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

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

Why should they even if they have transitioned fully?

Whether or not you believe men are dangerous, people who believe that male bodied people as a class are dangerous are not being transphobic by believing that people who are male bodied and trans are also in the class of people who are dangerous.

They would be transphobic if they thought male bodied people as a class weren’t generally dangerous.

As if by magic, another cruddy attempt to conflate discussion of a class with structural power and a class without structural power pops up. Useful timing there to prove my point earlywalker.

It’s like saying hundreds of bad things about Islam, that they’re all terrorists and pedophiles.

You’re missing the difference between criticising a person/people and criticising an ideology.

If I say all the people who worship the spaghetti monster are evil pedo monsters and we should get our pitchforks out I’m in the wrong.

If I express doubts over the ideology of pastafarian church, it’s funding and it’s pushing of substandard pasta sauce on vulnerable infants, I’m not on the wrong. It’s my right to criticise an ideology as much as I want.

It’s not ok to bash someone for what they are
It is ok (actually I’d argue it’s an essential right) to be able to question an ideology or doctrine.

The gaslighting is astonishing.

Yeah it is.
Claiming that we have to pretend that males can become females is horrifying.

True

Screw Boswell, I can't work out how someone's mind could have become so addled as not to realise that.

@Echobelly

"But everyone likes to sneer at silly little mums being 'political' rather than sticking to talking about nappies and childcare. hmm"

Word. Distract and divide to conquer.

Why should they even if they have transitioned fully?

Because humans can’t change sex.

Also a woman isn’t just a man with no penis.

I thought we’d got over that little gem on misogyny but obviously not.

I’ve explained ‘like what’ hundreds Of times.

Like calling all transwoman ‘men with fetishes’, creating threads to criticise transgender rememberance days, creating threads moaning when anyone draws attention to discrimination a transgender person may face, calling transwoman ‘men’, using misused statistics to ‘prove’ trans people are dangerous.

I wonder how many woman would no longer fight against self ID who otherwise would have because of how far people on here have taken it. I filled in the consultation against it, but I certainly would not support the ‘fight’ any further with you all. I’m not being on that side of history.

Earlywalker

Thank you.

Again why shouldn't we call transwomen men because that's what they are?

Yeah it is.
Claiming that we have to pretend that males can become females is horrifying

This made me LOL, the example I used of gaslighting, you’ve just word for word done it as an excuse for how you’re not the ones doing it.

bowlofbabelfish

OK, but seeing as everyone is like "but they have lady dicks and that's what we don't want and of course they can't come in with them..."
fair enough.
You're saying that even if they DO have that taken away they're still not welcome.
You do you.

Like calling all transwoman ‘men with fetishes’

Not one person has ever said all trans women are men with fetishes. Ever.
But men with fetishes ARE considered to be trans now. If you don’t like it take it up with stonewall not us.

most of the rest of the crap you all spout is.

1. I can’t remember a time when the feminist boards weren’t discussing male bodied people’s oppression of women - it is a key part of feminist theory.

2). It’s quite easy to unthinkingly make broad and rather rude generalisations about a group of people isn’t it.

A good thing most of us have thick skins.

It isn't just their cocks that make them male. It's in their DNA and their physicality. They don't magically change sex because they've had their genitals altered.

You're saying that even if they DO have that taken away they're still not welcome.

I’m saying:

1. humans can’t change sex.
2. Men retain Male patterns and rates of sexual offending after transition

So why would I want men either transitioned or not in single sex provision?

I wonder how many woman would no longer fight against self ID who otherwise would have because of how far people on here have taken it. I filled in the consultation against it, but I certainly would not support the ‘fight’ any further with you all. I’m not being on that side of history.

I actually nearly signed the self ID petition on here when it first started being circulated and me reading about it all.
Actually thankful for having my eyes opened by one on here who did a comment.
Once you see it, you can't unsee.
Goes both ways, does that comment.

So it's like Gerald Batten's argument, "It's not Islamophobia because a phobia is an irrational fear and my fear is rational" ?

I agree with what you’re saying but I don’t like your tone missus.

Gosh that sounds familiar.

"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."

It's actually really simple. Say you have a man and a woman for a job interview, the woman is more qualified/experienced. The woman is of child bearing age and after a carefully constructed bit of small talk by the interviewer reveals she is recently married and has just got the keys to her new home. The interviewer decides to go with the male.

If men can get pregnant too, the women loses the argument that she wasn't selected because it was assumed she'd want to bear children quite soon. She is won't be able to challenge the recruitment process because "men can get pregnant too" therefore the protection that sex discrimination should provide is no longer required.

This happened to a friend btw and she won at a ET and the company admitted they didn't recruit her for the above reasons.

(But we all know men can't get pregnant, hell my 3 year old nephew knows that)

Unless you’re saying that transwomen have lower rates of offending than men as a whole?

That’s a claim that would need evidence. Right now, the only published evidence is that they retain the offending patterns and rates of men as a class. So it’s illogical to admit to single sex provision.

What is the logic behind admitting to single sex provision please? Other than ‘be nice.?’ Because being nice is lovely, but safety is more important

Even discounting self ID we currently have the equality Act where being a trans sexual is a protected characteristic making it illegal to discriminate against someone on that basis.

Please explain to me how you avoid discrimination if your view is

It isn't just their cocks that make them male. It's in their DNA and their physicality.

So you will always treat a trans sexual woman as a man? Which surely must be violating the Equality Act?

I think it’s really healthy at this point to recognise that most people have opinions that are independent of threads on mumsnet.

I would however be tempted to disagree with anyone who brought up ‘being on the wrong side of history’. Even in a thread about parking that included diagrams.