Anon. members - Forums open to court action??

[justasking111]

Was quite shocked to see this. Will this be a test case? Mumsnet is such a tame well run site compared to the comments I see in the online press. Is the writing on the wall for free (cough) speech or is it a culling of trolling. Personally I think that something needs to be done, some folk have no filter or are just plain nasty.

news.yahoo.com/transgender-activist-wins-court-ruling-forcing-parenting-website-reveal-identity-alleged-online-abuser-121317596.html

Let's be a little more clear Lime

We do accept transgender people, what's not to accept, they exist else we wouldn't be talking

(General) we (socially) accept the legal fiction of a GRC but do not believe that a GRC or self ID changes a persons immutable sex.

So, saying a trans woman was born a man is an immutable fact, and is therefore (like the analogy above) not 'phobic.

However, I believe that you would say that me asserting TWAM would be transphobic. Am I wrong?

Lime Kiwi
Or Early Walker
Or Verbena Weeks
Or brown paper bag
Whoever you are, it's been clearly defined on this thread that you have no definition of Women or trans women. You say that you will accept trans women as women except for scum. Also known as Karen White.
I think you you want to say that if a trans woman looks ok, ie 'passes then in your book that's ok. Or if they're a genuine trans woman, so how are women supposed to know who is a genuine trans woman? I have an internal radar that will always recognise a man, I was sexually assaulted at 9 years of age, and raped at 19 years of age. By men.

What's wrong with IW then that somebody mentioned upthread? Even said some surgery apparently. So why is she not a woman by some?

Sorry that was to GirlDownUnder

Absolutepowercorrups I hope you're ok now

Lime

(General) we (socially) accept the legal fiction of a GRC but do not believe that a GRC or self ID changes a persons immutable sex.

I believe IW does not have a GRC.

It's also very frustrating (and hardly a conversation) when you answer my question with a totally unrelated question of your own.

Somebody upthread said do I accept IW as transwoman and said she had surgery.
I said yes, why wouldn't I? Even though others refer to her as they or initials only. Brought the name up as someone else did not me.

What's wrong with IW then that somebody mentioned upthread? Even said some surgery apparently. So why is she not a woman by some?

Is this your definition? Is this what we've waited pages and pages for?

Woman = male person who has had cosmetic surgery?

Damned fucking right I'm not 'happy' with that.

Don't worry though, I'm not laughing.

"So, saying a trans woman was born a man is an immutable fact, and is therefore (like the analogy above) not 'phobic."

The only thing that is immutable is that some people are born with this set of objectively-existing physical characteristics, whereas others are born with another set.

What isn't immutable is the labels we use to denote people with those characteristics, or whether we decide to use those labels to mean something else.

It is perfectly possible to be "phobic" if the dispute is not over the presence of those characteristics, but over whether they are needed to qualify someone for a particular label or concept.

It's a bit like marriage. Not phobic to point out that two people with the same chromosome cannot procreate, but might be homophobic to assert that this is important in what we call a "marriage", and therefore such unions are not "MARRIAGE".

.

Hahahahaha yes Pencils good old Robin 'not for relationship purposes' Green

JAPAB yes, language can change and evolve and we even 'invent' new words.

Changing AHF to include AHM is not an evolution, it's appropriation and an act of colonisation.

So because a wizard gave a woman a fish tail ..... men are women

Am I believing what I'm readireading, sorry are we all in nursery here. Does he say that in all seriousness, how bloody insulting of peoples intelligence.

Nobody takes any notice of such idiocy do they?

I can't believe, pages [of tail chasing] on, that this is still circling.

Brought the name up as someone else did not me.

I brought it up as you said you didn't believe in Self ID.

IW has [stated publicly that they have] no GRC, so is self iding.

What isn't immutable is the labels we use to denote people with those characteristics, or whether we decide to use those labels to mean something else.

So JAPAB; what is the word that you use for the half of the population that has a uterus, gets periods, may or may not gestate a baby, will have a menopause etc etc. What used to be called 'women' until very recently? How would you categorise those humans as a class?

It is perfectly possible to be "phobic" if the dispute is not over the presence of those characteristics, but over whether they are needed to qualify someone for a particular label or concept

I agree. I think it’s gynophobic to suggest that one doesn’t need female biology in order to qualify as a woman. I think it very deliberately exposes females to increased risk, I think it makes it impossible for females to protect their rights and it shows a complete prioritisation of men’s rights over women.

So stop being gynophobic. Prove to me that changing the definition of women to include people with male biology isn’t going to harm women either individually or as a class.

So JAPAB; what is the word that you use for the half of the population that has a uterus, gets periods, may or may not gestate a baby, will have a menopause etc etc. What used to be called 'women' until very recently? How would you categorise those humans as a class?

Sorry, I know this is to JAPAB, but I'll answer - they're still called women of course and no-one's said differently.

Lime

If you are saying the definition of woman includes people other the half of the population that has the potential to produce ova, has XX chromosomes then you are - as outlined above - gynophobic.

Sorry, I know this is to JAPAB, but I'll answer - they're still called women of course and no-one's said differently.

But they're clearly a separate category to the approximately half of humans who are of the sex class which produces sperm. Or don't you think so?

What's wrong with IW then that somebody mentioned upthread? Even said some surgery apparently. So why is she not a woman by some?

Because a 'woman' is not 'a man who has had his penis removed'.

Again, how come you accept Lily Madigan as a woman but not Karen White? Madigan does not have a GRC and as far as I know has not had any surgery either.

Sorry, I know this is to JAPAB, but I'll answer - they're still called women of course and no-one's said differently.

And what do those people have in common with members of the class who produce sperm who say that they are women?

Yes, exactly.

JAPAB or anyone, what do women have in common with MTF trans people that they don't also have in common with men?

The disclose action is just standard practice where people want a website to disclose whatever details they hold. So it is no change and no writing on the wall or anything like that.

What is a concern is that changes to the (as ever is brought out supposedly "to protect children" - always easy to use that as your pretext) might require more verification and requir people to log on to many sites before use which could be a huge curtailment of current freedoms.

I know it is hard for Mumsnet to get the right stance on some things particularly if the state pretends or even partly believes a tightening up of freedom is to "protect children" but I hope MN can continue to maintain a stand on the side of press freedom and leave parents to protect and control their children.

There are two separate matters:-

1. ICO guidance

www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/15/ico_social_media_code/

ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultations/2614762/age-appropriate-design-code-for-public-consultation.pdf
You have to 31 May 2019 to comment on this one above.

1. White paper on Online Harms deadline to comment 1 July 2019 -

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper

"So JAPAB; what is the word that you use for the half of the population that has a uterus, gets periods, may or may not gestate a baby, will have a menopause etc etc. What used to be called 'women' until very recently? How would you categorise those humans as a class?"

I don't think there is a simple word for that group of people. There never has been really. Even under the traditional definitions, there is no guarantee that a "woman" will have a uterus, periods etc. "Medically typical non-Y possessing humans"?

"So stop being gynophobic. Prove to me that changing the definition of women to include people with male biology isn’t going to harm women either individually or as a class."

If it does then it won't be the redefinition itself that does the harm, but bad laws that allow people to do thinggs on the basis of self-ID.

A bit likehow it does no harm to let people self-ID their nationality, but if they then went on to create immigration policy on the basis of pure self-ID, well that would be harmful to certain countries.

I don't think there is a simple word for that group of people. There never has been really. Even under the traditional definitions, there is no guarantee that a "woman" will have a uterus, periods etc. "Medically typical non-Y possessing humans"?

Lol.

Lol

See? As I said. Someone bites, it starts again.
Nobody wants any discussion, you make it so obvious.