Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Anon. members - Forums open to court action??

757 replies

justasking111 · 10/04/2019 13:47

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
AlunWynsKnee · 13/04/2019 10:12

Thanks sleeping. See I understand the idea that you want to be nice and understanding and kind to people you think struggle. I think most women do. And I would put money on 90% of the women on the FWR boards felt that at some point.
However you don't believe sex can be changed and that belief is a problem for some TRAs and you can be accused of transphobia because of your wrong thoughts.
If you don't truly believe you can change sex where would you draw the line? Would you give away the rights of one vulnerable group, say rape victims, to be nice to transwoman?

SleepingSloth · 13/04/2019 11:36

I'm not going to get into the whole debate. It always goes the same way and as I wrote last night, I almost didn't post as I knew the next stage in the argument was Karen White etc. It's so predictable.

So all I will say is....

There are good and bad in every walk of life. A small minority of people in any group will always take advantage of situations, that doesn't mean all of the rest of the group should be judged on those people. Some people will disagree with me, some will agree, people think differently but these are my views.

SmileEachDay · 13/04/2019 12:09

A small minority of people in any group will always take advantage of situations, that doesn't mean all of the rest of the group should be judged on those people

Isn’t that why we have sex based segregation though? Because a minority of men are violent/abusive? So we prioritise female safety by excluding all men?

aprarl · 13/04/2019 12:12

"Oh I knew you'd bring that up" isn't a reply Grin

SleepingSloth · 13/04/2019 12:29

"Oh I knew you'd bring that up" isn't a reply

I've given my reply if you read the rest of my post. Whatever I say, you will have a problem with if you don't agree and I don't wish to get into the same old debate. I know a lot of people who think like me, they don't bother to come on threads about this stuff. People who feel very strongly that TW are not women etc are more likely to be on these threads so it's ends up with someone like me defending my views to lots of posters. I don't want to and I don't have to. Everyone can think what they like. I'm not here to change anyone's opinion. Grin

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 13/04/2019 12:52

A small minority of people in any group will always take advantage of situations, that doesn't mean all of the rest of the group should be judged on those people.

That's what safeguarding operates on, though, and reducing risk to females in spaces where we are undressed or otherwise vulnerable means excluding males as a class from those spaces regardless of how they identify.

Original poster
justasking111 · 13/04/2019 12:55

Well this thread has gone tits up sigh...

But while you are on is a trans person entire in that they have their penis removed and made into a vagina. A surgeon years ago had a tv programme where they showed how this was achieved, it was fascinating if wince making. She worked in Wales her name was Ms Evans. She was very famous at the time for her groundbreaking work.

OP posts:
TalkinPaece · 13/04/2019 12:59

MNHQ have behaved entirely appropriately and consistently.

In the Defamation act case a few years ago where Lawyers threatened a whole bunch of us,
most people opted to have their comments deleted
some of us said we would use the "opinion" defence
and it all went quiet.
but MNHQ were supportive and brilliant in the face of pressure.

In this instance they have complied with the law and handed over the details.
Whether the comments were defamatory will be for a court to decide.

Original poster
justasking111 · 13/04/2019 13:03

Hats off to the mods. on here. Who work hard to see the wood for the trees.

OP posts:
RedDogsBeg · 13/04/2019 13:26

But while you are on is a trans person entire in that they have their penis removed and made into a vagina.

No, that is not a requirement and figures suggest that 80% don't undergo genital surgery.

Original poster
justasking111 · 13/04/2019 13:29

Thank you Reddog. From what I recall it is pretty harrowing. I was crossing my legs during the programme DP could not watch parts of it.

OP posts:
Prawnofthepatriarchy · 13/04/2019 13:43

OP, you say a trans person entire in that they have their penis removed and made into a vagina.

A penis cannot be made into a vagina. A neovagina can be constructed but it is very different from an actual vagina.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 13/04/2019 14:43

It’s like breast enhancement. They still aren’t real are they.

sackrifice · 13/04/2019 15:12

I'm not going to get into the whole debate. It always goes the same way and as I wrote last night, I almost didn't post as I knew the next stage in the argument was Karen White etc. It's so predictable.

And the most predictable thing is that you cannot explain it.

You were the one saying that you accept trans women are women; so if you cannot explain yourself perhaps don't spout utter nonsense.

SleepingSloth · 13/04/2019 15:22

And the most predictable thing is that you cannot explain it.

You were the one saying that you accept trans women are women; so if you cannot explain yourself perhaps don't spout utter nonsense.

I don't need to explain myself to a random on the Internet. I can choose to post as much or little as I like without your permission. There's a difference between 'can't explain' and 'can't be arsed' to explain to people who are set in their views. I really don't care what you think.

If I want to accept trans women as women, I will. I do. If you don't, that's up to you. Like I said, we're all different.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 13/04/2019 15:24

It they aren’t unless you redefine the word ‘woman’. It makes as much sense as saying ‘cars are trees’.

sackrifice · 13/04/2019 15:31

If I want to accept trans women as women, I will. I do. If you don't, that's up to you. Like I said, we're all different

You dont though do you, otherwise you would happily explain what it is about the rapist Karen White that enables you to accept him as a woman.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 13/04/2019 15:33

And if I say the earth is flat you would quite rightly call me a tool.

SleepingSloth · 13/04/2019 15:38

You dont though do you, otherwise you would happily explain what it is about the rapist Karen White that enables you to accept him as a woman.

Whatever I say, you will find fault with and declare you have won. Again, I can think whatever I want. But that seems to bother you. I'm going over to the cat litter topic now...much better over there. Have fun trying to argue with someone else.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 13/04/2019 15:44

But you haven’t explained how and why you think a transwoman is a woman. In what way? To what extent? Do you think a woman can have a penis? What is a man then? Assuming you are heterosexuals- would you date a transman?

Gronky · 13/04/2019 15:47

Freedom of Speech doesn't exist in the United Kingdom and what rights you do have are greatly diminished online, thanks to the Communications Act 2003 (and, before that, the Telecommunications Act 1984). Although guidance has been issued that seeks to limit its reach, you're still at risk of prosecution for saying anything "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" online.

Essentially, this criminalises just about any opinion that a court sees fit to prosecute since, odds are, someone will find it offensive. Since it's all subjective, this leads to the bizarre scenario where both an opinion and its opposite counter-opinion could be deemed criminal if expressed online.

TalkinPaece · 13/04/2019 15:51

Gronky
Essentially, this criminalises just about any opinion that a court sees fit to prosecute since, odds are, someone will find it offensive
In the case where MNHQ were seeking my details, the opinion defence was well within the law and I intended to use it. As did others.
At which stage the complainant went quiet.

The posts have NOT YET BEEN FOUND TO BE DEFAMATORY
and they may well not be.

sackrifice · 13/04/2019 15:57

I'm going over to the cat litter topic now...much better over there. Have fun trying to argue with someone else.

Argue? I just asked what makes you accept men as women. If you have no answer to that, that is fine.But don't pretend you do, if all you will do is run away as soon as someone asks for your thinking.

TalkinPaece · 13/04/2019 16:01

TBH having looked up the individual taking the court action
(I had not cared before but the Streisand effect is amazing)
my issue is far more with the ability to wipe previous misdemeanours from the record
than the fact that they have used gender to do so.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome of the court case if it ever happens.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 13/04/2019 16:02

Poor cat.

Hello vet. This is Missy Tiddles, ive brought her into to have her tubes tied! We don’t want her popping out any little kitties!

But this is a male cat - we can...

How dare you! She is just as much a female as I am!