To be shocked that Mn has been branded a “hotbed of transphobia”

[Badmoonsarising]

BY Vice msgazine no less!

broadly.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/a3mn9k/mumsnet-uk-mom-forum-terf-transphobia-feminism

step it’s more than that. When faced with a dangerous man a woman has very few options except to remove herself from the situation. That is big reason why some spaces are single sex.

Jeez the typos 🤦🏻‍♀️ Sorry.

Humans can't change sex. If you think that’s a transphobic statement I’d love to understand why.

Men are not dangerous! Some men are dangerous: violent, abusive, women-hating men. Same as Muslims are not dangerous. Radicalized, extreme Muslims are dangerous. It's really, really important to make that distinction

Completely agree! As I said on one of the countless other threads, extremist is what's dangerous.

Seriously? I can assure you they have

Receipts please.

I do not have a problem with transwomen. I do have a problem with allowing men into women's spaces, taking their scholarships, their place in sports or in the boardroom. I will never accept that human beings can change sex because they cannot and that transwomen are women because they are not.

Men are not dangerous! Some men are dangerous: violent, abusive, women-hating men.

Of course. But we segregate by sex because there's no way to filter out the dangerous men.

Men are not dangerous!

Individual men may or may not be. As a class, men are a danger. That’s why we have single sex provision for some things.

Receipts please

Well, seeing as the ones who slip up and outright say it get eventually deleted, it's pretty hard to link to them.

Men are not dangerous! Some men are dangerous: violent, abusive, women-hating men.

It’s not just ‘some men’ though is it. 1 in 4 women say they have been sexually assaulted. 25% of adults surveyed said that unconsensual sex within a marriage isn’t rape.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/06/quarter-of-adults-think-marital-sex-without-consent-is-not-uk-survey-finds

The idea that it’s just a tiny proportion of men who are dangerous is just untrue.

extremist is what's dangerous

Why do we have single sex anything then?

Well, seeing as the ones who slip up and outright say it get eventually deleted, it's pretty hard to link to them.

Oh so it’s actually not tolerated on the forum. Got it.

Muslims as a class haven't held structural power over non Muslims as a class on much of the planet for most of recorded history.

Really, there isn't an actual equivalent to sex based oppression. This is why nearly all the comparisons re religion, nationality etc fail. Maybe disability comes closest.

Even racism, which is just as pernicious and causes every bit as much suffering, hasn't actually been with us that long, and unlike sexism isn't something that's possibly baked into the human condition. As in, there's no actual reason why people with darker skin should always be treated worse than people with paler skin, and indeed there are societies when this hasn't been so. Whereas being smaller and the ones who do the childbearing does entrench our disadvantage.

It’s not just ‘some men’ though is it

Of course it is. There may be a lot of "bad ones" out there, but there's a hell of a lot of lovely ones too.

Completely agree! As I said on one of the countless other threads, extremist is what's dangerous.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd really love to know how a 14 year old girl can tell if a man coming into a ladies toilet is:

A man with gender disphoria
A man with a kinky fetish
A man looking for a girl to sexually assault
A man just doing it for fun

Because until a 14 year old can tell this, in order to get herself out of the toilets as fast as possible, no men should be in female toilets.
Or changing rooms.
Or restrooms.
Or refuges.
Or prisons.

Oh so it’s actually not tolerated on the forum. Got it.

Blatant isn't, no. But it's repeatedly there whether by skirting the guidelines or out and out.

Once any man can be a woman all legal sex based protections of women dissolve, how can you sue your employer for unfair dismissal because you got pregnant if men get pregnant too?

How does men getting pregnant affect that, exactly?? Pregnancy legislation will continue to cover, er, pregnancy.

See this is why feminists call it out for being anti woman and an MRA agenda.

It always ends up here, with people saying men aren’t a danger to women and we don’t need sex based rights in the first place.

If you want to get rid of sex based protections fight for that, but at least be honest about it and don’t hide behind a guise of us being bigots.

How does men getting pregnant affect that, exactly?? Pregnancy legislation will continue to cover, er, pregnancy.

True

The gaslighting is astonishing.
It’s like saying hundreds of bad things about Islam, that they’re all terrorists and pedophiles.. then when someone calls you islamaphobic saying ‘no no, how is saying it has mysogonistic tendencies islamaphobic’

On its own, it’s not - it’s stating a concern and no one is saying it because of that aspect, but when it’s added in with hundreds of other criticisms, groups of people talking badly of ‘them all’, creating statistics to make them look dangerous, creating a ‘them’ and ‘us’, posting on a forum everytime anyone who’s Muslim does anything. Then it becomes islamaphobic.

Are you all so deep into the echo chamber that you truly don’t understand that? Questioning sex and the affects of self ID on woman is not transphobic, most of the rest of the crap you all spout is.

And if men aren't dangerous I assume transwomen will be fine sharing male facilities.

Pregnancy legislation will continue to cover, er, pregnancy.

Yes I think a lot of people don't realise that pregnancy legislation is based on being pregnant, not based on sex.

I suppose a different example would be you and a transwomen are up for promotion, and your boss picks the transwoman because he's worried you're going to get pregnant. That would be sex discrimination that is untenable if you're both of the same sex legally.

Everything @EarlyWalker just said.

How does men getting pregnant affect that, exactly?? Pregnancy legislation will continue to cover, er, pregnancy.

Threats towards women are already not considered a hate crime by many police forces, as the term 'sex' which is present in the Equality Act as a protected characteristic has been replaced by 'gender identity'. Thus removing the ability for women to report crimes that pertain to hate crimes.

For example, someone says they will blow up a building full of women - not a problem unless they actually do it, because threats of violence towards women are not a hate crime in certain forces. But the same threat towards a protected group, that is a hate crime.

How does men getting pregnant affect that, exactly?? Pregnancy legislation will continue to cover, er, pregnancy.

Because pregnancy legislation only protects people who are currently pregnant.
I don’t have kids and don’t intend to but being a woman of childbearing age I am protected against being discriminated for being a person of the sex class that bears children. It’s currently illegal for me to be passed up on a promotion because I might get pregnant but if you can’t define a woman as someone of the sex class who bears children how could you fight that in court?

Questioning sex and the affects of self ID on woman is not transphobic, most of the rest of the crap you all spout is.

Like what, early?!

In order to address self ID, you have to acknowledge male patten criminality. How can you do it otherwise?