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

Even under the traditional definitions, there is no guarantee that a "woman" will have a uterus, periods etc

Not the point. Humans are a bipedal species. Is a person with one leg not human?

Or is humanity on a natural spectrum of 0 to 3 legs?

All your arguments are empty sophistry.

Rather than being such a baby about it Lime why don't you jump in and explain to that poster why it isn't laughable to assert that for millenia people haven't really understood what a 'woman' is.

They fucking understood who 'women' were when they were raping them, sexually assaulting them, denying them abortions, denying them education, denying them the vote, denying them promotions at work, murdering them at birth.

Grow the fuck up.

"Not the point. Humans are a bipedal species. Is a person with one leg not human?"

Yes, and someone without a uterus can still be a woman. What point are you making?

Unless if you think that the poster was not literally asking for a word to denote those who have uteruses and periods etc. If they just wanted a term to denote the XX-chromosomed then that would be the XX-chromosomed.

Similarly if you asked for a term to denote those with two legs then that won't be humans. If that is not what you are after then say what you mean.

All this handwringing and philosophizing about what a 'woman' is. As if its been really difficult for the human population to tell which sex class to oppress for thousands of years.

If we can't define women (shifty buggers) then what are men transitioning to?

they just wanted a term to denote the XX-chromosomed then that would be the XX-chromosomed

Except we have words for things.

Otherwise a banana would be “a C7H14O2“

You’re a gynophobe.

"All this handwringing and philosophizing about what a 'woman' is. "

It is certainly often easier to just let people self-ID. They do that with nationality/ethnicity plenty of times. Because they worked out that if you try to come up with a definition of a Scottish person (for example) well, it can get tricky. So, much easier to dump the philosophy amd let people self-ID.

It is certainly often easier to just let people self-ID. They do that with nationality/ethnicity plenty of times. Because they worked out that if you try to come up with a definition of a Scottish person (for example) well, it can get tricky. So, much easier to dump the philosophy amd let people self-ID.

And you think that in a world where anyone can self-id as they want, the oppression of one (unnamed) sex class by the other (unnamed) sex class would simply disappear do you? That all of the issues that disproportionately face one (unnamed) sex class for many reasons, would simple cease to be? And that there would be no need to identify one sex class from the other, because there would no longer be any issues to tackle?

The thing is...if we deny all differences between women and transwomen, then surely nobody's needs get met?
Transwomen and women have different needs-different medical needs, different social needs-the discrimination against transwomen is usually because of their trans status rather than their 'woman' status.

if we acknowledge that everybody has rights but different needs then surely the outcome is better for everyone?

They fucking understood who 'women' were when they were raping them, sexually assaulting them, denying them abortions, denying them education, denying them the vote, denying them promotions at work, murdering them at birth

These women need to just self ID out of it, when a rapist just comes at them they need to say 'but I identity as a non XX chromosome human, you are oppressing me'.

And they wonder why we laugh at their absurd 'definitions'.

BarbieJellyBabyBrain, self-IDed gender won't stop sexists anymore than racists who subscribe to the one drop rule will let someone's self-ID as English (say) stop them.

Surely the thing to get worked up about here is the existence of people who behave badly towards others on the basis of how they categorise those people. Rather than complaining that self-ID will not cure problems no-one ever said it would.

"The thing is...if we deny all differences between women and transwomen, then surely nobody's needs get met?"

Well yes, different subgroups have different needs. BME men may have different needs than white men. Lesbians different needs than other women. I don't see calling BME men and white men "men" as being the same thing as eliminating all differences between them.

"if we acknowledge that everybody has rights but different needs then surely the outcome is better for everyone?"

Yes.

I posted my opinion about a particular MLM being dodgy, and got an email from MNHQ that the MLM wanted to take legal action and if I wanted my comment to stand and not be deleted then I had to understand they would have to pass my full details through.
I saw it as a scare tactic, I asked for one comment to be deleted as I didn’t have grounds for it but the other to stand as I could back it up and it was my stated opinion.
Bit scary but I have not heard anything further so far!
It has made me realise though that we have to be a bit careful what we say!

JAPAB I have to say I am utterly confused about your stance here.

Do you agree with self id being enshrined in law or not? And if its not enshrined in law then what would be the point of self identifying as the opposite sex anyway really?

Yes, you cannot have it both ways on the argument.

Logic and consistency aren't the strong points of genderist pomo fans.

Yes, and someone without a uterus can still be a woman. What point are you making?

Is exactly my point. A woman without a uterus belongs to the biological reproductive class of people who can produce ova. Who are called women. Whether they are individually able to fulfil that role, or wish to, is irrelevant.

A person of the biological class which produces sperm (or "men") cannot be a member of said class.

I call phobia, and its out of order, phobic ranting, but that's OK because its at women.

We do know who women are, and no they don't have penises that would be men,or TW.

But why is gynophobia freely accepted, tolerated and not frowned upon by MN?!

Or the police, or any other authority... Oh yeah, because I pressing women is cool and fine

Just piss off phobics!

How much more of this do we have to be 'tolerating'...and so the active oppression goes on.

BME men may have different needs than white men. Lesbians different needs than other women. I don't see calling BME men and white men "men" as being the same thing as eliminating all differences between them.

BMW and white men are still men. Lesbians are women. Transwomen are men, and should have the same rights as other men. There's no justification for removing the rights of women just because a subset of men want to take them.

There are no needs that women and transwomen have in common that aren't the same as needs shared by both sexes.

Both sexes prefer single sex facilities when undressed or otherwise vulnerable. For women the need becomes pressing due to the risk men as a class pose to women as a class. As transwomen pose at least as great a threat as other men, there is a need for women to retain our single sex spaces

Probably more of a threat for those who have not yet had surgery as I believe the incidence of mental health problems is higher for those people with that sad affliction (and I genuinely do feel sorry for someone born into the wrong body etc) than other people without that problem.

"Do you agree with self id being enshrined in law or not? And if its not enshrined in law then what would be the point of self identifying as the opposite sex anyway really?"

What people ID as, and what that ID enables them to become legally entitled to do, are two separate things.

So it depends on what you mean by 'enshrined in law'. If you mean, for example, if someone IDs as Scottish then they should immediately be granted a Scottish passport and given a place to live in Scotland, then that is a whole different ballgame than if you just simply meanthings more like people shouldn't be allowed to use racist abuse against the Scottish.

It really depends on a case-by-case basis what exactly should be enshrined in law.

If one man with testicles and a penis is a woman, are not all men with testicles and a penis women?
So what is the point of a GRC?

"A person of the biological class which produces sperm (or "men") cannot be a member of said class."

No-one thinks they can. Still not sure what point you are making in relation to the question I was posed and my answer to it. If you ask me for a term to denote thosse with uteruses and who have periods, then medically-typical XX-chromosomed is something no-one on any side will dispute as being technically inaccurate. If you want a term for those of a particular reproductive class then drop the medically-typical.

If you just want to use traditional terminology then don't ask people on the other side of the fence for how they would distinguish out certain subsets of humanity.