To think political discussion does belong on Mumsnet

[HermioneWeasley]

At the protest for the Scottish gender reform bill last night. We silly women are only permitted to talk about prams and weaning don’t you know?

A decent human being would know this and would recognise that their feelings or gender identity are NOT more important than the safety and boundaries of women and children.

Why is this not acceptable to them?

Not what that poster says, and a bad faith take, no surprises there . MN '"discussion" on this issue is virtually a baying mob with torches.

You're quite right, it's all JK Rowling's fault.

MN '"discussion" on this issue is virtually a baying mob with torches.

Again, rather than just dramatic language, can you give some examples of what you find problematic about it?

YANBU!
it’s all deeply misogynist, but that’s the TRAs methodology throughout.

Why are you defensive though if you’re not part of the problem? I think mumsnet has a problem with transphobia. I’m not defensive about that statement. Im on mumsnet, I know I’m not transphobic. What I’m not saying is that every mumsnetter must be a raging “terf”. There’s a book called “the politicisation of mumsnet” that briefly discusses the transphobia on here if you want more evidence.

And while you're at it, can explain why the following groups of women shouldn't have the right to single sex spaces / care?

Women prisoners
Abuse/rape victims
Sick and disabled
Lesbians
Orthodox religious
Sports people

briefly discusses the transphobia on here

If that's the evidence you're presenting, please share some relevant extracts.

Not what that poster says, and a bad faith take, no surprises there . MN '"discussion" on this issue is virtually a baying mob with torches.

Seriously? I missed the torches - and the baying mob tbf.

Can you point to where you’ve witnessed this concerning behaviour (other than that from last night where the politicians platformed a trans person who has completed a ‘life’ sentence for kidnap, torture and attempted murder and then identified as a woman to be placed in a women’s prison and is now running for election in Richmond. There was also the “Eat shit Starmer” chant at this rally.)

The accusation of anti-trans really annoys me. Because it's not really about trans, it's chastisement that the servant class isn't behaving properly, that the servant class shouldn't be starting to think it is people with rights and interests too. Hence why the phrase completely erases women.

Women are 51% of the population. We exist, we are equal, we are intelligent, rational human beings with a vote and we matter too. These people are going to have to deal with that fact. If they decide they can't, what exactly do they expect me to do about that apart from nothing?

Political discussion belongs everywhere as its the foundation of everything in our society. If you don't wish to engage in political discussion, that's absolutely fine.

The issue with calling everything 'transphobic' is that only complete and utter affirmation that TWAW and unthinking acceptance of that is acceptable to trans activists.

Even simply stepping back and saying 'but can we consider what implications that has for other groups - or even the individuals themselves' is apparently transphobic.

The word has been totally debased. It's meaning now ridiculous.

Once again males telling females what to do

same old same old but we shall not be silenced

Please define transphobia @electricdreaming

“Why are you defensive though if you’re not part of the problem? I think mumsnet has a problem with transphobia. I’m not defensive about that statement. Im on mumsnet, I know I’m not transphobic. What I’m not saying is that every mumsnetter must be a raging “terf”. There’s a book called “the politicisation of mumsnet” that briefly discusses the transphobia on here if you want more evidence.”

Please can you define ‘transphobia’ and give some specific examples (quotes, not your bad faith interpretations) of what you are referring to as from your hints so far it seems that you view it to be women talking about our sex based rights and our life experiences and I’m sure you can’t think that is transphobic?

Thinking about it, calling women's rights campaigners anti-trans is the ultimate expression of the trans movement's narcissism isn't it? We can't possibly be interested in ourselves or prioritise our own needs, it can only ever be about them.

Right, let me get this straight. So, if we're re called anti-trans or accused of transphobia and we say no or ask for evidence of it, then that proves that we are because we're getting 'defensive'? Can anyone name that logical fallacy?

We can't possibly be interested in ourselves or prioritise our own needs, it can only ever be about them.

Exactly

I was accused on here of only engaging with the plight of women prisoners to get at TW.

What appalling implications does that have?

That a poster can't even conceive of why anyone would foreground prisoner rights for their own sake?

My eyes have been truly opened by all this.

It is a well known tactic in TRA communitites to join up, post completely transphobic rhetoric, take screen shots and then disappear. Then the thread is deleted and the TRAs can then publish books on how transphobic everyone is.

There’s a book called “the politicisation of mumsnet” that briefly discusses the transphobia on here if you want more evidence.

From the author.....

twitter.com/SarahPedersen2/status/1616018529349771265?s=20&t=pAfRKOny5TwA_0-GHxIENQ

I agree, controversial political posts should be allowed - how else does society grow and evolve without hearing other peoples opinions and views? I’ve had political post removed by mumsnet, it was a discussion post with evidence based research. Mumsnet is a dictatorship of what can and cannot be discussed 😂😂😂

I just posted this on another thread, but I think it works here too.

The use of ‘anti-trans’ over recent months has become very prevalent. It is such a significant phrase. On one hand it carries authority, even though it application is false. On the other hand it shows the self-centredness of that movement.

Which is fine. Movements are supposed to be centred on that particular position. Except that in this case, it ignores that there is, in fact, a conflict with another groups rights. While ‘pro-women’ actually conveys the message about prioritising women and girls, it doesn’t frame it as one group ‘hating’ another. As ‘anti’ does.

The term is as polarising as it is hyperbolic. It is as emotive as you can get. It shows that no compromise is acceptable or tolerated by the people using the term. It reflects the intolerance that is driving trans rights activists.

It nicely encapsulates the trans activist movement for what it is. I don’t think they thought it through though.

It will certainly convince some people, but only those who are only superficially aware. As they get more aware, they will see the term for what it is.

A cue to the totalitarian aspect of the movement that will accept no compromise yet expects the people, women and girls, to simply accept that conflicts in rights and to give the group all they demand.

I guess whoever uses the term must then also accept that if they wish to frame the issues and the people discussing the issues as 'anti-trans', it is then appropriate to frame extreme trans activists and their demands as 'anti-women'.

Fucking LOVE the idea that we've not heard of Pederson's book. But of course we can't have, because our Proper Place is Somewhere Quiet And Away From Independent Thought

I guess whoever uses the term must then also accept that if they wish to frame the issues and the people discussing the issues as 'anti-trans', it is then appropriate to frame extreme trans activists and their demands as 'anti-women'.

Excellent point.

I follow an amazing woman on Twitter. She's disabled and has laid out, in great detail, why having her intimate care needs met by a woman is important. She's reliant on help even to get out of bed, all hygiene, medical stuff, carers let themselves into her house, so she's particularly vulnerable.

So what's the conclusion here? She should just STFU about all this because to talk about her needs makes her 'anti trans'? She's certainly been told as much by TRAs on Twitter.

So ultimately that's the conclusion. No one's rights matter as much as their desires. No matter how vulnerable these people are.

MN moderators do very swift work of removing any transphobia on this site.

Are you talking about the transphobia that is deleted? Because I feel this discussion has been had before on a thread and the poster ended up backing down and admitting that the transphobia gets deleted.

Or, have you got your own interpretation of what transphobia means that does not match society's current thinking.

Are you framing the discussion about the prioritisation of sex over gender where it matters, in particular sex based rights that support all females*, as transphobic? I mean, we can post some extreme activist's lists of what is transphobic if you want a check list to start from.

Have you read Sarah Pedersen's book that you have used here as a reference for evidence?

(*Even those females who don't wish to acknowledge their need of their sex based rights ).