen it once from anyone.

Transphobic doesnt mean anything though, does it.

Its transphobic not to believe men can be women.

Yet Ive asked about 6 times and no one believes humans change sex.

Speaking the truth is transphobic, so we are all guilty.

What, an entire group of people don't understand that some don't like cis (including me?) Sounds very lumpy in togethery.
Doubt it's all the trans.

son

Ill answer

1. i think its personality
2. no, i think children should be able to act and do things they within reason want to do but their personality is not fully formed...plus they are still working out what sex they are and where they fit in the world
3. no
4. yes, people claim all sorts of things in order to hurt women and no
5. i dont think transmen are male but they should use whichever toilet they feel is suitable. Ideally the gents but if its a safety issue that different
6. no, criminal sanctions for thinking something is the dumbest idea ever

4 should say women and children

And to be fair it should say 'the most vulnerable' cos that can change

I’m all for debate around how rights can conflict and how best to manage that to keep all women and trans women safe. But regardless of different views on this we should all be against transphobia.

Now on the face of it, this seems like a reasonable statement. However what you have said, "women and trans women" was exactly what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said which caused a shitstorm last year. Making the distinction AT ALL is considered to be terrible transphobia by many transactivists. Perhaps you aren't aware, as you seem really quite naive.

So if they got their way (and it IS what some want) that could theoretically put you in the position where your own freedom of speech is curtailed, you could be targeted and suffer personal sanctions like losing your job and even potentially face criminal charges because of someone else's definition of "transphobia". Then I wonder if you'd be so ready to roll over and give up sovereign rights and freedom of speech.

"Someone else's problem, they don't deserve to speak or protest what's happening because they're bigots".

Until it's your turn.

Please defend Jenni Murray's reputation
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3443128-Please-defend-Jenni-Murrays-reputation

So if transphobia is as basic as only males have a penis

What would be the racist and homophobic equivalent?

Two men in a sexual relationship are homosexual?

I need to check for the next time ds1 comes home and /or I visit family

By transactivist definitions, two male people in a sexual relationship could be a straight couple or a lesbian couple.

Where does that leave lesbians and their protected characteristic EA rights to organise for themselves?

Not really directed as a response to your post, Rufus, just thinking aloud.

eresh

Don't disagree with you there

Maybe i should have clarified the penis bit...though that doesnt seem to make a difference

I reckon its because there is no equivalence

Yeah, again, why are we lumping and railing as the norm for extremist views?
"if they get their way" - lumping all together as "they" need fighting against according to some.
No other group would get that shit thrown at them.
"This is what they're saying, this is what they want to do to you!"
It wouldn't wash, and quite rightly too.

Maybe i should have clarified the penis bit...though that doesnt seem to make a difference

No, it doesn't in theory, to them. It does to the majority of the population. Whether they believe you can change sex ultimately, or not.

Ooh, ooh, I love a good q&a; popped back at just the right time!

1. Is it a synonym for soul? Personality?

No. Neither is ego, or self esteem. Identity is part of our psychological make-up.

2. Do you think it is present before/at birth and therefore that it should be possible to see which children are trans from early childhood?

Um, well don't as I don't believe in a soul "implanted" in a body, whatever makes up a person's psychology is surely a result of their physical body as determined pre-birth. A combination of that and environmental factors, I'm sure.

3. Do you think those children should have early medical and surgical interventions?

I think they should be guided by the medical professionals most knowledgeable in the field. Surgery at a young age seems both iladvised and (thankfully) almost unheard of in this country.

4. Do you think any one would claim to be a woman in order to hurt women. On balance do you see this as something women should accept in order to minimize Transphobia?

I think someone might. I personally don't think women should accept unsafe facilities "on balance", and I don't think excluding trans women is a substitute for appropriate safety and privacy measures.

5. Do you think Transmen are men and should they be expected to use the men’s toilets?

A trans man is a man and I assume they do the same merry dance as every other trans person when trying to decide which loo to use at any point in their transition, so as to raise the fewest eyebrows. And whatever they decide at that time I would generally support.

6. Do you think people who don’t share your view should face criminal sanctions. Would you like to see the women on this thread imprisoned ?

Hahahaha, no! That's only for people who have committed a crime.

Yeah, again, why are we lumping and railing as the norm for extremist views?
"if they get their way" - lumping all together as "they" need fighting against according to some.

The problem here, though, is that it's the extremists who have the ear of government.

The very powerful and influential Stonewall lump them all together as "they" - people with dysphoria, fetishists, & anyone who feels like pushing the boundaries - and have no interest in differentiating. Add that to their push to remove sex-based exemptions and you really are left with a free-for-all. David Challenor advised a political party on its policy. Jess Bradley was an NUS officer. Action for Trans Health have advised the government.

We're really not talking about a fringe here & that's the problem.

that upthread said "if they get their way"

They presumably meaning transwomen. You seriously can't see you don't just lump all together as one, they're not one collective mass of wrongdoing to be fought against?
Daft question though as it's clear you can't.
Otherwise you'd have addressed it as opposed to "the extremists lump them all in together and that's bad but us extremists when we do that's OK as they need fighting.'
It is BOTH wrong!!!!