AIBU to think women should not be banned from Social media for asking the question - Thread 3

[Thewithesarehere]

Many women have been suspended from sm for asking the question:

“Do you believe that male sexed people should be allowed access to changing rooms and showers for female sexed people and teenagers?”
Seems like a perfectly reasonable question which we should be allowed to ask.

Let’s vote with our AIBU.

@Winesalot

Their problem. It has nothing to do with us.

By the sounds of this, they must pass.

Do you apply the same attitude to those mtf transitioners who keep their beards? If you look at the dating apps, and on social media there is a growing number of them? And the mtf who don’t pass at all. Does the same apply then?

No, I don't. I think 'transwomen' with beards, etc, are really just men with fetishes. I believe that you do need gender dysphoria to be trans, and I don't believe a biological male with GD would have a beard. I am also concerned with the extreme increase in the number of young biological females being referred to gender clinics in the past couple of years, and do believe there is an underlying issue there that requires exploration.

Yes, sd passes extremely well.

There is no evidence that medical or surgical transition improves mental health. The Tavistock's own data showed an increase in distress during medical treatment. The suicide rate for adult trans people who have transitioned is still high. This is believed to be due to their very high level of other mental health issues. So to claim that transitioning reduces suicide is not evidence based.

In terms of criminal behaviour, trans males show patterns of offending in line with other males- no changes. In the UK there are more trans male murderers then trans murder victims in the past 10 years (and several cases of a trans person being murdered by another trans person). I'd love to see a serious documentary about trans offending patterns but sadly that would be censored (unlike the recent BBC radio program on women sex offenders- which made on attempt to unpick which offenders were female vs trans male)

The point about it being no one's business what happens in the next stall is right up to a point; but I've seen too many screenshots of transactivists chatting to each other about masturbating in the loo and making sure they left sperm on the toilet seat to freak out terfs and taking used tampons to feed their menstruation fetish, that actually, I'm beginning to question that narrative. That's apart from the usual risk of voyeurism, flashing and covert filming of women peeing which happens when you let men into women's spaces.

I don't want to sit and pee while some guy's wanking in the next stall. Is that pearl clutching on my part? Should I just accept that it's my problem and get over it, because what happens in the next stall is none of my business? I used to believe that, but I don't anymore, I think this acceptance of unacceptable behaviour is not a healthy development for our society.

Numbers from the trans crimes website (all with links to news reports with full details of convictions):
2008-2017 there were 7 murder/manslaughter trans victims, all male, and 12 trans people convicted, all male.

In terms of the current prison population, 50% of the known trans male people convicted are sex offenders. 18% of the overall male prison population are sex offenders, a significantly lower proportion (numbers from the England & Wales prison service)

@RootyT00t

I had one of mine from thread 2 deleted yesterday (fair enough to be fair) and was told it's now a 3 strikes within 6 weeks and you're out! Just a warning if you've posted the same comment on more than one thread!

This is a very good point.

On FWR there is a sticky thread with additional guidelines for discussing this topic including the strike system. It now seems that the system carries across the boards.

Given that we are in AIBU not FWR, and IIRC the additional guidelines aren't stickied here, and Rooty is new to this topic, I personally think her being given a strike is a bit harsh.

Many of us have learnt to be very careful writing our posts as to avoid things that might be deletable. It is worth everyone checking the guidelines about the subject of women's rights and gender because we do have to be careful in order to be allowed to talk about this.

Fastedbrownie

Ok. So you do see the potential dissonance issue though that it may work for your stepchild, but that advice doesn’t apply to another group who claim the status.

I understand where you are coming from, please don’t think I don’t. It sounds like a very difficult time. It is more that saying it is the problem of others if they DO have an issue with them being there, would logically extrapolate to any transwoman.

It is worth everyone checking the guidelines about the subject of women's rights and gender because we do have to be careful in order to be allowed to talk about this.

On a mother's site.

Women have to be careful about talking about women's rights.

This is really surreal stuff isn't it.

@ScreamingBeans

It is worth everyone checking the guidelines about the subject of women's rights and gender because we do have to be careful in order to be allowed to talk about this.

On a mother's site.

Women have to be careful about talking about women's rights.

This is really surreal stuff isn't it.

It really is. However, I think it is great that women are now allowed by MN to duscuss this topic on the rest of the site, rather than being confined to FWR. The best thing would be for MN to put the special rules at the top of the main site so that new posters are not deleted or banned because they are unaware of them.

I didn't realise that people weren't allowed to discuss this issue on the rest of the site previously?

Wow.

That's extraordinary.

@ScreamingBeans

It is worth everyone checking the guidelines about the subject of women's rights and gender because we do have to be careful in order to be allowed to talk about this.

On a mother's site.

Women have to be careful about talking about women's rights.

This is really surreal stuff isn't it.

Yes.

But given what we know and have seen WRT threatening and abusive behaviour from certain TRAs, I can understand it.

However, the things that get reported and deleted can be illuminating in themselves. It is interesting to know what they (those doing the reporting, not MNHQ) don't want us to talk about.

Agree that the rules need to be sticked elsewhere on the site as well. As I think these three threads have shown, this is not some niche issue that needs to be hidden away in another section but if the FWR guidelines are to apply across the boards posters need to be aware of what they are! Especially bearing in mind the posters who gleefully tell us that they have FWR hidden - they may not be aware of the guidelines either if they can't see them.

@ScreamingBeans

I didn't realise that people weren't allowed to discuss this issue on the rest of the site previously?

Wow.

That's extraordinary.

Frequently within 2 or 3 posts someone very cross will come along to demand that the discussion is moved to FWR immediately. Usually this happens. It did with the first AIBU thread this week. There was a bit of to and fro-ing then the thread was allowed back to AIBU. That would never have happened just a few months ago.

No, I don't. I think 'transwomen' with beards, etc, are really just men with fetishes. I believe that you do need gender dysphoria to be trans, and I don't believe a biological male with GD would have a beard. I am also concerned with the extreme increase in the number of young biological females being referred to gender clinics in the past couple of years, and do believe there is an underlying issue there that requires exploration.

According to trans activists, this makes you “truscum” (their word, not mine) or a transmedicalist. There is a significant push to make your belief a thing of the past, and to denigrate anyone who believes this or states it publicly. You’ll likely find the vitriol from trans activists towards you on this would be significantly worse than anything anyone who doesn’t want mixed sex spaces would send your way. I genuinely hope you don’t find yourself under attack for this .

@ScreamingBeans

I didn't realise that people weren't allowed to discuss this issue on the rest of the site previously?

Wow.

That's extraordinary.

Not really when you look at what is happening on so many other platforms, organisations and political parties.

Some people believe it is phobic to even discuss that there may be issues remember.

Yes I agree, I think if this issue is so dangerous for Mumsnet in terms of the harassment they get from transactivists, then they do need to put the guidelines across the whole site, simply because women who aren't aware that they are not allowed to use the correct word to describe some people, may find themselves banned without ever being aware that they broke rules.

@NotBadConsidering

No, I don't. I think 'transwomen' with beards, etc, are really just men with fetishes. I believe that you do need gender dysphoria to be trans, and I don't believe a biological male with GD would have a beard. I am also concerned with the extreme increase in the number of young biological females being referred to gender clinics in the past couple of years, and do believe there is an underlying issue there that requires exploration.

According to trans activists, this makes you “truscum” (their word, not mine) or a transmedicalist. There is a significant push to make your belief a thing of the past, and to denigrate anyone who believes this or states it publicly. You’ll likely find the vitriol from trans activists towards you on this would be significantly worse than anything anyone who doesn’t want mixed sex spaces would send your way. I genuinely hope you don’t find yourself under attack for this .

Oh, I know. Believe me, I certainly know. I just don't care enough to get mixed up in spats with either side. It's better not to when they're arguing about a life you lead that most on both sides have no real world flesh in the game of.

To be fair to MN, they have been courageous in allowing the discussion at all, considering the threats, bullying, doxxing, and vexatious litigation the TRAs encourage. The horrific rape and death threats towards JK Rowling for example. I don't blame MNHQ for being very careful.

Not really when you look at what is happening on so many other platforms, organisations and political parties.

Some people believe it is phobic to even discuss that there may be issues remember.

Yes, I don't mean it's extraordinary from Mumsnet's POV. I mean it's extraordinary that this lobby group is so powerful that it's managed to get to the stage where women can't discuss their rights on most public platforms and even on a mother's site it has to be done exhaustingly carefully to stay within rules that were designed to placate a very vocal, unrepresentative lobby.

We're getting very good at using coded language, but it shows how powerful this supposedly marginalised vulnerable group is, that we have to.

Oh, I know. Believe me, I certainly know. I just don't care enough to get mixed up in spats with either side. It's better not to when they're arguing about a life you lead that most on both sides have no real world flesh in the game of.

That must be very nice for you, but many of us are not prepared to continue to allow people who you would not call trans continue with their attempts to take women’s spaces, sports, prisons, refuges, awards etc, even if these don’t affect us as individuals and we have no “real world flesh in the game”. Because we care about those who are being affected and it’s only a matter of time before everyone’s “flesh is in the game.”

@NotBadConsidering

Oh, I know. Believe me, I certainly know. I just don't care enough to get mixed up in spats with either side. It's better not to when they're arguing about a life you lead that most on both sides have no real world flesh in the game of.

That must be very nice for you, but many of us are not prepared to continue to allow people who you would not call trans continue with their attempts to take women’s spaces, sports, prisons, refuges, awards etc, even if these don’t affect us as individuals and we have no “real world flesh in the game”. Because we care about those who are being affected and it’s only a matter of time before everyone’s “flesh is in the game.”

You can be not prepared all you want, but this is the world we live in. I don't believe transwomen should compete in women's sports where they have a physiological advantage, or transwomen who have used their penises as a weapon should be jailed with women, but there is no reason a transwoman can't use a female toilet, seek shelter in a refuge, or be put up for prizes. That is, unless youbelieve females to be of inferior intellect than males.

but there is no reason a transwoman can't use a female toilet, seek shelter in a refuge, or be put up for prizes

What qualifies a transwoman to do those things? How can you be sure that they are the people you yourself see as transwomen and not the people that you yourself are not and shouldn’t be calling themselves that?

That is, unless youbelieve females to be of inferior intellect than males.

It’s not a belief that women have inferior intellect to men that asks that women have their own awards or prizes, it’s that women have inferior opportunities to men.

Sometimes women are told they are not in the spirit or being inflammatory, but realistically it is the the forum is under pressure from TRAs and advertisers which have been got at by the same TRAs. Which kind of proves our argument that women’s concerns are being minimised and dismissed . The manipulation of language is also of concern as the contortions we are supposed to go through make it more difficult to understand the issue.
Actually the other forum is not the trans forum, it is the feminism and women rights forum, and there is shedloads of good information and actual data.

That you yourself say* are not

@Smileyaxolotl1

Just because a few people on the thread have mentioned politicians and feeling disillusioned, I just saw this from the SDP on Twitter.

sdp.org.uk/policies/transgender-and-biological-sex-based-rights/

They appear to be sort of Old Labour/ (for those of you old enough to remember) ‘Gang of 4’ ish. Leftish on workers rights, rightish on social justice.

Interesting indeed. Do you have the Twitter thread too @Smileyaxolotl1 :)

What is extraordinary is that U.K. law - the Equality Act as drafted - is clear on what sex (not gender) is and clearly permits a division of people on sex grounds in certain circumstances envisaging that this may be required and is reasonable. It is very odd indeed that people who wish to retain this distinction are not permitted to express that view. I understand that many wish the law to change and have the right to campaign accordingly; however the opposite - the retention of the status quo - appears to be prohibited on social media.

@NotBadConsidering

but there is no reason a transwoman can't use a female toilet, seek shelter in a refuge, or be put up for prizes

What qualifies a transwoman to do those things? How can you be sure that they are the people you yourself see as transwomen and not the people that you yourself are not and shouldn’t be calling themselves that?

That is, unless youbelieve females to be of inferior intellect than males.

It’s not a belief that women have inferior intellect to men that asks that women have their own awards or prizes, it’s that women have inferior opportunities to men.

I don't qualify, because what somebody else does in a bathroom and what services they use are none of my business. I might roll my eyes at a bearded man in a dress, but I'm also not reaching for the bear spray.