More bashing of mumsnet

[Ikeasucks]

Why are orgs and businesses just capitulating to this bullying? mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1265201870437519360

Hmm... MNHQ haven't sorted out attachment compatibility with quoting yet I see.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Pertella, ah I see! I've only ever really known one trans person who was a trans man (not a mistake this time) and he was always just 'he' to me. Can't say I would never slip up if someone identified as a 'they' as I'm obviously accustomed to 'he' and 'she' but would not intentionally offend someone just to make a point.

Re trans rights vs women's rights, I don't think anyone who is born male should just be able to declare themselves a woman and that's that BUT I think it's generally more complex than just 'a man in a dress.'

No one will have the first idea what you're responding to, Minty.

BUT I think it's generally more complex than just 'a man in a dress.

Pretty much all of the women on here would agree with that - the wearing of a dress does not make you a woman. A man in a dress is simply a man in a dress and theres nothing wrong with that.

What you wear, the things you like to do, the length of your hair, wearing make-up (or not) does not change your biological sex.

Re trans rights vs women's rights, I don't think anyone who is born male should just be able to declare themselves a woman and that's that BUT I think it's generally more complex than just 'a man in a dress.'

Most people would agree to a point with that sentiment. Nobody can change sex but there's a spectrum of commitment to being trans that goes from 'putting on dress' (or in some cases not even that) to full genital surgery.

The problem is the current narrative as supported by all activist orgs such as Stonewall is that the former must be accepted as being as valid as the latter. Otherwise this is bigotry and gatekeeping.

So you might feel there is a big difference but you don't get a choice in it.

The people in the latter (transsexual) category don't get a choice in it either - the people who merely change pronouns are just as valid as themselves who may have spent years transitioning. You may not be surprised to hear many of them are not happy either.

The whole thing is a massive clusterfuck.

@NotBadConsidering

suggestionsplease1

If you were to conclude that Mumsnet is transphobic, or has elements of transphobia, so you think that means the GMB should withdraw its support for working mothers as a result?

If I were to conclude that Mumsnet is transphobic I would agree GMC should withdraw its support yes.

However I haven't seen strong enough evidence to call the website transphobic (I haven't been looking too hard, admittedly) and I don't know what they have happened to see. I agree with points previous posters have made, that individual transphobic posts do not make an entire site transphobic, and Mumsnet appears to delete these. I think there is a climate here at times that is ripe for people with transphobic atttitudes to express them, but I accept that may be an unfortunate side-effect of impassioned arguments and robust discussion on a difficult subject, and Mumsnet need to continue to review posts and remove as appropriate.

It sounds like GMB are 'pausing' their work with mumsnet while they review things - how they do this to establish that their criteria for transphobia have been met I really don't know, I imagine they don't even know. I suspect they are swayed by their members and they say as much in their statement, so anyone taking issue with their stance should certainly contact them.

It's just another blatant example of institutional capture. AKA Regulatory capture (also client politics).

A corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulatory agency is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency,

twitter.com/billbaggins96/status/1265392109328220161?s=21 - from a Tower thread (apologies to the poster as I’ve forgotten their name).

How stupid do they look now. And they are supposedly watching our backs? No and no

Tower- ‘another’

If I were to conclude that Mumsnet is transphobic I would agree GMC should withdraw its support yes

Why? If the GMB conclude the organisation that is Mumsnet is transphobic, why does that mean it can’t still help women in need of employment advice?

If the organisation that is Mumsnet is transphobic, which social media platform could the GMB use? Because Twitter and Facebook are far more likely to be full of actual transphobia. So how are they meant to support these women?

Mumsnet isn’t transphobic but many people on it are. I’ve seen numerous comments about men in frocks on here. It’s disgraceful

Where? Examples?

IIRC Mumsnet has over 11 million visitors, mostly women, and a large number of these will be affected by coronavirus.

It's shocking that a large union will consider withdrawing support for women in a crisis because of what some people say about the site.

@NotBadConsidering

If I were to conclude that Mumsnet is transphobic I would agree GMC should withdraw its support yes

Why? If the GMB conclude the organisation that is Mumsnet is transphobic, why does that mean it can’t still help women in need of employment advice?

If the organisation that is Mumsnet is transphobic, which social media platform could the GMB use? Because Twitter and Facebook are far more likely to be full of actual transphobia. So how are they meant to support these women?

Why? Because I don't believe one organisation should support another organisation that has been found to be transphobic. Just as I believe organisations should not support others that have been found to be racist or sexist.

As I have said, I can't say that that threshold is met, and it must be very hard to determine that threshold, and this is the real issue....But under the circumstances you surmise over, in a situation where it has been concluded an organisation is transphobic (and I say the same for sexist or racist), I believe it is incumbent on any organisation not to support them until the trasphobia/sexism/racism has been adequately addressed.

What they do next is beside the point really. If I conclude that every football team is racist I'm not going to support any of them, I'm not going for the one that's the least racist, because it's still racist.

But again the issue is the threshold at which the -isms are determined. You are asking about a scenario where a conclusion has been arrived at where the organisation that is Mumsnet is transphobic. If that was the case GMB are right to withdraw support.

Because I don't believe one organisation should support another organisation that has been found to be transphobic

But GMB aren’t or weren’t supporting Mumsnet. They were going to be supporting the desperate women of Mumsnet who took the time to post their problems on that thread. So why can’t they continue to support those women?

@NotBadConsidering

Because I don't believe one organisation should support another organisation that has been found to be transphobic

But GMB aren’t or weren’t supporting Mumsnet. They were going to be supporting the desperate women of Mumsnet who took the time to post their problems on that thread. So why can’t they continue to support those women?

I don't know the ins and outs of how Mumsnet is set up, but it's run like a business, no? It's not a completely unmonitored forum with no central structure, and the businesses, organisations etc who contact it and make arrangements with it are not dealing directly with the however many million users.

Given that they deal directly with the organsisation to make whatever arrangements they want, I believe they have to determine whether the organisation is transphobic, or does not challenge transphobia enough on the boards that that they are in control of, and that they are making money out of.

That argument from GMB seems to be:

Mumsnet is apparently transphobic, because Twitter says so. There are women who post there who really need our help, but we are going to punish them by proxy by making Mumsnet address this apparent organisational transphobia. Until that happens, we can’t possibly help any women with employment issues. We don’t know what constitutes transphobia. We don’t know how Mumsnet plan to fix it, but in the meantime, we won’t help women who need our help because they asked for help on a site that people on Twitter ironically say is bad.

So explain to me why the GMB can’t help those women who posted their problems?

How does a union not helping women with employment issues punish Mumsnet into action against this apparent transphobia?

Additionally, GMB are evidently going to carry on participating in Twitter, which is full of genuine transphobia as well as fascism, racism, misogyny and awfulness generally. Even if someone hated women enough to think MN is full of transphobia, this is a laughable double standard.

Exactly. All of these pile ons and campaigns against Mumsnet are organised on Twitter, which is full of actual transphobia. The irony is staggering.

Look at it this way: who wins and who loses in this scenario?

Winners:

TRAs on Twitter
Small number of apparent trans employees who will happily be hypocritically associated with GMB using the most transphobic of social media platforms like Twitter but don’t want GMB associated with this particular platform.

Big Losers:
GMB - lose members, look bad with TRAs for not acting fast enough, look bad with women for failing to support.
Women who posted their questions.

Minor losers:
Mumsnet - lost the option to support women who needed employment advice. No financial loss I imagine.

So again, how does this campaign or decision by GMB benefit the imaginary crusade against the imaginary copious amounts of imaginary transphobia on Mumsnet?

@NotBadConsidering

How does a union not helping women with employment issues punish Mumsnet into action against this apparent transphobia?

Well I would say it's similar to what happens in football - teams can be fined and penalised, have stadium bans etc, as a result of their supporters' racist behaviour. The team itself can denounce racism, the management, organisation may not be racist etc, but if they are seen to not be doing enough to challenge it amongst their fans, then they are still held responsible.

Other organsations that want to partner with the football team make difficult decisions not to, because of their reputation in failing to deal with racism amongst their fans. And unfortunately a lot of good stuff is lost along the way in that - the partnerships that were lost mean that the youth football team becomes underfunded, the womens' team loses money because the partner specifically wanted to sponser them etc, etc. But the potential partners unfortunately don't want to take the risk of being associated with a team that is considered not to be doing enough about racism.

but if they are seen to not be doing enough to challenge it amongst their fans

It will never be enough though. No matter what MNHQ says, what Justine says in the media, as long as women are discussing their rights it will be deemed transphobic. MNHQ has done all of those football club analogies. It has denounced transphobia. It moderates it when it’s reported. The Feminism Chat section is the only place to have an extra set of guidelines specifically about this topic where truths aren’t allowed to be said. And it’s still not enough. The only goal is the complete end of Mumsnet. A well known TRA said exactly that. On Twitter .

It will never be enough and we all know it.

But GMB still use Twitter which is way worse than Mn? Maybe if mumsnet allows it’s members to post their porn vids and dick pics as twitter does - it might be more popular with the men.

And bear in mind, I’m talking about if it actually existed. Your analogy with racism doesn’t work because what is actually happening is football fans chanting about their own club, and people outside the stadium hearing what they want to hear and getting offended and reporting it to the FA.