To think Upfield Global (Flora marg) can get stuffed for calling mumsnet a hate site?

[Toorahtoorahaye]

No more Flora for me, they’ve just announced they’re having nothing to do with the hate site mumsnet. mobile.twitter.com/StopFundingHate/status/1182647264046669824

*I find a lot of things offensive:

• Telling children they are 'born in the wrong body'
• Using Lupron on children, without any real idea of the long term consequences
• Males in women's prisons and refuges
• Threats of violence to women who stand up for their rights (see this week's Twitter # "POV You're a t*rf in my mentions", with activists picturing what type of violence they'd like to inflict on women who don't agree with them)
• Males intimidating women by shouting scum and bashing on windows while women try to discuss their existing sex based rights.*

Good list. I also find these things offensive:

• people like Laurel Hubbard, as a 40 year old, beating an 18 year old Samoan woman at weightlifting at her home games
• rugby players joking about folding women like deckchairs
• people who post “dancing on grave” gifs in reference to a woman who said things they didn’t agree with before she died
• people like Yaniv taking women to court to force them to wax male genitals
• people like Mhairi Black joking about toilet concerns only months after two girls were sexually assaulted in toilets by Katie Dolatowski a few miles down the road from Black’s constituency
• people insisting I talk about them in a certain way when they aren’t even there

But whenever people screenshot Mumsnet for examples of “transphobia” they never do it for threads about Yaniv, Dolatowski, Karen White, do they? Mimmymum doesn’t tweet “transphobic!” when people discuss Yaniv talking about asking 10 year old girls for tampons does she?

What is respectful about forcing me to lie?

To be a transwoman you need to be male, or can I be a transwoman too?

It’s entirely possible to disagree with self ID proposals, not want intact male bodies in women’s prisons or refuges, and protest the awarding of thing reserved for women to trans or non binary people WITHOUT being offensive and disrespectful about trans people in general.

It may well be that if mn managed to be respectful and civil towards trans and non binary people, they would still be attempts to undermine and attack them for allowing discussion at all on those topics. But we don’t know, because at this point the discourse here is neither civil, nor respectful, and you can’t just ignore that.

How can MNHQ contend that discussion here is respectful to trans people?

FFS. Just because YOU don't like/agree what is being said does not make it transphobic. You are not the final judge of everything, stop acting like your opinion is somehow more valid than other people's. Take it up with @MNHQ if you have a problem with their rules.

Can I go on the baby names board and definitively say that anyone thinking of hyphenating their child's name is clearly an unfit parent because I personally dislike it? No, because it's just my opinion and it isn't my forum.

In other words, lose your god complex.

But we don’t know, because at this point the discourse here is neither civil, nor respectful, and you can’t just ignore that.

What, because people might have a problem with being forced to pretend that a male is 'she'?

Would you expect an atheist to say 'yes I absolutely believe in God' so as to be 'respectful' to Christians?

I'm still laughing at the irony that the company declared MN to be 'not in line with their values' - on TWITTER.

Which is infested on a minute-by-minute basis by misogynists, paedophiles, racists - all of whom do not even get censured by Twitter.

MN famously deletes any posts which are actually 'transphobic' - but women discussing their fears about loss of women's spaces, rights, etc - that's not 'transphobic'.

Unless your agenda is to shut down women's ability to talk to other women about what concerns them.

You can be offended by my posts, that's ok.

If I am guilty of wrongthink in your eyes, so be it.

Flora is shit since it went vegan. Saying this when 90% of what I buy is vegan as a vegetarian. Tastes like vinegar now and if you know, if I ever do have the need to have vinegar on my toast in future i’ll but Sarsons instead - probably taste better 😉

But when a non binary person is discussed, suddenly it’s open season on that, and the use of they/them is an affront with narcissistic intent to erase womanhood. That also is not respectful or civil.

It’s offensive for people like Sam Smith to say Sam feels “womanly” because of fat distribution. Why are non-binary people exempt from having their behaviour questioned?

It’s entirely possible to disagree with self ID proposals, not want intact male bodies in women’s prisons or refuges, and protest the awarding of thing reserved for women to trans or non binary people WITHOUT being offensive and disrespectful about trans people in general.

Purely as an academic exercise, can you give an example of how you would word this then? So we know what bar you are setting as acceptable in your eyes and can see how your phrasing makes all the difference.

@ifpossible apparently is ‘may contain dairy’. Oopsy. Quite a major flaw in a a vegan product.

@NotBadConsidering

excellent post

we need to ask upfields a few questions don't we?

do Upfields support convincing 4 or 5 year old children that their bodies are wrong, just because they don't confirm to gender stereotypes?

do Upfields support halting a child's puberty and all the brain development that goes with it, with off-licence pharmaceuticals?

do Upfields support young people having unnecessary surgeries to remove healthy body part and having a lufe-long dependency on pharmaceuticals?

do Upfields support male rapists/murderers being housed in women's prisons with women?

Buzzshit, I do take it up with MNHQ. Ask them if you want.

I’m also posting about it here because it’s under discussion in this thread, and in national press, that mn is perceived as transphobic.

By all means, skip my posts to avoid my god complex.

MN is targeted for 2 reasons. The first is the same reason why the likes of Paris Lees and other activists refuse to go on TV or radio and actually debate the issues. Because what is being said on these boards makes total sense and the more people see it, the more people will realise that women are affected by this, and saying 'it doesn't affect you so why do you care, this is just rehashed homophobia' will no longer cut the mustard.

If people genuinely thought we were wrong and just being 'transphobic' they wouldn't give a shit about what was being said here, because they know the public would see through it. Just like the public saw through and dismissed Nick Griffin on QT, or they see through and dismiss the genuinely transphobic stuff that is on Twitter and FB every single day.

It's the fear that what we are saying does actually hold water, and that is why they are desperate to get the discussion shut down.

The second reason is plain old misogyny. The mere idea that women might get together and discuss stuff that actually puts women first and doesn't centre men is absolutely unthinkable to some people.

PeterRouse - spot on.

TRAs do visit here often - and it becomes very clear, very quickly, that their arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

So they have to resort to shutting the debate down - "TWAW - no debate!" - well, there is a debate as long as there are people who disagree with this mantra. I disagree with this mantra - I will discuss it, and I thank MNHQ for allowing this discussion.

WITHOUT being offensive and disrespectful about trans people in general.

No one, ever on MN has ever complained about Karen White raping and sexually assaulting women and been disrespectful about trans people in general. What HAS happened is disrespect to those trans people and allies who have stated cases like White don’t matter, and don’t seem to care that women have been victims of sexual assault as a result of a self-ID policy. These people were not disrespected because they were trans, they were disrespected because of their attitude and behaviour. See also:

Bergdorf (“hairy lesbians”, safeguarding etc)
McKinnon (“die in a grease fire”)
Yaniv (where to start?)
Muscato (“suck my dick”)

Etc, etc etc.

Much of the issue of 'MN is transphobic' is that there is no shared meaning for the word 'transphobia'. This is what happens when a group commandeer a word and change the meaning for their personal agenda so that no one else in society has a clue what they're talking about.

Transphobia, like racism, like disablism, like sexism, has a general working definition for most people of unreasonable blanket prejudice solely based on belonging to that class, and/or abusive behaviour towards someone based on that.

The political trans lobby has messed with this so that abusive and legally unacceptable has been twisted from legal boundaries to petty playground stuff of 'not using the words I want you to use' and 'not unconditionally accepting who I tell you to perceive me as'. Transphobia in those terms has become 'not unconditionally complying', which includes even mentioning that anyone has needs that conflict with this. It's insane.

So MN: (generally) when talking about these issues, unacceptable behaviour (transphobia) is clearly specified in the guidelines. It's actually far tighter than around racism, disablism, sexism, etc.

TRA Lobby: even TALKING about this stuff AT ALL is transphobic. Nothing except unconditional and unquestioning affirmation of the ideology is acceptable.

So you will always get the 'this is not transphobic, women have needs too, there are massive downsides for women, and women's rights can't be removed to benefit males', vs 'it's terribly transphobic that they've allowed to talk about this!' dichotomy. Two groups with two totally different working definitions of the word. Which group has the better grip on reality and inclusion is a personal choice.

Then you also get well known TRAs who seem to either believe that regardless of their behaviour and its impact on others, any criticism of that behaviour is purely related to their trans status. Or that their trans status should make their behaviour unconditionally above reproach regardless of what they do and who it harms. I'm never sure which it is. But obviously doesn't represent any healthy or rational thinking, or create a society that will work. (And that will be called hostile and transphobic for some just because it implies a negative view regardless of actual fact, harms to others. Even mentioning it is wrong.)

To not be able to discuss this? That way madness lies.

Mumsnet is targeted because people on here dont drink kool aid

We are challenging and just because a man says we should believe it doesnt mean we will

the discourse here is neither civil, nor respectful, and you can’t just ignore that.

Woman! Know your place. Be civil and respectful. Or else.

It's worth remembering that mumsnet has always been targeted by various people, who for whatever reason, dislike women having a predominantly female space carved out for them on the internet.

Time and again, people express surprise that there are women from all walks of life, all types of professions - expressing political opinions, and not just talking nappies and prams.

The men's rights activists, Fathers for Justice, the NAAFI, Pistonheads, Punternet - all those have staged "invasions" here, and trolled and even abused the women here. MNHQ shows them the door, of course, once it becomes apparent that they are trolling.

The Mumsnet Sucks website - why did those MRAs care about women chatting online? Well, it's because women together are powerful - women together support each other, from everything to not being a doormat to your family or friends or job, to escaping abusive relationships. That's powerful.

Women on mumsnet have now come together to discuss what some describe (and I agree) as the biggest threat to women's rights in decades. And again, there are people who don't like this.

So they have to resort to shutting the debate down

Or a current familiar refrain 'you won't accept other views'.

Oblivious to the irony of their own utter failure to accept other views themselves and they're anything but modelling tolerance and open mindedness in the discussion.

So what they actually mean is 'you are not extending the unconditional approbation and nurture I am used to and expect when putting forward these particular political views'.

the discourse here is neither civil, nor respectful

Ok, please share a working definition of 'civil' and 'respectful' so we're all on the same page.

I think what you actually mean is, 'doesn't extend special care' and treats in the exact same robust way they treat facts and argument regardless of how they identify.

No one, ever on MN has ever complained about Karen White raping and sexually assaulting women and been disrespectful about trans people in general.

Yes, people who say 'don't use Karen White to tar all trans people with the same brush' are totally (and deliberately I suspect) missing the point.

No one is saying that Karen White proves that all trans people are predators. What it does prove is that self id is a hugely flawed concept that cannot be allowed to become part of policy and law in this country. Because if it does, people like Karen White will abuse it. That is not being disrespectful about trans people in general.

Plus Karen White also throws up the 'misgendering' conundrum. I'm allowed to say that Karen White is a bloke because he has committed crimes in a way I wouldn't be allowed to with another transwoman. So whether someone is 'worthy' of being referred to as the gender they choose isn't an objective judgement, it's a totally subjective moral one. Which proves that no one really believes that TWAW, they are just being 'kind'. And if people don't actually believe that TWAW then Transwomen shouldn't be in women's spaces.

Then you also get well known TRAs who seem to either believe that regardless of their behaviour and its impact on others, any criticism of that behaviour is purely related to their trans status. Or that their trans status should make their behaviour unconditionally above reproach regardless of what they do and who it harms.

Exactly. The line was that Munroe Bergdorf was let go as an NSPCC ambassador purely because Munroe is trans, that it was because of 'transphobia'. As if the fact that Munroe was privately messaging young teens and that is a huge safeguarding no no, was absolutely nothing to do with it.

Upfield stated We feel more could be done to moderate online discussion

That is a clear and specific call to silence women who wish to even DISCUSS issues that directly affect them. This is a corporate entity that is directly lobbying for online silencing if women specifically. Because if it was about discrimination generally, then they would be tackling every public online platform. You have to question why.

Also, another poster on here observed that a tub of Flora was the only item that survived a fridge being switched off for a year. Unblemished.

Seems the contents of Flora are as artificial as their so called ‘values’.

Wow so calling out bullying and transphobia is having a god complex now.