To want to know more about Amazon UK and it's defunding or otherwise of Mumsnet?

[12boo]

I saw (via twitter) that a spokesperson for audible has made some unpleasant remarks about MN users and they have pulled their MN advertising after complaints from "trans activists" that MN is a hive of "transphobic bigots" so I have cancelled my audible subscription because I find MN enormously supportive and I don't want to support a company that vows so readily to the "born in the wrong body- men are women if they say so" cult.
No clear response has come from Amazon itself in this matter. Does anyone know what their position is? TIa

Sn0tnose ‘bollocks’ is an outstanding argument Which kind of proves my point. I am familiar enough with various feminist theories to teach them at HE level, which is probably more than most posters can claim. Impressive how you know what I said without having read it but shockingly you are wrong. I said that the existence of intersex people means that the claim that there are two entirely distinct biological sexes is biologically incorrect.

...let me save you the trouble, NO that is NOT the same as saying that intersex people and trans people are the same. It is an argument that claims that if intersex people are biologically possible as well as male and female ones, the biological argument against the possibility of trans people is incorrect.

Yes gasp0de. Twitter has a problem with Nazis and also with actual transphobia, come to that. But people continue to be the product on there for free, whilst complaining that MN is a hate site. Absence of logic.

Someone on Twitter asked Audible why they advertised on the notorious hate website Mumsnet and the social media person running Audible's account said 'Oh no, we'll look into that'. Since then, radio silence. However, the young person was idiotic and unprofessional enough to tweet about being under siege from t**fs and made a disparaging remark about the ones sending direct, ie private, messages, which led some women to have concerns about data protection. YP had job role in profile for personal account. That's as I recall it, anyway.

There is no empirical evidence that women’s legal rights are being eroded in other countries

Well, you could look at the study showing what happened in America when Target started to allowed others to share women's changing rooms. Sexual assaults and peeping Tom offences increased as a result.

If you look at the crimes of trans women in prison, they are just as likely to be for sexual offences as men. Allowing trans women in single sex spaces is not risk free for women.

Single sex spaces are in place to maintain women's legal rights.

I'm not a biologist, but as I understand it that statement about intersex people is wrong. Differences of sexual development is a better term as it makes it clear we're talking here about a potential health problem, and it's a catch all term for a wide range of conditions. In virtually every case, though, there is no doubt about the sex of the person concerned. Also this has nothing to do with gender identity.

I am familiar enough with various feminist theories to teach them at HE level, which is probably more than most posters can claim
I don't think you've spent enough time on the feminist boards if you think that level of experience is impressive.

Yes the statement about people with DSD is completely inaccurate. There are a number of DSD advocacy groups and website which have plenty of accurate information available. People with DSD's are not a third sex. Variations and anomalies do not change the fact that sex is binary and obviously so in 99.99999% of humans.

‘bollocks’ is an outstanding argument Which kind of proves my point. And yet, sometimes, it’s exactly what’s needed.

I am familiar enough with various feminist theories to teach them at HE level, which is probably more than most posters can claim. Good for you. You certainly sound more familiar with them than I am. So perhaps you can explain to me why putting women’s rights first doesn’t represent anything about feminism. Genuine question. If you want to take the time to explain, I’ll listen.

Impressive how you know what I said without having read it but shockingly you are wrong. I said that the existence of intersex people means that the claim that there are two entirely distinct biological sexes is biologically incorrect....let me save you the trouble, NO that is NOT the same as saying that intersex people and trans people are the same. It is an argument that claims that if intersex people are biologically possible as well as male and female ones, the biological argument against the possibility of trans people is incorrect. I’m the first to admit that I’m no Magdalen Berns but I get that you weren’t suggesting that trans and intersex people were the same thanks. What I don’t understand is how there is a biological argument FOR trans people. Obviously I understand the biological differences between males, females and intersex people. Are you suggesting that trans people have a different, fourth or fifth biology? Again, genuine question. I didn’t make it any further than my local comp and science was never my strong point, so I’m not being disengenuous.

I think the issue here is that there are a number of posters who view the stated rules on what is defined as transphobia, as incorrect and just disagree with them so therefore think that they can continue making statements that oppose the stated rules and defined terms of what constitutes transphobia on this site.

Eg, (as I know how much some of you love an example ) misgendering is against the rules on this site, it’s considered transphobic therefore not allowed. Some posters disagree with this and so continue (some with gaiety) to break the site rules by misgendering.

Regardless of your stance on free speech, disallowing Womens voices etc, the above is against the rules. We all agreed to a contract when we signed up to MN, if you now disagree with the rules, then you leave, you find a site that better suits your societal stance. You don’t continue to break the site rules, moan when this is brought up by others, moan when companies don’t wish to be associated with it and flounce on other boards about it.

Either have your conversations within the parameters of the rules, which you agreed to when you signed up, or leave to join or create your own group with your own clearly defined rules.

Either have your conversations within the parameters of the rules

Well no doubt it is within the rules to state that it's not possible to change sex no matter what someone considers their gender to be. This is a biological fact.
And, as toilets provision is segregated by biological sex, not gender, then biological males who identify themselves as women do not have the right to use spaces separated by biological sex.
Sex and gender are not the same thing. By conflating the two, this puts women at risk because it allows biological males to enter spaces designated for those whose biological sex female. Similarly those who are biological males have huge physical advantages over those born female. This is a reality, not a feeling. This is why biological males should not be competing in females sport.
Truth is not transphobia. Pointing out the risks to women is not transphobia. Fortunately the UK are waking up to this nonsense now and recognise that women's rights should not be erroded in favour of other groups, no matter how they identify. The same goes for children, their rights and safety should not be compromised because of a vocal minority who shouts discrimination when early transition is questioned. Again the UK have woken up to this which is why early transition is now being investigated and the minimum age changed.
Any of that sound transphobia to you?

I said that the existence of intersex people means that the claim that there are two entirely distinct biological sexes is biologically incorrect

No. A simple understand of genetics suggests that 'abnormality' is a product of sexual reproduction. The existence of DSD people kind of proves that there are 2 sexes.

The existence of DSD people kind of proves that there are 2 sexes

This

Another ranty thread, where again, no evidence is produced of the alleged sins of FWR. It must be another bank holiday weekend for the jazz hands woke.

I'm always amused at these...erm...."alligators". They attempt to justify their empty words, by claiming to be able to teach "feminism" at H.E. level.

No lived experience then of being a woman? No surprise there.

I am familiar enough with various feminist theories to teach them at HE level, which is probably more than most posters can claim.

Well, aren't you the superior one? Yet it's interesting that you mention none of these theories, nor how they substantiate your sweeping assertions that are based on absolutely zero evidence, not least quoting evidence that isn't actually there (a no-no that sees essays marked down even at first-year undergraduate level. But then you'd already know that, wouldn't you?).

It's interesting that the TRAs and 'intersectional' drum-beaters constantly quote Judith Butler (in whose later work she herself discredits some of her earlier ideas), or Kimberle Crenshaw, whose ideas about intersectionality have been widely misappropriated and bear no resemblance to the actual essay she wrote. Or never mention the point that 'third wave' feminism never actually took off in the way of the first and second wave (what's it got?: maybe a small handful of 'readers', maximum?) - primarily because it's more akin to washed-out liberalism, doesn't necessarily speak for feminism and couldn't actually define what it thought it was?

It's easy to teach 'theory' in a confirmation bias of one's own personal prejudice, but any bona fide academic knows fine well that there is always at least one - and usually myriad - counterpoints, and that it's essential your students do justice to all sides of an argument. Granted, many of them are so ideologically dripfed with the TRA/Allies' agenda that it can prove difficult or controversial to do that. But it's essential if you want these people to provide themselves with a rounded education and proper critical skills, rather than parroting someone else's indoctrination. But being an HE level instructor, you'd know that too.

Your notion of expertise is certainly not more than the FWR boards can claim. It's populated by biological scientists, doctors, researchers, and academics in both the sciences and humanities. These are women who can assuredly speak for more than this, who can construct arguments and debate robustly, and can base their assertions on something a bit more than hot air.

If people break the rules their posts are deleted and sometimes they are banned. But, let's not pretend that certain factions of Twitter don't deliberately post provocative threads and comments so they can screenshot them and then use them as 'examples'. We've all been round this block so many times before. The TRAs may think they are zealous new warriors but nothing about them is new. Welcome to the new misogyny same as the old.

Marie you need to read things in context. I didn’t randomly make that comment about my background knowledge, it was in response to another poster who suggested I don’t know what feminism is. So either I am ignorant or a snobby expert, take your pick of personal slur.

I don’t think you are really interested in my views, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I am much more convinced by de Beauvoir’s argument that ‘woman’ is culturally made, than the Catholic Church’s bizarre pseudo biological claim that men and women are naturally, and entirely different. To psy tué y world when the feminists are against de Beauvoir and side with the Catholic Church.

And yet the same advertisers are happy to be associated with Twitter, Facebook and other platforms which are far less strictly moderated and where people say much, much worse than you will ever see on Mumsnet for more than the nanosecond it takes to get removed! How very strange.

Also strange also how people can really take the piss put of someone’s religious beliefs and yet that’s allowed to stand. That’s their belief.

Women are at a lower risk of dying from COVID than men.

A man who self identifies as a woman is still a man when the virus gets into their body.
COVID does not look for a GRC, it looks at the chromosomes

There are only two sexes.

Human stupidity, on the other hand, is infinite.

Or, fuck off to another site where your views won’t be moderated as transphobic.

Generally the posts that get deleted are the intentionally provocative ones made for screenshot material by trans rights activists, to take back to their twitter home as evidence that transphobia is rife. Which it isn't. Absolutely fine for those people to fuck off.

Human stupidity, on the other hand, is infinite

It truly is.

Plenty of transphobic threads on MN, although HQ are better at containing them in the Feminist boards now. I have tried posting an opposing view on such threads to have posters literally advise others to completely ignore me

Yup, don't even try to have an opposing view.
Also, to those saying "examples? See don't have any, do you?" to posters - from experience is totally pointless as even when find examples you get "nope, not happening, that's totally fine" - they can't even see it or acknowledge it, it's so bizarre

Marie you need to read things in context.

That's blooming ironic.

Since when was the Catholic Church in any way related to 'feminist theory?'

Feminism has always been a diverse body of ideas and movements, some of which have always been on the side of constructivism and others on the opposing side of essentialism (i.e. the woman citizen -v- the 'wages for housework' campaigns during the first wave). It's always been this way. To frame it as 'feminists oppose de Beauvoir' is quite surprising for someone who claims to be to grips with the nuances of these debates.

The women on FWR are - as was de Beauvoir - able to make the distinction between sex and gender. It's possible to be female and not be feminine. It's possible to be male and BE feminine. But it ain't, under the rules of science, pseudo-science or any other pretext, possible for a male to be a female.