More bashing of mumsnet

[Ikeasucks]

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

That statement suggests you might actually know what you mean by 'the most vocal posters' and their 'commonly held views'. I was wrong to think that, clearly

But yes, I'd say you were wrong there. All I meant was, when I read a trans thread, there is nearly always an abundance of thinly veiled contempt, and anyone who differs from that position/attitude gets quickly jumped on by multiple posters. I don't take notes on it. I just close the thread. Is that really so hard to understand?

When it's an opinion that feeds the false narrative that MN is a hate site being peddled by those that want to shut MN down then I think posters have a right to be defensive and point out the truth.

Dont you? Or are you wanting MN to fold too?

"and anyone who differs from that position/attitude gets quickly jumped on by multiple posters"

Sorry, I'm new to this site. Should you not give your opinion if it has already been expressed by someone else? Are you not supposed to agree with or support opinions that align with your own?

Like I said before, you can ask for evidence all you like - a lot of it will already have been deleted and for the rest it will probably be refuted that it is actual evidence of transphobia.

The difficulty is, either way, mumsnet still has an image problem on trans issues- people can cry to the heavens that it's not justified - but that is what is out there, and that is what is thwarting commerical relationships. And the tone of threads is probably enough to set that.

Do you think other organisations are going to do a forensic analysis of the site to come to a judgement? . They really can't be arsed. It's enough for them to know the perception bends that way and a cursory glance at the forums will probably reassure them of what those lobbying are saying.

There are too many personal attacks, too much reliance on dogma, too much derision, contempt, suppression and coordinated drowning out of differing views. Sum and substance of it: It just looks bad.

So we should just be nice and it might all go away 😂

There are too many personal attacks, too much reliance on dogma

I just don't understand this position. Gender critical thinking isn't dogma, it's simply a belief in the fact that male and female exists, and that you can't swap from one to the other no matter how much you want to.

The dogma is the blind belief that someone can know that their mind belongs in the body of the opposite sex. And why is it true? It's true because they say so. And that's all there is to it.

It's a topsy turvy world where science is dogma, but faith is fact.

Tend to agree with all those commenting on the transphobia problem here. I now completely avoid certain boards and threads.

I have a lot of sympathy with those businesses reluctant to advertise on MN as a result.

Sum and substance of it: It just looks bad.

This is categorically false. It doesn’t look bad. A handful of people think it’s bad, and have been successful in spreading the lie. The issue is how has a small number of people with an active interest in preventing this website from functioning and preventing people from reading about women’s rights and biological facts managed to convince a small number of companies via Twitter that they are telling the truth?

It’s about how those companies employ idiots as part of their social media teams who believe this crap and then have a failure to analyse anything properly.

too much reliance on dogma

This is laughable, ironically so. 😆😆

@isabellerossignol

There are too many personal attacks, too much reliance on dogma

I just don't understand this position. Gender critical thinking isn't dogma, it's simply a belief in the fact that male and female exists, and that you can't swap from one to the other no matter how much you want to.

The dogma is the blind belief that someone can know that their mind belongs in the body of the opposite sex. And why is it true? It's true because they say so. And that's all there is to it.

It's a topsy turvy world where science is dogma, but faith is fact.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

Out of interest what do you think about this paper?

suggestionsplease1

This thread is not about the science around transgender. There has been plenty of discussion about such publications including several that debunked it with work from people like Gina Rippon. It is not dogma to say there are only two sexes. It is fact. It is dogma to say otherwise.

But the question is why do you feel the need to post that? By entering into a valid discussion around science you’re reinforcing the fact that there is debate to be had. This reinforces the fact that discussion here is warranted isn’t it? And shouldn’t be viewed as “a bad look” or erroneously caste as “transphobic” should it? Why do you think activists target such discussions and lie to companies on Twitter?

Out of interest what do you think about this paper?

My understanding is that it was a study of one off brain scans and since brain activity changes as you 'learn' things it stands to reason that a child or teenager who has learned to behave like the opposite sex might therefore resemble the opposite sex.

But I have a problem with the idea of male and female brains in general, aside from the physical difference in size, because that is what leads to all the nonsense about girls finding maths too hard, and women not being good enough at science to make good researchers. Other studies say that there is no real difference between male and female brains.

suggestions you must, surely, know that we've discussed these kinds of papers in their appropriate threads?

@NotBadConsidering

suggestionsplease1

This thread is not about the science around transgender. There has been plenty of discussion about such publications including several that debunked it with work from people like Gina Rippon. It is not dogma to say there are only two sexes. It is fact. It is dogma to say otherwise.

But the question is why do you feel the need to post that? By entering into a valid discussion around science you’re reinforcing the fact that there is debate to be had. This reinforces the fact that discussion here is warranted isn’t it? And shouldn’t be viewed as “a bad look” or erroneously caste as “transphobic” should it? Why do you think activists target such discussions and lie to companies on Twitter?

Definition of dogma "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"

Several people on this thread, yourself included, meet this criteria for espousing dogma. You state "it is not dogma to say there are only 2 sexes.It is fact" but there are many, many people, and very credible figures who have spent their lives on this subject who disagree with you

www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

You must acknowledge that others disagree with you, therefore your assertion that there are only 2 sexes meets the definition of dogma, because you are saying it is incontroversibly true, and yet this is not a universally held belief.

(And do, actually you don't get to claim that only you get to define what 'sex' is as opposed to what 'gender' is.)

That should read

(And no, actually you don't get to claim that only you get to define what 'sex' is as opposed to what 'gender' is.)

@Tootingwife

Tend to agree with all those commenting on the transphobia problem here. I now completely avoid certain boards and threads.

I have a lot of sympathy with those businesses reluctant to advertise on MN as a result.

Can you give any concrete examples?

@popehilarious

suggestions you must, surely, know that we've discussed these kinds of papers in their appropriate threads?

I am challenging the assertion that people are making in this thread that there is no reliance on dogma; it is relevant.

You must acknowledge that others disagree with you, therefore your assertion that there are only 2 sexes meets the definition of dogma, because you are saying it is incontroversibly true, and yet this is not a universally held belief.

Please give an example of what you consider to be a universally held belief under your definition.

I'd love to see proof there are more than 2 sexes.

wrong it nearly always involves pointing to boys like my nephew and saying "they're not fully male". Fucking medieval. But that's for those existing threads, not this one where apparently it's fine for unevidenced opinion, perception, general feeling of 'there's no smoke without fire' to cause women to lose out.

@Ereshkigalangcleg there is a feature on MN that emails me when someone responds to a thread I’ve posted on. I don’t post that much so I haven’t bothered to turn it off but now that you mention it now is the perfect time ;).

GMB isn't an advertiser. I think the TRAs have both overreached and misjudged this one. They are saying no women on one of the largest parenting forums, deserve online support from an union. That is a big claim and reeks of misogyny.
They're not saying GMB can't engage with people on Twitter despite Twitter having a real problem with violent threats against women, paedophiles and Nazis. Presumably because they think neither Twitter or GMB is responsible for everything posted on Twitter ... but they think all women on MN are responsible for everything on MN. Blaming women for everything and asking them to take responsibility for everything is blatant sexism.
This has been a spectacular own goal for the GMB and the TRAs. They just haven't realised it yet. But it could be the final straw that toppled these misguided bullying campaigns by TRAs.

suggestionsplease1

That article does not demonstrate there are more than two sexes. It discusses DSDs. It is not dogma to say there are two sexes. What’s the third sex?

But again, you see this as important area of discussion. There is debate to be had - on its own thread.

So do you think Mumsnet should be punished for hosting such discussions that you’re so fond of trying to start? Should unions pull out from association? Should women with employment issues be punished because of discussions you’re so keen to have?

@popehilarious

You must acknowledge that others disagree with you, therefore your assertion that there are only 2 sexes meets the definition of dogma, because you are saying it is incontroversibly true, and yet this is not a universally held belief.

Please give an example of what you consider to be a universally held belief under your definition.

I don't have to give an example for the statement to be true.

But it has been asserted that there are only 2 sexes "is fact". ie incontrovertibly true, whereas many, many people disagree with this.

The philosophy of what is objective reality and what is perception and apprehension is quite a discussion!

Here is an example of a fact I am happy to give, that I consider will be pretty much universally believed: the letter t is the last letter on this post

But it has been asserted that there are only 2 sexes "is fact". ie incontrovertibly true, whereas many, many people disagree with this

Many people disagree with evolution and believe in creationism, many people think the earth is flat etc.

This thread is not about discussing the number of sexes. The issue is and the question you’re avoiding is, to use your analogy, would it be appropriate for Creationists to lobby a union on Twitter and tell them that Mumsnet is “a place lacking God” if there was discussion around this? If Mumsnet got a reputation for being “anti-Creationist” would that make it true and warrant the removal of support?

This thread is about how Mumsnet is bullied by activists. If you want to discuss the idea of what the imaginary third sex might be, start a thread.

Transphobia is a word used very lightly these days. Saying there are two sexes and you want female only spaces = transphobic to some people.